DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATION BILL CONFERENCE REPORT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75B00380R000500260014-8
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 22
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 24, 2001
• Sequence Number: 14
• Publication Date: December 20, 1973
• Content Type: OPEN

December
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500260014-8
20, 1973 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?HOUSE
gram expiration date of June 30, 1977.
In order for insurance to be written after
June 30, 1977, congressional oversight
and extezigion of underwriting authority
will be required. This is a sound provision
which will avoid artificial constraints
imposed by undeterminable measures of
demand for flood insurance.
Second. Deadlines for local acceptance
and?the implementation of conditions
to be applied in the case of nonparticipa-
tion?have been extended. The proposed
new dates acknowledge the delays al-
ready experienced and make the pro-
gram implementation schedule more
realistic; and
Third. Specific procedures are pro-
vided to insure participation by private
citizens and local officials and to guaran-
tee full review and appeal in the deter-
minations to be made by the Secretary.
I consider all of these substantive
changes to be in the best interest of the
program and urge enactment of the bill.
Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield
such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
BiumsTr).
(Mr. BARRETT asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in
wholehearted support of H.R. 8449, the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973,
as amended. With enactment of this
legislation, we will have, for the first
time, the tools necessary to establish a
truly effective national flood disaster
protection program. A program which,
once the provisions of this legislation are
fully implemented, will result in net sav-
ings of a substantial amount to the
. Federal Government.
? Section 110 of this bill, dealing with
appeals from determination of the Fed-
eral Insurance Administrator, was the
subject of more testimony, discussion,
coordination, and committee debate
than any other provision in the bill?
both in this body and in the Senate.
I believe that the appeals provisions that
finally resulted represent a major ac-
complishment which, while doing full
justice to the legitimate interests of
communities and individuals who may
feel aggrieved at a particular determina-
tion of the Administrator, permits an
effective and efficient administration of
the flood insurance program.
I believe that section 110 is respon-
sive to the major objections that have
been raised concerning this legislation.
It consolidates the appeals procedures
earlier voted on the House floor into a
more equitable, comprehensive, and
manageable format?one which, while
carefully protecting the interests of those
affected, avoids the pitfall of permitting
those unnecessary delays and self-inter-
ested procrastinations which would make
the flood insurance program unworkable.
I thin); t4at one other provision in
thisleglgation also deserves special men-
tion. Section 208 of the amended legisla-
tion permit the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development to set interest rates
with respect to FHA mobile homes loans
at levels needed to meet the current
mobile home loan market. As a practical
matter, low cost new housing?that is,
housing which a lower income family
can afford to purchase without subsidy,
means a mobile home in today's housing
market. Until our housing" subsidy pro-
grams again become operational, it is
essential that credit at affordable rates
remain available for the purchase of
mobile homes by such families. Section
208 would make this possible.
Mr. Speaker, I most strongly urge the
prompt enactment of this legislation.
Mr. WIDNALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from South
Dakota (Mr. ABDNOR) .
(Mr. ABDNOR asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. ABDNOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in
support of the Senate amendment to the
Small Business Act. The bill to which
this amendment was added in the Senate
deals with disaster protection. This
amendment addresses itself to a single
disaster. A disaster that is perhaps more
familiar to .millions of Americans than
any similar incident in our history be-
cause of the media coverage accorded it
due to the romantic nature of its histori-
cal setting. To my knowledge, no single
destruction of property nor transgres-
sion of rights has been so publicized as
that which took place in my district, on
Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South
Dakota between the dates of February
27, 1973, and May 8 of this year. It is
most apt to refer to what happened at
Wounded Knee as a disaster. Much has
already been said about the damage that
has been done to respect for order and
the rule of law on Indian Reservations
and elsewhere. Less emphasis, however,
has been given to the physical destruc-
tion which occurred when armed mili-
tants occupied the small community of
Wounded Knee, forcibly occupying
churches, a museum and trading post
and private residences there, and during
and at the end of the confrontation
burning and destroying that property.
That which was destroyed was in many
cases the sole possession of its owner.
This amendment, through the Small
Business Administration's natural disas-
ter program, would provide innocent vic-
tims who suffered losses through no fault
of theirs some relief. To better appreciate
the need for this legislation, allow me
to put this "disaster" in its proper con-
text. Just over a year ago there was an-
other disaster and great destruction of
property?destruction of the taxpayers
property?that took place when militant
members of the American Indian Move-
ment occupied and wrecked the Bureau
of Indian Affairs Building here in Wash-
ington. The damage coming from that
disaster has been cited at over $2 million.
That is the damage to the BIA build-
ing, the lost records and the artifacts
which the militants took or destroyed.
They were not punished, however,
rather they were paid tax dollars to go
on their way. These Were not South
Dakota Indians for the most part, and
not, for the most part, even reserva-
tion Indians. But they did take the Fed-
eral payment of over $60,000 and many
of them ended up at Wounded Knee.
Having met with such success in Wash-
ington, these militants resumed their
11 11809
ways of destruction. In this case, how-
ever, what they destroyed was not Gov-
ernment property, however, but prop-
erty which in most cases belonged to In-
dian citizens in and near Wounded Knee.
Indian citizens who were property own-
ers and who were earning their own
livings. These were people who were suc-
cessful, people who followed the pattern
that billions of dollars have been spent
to promote by the Bureau of Indian Af-
fairs and other Government agencies
who attempt to upgrade the economic
and social standing of our Indian popu-
lation.
No wealthy people resided at Wounded
Knee. Life there was simple, and ma-
terial goods were scarce; nonetheless,
when militant, armed members of the
American Indian Movement, and their
supporters entered the community and
sealed it off from the rest of the world,
the owners of these possessions con-
tinued to believe that they could expect
protection of their property and civil
rights. This they did not receive. Be-
cause they did not receive police pro-
tection which was so desperately needed,
and the need for which was so evident,
the few possessions many of the people
in Wounded Knee had were lost. The
destruction was wrought at the hands of
lawless men who proclaimed their con-
tempt for our Government, it is, of
course, with these lawless parties that
the ultimate responsibility for the losses
lie. This is of little comfort, however, to
those who lost their possessions?their
homes and their cattle herds that rep-
resented a life's hard work on the rugged
plains of the Pine Ridge Reservation.
The responsible renegades are now scat-
tered, and in most cases are judgment
proof. Their many sympathizers who
helped prolong the confrontation have
not come forward to make whole those
who lost so much.
While the destruction?destruction
many of us helplessly witnessed on our
television screens?was not the result of
action of our Government, it was, to a
degree a result of the inaction of our
Government.
I have talked with Indian ranchers
near Wounded Knee who found that
their herds were being raided and that
their homes and families were being
threatened by the outlaws at Wounded
Knee; when they asked U.S. Federal
marshalls to protect them and their
property, the Marshals replied that they
could give no help because those ranchers
were in the "demilitarized zone" which
surrounds the community of Wounded
Knee. With no choice but to flee for their
lives, these people watched their homes
burn and their cattle herd scattered and
destroyed. These people are Indians who
worked long and hard to break from the
patterns of unemployment and depend-
ency which are so prevalent on our res-
ervations even today. They saw all that
they had destroyed, as Federal "law en-
forcement" officials looked on. All, I
might add, in spite of the willingness of
local law enforcement officials to enforce
the law and protect property rights.
The Federal policy, of course, was jus-
tified as being one designed to avoid
bloodshed and loss of life and limb. Al-
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP751300380R000500260014-8
H 11810
IC of(onot
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RD 51300380R0000099014-8-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE December 20, 1973
though some of the insurgents were even-
tually killed by gunfire, and Federal of-
ficers werk wounded and crippled in the
firefights tat eventually took place, we
can speeola e that the restrained policy
of Federal 1cials prevented some un-
necessary su ring and death. This is of
little comfort, however, to those who
found th.emselv?homeless, and found
their life's savin s to have gone up in
smoke.
Now, we have an pportunity to com-
pensate in part those who lost so much.
They can never be c pensated in full
for the suffering and t ror they experi-
enced, but by this am dment we can
provide them with pa ents for the
losses of property they ex erienced. The
exact amount required fund this
amendment is unknown. Bu 4t cannot be
great. The population of Wo ded Knee
is only less than 100. Ranchers urround-
ing the area lost cattle and h d fences
and buildings destroyed, but this is
sparcely settled country and the,actual
numbers are few.
But to those few who are involves,, this
bill is everything. Imagine what this
compensation will do to restore c( -
dence in Government for those whodif-
fered losses and those who observe th *r
pitiful plight. Given this opportuni
during this Christmas season, we mus
take advantage of it and, in part, right
a serious wrong.
Mr. WIDNALL. Mr. Speaker, I want to
thank the gentleman from South Dakota
for his comments. I am sure that the
Congress will, in the future, do what
should be done to correct the situation
out in his area.
Mr. Speaker, I hove no further re- /data
quests for time. ; and
Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have nil new
further requests for time. by the
The SPEAKER. The question is on Vie
motion offered by the gentleman I m
Texas (Mr. PATMAN) that the House us-
pend the rules and agree to the resol .tion
(H. Res. 753) .
The qtestion was taken; an (two-
thirds haying voted in favor ther f ) the
rules were suspended and th resolu-
tion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was Yaid on the
table.
To the Congress of the United
It was just three years ago that
into law the Occupational Sal
'Health Act of 1970. Since that
have made significant progre
our goal of a safe and healthy
for every worker in America./
Today, I am submitting /the
President's Report on
Safety and Health, outlini
States:
I signed
y a
ime,
second
occupational
g the activi-
ties which have taken pl e under that
new Act in calendar ypar 1972. The
achievements of that year indicate that
the goals of the Act are/becoming reali-
ties.
For example, many/States have de-
veloped or are now in the process of de-
veloping their own yiticupational safety
and health plans in ?ordance with the
Act. As these pla
carried out, e:afo
shift from the
the States with
Because publ*
the success of
by the suppor
to this prog
the professi
lie. I am p
cooperati
and lab
these e
The
Occu
inevi
on
toward
orkplace
are approved and
ement will begin to
deral Government to
o loss in effectiveness.
cooperation is vital to
e program, I am gratified
which has been extended
in by the news media, by
ns, and by the general pub-
icularly pleased to note the
and support which industry
organizations have given to
rts.
re.adth and complexity of the
tional Safety and Health Act have
ably made it the focal point for
oversy and criticism. I believe, how-
that such criticism can be helpful
a e work to improve our programs and
a we modify and update its standards
regulations.
Is year's report includes preliminary
from the first occupational injury
mess survey conducted under the
ord-keeping procedures required
Act. This data will be helpful in
g a basis upon which to judge
tiveness of our efforts to re-
-related injuries, illnesses and
GENERAL LEA
Mr. PATMAN. Mr. S eaker, I ask
unanimous consent tha all Members
may have 5 legislative 4ays in which to
revise and extend thei remarks on the
resolution, just agreed o.
The SPEAKER. Is khere objection to
the request of the ge leman from Texas?
There was no ob'ection.
SECOND ANN AL REPORT ON
OCCUPATIO AL SAFETY AND
HEALTH? SSAGE FROM THE
PRESIDEN OF THE UNITED
STATES ( . DOC. NO. 93-65) ?
The SPE ER laid before the House
the folloi g message from the Presi-
dent of tlae United States: which was
read, arid, together with the accom-
panying papers, referred to the Com-
mittee' on Education and Labor and or-
dered printed with illustrations:
provi
the eff
duce wo
fatalities.
This re
emphasis
cupational
Research in
ort also reflects the added
ich has been placed on oc-
ealth during the past year.
this area has increased in
response to Towing awareness of the
tragic toll ta m by employee exposure
to toxic substances and unhealthful
physical enviro
Also included
ents
the first report of the
Occupational Sa ty and Health Review
Commission, a wh?,lly independent agen-
cy created by the At to adjudicate cita-
tions and proposed penalties issued by
the Department of IJbor when they are
contested by employer and employees.
This detailed accotu
ful overall view of the
accomplishments in 19
a glimpse of what lies a
to assure safe and healthf
disions for all of our cou
men and women.
Ric
THE Warm HousE, Decem
t provides a use-
rogram and its
It offers, too,
ad as we work
1 working con-
try's working
???????
RD NIXON
er 20, 1973.
ANNOUNCEMENT BY TH CHAIR
The SPEAKER. The Chair shes to
announce that the House wllJ proceed
with the consideration of conference re-
ports on appropriation bills, and to do
so on all of those which are ready, before
House goes to any other legislative
ness.
'ON ENCE REPORT' OICH.R. 11575;
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AD-
PROPRIATION FOP FISCAL YEAR
1974
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to the order of the House on yesterday, I
call up the conference report on the bill
(H.R. 11575) making appropriations for
the Department of Defense for the fiscal
year ending lune 30, 1974, and for other
purposes, and ask unanimous consent
that the statement of the managers be
read in lieu iof the report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER: Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the statement.
(For conference repoit and statement,
see proceedings of the House of Decem-
ber 19, 1973.)
Mr. MAHON (during the reading).
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that further reading of the statement of
the managers be dispensed with, since
it is rather extensive.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request or the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. MAR ON. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that all Members
may be permitted to revise and extend
their remarks on the conference report
on the defense appropriations bill, and
I also ask unanimous consent that all
Members be permitted to include extra-
neous excerpts, and I ask unanimous
consent for myself to also include tables
relating to this conference report.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, in consid-
ering a bill of any magnitude, one ought
to take into consideration the fiscal pic-
ture confronting the United States. In
considering a bill of the magnitude of
the defense appropriations bill, it is very
Important to look at the entire fiscal
situation confronting the Nation.
Mr. Speaker, we did that in the formu-
lation of the Defense conference report
which is before us. I tlynk, therefore, it
might be of interest for me to capsule
what the fiscal situation is from the
standpoint of the Federal Treasury.
There were many predictions at the
beginning of this session and at different
times during the session as to what the
Congress might do in relation to the
present January budget, and the sup-
plemental budget estinates of the Pres-
ident of November-15.
CONGRESS RIMUCES APPROPRIATIONS BILLS
It is now apparent since we have
agreed in conference on all appropriation
bills that in this session of Congress on
all appropriation bills we have reduced
the President's request by $3 billion.
It is rather a notable thing that this
marks the 21st year that the Congress
has not exceeded the President's budget
in appropriation bills.
Now, as the Members know, about 40
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500260014-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/30: CIA-RDP75600380R000500260014-8
December 20, 1973 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?HOUSE
percent of spending is represented by ex-
penditures mandated through legislation
other than appropriation bills. Budget
authority becoming available automati-
cally under permanent legislation for the
social insurance trust funds, interest on
the debt, and general revenue-sharing
accounts for the lion's share of this
spending.
THE REV/SED NOVEMDER 15 BUDGET -
The President in his updated budget
on November 15 estimated that the
spending for this year would be about
$270 billion, including $0.6 billion in
spending related to the budget amend-
ment providing assistance to Israel.
The Executive had ,made a number of
erroneous projections as to the fiscal
situation. In other words, a very bad
guess was Made with respect to interest
on the public debt. The interest on the
public debt skyrocketed to a very much
higher figure than had been anticipated.
And, there were certain other increased
costs. So, there were some black aspects
to the picture.
But revenues as of November 15 were
estimated to be about $14 billion greater
than had been estimated last January,
so this was a plus.
But now in view of the energy crisis
and the possible slowdown of the econ-
omy, it may be that this estimate may
prove to be a bit too high.
SPENDING IM'PACT OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTIONS
With respect to all spending in ap-
propriation bills and in nonappropria-
tion measures and in mandated spending
otherwise?and I am talking of spend-
ing now,- not appropriations?with re-
spect to all spending of the Federal Gov-
ermnent for fiscal year 1974, it now ap-
pears that spending will be approxi-
mately at the level of $270 billion, as
estimated by the President on November
15 of this year.
. Now, there is a caveat to that. If Con-
gress today or tomorrow provides for the
increased social security payments, that
will add $1 billion above the President's
budget. If the energy bill, which provides
for certain mandatory benefit payments
to unemployed workers, is approved by
Congress today or tomorrow or before
we adjourn, that will add another one-
half billion dollars.
So it would appear, Mr. Speaker, that
based upon the President's November
estimate, spending may exceed that fig-
ure by about $11/2 billion, which cer-
tainly, in the context of the magnitude
of Federal spending, is not too uncom-
plimentary of the Congress.
Of course, I think we must all agree
that, the executive and the legislative
-branches of the Government have in
? many instances been overspending in re-
cent years, including this year, and there
are many of us who have opposed many
of these spending programs.
Nevertheless, the total picture as to
the actions of the administration and
the Congress is about as I have stated.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, 'will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentleman
from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, that figure
representing the estimated spending is
considerably above the estimate as of last
January, is it not, when the budget was
submitted?
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, the esti-
mate of spending as of last January was,
as the gentlemen will remember, $268.7
billion. As a result of the increase in the
interest on the debt and as a result of
congressional addons, as well as other
matters, the President in his revised es-
timate in November estimated that the
spending figure would be increased from
$268.7 billion to about $270 billion.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I assume
the gentleman is taking into considera-
tion the $1 billion that was impounded
and, according to what was stated this
morning in the newspaper, has now been
released.
Mr. MAHON. That figure should be
taken into consideration. Insofar as I
know, this does not negate the state-
ments I have just made. However, the
gentleman has raised a valid point. ?
Mr. GROSS. If the gentleman will
yield further, has the gentleman heard
the reports that I have heard that the
Office of Management and Budget is
having difficulty with the 1975 budget,
to wit, holding it at $300 billion?
Mr. MAHON. I have heard it said with
considerable authority that the budget
will undoubtedly go up. The President
submitted a budget for fiscal year 1974,
I believe, $19 billion above fiscal year
1973. If the budget should go up another
$19 billion in this coming year, it will be
pushing toward the $300 billion figure.
However, I would hope that the fiscal
year 1975 budget which will be submitted
In January or soon thereafter will be
under $300 billion.
However, it is a very serious and sob-
ering aspect of our political life that our
budgets tend to get larger from year to
year. Somehow or other we have to do a
better job of dealing with this problem
than we have in the past.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to place in
my remarks at this point .a well prepared
statement with regard to the budget
situation, and a table setting forth the
appropriations business of the session:
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION ON THE FISCAL YEAR
1974 BUDGET
I. HIGHLIGHTS
Appropriation Bills Reduced in Excess of
$3.0 Billion
Congress, in its actions on appropriation
bills, reduced budget requests for fiscal year
1974 in excess of $3.0 billion.
A Standoff on Total Spending
It seems rather clear at this point that
completed congressional action at the con-
clusion of this session will result in about
a standoff with the revised Executive budget
estimate for total spending of $270 billion.
But if Congress before adjournment ap-
proves the proposed Social Security increases
and approves the mandatory unemployment
benefit provisions of the energy legislation,
that would add about $1.5 billion to the
$270 billion.
II. CONGRESS REDUCES APPROPRIATION BILLS
FOR 1974
The $3.0 billion congressional reduction of
the budget in appropriation bills includes
the effect of the conference agreements on
the Defense, Foreign Assistance, and the
1974 Supplemental Appropriations Bills. It
is a remarkable fact that with these actions
H 11811
Congress will have 'reduced the budget
through the appropriations process in each
of the last 21 years.
House and Senate Action on Appropriation
Bills
House-approved appropriation bills for
fiscal year 1974 were under the budget by
$3.5 billion. Senate-approved appropriation
bills for fiscal year 1974 were under the
budget by $2.6 billion.
. Priority Setting in Appropriation Bills
The total figures on congressional action
on appropriation bills reflect literally thou-
sands of changes in the budget, both in-
creases and decreases. But it is easy to see
that Congress did set priorities through the
appropriations process. The largest increases
were $1.4 billion on the Labor-Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare bill and about $440 mil-
lion on the HUD-Space-Science-Veterans
bill. The largest decreases were about $3.5
billion for Defense and $1.2 billion for For-
eign AssiFtance.
III. TOTAL SPENDING FOR FISCAL 1974
The President's January estimate for total
Government spending was $268.7 billion. On
November 15 that figure was revised upwards
to $270 billion.
The revised November 15 outlay estimate
included the effect of the following and
,other developments:
(In billions)
1) Budget amendment for assistance
to Israel +$0.6
2) Congressional increases +2. 9
3) Significant increases in uncontrol-
lables :
Interest on the debt +2.9
Medicaid cost increases +. 6
Disaster assistance +. 6
4) Significant decreases in uncontrol-
lables :
Outer Continental Shelf rents
and royalties (offset against
outlays ?2. 9
Farm price supports ?1. 2
Sale of financial assets . 9
Stockpile sales 9
Impact of Congressional Actions
on Spending
During the session the President has signed
into law legislation including certain con-
gressional additions to the budget. The No-
vember 15 estimate of $270 billion included
$2.9 billion in congressional increases. Since
November 15 the net effect of completed Con-
gressional action on the budget has been a
reduction of about $100 million in outlays for
fiscal year 1974. So, actions by Congress to
date have not exceeded the $270 billion figure.
There are pending, however, certain non-
appropriation bills that would mandate
spending of more than $2 billion?most sig-
nificantly the Social Security increases and
the unemployment provisions of the energy
legislation. Pending legislation will carry over
to next session, and it may be that much
of it will be enacted. It should be made clear,
however, that such increases would be over
and above the $270 billion. '
IV. SPEND/NG INCREASES IN NONAPPROPRIATION
BILLS
Spending was, of course, reduced through
congressional action on appropriation bills.
The spending increases that resulted from
congressional action have been due to actions
on nonappropriation bills. Significant ex-
amples of such actions are included in the
following list:
(In millions)
Food stamp amendments (P.L. 93-86) _ +724
Repeal of "bread tax" (P.L. 93-86) ___ +400
Federal employee pay raise, Oct. 1,
1973 (S. Res. 171) +358
Welfare?medicaid amendments (PL.
93-66) +122
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500260014-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500260014-8
II 11812
Unemployment benefits extension.
93-53) +116
Veterans national cemeteries (P.L. 93-
43) 4- 110
Social Security-liberalized income
exempt ion (P.L. 93-66) ?OO
V. DRAMATIC INCREASE IN REVENUES
The MeSt dramatic shift in the budget
has been on the revenue side. The President
has revised his $266 billion January esti-
mate by 314 billion up to $270 billion This
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
turn of events wiped out the original Unified
Budget deficit of $12.7 billion projected in
.lantary. The November 16 budget revisions
indicate a balanced unified budget for fis-
cal 1974, reflecting a federal funds deficit
of 015 billion, offset by a trust fund sur-
plus of $15 billion.'
VI. WORD OF CAUTION
It is clear from the figures I have cited
that the budget is subject to constant, some-
times sharp, change, even without consider-
December 20, 1973
lug the actions of Congress. As a result' of
economic conditions interest payments on
the debt alone went up as much as the net
congressional increase to spending. And the
$14 billion owing in re venues dwarfs the
$1.3 billion net change 11 total spending es-
timates during the year.
What should concern us all is the possible
budget impext of the economic slowdown
many are predicting. Fiscal year 1974 is by
no means oVer, and a balanced Unified Bud-
get is not ye t a fact.
ACTIONS ON BUDGET ESTIMATES OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY CONSIDERED IN APPROPRIATION BILLS, 9321 CONG., 1ST SESS.-REVISED TO DEC. 20, 1973
[Does not ind mie any back-door I ype budget or spending authority in legislative hills; tr age Congrcrs
ermaii mit (Federal or trust) authority, under earlier or permanent law,' without further or annual action
BM and FiStal year
House actions
Budget requests
considered
Reported by
committr e
Senate actions Final action
Approved by Compared with Budget requests Approved by Compared with Reported by Crompared with
House budget requests considered Senate budget equests cOoference budget requests
A. Bills for fiscal 1974:
1. Legislative (H.R. 6691)_ _ _ $566, 945, 389
2. Alfficutitue-Environmeniai
and Consumer Protection
3. (H.R. 8619) 9, 519, 550, 000 9, 385, 750,600
District of Columbia (Fed-
eral funds) (H.R. 8658). _ 432, 998, 000 427, 717, 000
4. Transportation (NA. 8760) _ a 2, 892, 732, 006 " 2, 752, 631,0013
5. HUD -Space Science ? Vet-
erans (H.R. 8825) 18, 617, 453, 000
6. Labor-HEW (H.R. 88771._ _ 31, 544,954, 000
7. Interior (11.13 8917) ______ 2, 274, 431, 300
8. State - .:ustice - Commerce -
Judioary (H.R. 8916)__ 4, 235,080, 003
9. Public Works-AEC (H.R.
8947) 4, 757,469, 000 4,671, 695, 000
10. Treasuff-Postal Service-
General Gevernment (H.R.
9590) 5, 073, 345, 000 4,843, 698, 00)
11. Defense (HR. 11575) 77, 250, 723, 000 7i, 106, 309, 00)
12. Foreign Assistance (H.R.
11771) - 6, 866,567,000 1, 833, 912,00)
13. Military Construction (H.R.
11459)_ - 2,144,900,000 2,609, 090, 000
14. Special Resolution, Gold De-
valuatio (11.1.R. 748) 4 2, 250, 000,000 4 2, 203, 000,00)
15. Supplemental (H.R. 11576)._ 1, 428, 790, 218 1, 432, 685, 713
$550, 044, 94) 4550, 044, 940 -116, 900, 449 4677, 150,959 $640, 558,952 -$36, 592,007 $605 189, 933 -$71,961, 026
19, 070, 954, 00 )
32, 816, 467, 003
2,2139, 554, 200
, 150, 113, 003
9, 385, 737, 600
427, 717, 000
2, 753, 231, 006
19, 070, 954, 000
32, 816, 467, 000
2,269,554,200
4, 152, 946, 000
4,676, 395, 000
4, 844, 723, 000
74, 101, 309, 000
5, 833, 912, 000
2, 609, 090, 000
2, 203, 000, 000
1, 433, 035, 718
-133,811,000
-5,201,000
-139,501,000
+453,501, 000
+1,271,513,000
-4,871, 100
-82, 134, 000
-81,074,000
-228,622,000
-3, 149, 414, 900
-1, 032, 655, 000
-335, 810, 000
-47, 000, 000
+4, 245, 500
9,519, 550,600 10, 176, 926, 500 4-657, 375,900 9, 927, 667, 000 +408, 016, 400
432, 998, 000 417, 717,000 -15, 281, 000 417, 717, 000 -15,281,000
a 3, 010, 732,006 2, 959, 351, 006 -51,181, NO 2, 898, 446, 006 -112,286,000
18, 617, 453, 000 19, 118, 373,063 +500,900,063 19,056, 500,000 +439,047,000
31, 549, 953, 000 33, 396, 379,000 +1,046,426,000 32,926, 796, 000 +1,371,843,000
2, 370, 367,300 2, 488, 773, 700 +118, 405, 400 2,443, 137,200 +72,769.900
4, 522, 901, 000 4, 459, 478, 250 -63,122, 750 4, 466, 312, 000 -56, 889, 000
4, 757, 469,000 4,772,062,000 +15,513,000 8,149, 103, 000 -8, 066, 000
5, 373, 345,000 5, 123, 352, 000 -249,1193, 000 5, 233, 189,000 -144, 156, 000
77, 250, 732, 000 73, 264, 627, 000 -3, 896,160, 000 73, 714, 130, 030 -3, 535, 793, 000
6, 992, 917, 000 5, 593, 440, 000 -1,399,177,000 5, 780, 434, 000 -I, 212, 481, 000
2, 944, 900,000 2, 670, 972,000 -273,128,000 2,650, 161,000 -295,039,000
2, 250, 0001100 4 2, 203,000,000 -47,1190,000 2,2O3, 000,000 -47,000,000
1, 534, 183,886 1, 888, 425, 386 +354,041.500 1, 703, 125, 381 +160,941, 500
Total, bias for fiscal 1974,
to rate 170, 655, 938, 513 161, 123, 651, 461
167, 128, 116,464 -3,527, 022, 049 171, 804, 643, 751 169, 174, 355, 857 -2, 630,287, 894 168, 784, 107, 525 -3,020,236,226
V. Bills for fiseal 1973:
I. Urgent Supplemental (11.1
Res. 496) 1,3406, 803, 000 494, 800, 000 8 1, 368, 600, 000
2. 2d Supplemental (11.0. 7447,
vetoed) (3,162, 880, 4341 II', 855, 542, 209) (2,855, 542, 209)
3. 2r1Suppententat (H.R. 9055). 3, 607, 105, 501 z, 362, 845, 279 3, 162, 845, 279
Told bills for fiscal
1973 4, 973,905, 504 3, 857, 645, 279 4, 731, 445, 279 -242, 46f, 225 4, 973, 905, 504 4, 731, 445, 279 -242,440,225 4,731, 145, 279 -242, 460, 225
4.1, KO, ON 1, 366, 800, 000 1, 358 600, 000 +1,1100,000 1,368, 100,000 +1, 800, 000
(-307,33.0, 225) [3,607, 105, 504) [3, 699, 239, 279) [+92, 133, 775] [3, 362, 845, 279] (-244, 260, 225]
-244, 26(1, 225 3,607, 191,504 3, 362, 845, 279 -244,260,225 3, 362, 345, 279 -244, 260, 225
C. Cumulative totals forthe session
to date:
175, 629, 844, 017 170, 981, 296, 74. 171, 859, 561, 743 --3, 770, 282, 274
2. Semite.
3. Enacted 176, 778, 549, 255 173, 905, 801,136 -2,071,748, 119
173, 515, 352, 804 -3, 262,696, 451
'The Budget for 1974, as submitted Jan. 29, 1973, tentatively estimated total new budget
authority for 1374 at 1288,029,000,000 gross ($256,761.000,000 net of some $31,268,000,000 inter-
fund and intrigovernmental transactions and certain 0-called prorrietely receipts handled as
offsets for budget summary purposes only). Of this total, an estimated $146,477,000,000 does not
require currerr: action by Congress; it involves so-called permanent appropriations such as interest,
and various trust funds, already provided for In other bat ic laws The remainder, $172,820,000,000
is for consider dion at this seMori (mostly in the appromiation bills). About 18,600,000,000 of the
$172,820,000,1100 was shown in the January budget as bring for later transmittal for supplemental
DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS DILL
As I st,id, in determining our actions
on the Defense bill we did take into con-
sideration the fiscal situation and we
also took into consideration the miLtarY
needs of the Nation and the security of
the country.
I could talk to you at very great length
about what we did in the Defense bill.
There were not hundreds but thousands
of issues involved When' you get down
to each End every item that was before
us in the consideration of this measure.
Let me say we have reduced the total
funding available by about $3 billion.
The new budget oblig-ational authority
reduction is $3,535,793,000, but some of
this reduction, $503,300,000, is offset by
the reappropriation or reapplication of
requirements under present law, new legislation, and allowances for contingencies and civilian
pax raises, and $49,534,408 of the remainder requires legislative reauthorization through
various annual authorization bills or where the authorization expires p, riodically.
'$873,000,000 was added on the House floor as a committee amen.,ment and was covered by
t budget estimate.
4 Npt to exceed.
Includes $90,360,000 in advance 1975 appropriations.
funds heretofore provided. So I will not
undertake to go into too great detail
al, this time. It will all be explained in
the table I will insert in the RECORD.
MILITARY PARSONNEL
A total deduction of $331,504,000 was
made in the requests for military per-
sonnel. The amount appropriated is $22,-
374,996,000. For the most part, the posi-
tion of the House with regard to specific
personnel reductions made by the House
was upheld in the conference. The House
receded on proposed reductions in the
movement of household goods to Alaska
and Hawaii and the consolidation of
chaplain schools. The Senate receded in
areas, such as reductions in graduate
training, in the number of career coun-
selors, in consolidation of race relations
schools, and in medical training for ac-
tive duty officers. While it is difficult to
estimate the exact effect of an appro-
priations reduction on military and
strengths, it, is estimated that the bill
will result in an end strength reduction
of about 62.000.
This compares with a mandated au-
thorization reduction of 43,000 personnel
and a reduction of about 53,000 in the
bill as it pasEed the Howe.
MIL/PAY ASSISTANCE SERVIC E FUNDED PROGRAMS
The House provided ,Aist over $1,000.-
000,000 for support of South Vietnam and
Laos in the MASF program. The Senate
reduced that amount to roughly $650
million. The conference agreement pro-
vides some 4900 million for this support.
The House conferees felt that a reduc-
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500260014-8
-?=ecember 20, Ih EN
Rproved FoOttstes1^^1mR13^ ?
sromm ikENEWTHOR000500260014-8
ton of the magnitude proposed by the
Senate when one-half of the fiscal year
is over would abruptly curtail our aid
to Sotah Vietnam and lead to serious
destabilization in Southeast Asia. We be-
lieve that the amount agreed to will be
reasonably adequate.
OPERATION AND IVIATNELNANCE
In the operation and maintenance
area, reductions totaling $624,516,000
were made. A total of $22,340,807,000 is
provided. Most of these reductions were
not in conference. In large part, the re-
duction is related to manpower strength
reductions. The Senate receded on House
reductions made in space available trans-
portation and air defense units. The
House receded on amounts for overseas
dependents education, camouflage
screens, and in Senate reductions re-
lated to energy conservation and the ex-
ecutive development program.
PROCUREMENT
The conference agreement provides
$16,225,822,000 for procurement of mili-
tary hardware. This is $2,144,278,000 less
than the budget amount. A number of
reductions were mandated by the au-
thorizing legislation.
In the conference the House agreed to
a Senate reduction of $10.5 million in
the A-4M aircraft of the Navy and $4.9
mil/ion for a medium transport aircraft
for the Marine Corps. The Senate receded
on a $66-rnillion reduction for the S-3A
Viking antisubmarine warfare aircraft.
Under the total package contract under
which this aircraft is being procured, the
reduction proposed by the Senate would
have had the effect of seriously increas-
ing the unit cost of the aircraft.
One of the major items in conference
In the procurement area was the pro-
posed new sea control ship. The sea
control ship would be a relatively small
ship, capable of carrying helicopters and
vertical take off and landing aircraft and
would be used primarily for escort serv-
ice. The House deleted the funds for the
ship and the Senate included the funds.
Under the conference agreement, the
funds for the sea control ship are agreed
to, but none of the funds can be obli-
gated until a further study is made by
the Appropriations Committee of the
need for this ship and until both Appro-
priations Committees give their specific
approval for the obligation of the funds.
The conference agreement includes $70
million for the procurement of A-ID
aircraft for the Air Force as proposed
by the Senate and not included by the
House. The House had included $151.6
million for procurement of F-111F air-
craft which was deleted by the Senate.
The conference agreed to the inclusion
of funds for this aircraft. We feel that it
would be a serious mistake to close the
production line of our only long-range
bomber.
The Senate deleted $50 million of the
amount provided by the House for the
F-15 aircraft of the Air Force. The con-
ference restored $22 million of this
amount. A total procurement of 62 F-15
aircraft is provided.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
The bill as agreed to in conference ap-
propriates $8,088,405,000 for research,
development, test, and evaluation. This
is $411,895,000 less than the budget re-
quest.
A major issue in this area was the site
defense antiballistic missile program of
the Army. The House had deleted funds
for continued development of this anti-
ballistic missile system at this time be-
lieveing that continued development of
the present Safeguard ABM system
along with a vigorous technology pro-
gram provided sufficient effort in this
area. The Senate provided $135 million
for the site defense program. The Senate
took the position that the site defense
program is necessary to future success
in the strategic arms limitation talks
and that a more capable system than
Safeguard is needed. The conference
agreed on the appropriation of $110
million.
In the Navy, a major issue was Project
Sanguine, a proposed new system for use
in communicating with submerged sub-
marines. The program has been under
fire from residents of areas in which it
was tested or proposed to be deployed.
Environmental and health hazards were
cited. The committee has heard from
many residents in Wisconsin who com-
plained of the effect of Project San-
guine's tests conducted in that State.
When it was proposed that Sanguine be
deployed in central Texas a number of
people of that area became fearful of
possible harmful effects of such deploy-
ment. With this in mind and in view of
11 11813
the fact that there are other means both
in being and under development for
communicating with submarines the
House deleted all funds for Sanguine.
The Senate restored the funds. In con-
ference, $8.3 million was provided. This
will permit the continuation of test ac-
tivities in Wisconsin but will not provide
for initiating the full scale development
of the system. The Navy should carefully
study the need for the system and the
harmful effects alleged.
The conference agreed to provide $25
million for continued development of the
advanced medium STOL transport air-
craft. The conference agreement was a
compromise between the Senate recom-
mendation of $65 million and the House
position that all funds should be deleted.
It is probable that at this point most of
the 17101,-y provided has already been
ObligatCd.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
The House included a limitation in the
bill which would have limited the num-
ber of non-high-school graduates and
so-called category IV personnel inducted
into the military service. The Senate
deleted the House provision but agreed
in conference to include the restrictive
language. We feel that this is important
in maintaining a highly qualified mili-
tary force.
The House included a limitation by
grade on the number of officers in the
military services. The Senate deleted the
provision and the House reluctantly
receded in the conference. The managers
are in agreement that the limitation as
proposed by the House should be main-
tained by the Department but felt that
the language should be deleted at this
time in order to give the Committees on
Armed Services an opportunity to enact
legislation in this area.
The Senate included a provision which
would have denied any funds for the
furnishing of petroleum products to
Southeast Asia. The House conferees
were in agreement with the intent of
the Senate amendment but felt that it
was unnecessarily restrictive. The lan-
guage was amended to prohibit the pro-
curement of petroleum fuels produced
in the United States and to permit the
provision of such fuels for U.S. nationals.
A table summarizing the actions of the
conference follows:
DEFENSE APPROPRIATION BILL 1974-SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS
[In thousands of dollars'
Eunctional-Btle
Appropriation,
fiscal year
1973 (new
obligational
authority)
Revised
budget
estimate,
fiscal year
1974 (new
obligational
authority)
Conference action compared with-
Passed Passed Conference 1973
House Senate action appropriation
Budget
estimate House Senate
Title I-Military personnel
23, 718, 395
22, 706, 500
22, 432, 641
22, 363, 096
22, 374, 996
-1,343,399
-331,504
-57,645
+11,900
Transfer from other accounts
(21, 550)
(-21,550)
Title II-Retired military personnel
4, 441, 684
4, 705, 900
4, 681, 900
4, 681, 900
4, 681,900
+240, 216
-24,000
Title III-Operation and maintenance
21, 461, 726
22, 965, 323
22, 504, 223
22, 240, 426
22, 340, 807
+870,081
-624,516
-163,416
+100,301
Transfer from other accounts
(200, 000)
(-200,000)
Title IV-Procurement
17, 799, 870
18, 370, 100
16, 513, 422
15,872, 502
16, 225, 822
-1,574,049
-2,144,278
-297,600
+353, 320
Transfer from other accounts
(1, 055, 900)
(387, 300)
(499, 800)
(499, 800)
(-556,100)
(+499,800)
(+112,500)
Title V-Research, development, test, and evaluation
7, 959, 498
8, 500, 300
7, 966, 523
8, 103, 353
8, 088, 405
+128,907
-411,095
+121,882
-14,948
Transfer from other accounts
(60, GOO)
(3, 500)
(3, 500)
(-56, 500)
(+3,500)
(+3, 500)
Title VI-Special foreign currency programi
3,400
2, 6002,
600
2, 600
2, 600
-800
Title ,Visl-6enerAl provisions (additional transfer
ttlthortty, sec 735)
(750, 000)
,
(1, 000, 000)
(500, 000)
(750, 000)
(625, 000)
(-125,080)
(-375,000)
(+17-5,000)
(-125,000)
Title VIII -Defense Manpower Commission
750
400
+400
+400
+400
-350
Total, Department of Defense (NOA)
75, 384, 573
77, 250, 723
74, 101, 309
73, 264, 627
73, 714, 930
-1,669,643
-3, 535, 793
-336, 379
+450, 303
Transfer from other accounts
(1, 337, 450)
(387, 300)
(503, 300)
(503, 300)
(-834,150)
(+503,300)
(+116, 000)
Total funding available
76, 722, 023
77, 250, 723
74, 488, 609
73, 767, 927
74, 218, 230
-2, 503, 793
-3,032,493
-270, 379
+450, 303
Transfer authority
(750, 000)
(1,000, 000)
(500, 000)
(750, 000)
(625, 000)
(-125,000)
(-375,000)
(+125, 000)
(-125,000)
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000500260014-8
H 11814
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500260014-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE December 20, 1973 -
DEFEN3E APPROPRIATION BILL 1974-SUMMAR? OF APPROPRIATIONS-Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Functional title
I%pp ropriation,
fiscal year
1973 (new
obligationz I
authority)
Revised
budget
estimate,
fiscal year
1974 (new
obligational
authority)
Passed
House
Passed Conference
Senate action
Conference action compared with--
1973 Budget
appropriation estimate House Senate
Distribution by organizational component.
Army_
20, 712, 150
20, 23R 959
19,230, 99!)
18, 978, 401
19, 157, 304
-1, 554, 854
-1, 081, 655
-73, 695
+I /8, 903
Tran der from other accounts
(441, 00))
(116, 500)
(232, 500)
(232, 500)
(-208, 500)
(+232, 500)
( 1-116, 000)?
Navy_ .
24, 662, 834
25, 849, 400
24, 800, 565
24, 668,681
24, 707, 708
+44,874
-1, 141, 692
-92,057
+30,027
Transfer from other accounts
(330, 550),
(156, 800)
(156, 800)
(156, 800)
(-173,750)
(+156,800),
Ay Force
23, 634, 194.
24, 345, 800
23, 312, 873
22, 872, 353
23, 106, 656
-587, 538
-1, 239, 144 -26. 217
-1-234, 303-
Transfer from other accounts
(553, 200)
(114, 000)
(114, 000)
(114, 000)
(-444, 200)
(+114, 000)
Defense agencies/OSD
1,073, 70i
2, 110, 664
2, 254, 972
2, 062, 542
2, 060, 962
+187, 259
-49,702
-194, 010
-1, 580
Transfer from other accounts
(7, 700
(-7,700)
_
Retired military personnel_
4, 441,60-5
4,705,900
4,681,900
4,681,900
4,681,900
+240, 216
-24,000 .
Defense Manpower Commission
750
400
+400
+400
+400
-350
Total, Department of Defense (N0A)._ .....
. -- 75, 384, 573
77, 250, 723
74, 101, 309
73, 264, 627
73, 714, 930
-1,669,643
-3, 535, 793
-386,379
+450,303
ransfer from other accounts
(1,337, 45))
(387, 300)
(503, 300)
(503, 300)
(-834,150)
(+503,300)
( 1-116, 000)
Total ft nding available
76, 722, 023
77, 250, 723
74, 488, 609
73, 767, 927
74, 218, 230
-2,503,793
-3, 032, 493
-270, 379
+450,313
TrEnsfer authority-
(750, 000)
(1, 000, 000)
(500, 000)
(750, 000)
(625, 000)
(-125,000)
(-375,000)
( 1-125, 000)
(-125,080)
Mr. VirYMAN. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. WYMAN. I would like to ask the
chairman whether he feels that the
$400,000 in this bill for the Defense
Manpower Committee will produce any
results in perhaps getting a little differ-
ent perspective as to how we can save
money on the amount for personnel and
the amount for hardware in the mil tary
to which the gentleman made reference
and which we so urgently need.
Mr. MAHON. I am hopeful this com-
mission would prove to be meaningful.
I am not too sanguine about it.
But we will hope that some success
can come. I am sure that those who t-erve
on the Commission will work diligently
toward coming up with some suggestions
that will be worthwhile. This is an area
where there could be considerable im-
provement.
Mr. WYMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gen-
teman Will yield still further, there are
other places where there is work that
Is being clone at the present time to see
whether :Tcluctions in personnel can be
achieved in order to lower the 57 percent
of this budget going toward personnel.
Mr. MAHON. The gentleman, of
course, knows that we are dealing with
this problem in the committee. We ...save
tried to improve the techniques for re-
cruiting personnel, and we are trying
to preven t the practice of recruiting peo-
ple, keeping them a few weeks or a few
months, and then having to discharge
them. We are trying to improve the qual-
ity of the personnel entering the mili-
tary service in the first instance. We
have made some reductions in personnel
in the Department of Defense, as my
friend, the gentleman from New Hamp-
shire, knows.
Mr. WYMAN. Is the chairman san-
guine about the prospects of being able
to perhaps get the defense costs on per-
sonnel for the United States down to a
figure of about 50 percent.
Mr. MAHON. I would hope we could
do something like that. After all, we can-
not go on forever at the present balance,
as I see U. The gentleman has raised a
very Valid point, and I thank the gentle-
man for his contribution.
Mr. WAN. I thank the chairman.
Mr. TEAGUE of California. Mr.
Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentleman
from California.
Mr. TEAGUE of California. Mr.
Speaker, first I want 1.0 express my grat-
itude to the House conferees, and cer-
thinly to the chairman for sticking to
the position of the House in connection
with the Pacific Missile Range, which is
in my district, or close to it. And the
lc,nguage contained at page 25 of the re-
port makes it very clear that the House
position will be maintained, and the Navy
shall continue to operate the Pacific Mis-
sile Range with Government military
and civilian personnel.
Does the gentleman consider that to
be mandatory upon the Navy?
Mr. MAHON. I do consider that to be
mandatory. We are unaltarably oppcxed
to contracting out this operation. We
want to proceed in accordance with the
wesent procedure that the gentleman
from California is aware of.
I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that the
members of the Subcommittee on A.p-
propriations and the members of the full
'Committee on Appropriations owe a debt
of gratitude to the Members of the
House generally who are not members
of the full committee and the subcom-
mittees for the contributions which they
have made. The members of this com-
mittee have worked many, many months,
all of them on the Democratic side and
all of them on the Republican side of the
subcommittee headed by the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Mirrsiima.). I believe we
have really done the very best we could.
The bill is not perfect, but I am of the
opinion that the bill comes before the
House as the best that could be done
under the circumstances.
I hope that the Department of Defense
can take this money and continue to keep
us No. 1 militarily, maybe by a small
margin, but No. 1. We must remain No. 1
in military power and national security.
Mr. TEAGUE of California. I thank
the gentleman.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, if the gen-
tleman will yield, I do not find the usual
table in the report showing the total
amount of this bill.
Would the gentleman please state the
total cost of this bill as it now stands?
Mr. MAHON. The total is $73,714,930,-
000. The amount agreed to is $3.5 billion
less than the budget estimate.
Mr. GROSS. How does it compare with
the bill as it left the House?
Mr. MAHON. It is below the bill as it
left the House. The House had provided
snore than 874.1 billion, so at $73.7 bil-
lion it is lower than it was when it- left
the House, $386 million less than it was
when it passed the House. It is $450 mil-
lion more than the appropriation recom-
mended by the U.S. Senate.
Mr. GROSS. How much lower is it than
the bill that passed the House?
Mr. MAHON. $386,379,000.
Mr. GROSS. There is no funding in
this bill for the replacement of the arms
and munitions that were taken out of
our inventory and given to Israel in the
recent Middle East war; is that correct?
Mr. MAHON. No. That comes in the
foreign aid bill which should follow this
bill.
Mr. GROSS. No. The replacement will
not be made there.
Mr. MAHON. Not directly. We will pro-
vide funds in the foreign aid bill to re-
imburse the Department of Defense for
the contributions made to Israel. That is
the way it is handled.
Mr. GROSS. The Deputy Secretary of
Defense, Mr. Clements, told us in the
Committee co Foreign Affairs that there
would probably be a bill of between $2
and $3 billion in addition to the money
that was requested-by authorization
through the Committe on Foreign Af-
fairs for the $2.2 billion.
Mr. MAHON. For the most part, that
would be for hardware for U.S. forces
and not directly related to the replace-
ment of weapons given Israel.
Mr. GROSS. The replacement of the
arms and planes that were taken out of
the U.S. inventory by President Nixon
given to Israel will have to be financed
nanced next year through another bill;
is that correct?
Mr. MAHON. No. The gentleman is not
correct on that. In the foreign aid bill
we are providing $2.2 billion for Israel,
part of which will be used to reimburse
the Department of Defense for the am-
munition and airplanes and military
support otherwise that was provided for
Israel, or that is being provided. There
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500260014-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500260014-8
December 20, 1973 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 11 11815
are some additional costs since the value
of the material given Israel is less than
the replacement cost of some items.
Mr. GROSS. The gentleman from
Texas is demonstrating some new-found
optimism, I find, because Israel was al-
ready in debt to the United States to the
extent of $1 billion before the October
war ever started.
? Mr. MAHON. I do not mean that Israel
will pay back the $1 billion which is now
owed, and I do not mean that Israel will
pay back the $2.2 billion. Some of it is
to be loan money, and some of it will
be grant money, and whether any of it
would be returned, ; do not inow. But
I would say that up to date Israel has
reimbursed the United States in its pay-
ments to the extent of about $250 mil-
lion.
Mr. GROSS. If we keep pumping eco-
nomic aid to them they will be able to
go through the motions of paying it, but
It is our people who are out of pocket.
The taxpayers are out of pocket. I pre-
dict that the gentleman will be back
with a bill next year for more arms as a
result of the Middle East war.
Mr. MAHON. I clp not foresee that at
this time, but it is true that we need
modernization of our forces. We need
more in quantity of military equipment
by way of newer planes, and so forth.
We are producing a minimum of new
aircraft and new ships and new weap-
ons.
Mr. McFALL. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentleman
from California.
Mr. McFALL. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the permanent RECORD be corrected
to show that the gentleman from Con-
necticut (Mr. GrAnvio) except as to
amendment No. '17 of the Defense ap-
propriation bill and that I did not.
The RECORD of December 19, 1973, on
page H11677 in listing the managers on
the part of the House indicates that I
excepted as to amendment No. 77. I did
not. However, the gentleman from Con-
necticut (Mr. Gram) did and I ask
unanimous consent that the permanent
RECORD be corrected.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Cali-
fornia?
There was no objection.
Mr. MINSHALL of Ohio. Now, I should
like to tell the gentleman from Iowa
that this bill is below last year's budget
by $1,60,0000,000. It is less than the
House-passed bill, as the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. M.A.uox) has emphasized, by
$386,379,000.
The appropriation we passed in the
House was $1.3 billion below last year's
appropriation. The conference action re-
sults in A bill which is about $1.6 billion
below last year, apd is about $3.5 billion
below ,the budget estimate for this fiscal
-Year,
I would also like to point out to the
gentleman from Iowa that there were
many items in this bill that all of us are
not completely satisfied with, but that
Is the nature of any conference report,
any kind of compromise. But the con-
ferees met for 10 straight hours, with a
little time for lunch. I think we have
come up with good compromises and fair
compromises and a bill that will make for
a strong defense for our country. I hope
the House will go along with the bill.
Mr. STEIGER of Wisconsin. Mr.
Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MINSHALL of Ohio. I yield to the
gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. STEIGER of Wisconsin. Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman
yielding.
I want to express my unhappiness over
the fact that the conference agreed to
stay by the House provision on section
'718. The conferees in accepting the
House position, and I recognize this mat-
ter was not discussed greatly when it
was before the House, I am afraid we
will have the Army in a shortfall position
of an additional 5,000 to 15,000 men, and
it is an unwarranted interference in my
judgment in the management capacity
of the Defense Department, the idea that
we somehow want to limit nonhigh
school graduates, because about 25 per-
cent of them are not eligible to, make
it. in the first 18 months service or limit
category 4 to a percentage lower than
was achieved in the draft. I simply do
not understand it.
I hope the Appropriations Subcommit-
tee on the Defense Department in the
months ahead will be willing to take a
close look and make an analysis of this
kind of management decision before un-
dertaking it.
I would simply say to the gentleman
from Ohio I am grateful to him for his
willingness to yield to me so that issue
might be raised, and next year you can
be sure it will be raised again if the
committee intends to continue this kind
of operation.
Mr. MINSHALL of Ohio. I appreciate
having the gentleman's remarks.
The Army has had a great deal of dif-
ficulty with its all-volunteer program.
We are trying to keep the armed serv-
ices combat ready as much as we can
and that is why we took the action we
did.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. MINSHALL of Ohio. I yield to the
gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-
tleman state to the House whether there
are funds in here for the AMB?
Mr. MINSHALL of Ohio. There is $110
million in here for the site defense ABM.
Mr. YATES. Is that for the first in-
stallation or the total amount for the
program?
Mr. MINSHALL of Ohio. That is for
the first installation.
Mr. YATES. How much will the total
prograrn cost?
Mr. MINSHALL of Ohio. That is the
site defense?
Mr. YATES. I wonder how much it will
cost in total?
Mr. MINSHALL of Ohio. That depends
on how far we carry the development.
Mr. YATES. For what site will this
be the defense?
Mr. MINSHALL of Ohio. This is a de-
velopment program. No sites have been
selected. The full development cost will
be close to a billion six hundred million
dollars.
Mr. YATES. That is correct.
I have been opposed to the ABM and
I am sorry the conference saw fit to put
money into this program for the ABM
again and I would hope they would take
another look at it.
Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Speaker,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MINSHALL of Ohio. I yield to the
gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Speaker,
I just want to express my own disap-
pointment that the House position failed
as opposed to that of the Senate in the
determination of the U.S. Armed Serv-
ices Institute in Madison, Wis., a 30-
year institute. I take it that the Senate
failed to put forward the arguments of
the Defense Department in their desire
that this institute be continued and be
given an ample opportunity to be literal-
ly reconstructed during the next year to
follow the needs of the armed services in
connection with the education of our
military personnel.
In this connection I hope something
is salvable, but insofar as the House posi-
tion prevailed there does not seem to
me to be much hope.
Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker,
If the gentleman will yield, I share the
concern of my colleague from Wisconsin
on this subject, I think it was developed
at the hearings that the USAFI did de-
serve some major surgery. There is a
question, however, whether that should
extend to decapitation and that was the
provision that was in the House bill.
I think the gentleman from Wisconsin
put his finger on the situation as it was
in the conference, that it was not appro-
priate for the House conferees to raise
the issue in contravention of the House
action; that the only way this could
have been adequately brought before the
conference is if someone of the Senate
conferees had spoken up and raised an
issue, so that the cards could have been
laid on the table. That did not take place,
so there was really no practical way in
which this matter could adequately be
discussed in the conference, so the House
position did continue. ?
Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Speaker, if
the gentleman will yield further, I want
to comment that I had very grave ques-
tions about whether the best interests
were being served by the Defense De-
parment in terms of education.
It will be a poor Christmas present for
those employees in Madison, Wis. There
are some 200 people that will be involved.
Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin: If the gen-
tleman will yield further, I want to com-
ment on the discussion by Mr. STEIGER
of Wisconsin, with respect to this subject.
I think there was rather strong feeling
in our subcommittee that this figure
should have been perhaps higher than
the 45 percent that, remained in the
House bill and is continued in this con-
ference report.
We were concerned that in their efforts
to get numbers, in light of their difficul-
ties in recruiting, that people who could
not make a satisfactory contribution to
the Defense Department or to the Army
in particular would be enlisted in the
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000500260014-8
H 11816
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500260014-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE December 20, 1973
recruiting program. So because we had
before us the history of problems created
by people of the capacities shown in their
particular categories, we did agree 3/1 a
figure of 45 percent, which was lower
than some of the members of the sub-
committee wanted to go. It was put in
there to protect the particular level of
the caliber of the people being taken
into the Army. That is the basis of the
45 percent.
Mr. STEIGER of Wisconsin. Mr.
Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I
am grateful to my colleague from 'Wis-
consin for his comment.
I would say if we look back te ,June
1972, the figures, as I recall, supplied by
the Defense Department were that 56
percent et the Army career soldiers just
a year ago in June were non-high-school
graduates when they entered the armed
services; so this decision to use, in e feet,
an artificial criteria, of high school grad-
uation, for the basis of determining
whether a man or woman makes a good
career soldier, I find very difficult to jus-
tify, During the draft era, the propor-
tion of mental IV's who entered each
year exceeded the proposed legislative
limit of 38 percent in one or more of the
services. The proportion of mental lV's
who entered the Army, the chief user of
the drat, in selected typical years, are
shown below:
Mental 117's as percent of Army acee3sions
Fiscal year: Percent
1954
29.8
1958
20.9
1964
19. 0
1966
23. 4
1969
27.5
1979
18. 8
One of the key factors in this regard
Is that high school graduation is not
used to determine a person's ability to
perform a job but is rather a general in-
dex as to whether or not an individual
will make it through his first 18 months
of service. Approximately one-fourth-
25 percent?of the non-high-school
graduates fail to make it through their
first 18 months of service, whereas 9 per-
cent of the high school graduates fail.
This difference has encouraged the
armed services to seek high school grad-
uates. But any policy restricting non-
high-school graduates, is obviously
counterproductive for at least 75 percent
of them make good soldiers. All entries
are qualified by aptitude tests as well, re-
gardless of whether they are high school
or non-high-school graduates.
What the Army has now done in this
new 1711-day provision, so they can get
a man or a woman who is not a good
soldier out of the Army before they be-
come eligible for benefits means we ought
to be able to get anybody in that wants
to come in, that wants to volunteer, and
then make the judgment as we go along,
without making the artificial judgment
of high school graduation.
Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker,
if the gentleman will yield further, we
are not talking about high school !gradu-
ation. We are talking about category 4.
The record of recruitments irs recent
months indicates that the Army has been
overloading itself and people in these
categories, experience shows, have not
been able to make the contribution that
we ought to expect from the money we
are expending; this is the basis of that
action in that regard.
Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from
Ohio will yield for a couple minutes more,
I want to say it is important that this
conference report be approved, in spite of
the misgivings on individual items that
all of us who are House conferees did
buve.
But it is costing us money every clay
that we fail to have the 1974 Defense
Appropriations Act on the books. That is
true because we have directed a number
oe savings in this bill, in matters which
are now going forward, at the old, higher
rate in the continuing resolution under
which the Department of Defense is op-
erating, and it does cause grave problems
or management when the Defense De-
partment, with this amount of money, is
required to operate under a continuing
resolution.
So, I urge that the House will now
adopt this conference report.
Mrs OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-
tleman yield?
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I yield to
the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a
couple of questions concerning the prob-
lems of Project Sanguine Submarine
Communications program in amendment
79.
The report says that funds provided
are to be available for continuation of
effort at the Wisconsin test facility. Is
the interpretation of the gentleman from
Texas that this does not imply in any
way that the primary site is moved back
to Wisconsin?
Mr. MAT-10N. The committee felt that
the Sanguine program had not pro-
gressed to the point where it should be
firmed up as an operational unit, and
that the tests and evaluations which had
begun and had been in progress in Wis-
consin for years could be continued; but
not the hall-scale development of the
system.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, my point is
that there is nothing in this language
which implies the primary site for fur-
ther development of Sanguine has been
moved back to Wisconsin?
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, the gentle-
man is correct.
Mr. OBEY. Also, it says that none of
the funds were to be applied to any full-
scale development. Does that language
imply any expansion of the Wisconsin
facility at Clam Lake would be in order?
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I would not
interpret the report language in that
manner. It provides for study, experi-
mentation, and additional study, but I do
not think the gentleman from Wisconsin,
whom I know is apprehensive about this
project, should be too greatly concerned
about it at this stage. There are so many
other ways of communication that we do
not want to go too far with Sanguine at
this point. That is the attitude of the
committee.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentleman and I agree with the chair-
man.
Mr. MAHON. Mr, Speaker, I yield to
the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
MONTGOMERY ) for a question.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I
thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend
the chairman and the conferees on the
handling of the reserve part of this bill.
which is a large share of the money.
Even though the committee has given
us a tight budget to work with in the
reserves, I believe in. my opinion that
the reserve can continue to be a vital
part of this Nation's defense and con-
tinue an outstanding job.
Mr. Speaker, I am a little concerned
about the cutback of funds for Virginia
Army ROTC units in high schools, and
also the Navy Virginia high school
ROTC units. In my opinion, these have
been very good, workable units. I hope
the committee does not act in haste and
cut out the units down the line.
Mr. MAEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank
the gentleman for his contribution, and
I will place in the Record at this point a
statement in regard to the Reserves and
the Junior ROTC.
As my good friend from Mississippi has
indicated, the Reserve components and
the National Guard were well provided
for in this bill. The orieinal Defense De-
partment request for Guard and Reserve
forces was over $4.4 billion compared
with $4 billion provided in fiscal year
1973. This represents a 10-percent in-
crease in funding despite generally
declining manpower steengths.
Actions on the part, of the Congress
have reduced this $4.4 billion request less
than $100 million leav:ng a net increase
of over $300 million. Nearly all of the
reduction was related to the difficulties
the Reserve components are having in
obtaining nonprior?fiest term?recruits.
Most of these individuals were scheduled
to undergo from 4 to 8 months of active
duty for training. Thus, this category of
Personnel acquire proeortionately more
money than do regular reservists who
drill only one weekend a month and are
paid accordingly. Accordingly when
shortfalls occur large dollar savings are
generated.
I would also point out that this con-
ference report agrees to the restoration
of some of the specific units which were
deleted in the House version. For ex-
ample, the Navy will be permitted to con-
tinue the operation of 30 system analysis
divisions and all of the phased force
components companies if the Navy
desires to do so. You are aware of the
fact that the committee questions the
need and expenditure for these wilts.
The cor ference report also restored
100 technician positions in both the Air
Force Reserve and Air Force National
Guard. The original bill deleted 200 posi-
tions from each. The committee also
restored one half of a $10 million reduc-
tion in fuel for the Air National. Guard
made by the Senate.
I ,ilso want to point out that the com-
mittee did not reduce or eliminate any
junior ROTC units The committee
looked into the matter of the numbers of
ROTC units which are not meeting the
mandated strength requirement of 100
students. The committee feels that addi-
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500260014-8
Appsoved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500260014-8
December 20, IV73 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE H 11817
tional units should not be organized until
many of the units which are not meeting
required strength levels are either dis-
established or brought to the mandated
strength.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I
thank my colleagues also.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Speaker, I have no
further requests for time.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I yield to
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
FLYNT).
(Mr. FLYNT asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. FLYNT. Mr. Speaker, all of the
conferees have signed this conference
report. Two of the Jlouse conferees ex-
cepted as to amendment No. 77 proposed
by the Senate. One of the Senate con-
ferees excepted as to another section of
the conference report.
Mr, Speaker, I take this time to ex-
plain our exception to the amendment
No. 77.
Amendment No. 77 is the research, de-
velopment, test, and evaluation, Army
section of the bill and the conference re-
port. This program, as has been stated
earlier during the debate on this con-
ference report, proposes a total program
expenditure before any procurement, ac-
cording to the .1-10Use report, of $1,650,-
000,000 for a site defense antiballistic
missile system, or a site defense ABM
system, as it is commOnly called.
In the past I have always supported
ongoing research and development into
an effective A,BM system, and I still sup-
port that concept. However, I oppose the
provision in the conference report to
-build an eXtrav_agant and expensive
ABM system which cannot be deployed
and probably would not work if it could
? be deployed.
In the House language of the de-
fense appropriation bill, the House pro-
ppsed $111,100,000 for continuation of
research and development of the anti-
ballistic missile defense, We proposed
and the House passed $20 million for ex-
ploratory ballistic missile defense R. & D.
and $77.7 million for advanced ballistic
Missile defense R. & D. which latter fig-
ure Is $25 million over the budget and
above the amount requested by the De-
partment of Defense.
The Defense , Appropriations Subcom-
mittee added that $25 million over and
above the budget request, because the
subcommittee and the full committee
'and the House denied the budget request
of $170 million to continue the proto-
type building of the site defense ABM
sYstem. We thought then and two of us
think now that this is the more reason-
able approach to this item in the bill.
The Senate restored $135 million and
the committee on conference reduced
that figure to $110 million.
Bare in mind that $110 million is only
1 year's annual increment of the total
cost. We have during fiscal year 1973
appropriated and the Department of De-
fense has expended approximately $165
million toward this, This $170 million
which the Department of Defense asked
for this year was to be the second annual
Increment into the site defense ABM pro-
gram which would require over $850 mil-
lion for the prototype development and
an additional $815 million for full en-
gineering.
Mr. Speaker, we held extensive hear-
ings on this in the subcommittee. As a
result of those hearings, the subcommit-
tee and the full committee deleted the
entire amount requested by the Defense
Department for site defense ABM.
The Senate saw fit to restore $135
million as a part of a $1.65 billion site
defense ABM program. In the event the
prototype is developed and full engineer-
ing follows, this system, even if it works,
will not be deployable, because of the
provisions of the SALT I agreements to
which we are signatory.
This is a provision in the bill .and in
the conference report an which reason-
able men can disagree. Those who sup-
port it think it is a viable program and
that it can be deployed and when de-
ployed will work. On the other hand those
of us who oppose this program do so, be-
cause we cannot deploy it without abro-
gating the SALT I agreement and be-
cause even if we deployed, it will not be
effective for its intended purpose.
It is the same old story of hitting a
high velocity bullet with another high
velocity bullet: You might hit one with
one, or even five with five, but when the
number of incoming ballistic missiles is
increased to 20, 50, 100, or more under
the present state of the art the radars
and computers cannot differentiate suffi-
ciently to achieve 100-percent effective-
ness or anywhere near that. What we
need to do is to do further research be-
fore proceeding to prototype.
The subcommittee and full committee
were unanimous when we-marked up this
bill and the House passed it. We feel we
are going too far, too fast on the unnec-
essary building of a prototype which, ac-
cording to the testimony of the Project
manager of the program, General Leber,
this prototype development plus full en-
gineering will cost the $1.6 billion to
which we have referred and which some
of us feel should be deleted.
I shall seek recognition to offer a mo-
tion to recommit with instructions and
such motion will read as follows:
Mr. FLYNT moves to recommit the con-
ference report on the bill (H.R. 11575)
to the committee on conference with the
following instructions to the managers
on the part of the House: To disagree to
Senate amendment No. 77.
Mr. Speaker, let me emphasize that
this motion to recommit would be totally
consistent and compatible with the pre-
vious unanimous action of the House, the
Committee on Appropriations and the
Subcommittee on Defense Appropria-
tions.
The action previously taken by the
House was not considered in haste. It
was not an arbitrary reduction but on a
decision based on the realities of the
state of the art and the foreseeable new
developments within the time frame be-
tween now and the completion of the
nearly $1 billion prototype.
The committee report on this subject
consists of nearly three full pages, and
I quote from parts of it:
SITE DEFENSE
The Army requested in the January
budget $170,070,000 for advanced develop-
ment of a new antiballistic missile system
referred to as "Site Defense". The Site De-
fense system is a new ABM system separate
and apart from the presently deployed Safe-
guard system. Pribr to the treaty limiting
the deployment of ABM systems, the name
of the system was "Site Defense Minute-
man". The basic difference in the Site De-
fense system and Safeguard system is that
Site Defense system is a point defense system
essentially and the Safeguard system is an
area defense system. The Site Defense system
would use greater numbers of smaller, less
powerful radars and only short range mis-
siles. It would be deployed in close proxim-
ity to Minuteman missiles and would pro-
vide a point defense of the Minuteman silos.
The treaty limiting the deployment of
antiballistic missile systems precludes the
deployment of a Site Defense system in the
role for which it was designed, the protec-
tion of Minuteman missiles, as long as the
treaty is in effect. The only location at which
the Site Defense system could be deployed
under the provisions of the ABM treaty is
at the National Command Authority or
Washington, D.C. If Site Defense were to be
installed at our single ABM site which de-
fends ballistic missiles, Grand Forks Air
Force Base, Safeguard missiles would have
to be removed. Since we are now in the final
stages of installing the Safeguard missiles
after the expenditure of $5 billion, it is not
reasonable to propose such a course at this
point in time.
* *
The Committee recommends an additional
reduction of $135,000,000 in the Site Defense
line item and a partially offsetting $25,000,-
000 increase in the amount provided for
Advanced Ballistic Missile Defense, a net
reduction of $110,000,000. The purpose of the
recommended reduction is the termination
of the prototype demonstration of the Site
Defense System. The $25,000,000 transferred
to Advanced Ballistic Missile Defense is for
advanced development efforts on such com-
ponents of the Site Defense system as might
be considered useful by the Army. If addi-
tional funds are required in this area, the
funds in advanced development and explor-
atory development related to ballistic mis-
sile defense can be utilized for this purpose
if the Army feels that Site Defense tech-
nology is of a higher priority than other
efforts proposed in these areas.
The Committee does not believe that we
should at this time freeze on the design for
our next generation antiballistic missile sys-
tem. If, in 1977, the arms limitation treaty is
not renewed, we could take advantage of the
state of the art at that time to fully develop
a new system. The technology included in
the Site Defense system may be far surpassed
at that time. If we decide at some point in
time that additional antiballistic missile sys-
tems are required rapidly, we can further ex-
tend the Safeguard system with additional
deployments as was previously planned.
The ? Site Defense p^ rogram as now envi-
sioned is a program without a home. Under
the Arms Limitation Treaty, the system
could not be deployed at a Minuteman site
where it was designed to be placed. In an
effort to find a home for Site Defense, the
Army included $5,000,000 in the budget to
study the deployment of such a system at
Washington, D.C. Since the Site Defense sys-
tem Involves relatively low level intercep-
tions and nuclear detonations, it is not ap-
propriate for the defense of a city or of an
area of population. The funds requested for
studies related to Washington, D.C. de-
ployment were specifically deleted in the
authorization act.
? * * - *
The estimated cost of the proposed proto-
type demonstration program for the site
Defense system rose from an estimate of
$794 million late last year to a new estimate
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500260014-8
H 11818
Approved For Release 2001/08/30: CIA-RDP75600380R000500260014-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE December 20, 1973
o! $850 million given this year. The Ccen-
ukittee believes that if the waverm were al-
lowed to continue, these costa would -
tinue to rile. In addition, if the prototype
demonstration program were successful. It
would only lead to a request for a full engi-
neering development effort which would cost
at least another 8801 million. 'thus, a total
of $1.85 billion is estimated to be requ'red
to complete research arid development on the
Site Defense System.
This indicates that at the present tate
of esealattag costs, the total development
costs would probably rise from $1.65 to
$2.4 billion between now and the esti-
mated date of completion of the proto-
type. This figure, regardless of whether
it is $1.6e or $2.4 billion is solely for
prototype development and full engi-
neering development. It does not include
any proccrement of the end item. The
cost of the total procurement cow; is
estimated to be $8 billion or more with
the maximum figure to be determined by
how many additional sites are defended.
The report eontinues:
Another factor which mitigates against
the proposed site Defense system is that the
Site Defense system with its necessary radars
is a softer target than is the Minuteman
missile in its silo. Many of the Site Defense
Interceptor missiles would have to be wed
to protect the Site Defense system itself if
the system were to be deployed.
Estimates of the total cost of deploying a
useful Site Defense system are from between
$8 and $10 billion. The Committee believes
that the time to look at expenditures of this
magnitude is relatiVely early in the develop-
ment Stage. Having dtme this, the Corrmit-
tee has concluded that an investmert of
this kind is not warranted.
Mr. Samalker, that is precisely my posi-
tion todase and all I am asking for. The
report COrleindes:
we have *Tent some $5 billidn in bringing
the SalegUard system to the stage of deploy-
ment Which it has presently reached. Fo- this
expendittire, we are protecting one Mi Tote-
man Installation only, and estianates are that
the system would at best save only a small
percentage of the missiles deployed at that
Installation. At the present state of the art,
ABM systems just do not appear to be Cost
effective.
This was the unanimous recommenda-
tion of the Subeommittee on Defense
Appropriations, the Committee on Ap-
propriations and was sustained without
protest or objection by the House of
Representatives. Nothing has changed or
intervened since November 26, 197e, the
date of the report, to change these facts
or my views.
I urge the adoption of an appropriate
motion to recommit, in an effort to sus-
tain the House position and at the same
time to terminate an ill-advised and
extravagantly expensive development of
a site defense antiballistic missile s Istem
which we cannot deploy under present
treaty obligations and which would not
be effective for the purpose for wlich it
is intepaed, even if deployment should
become possible by reason of treaty ex-
piration or abrogation of the treaty.
Mr. IVEAHON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the
remaining time to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. GIAIMO)
Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Speaker, I cannot
say much in 1 Minute about the ABM site
defense program which contains $110
million in this hill but which will com-
mit us to an expenditure of $1.5 billion.
We are talking about building phase H
of .m antiballistic missile system known
as site defense. We are committing our-
selves in this bill to en expenditure of
$850 million for a prototype program and
it will cost another $13t0 million for en-
gineering and another $8 billion to $10
billion to deploy.
Our position in this committee and in
the House was not to fund the prototype
program now but, rather, to continue
their money for resea;rch and develop-
ment at least for another year or two
until we knew better where we were with
regard to the SALT agreements.
Instead of that, as a result of the con-
ference, we are going to give the Depart-
ment of Defense the go-ahead signal to
begin the site defense system, which is a
pretotype system to be built in Kwaja-
lein and which cannot under the agree-
ment be deployed anywhere in the United
States.
I think this is a mistake and a waste
of over $1.5 billion at this time. I urge
that the Defense appropriation bill be
recommitted to the conference commit-
tee with instructions eo delete the funds
for the antibalistic system known as site
defense.
Mr. SIKES. Mr. Speaker, I, too, had
misgivings about the funding of the site
defense program. It is another payment
and $110 million is a very substantial
payment on a program which, if com-
pleted, will cost $1.6 billion. Whether we
can continue to justify these large an-
nualeincrements is debatable. Neverthe-
less, I voted in conference for the res-
toration of money fax the site defense
program.
Had we been able to proceed on our
Planned program of 12 antiballistic mis-
sle sites, there would have been no doubt
in my mind for the need of the site de-
fense program. It is a program to make
tee ABM system more effective. The sad
fact is that the SALT talks agreement
largely killed off the U.S. ABM program.
Instead of 12, we are now limited to 2.
One of these is in being at Grand Forks.
One, which was well along toward con-
struction at /vIalmstrom, has been dis-
mantled. We can, under the SALT talks
agreement, build another around Wash-
ington, the Nation's Capital. There is
no indication that we plan to do so. So
I am not optimistic about the value of
our ABM system. The principal justifica-
tion for the site defense program is to
provide an improved capability in case an
expanded ABM system is required at
some time in the future.
It is my personal belief that the best
defense is a strong offense. There may
not be a meaningful defense against in-
eercontinental ballistic missiles. A retail-
:s.tery capability is w eat will count most.
-E think that the $110 million carried in
this bill for site del, anse could be spent
better for offensive weapons. But there
are no plans -to spend this money for ad-
ditional or improved offensive capability.
It is site defense or nothing, at least
for the present. The administration and
the Pentagon stronely urge approval of
the system. 'They consider it will be an
important asset inluture SALT talks and
they are optimistic about its value to our
ABM capabiliey. Consequently, I support
the system. I :eel that we should proceed
for another year on the program. Then
we can take a closer look at its status.
Ms. ABZUCi. Mr. Speaker, I am voting
against this bill because I bitterly Object
to ever-increasing funding for the Mili-
tary Establishment while our citizens are
being asked to make sacrifices compara-
ble to those of World War 11.
The conference commatee has reduced
the administration's request by only $3.5
billion, a panry sum compared to the
$73.7 billion .they ask us to appropriate.
The cut was mere tokeinsm.
I also find it appalling that, after the
House had Noted to terminate the de-
velopment of Safeguard missile sites, the
conferees put back $110 million for this
purpose. This means a minimum of $1
billion in the very near future for a
totally obsolete and counterproductive
notion.
Equally disturbing is the fact that $900
million is specifically e ppropriated for
military aid to South Vietnam and Laos.
If the American people are under the im-
pression that the United States is out of
Southeast Asia, they should take a long
hard look at ehat item. The money Is used
to perpetuate President Thieu's dictator-
ship, to jail and terroilze thousands of
political opponents, and thus to prolong
the conflict and prevent a negotiated set-
tlement of the war. This is a violation of
the Paris agreement, and we have no
right to encourage it by continuing our
military support.
There are many other objectionable
features to this bill, but my chief con-
cern is that we are being asked, for no
logical reason, to contioue handing the
Pentagon everything it wants, while
denying our citizens heat, light, gaso-
line, education, even tood, This shows
very little change in our sense of pri-
orities.
Mr. TALCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I have
consulted with the conferees and writ-
ten Members of the other body. I am
discouraged and disappointed with the
conference report for several reasons,
but principally the $20,190,000 reduction
in "graduate training."
? This cut is devastathig in both the cur-
rent academic year end in the long-
term competence of our defense forces.
Because of the lateness of the passage
of this bill, the fiscal year is almost half
completed. The academic year began in
September. A 20-percent cut in academic
load will necessarily require that many
students, teachers, and professors be
withdrawn from schools immediately
and even larger withdi awals made at the
semester break.
This imposes bad personnel manage-
ment upon the academic institutions.
This reduction, the necessary withdrawal
of students, the turbulence in personnel
assignments, the degradation in learn-
ing, and the lowering of the academic
level of the services w,11 cause a vacuum
of talent that will cause sequential ac-
celeration of the education gap that is
developing fast in our defense forces.
The committees 01 Congress; should
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500260014-8
December 20,
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500260014-8
1973 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --HOUSE H 11819
know by now that superior modern
weaponry will not be enough to win
future wars or to keep the peace or to de-
fend freedom. We are in, and will con-
tinue to be in, a battle of concepts, wars
to win minds and contests to convince,
which will be more important, and diffi-
cult, than the conventional wars of brute
force and attrition. We will not win or
even compete well unless our defense
personnel haye superior educations and
training. We are losing the education
battle fast.
A grave debacle for the services is cer-
tain to result from the severe cut in ap-
propriations for "graduate training."
One evident reason why the services
cannot presently compete with their
Civilian and governmental counterparts
is their educational deficiency. This ed-
ucational deficiency begins at the re-
cruit level and maintains throughout the
officer corps. The deficiency curve rises
until the disparity becomes most critical
at the junior officer level.
Neglect at the graduate level will most
adversely affect the leadership and man-
agerial capability of the services.
In spite of this worrisome comparative
deficiency in educational levels, the de-
fense appropriation bill cuts graduate
training by more than $20 million. This
is less than a drop in the ocean in a $74
billion budget, but it will be a cut that
devastates the military services.
This cut in budget and training load
will cause more family turbulence, more
dissatisfaction among career-oriented
personnel, and more disillusionment
among our most outstanding upward-
?bound young officers than any other
budget cut.
Famines already en route to graduate
schools must be revsigned, all graduate
courses must be reprogramed by Janu-
ary 1, 1974, and many careers must be
abruptly revised. These personal disap-
pointments, inconveniences, and added
costs are insignificant, of course, when
compared to the comprehensive loss and
the prospective degradation of the edu-
cational level of the defense forces.
We must pay more attention to edu-
cation, particularly graduate educa-
tion, which is the most cost-effective
expenditure in the whole defense budget.
Admittedly, the Congress cut the
budget and must assume its share of the
blame for the consequences of its mis-
take, but the services failed to justify the
urgent need of graduate training for
their key officers.
No university, business, industry, or
other nation would pay so little atten-
tion or apply so little of its resources to
graduate education and training with-
out sueetiMbing to its competitors, let
alone its enemies.
It may be easy to cut and simple to
explain to constituents the mathemati-
cal equation of, dollars divided by per-
enflailaway at a large dollar-per-
exp,eriditures, but we should un-
erstaiff bette?"-the value of education,
especially a graduate education, in the
complicated and sophisticated function
of successfully managing the personnel,
weapons, and facilities of our defense
? forces and pursuing the tenuous nation-
al policy of peace with freedom in these
perilous times.
Although I regret casting a vote that
might appear opposed to a strong na-
tional security and peace with freedom,
I intend to vote against the conference
report as a protest against excellence
and against the degradation of the edu-
cational level of defense forces person-
nel.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I move the
previous question on the conference
report.
The previous question was ordered.
MOTION TO RECOMMIT
Mr. TALCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion to recommit.,
The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman op-
posed to the conterence report?
Mr. TALCOTT. I am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report
the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. TALCOTT moves to recommit the con-
ference report on the bill H.R. 11575 to the
Committee on Conference.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I move the
previous question on the motion to re-
commit.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the motion to recommit.
The question was taken, and the
Speaker announced that the noes ap-
peared to have it.
Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Speaker, I object
to the vote on the ground ,that a quorum
is not present and make the point of
order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum
is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify ab-
sent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic de-
vice, and there were?yeas 88, nays 280,
not voting 64, as follows:
[Roll No. 7111
YEAS-88
Abzug
Adams
Anderson,
Calif.
Ashley
Badillo
Bergland
Bingham
Blatnik
Brademas
Breckinridge
Brinkley
Brown, Calif.
Chisholm
Clay
Cohen
Culver
Davis, Ga.
Dellenback
Dellums
Donohue
Drinan
Eckhardt
Edwards, Calif. 1VIezvinsky
Evans, Colo.
Flynt
Foley
Ford,
William D.
Fraser
Frenzel
Giaimo
Ginn
Green, Oreg.
Green, Pa.
Gude
Hamilton
Hawkins
Hechler, W. Va.
Helstoski
Hicks
Holtzman
Hungate
Johnson, Colo.
Karth
Kastenmeier
Kyros
Lehman
Long, La.
McCloskey
McCormack
Mathis, Ga.
Mazzoli
Meeds
Mitchell, Md.,
Moorhead, Pa.
Mosher
Nedzi
Obey
Owens
NAYS-280
Abdnor Armstrong
Addabbo Ashbrook
Andrews, N.C. Bafalis
Annunzio Baker
Archer Barrett
Pritchard
Quie
Rangel
Rees
Reuss
Robison, N.Y.
Rodino
Rooney, Pa.
Rosenthal
Roy
Roybal
St Germain
Sarbanes
Schroeder
Seiberling
Stanton,
James V.
Stark
Steiger, Wis.
Stokes
Stuckey
Studds
Talcott
Thompson, N.J.
Tiernan
Waldie
Whalen
Yates
Young, Ga.
Bauman
Beard
Bell
Bennett
Bevill
Biaggi Haley Peyser
Biester Hammer- Pickle
Blackburn schmidt Pike
Boggs Hanley Poage
Boland Hanrahan Powell, Ohio
Bowen Hansen, Idaho Preyer
Brasco Harsha Price, Ill.
Bray Hastings Price, Tex.
Breaux Hays Quillen
Broomfield Heckler, Mass. Railsback
Brotzman Henderson Randall
Brown, Mich. Hillis Regula
Brown, Ohio Hinshaw Rhodes
Broyhill, N.C. Hogan Rinaldo
Broyhill, Va. Holifield Roberts
Buchanan Holt Robinson, Va.
Burgener Horton Roe
Burke, Fla. Hosmer Rogers
Burke, Mass. Howard Roncallo, N.Y.
Burleson, Tex. Huber Rose
Burlison, Mo. Hudnut Rostenkowski
Butler Hunt Roush
Byron Hutchinson Rousselot
Camp 'chord Runnels
Carney, Ohio Johnson, Calif. Ruppe
Carter Johnson, Pa. Ruth
Casey, Tex. Jones, Ala. Sandman
Cederberg Jones, N.C. Sarasin
Chamberlain Jones, Okla. Satterfield
Chappell Jones, Tenn. Sebelius
Clark Jordan Shoup
Clawson, Del Kazen Shuster
Cleveland Kemp Sikes
Cochran Ketchum Skubitz
Collier King Slack
Collins, Tex. Kluczynski . Smith, Iowa
Conable Koch Smith, N.Y.
Conlan Lancigrebe Snyder
Conte Latta Spence
Corman Lent Staggers
Cotter Litton Stanton,
Coughlin Long, Md. J. William
Crane Lujan Steed
Cronin McClory Steele
Daniel, Dan McCollister Steelman
Daniel, Robert McDade Stratton
W., Jr. McEwen Sullivan
Daniels, McFall Symington
Dominick V. McKay Symms
Danielson McKinney Taylor, N.C.
Davis, S.C. McSpadden Teague, Calif.
Davis, Wis. Macdonald Teague, Tex.
de la Garza Madden Thomson, Wis.
Denholm Madigan Thone
Dennis Mahon Thornton
Derwinski Mallary Towell, Nev.
Devine Mann Trcen
Dickinson Maraziti Udall
Diggs Martin, N.C. Ullman
Dingell Mathias, Calif. Vander Jagt
Dorn MatSunaga Vanik
Downing Mayne Waggonner
Duncan Melcher Wampler
du Pont Milford . Ware
Edwards, Ala. Miller White
Eilberg . Minish Whitehurst
Erlenborn Minshall, Ohio Whitten
Each Mitchell, N.Y. Widnall
Eshleman Mizell Wiggins
Fascell Moakley Williams
Findley Mollohan Wilson, Bob
Fish Montgomery Wilson,
Fisher Moorhead, Charles H.,
Flood Calif. Calif.
Flowers Morgan Wilson,
Forsythe Murphy, Ill. Charles, Tex.
Fountain Murphy, N.Y. Winn
Prey Myers Wolff
Froehlich Natcher Wright
Fuqua Nelsen Wyatt
Gaydos Nix Wydler
Gettys O'Brien Wylie
Gibbons O'Hara Wyman
Gilman O'Neill Yatron
Goldwater Parris Young, Alaska
Gonzalez Passman Young, Fla.
Goodling Patman Young, Ill.
Grasso Patten Young, S.C.
Gross Pepper Young, Tex.
Grover Perkins Zablocki
Gunter Pettis Zion
NOT VOTING--64
Alexander Carey, N.Y. Frelinghuysen
Anderson, Ill. Clancy Fulton
Andrews, Clausen, Gray
N. Dak. ? Don H. Griffiths
Arends Collins, Ill. Gubser
Aspin Conyers Guyer
Bolling Delaney Hanna
Brooks Dent Hansen, Wash.
Burke, Calif. Dulski Harrington
Burton Evins, Tenn. Harvey
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP751300380R000500260014-8
11 11820
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500260014-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE December 20, 1973
Hebert Mills, Ark. Shipley
Heinz Moss Shrivel'
Jarman Nichols Sisk
Keating Podell Steiger, Ariz?
Kuykendall Rarick Stephens
Landrum Reid Stubblefie ,c1
Leggett Riegle Taylor, Mc.
Lott Romano, Wyo. Van Deerlin
Mailliard Rooney, N.Y. Veysey
Martin, Nebr. Ryan Vigorito
Metcalfe Scherle Walsh
Michel Schneebeli Zwach
So the motion to recommit was re-
jected.'
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
On OA; vote:
Mr. Conyers for, with Mr. Hebert against.
Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mr. Carey
of New York against.
Mr. Riegle for, with Mr. Rooney of New
York against.
Mr. lifurington for, with Mr. Dent against.
Mr. Metcalfe for, with Mr. Arends against.
Until further notice:
Mr. Ranch with Mr. Aspin.
Mr. Shipley with Mrs. Burke of California.
Mr. Stubblefield with Mr. Mills of Arkan-
sas.
Mr. Nichols with Mr. Andrews of North
Dakota.
Mr. Podell with Mr. Heinz.
Mr. Hanna with Mr. Keating.
Mrs. Bansen Of Washington with Mr.
Harvey.
Mr. BroOks with Mr. Don H. Clausen.
Mr. Burton with Mr. Michel.
Mr. Dula! with Mr. GUyer.
Mr. Fulton with Mr. RonCallo of New York.
Mr. Eying of Tennessee with Mr. Lott
Mr. Gray with Mr. Clancy.
Mrs. Griffiths with Mr. Kuykendall.
Mr. Laadrum with Mr. Zwach.
Mr. Mess with Mr. Frelinghuysen,
Mr. Ryan with Mr. Scherle.
Mr. Sisk with Mr. Anderson of Illinois.
Mr. Stephens with Mr. Taylor of Missouri.
Mr. Vigorito With Mr. Mailliard. ?
Mr. van Deerlin with Mr. Schneelo.di.
Mr. Alexander With Mr. Gubser.
Mr. Leggett with Mr. Walsh.
Mr. Jan:Ian with Mr. Martin of Nebraska.
Mr, Delaney With Mr. Steiger of Arizona.
Mr. Reid with Mr. shriver.
The result of the vote, was announced
as above recorded.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
conference report.
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. DELLENBACK. Mr. Speaker, I
demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic de-
vice, and there were?ayes 336, noes 32,
not voting 64, as follows:
AbdnOr
Adams
Addabbo
Andrews, N.C.
Annunzio
Archer
Armstror g
Ashbrook
Ashley
Bat alis
Baker
Barrett
Bauman
Beard
Bell
Bennett
Bergland
Bevill
Biaggi
Biester
Blackbui n
Blatnik
Boggs
[Roll No. 7121
AYES-336
Boland Camp
Bowen Carney, Ohio
Brademas Carter
Brasco Casey, TE X.
Bray Ceclerberr
Breaux Chamberlain
Breckinridge Chappell
Brinkley Clark
BrOornfield Clawson, Del
Brotzman Cleveland
Brown, Calif. Cochran
Brown, Mich. Cohen
Brown, Ohio Collier
Broyhill, N.C. Collins,
Broyhill, Va. Conable
Buchanan Conlan
Burgener Conte
Burke, Fla. Colman
Burke, Mass. Cotter
Burleson, Tex. Coughllr.
Burlison, Mo. Crane
Butler Cronin
Byron Culver
Daniel, Dan Jones, Okla. Roberts
Daniel, Robert Jones, Tenn. Robinson, Va.
W., Jr. Jordan Robison, N.Y.
Dtniels, Barth Rodin?
Dominick V. Kazen Ree
Danielson Kemp Rogers
Davis, Ga. Ketchum Ronealio, Wyo.
Davis, S.C. King Roncallo, N.Y.
Davis, Wis. Kluczynski Rooney, Pa.
de la Garza Koch Rose
Dellenback Kuykendr.11 Rosenthal
Donholm Kyros Rostenkowski
Donuts Landgreloe Roush
Derwinski Latta Rousselot
Devine Lehman Roy
Dickinson Lent Runnels
D,ggs Litton Ruppe
Dingell Long, La. Ruth
Donohue Long, Md. St Germain
Dorn Lott Sandman
Downing LW an Sarasiia
Duncan McClory Sarbanes
di Pont McCloskey Satterfield
Richardt McCollis,:er Schroeder
Edwards, Ala. McCormack Sebelius
Eilberg McDade Shoup
Erlenborn McEwen Shuster
E -.ch McFall Sikes
Fl,hleman McKay Slack
Evans, Colo, McKinney Smith, Iowa
Fascell McSpadden Smith, N.Y.
Fndley Macdonald Snyder
Fish ? Madden Spence
Fisher Madigan Stanton,
Flood Mahon J. William
Flowers /Unary Stanton,
Flynt Mann James V.
Foley Maraziti Steed
Ford, Martin, B.C. Steele
William D. Mathias, Calif. Steelman
Fountain Mathis, Ga. Steiger, Wis.
Frenzel Matsunaga Stratton
F rey Mayne Stuckey
I. roehlich Mazzoli Studds
1. aqua !deeds Sullivan
Gaydos Melcher Symington
Gettys ldezvinsky Symms
Giaimo Milford Taylor, N.C.
Gibbons Miller Teague, Calif.
Oilman Minish Teague, Tex,
Ginn . Mink Thomson, Wis.
Goldwater Minshall . Ohio Thone
( c,rizal ez Mitchell, N.Y. Thornton
(loodling Mizell Tiernan
Grasso Moakley Towel', Nev.
Green, Oreg. ,N10110hax, Treen
Grover Montgon.ery Udall
(Jude :MOOrhes,(1, Ullinan
( lunter Calif. Vander Jagt
Guyer :Moorhead, Pa. Vanik
Haley Morgan Waggonner
1.amilton Murphy, Ill. Wampler
Hammer- Murphy, N.Y. Ware
schmidt Myers Whalen
Hanley Natcher White
Hanrahan "Vadat Whitehurst
Hansen, Idaho Nelsen Whitten
Harsha Nix Widnall
lIastings O'Brien Wiggins
Hays O'Hara Williams
Heckler, Mass. O'Neill Wilson, Bob
Heinz Owens Wilson,
Henderson Parris Charles H.,
Hicks Passman Calif.
Huts Patman Wilson,
Hinshaw Patten Charles, TeL
Hogan Pepper Winn
l 'oilfield Perkins Wolff
1-folt Pettis ? Wright
lIorton Peyser Wyatt
I loaner Pickle Wydler
foward Pike Wylie
?Tuber Poage Wyman
Hudnut Powell, Ohio Yates
' fungate Preyer Yatron
)iunt Price, Ill. Young, Alaska
,Iutchinson Price, 'I: x. Young, Fla.
chord Pritchard Young, Dl.
Johnson, Calif. Quie Young, S.C.
,rohnson, Colo. Quillen Zablocki
,Johnson. Pa. Randall Zion
,tones, Ala. Regula
Jones, N.C. Rinaldo
NOES-32
kbzug Fraser Rangel
Anderson, Green, Pa. Rees
Calif. Gross Reuss
Badillo Hawkins Roybal
.lingham Hechler, W. Va. Seiberling
filhisholm Helstoski Stark
Clay Holtzman Stokes
Oellums Kastenineier Talcott
Drinan Mitchell, Md. Thompson, N.J.
alwards, Calif. Mosher Waldie
Forsythe Obey Young, Ga.
NOT VOTIN(I-64
Alexander
Anderson, Ill.
Andrews,
N. Dak.
Mends
Aspin
Belling
Brooks
Burke, Calif.
Burton -
Carey, N.Y.
Clancy
Clausen,
Don H.
Collins, Ill.
Conyers
Delaney
Dent
Dulski
Evins, Tenn.
Frelinghuysen
Fulton
Gray Reid
Griffiths Rhodes
Gubser Riegle
Hanna Rooney, N.Y.
Hansen, Wall. Ryan
Harrington Scherle
Harvey Schneebeli
Hebert Shipley
Jarman Shriver
Keating Sisk
Landrum Skubitz
Leggett Staggers
Mailliard Steiger, Ariz.
Martin, Nebr.. 'Stephens
Metcalfe Stubblefield
Michel Taylor, Mo.
Mills, Ark. Van Deerlin
Moss Veysey
Nichols Vigorito
Podell Walsh
Railsback Young, Tex,
Rarick Zwach
So the conference report was agreed
to.
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Hebert for, with Mr. Alatcalfe against.
Mr, Podell :!or, with Mr. Conyers against.
Mr. Dent for, with Mrs Collins of Illinois
against.
Mr. Rooney of New York for, with Mr.
Riegle agains';,
Mr. Rhodes for, with Mr. Harrington
against.
Until further notice:
Mr. Brooks with Mr. Gray.
Mr. Rarick with Mr. Y Yung of Tema.
Mr. Nichols with Mr. Jarman.
Mr. Moss with Mr. Ws: sh.
Mr. Carey of New York with Mrs. Burke of
Camlirfo.rBn
uiar.ton with Mr 'Paylor of Missouri.
Mrs. Hansen of Was nington with Mn.
Mends.
Mr. Stubblefield with Mr. Steiger of Ari-
zona.
M. Fulton with Mr. Frolinghuysen.
Mrs. Griffiths with Mr. Andrews of North
Dakota.
Mr. Vigorito with Mr. Skubitz.
Mr. Van Deerlin with Mr. Anderson of
Illinois.
Mr. Stephens with Mr. Scherle.
Mr. Staggers with Mr. Delaney:
Mr. Sisk with Mr. Railsback.
Mr. Shipley with Mr. ("army.
Mr. Ryan with Mr. Mie;iel.
Mr. Hanna with Mr. Shriven
Mr. Alexander with Mr Don H. Clausen.
Mr. Reid with Mr. Scion eebeli.
Mr. Landrum with Mr. Heating.
Mr. Leggett with Mr. Harvey.
Mr. Evins of Tennessee with Mr. Gubser.
Mr. Dulski with Mr'. Mai Ward.
Mr. Mills of Arkansas with Mr. Martin of
Nebraska.
Mr. Aspin with Mr. Zwa::11.
The resift of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
AMENDMENTS IN SAGREEMENT
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report
the first amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read a.s follows:
Senate amendment No. 3: Page 2. line 15,
insert ", of which not bo exceed $9,900,000
shall be transferred to appropriate accounts
'under this head for the fiscal years 1969,
1971, and 1972 but only in such amounts as
are necessary for parnentS to the Internal
Revenue Service for unpaid withholding
taxes, and toe accounts in such fiscal years
shall be adjusted accordingly.".
MOTION OFFERED B,t MR. MANOR
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500260014-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500260014-8
December 20, 1973 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 1182I:
Mr. MAHON moves that the House recede
from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 3 and concur therein.
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report
the next amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 9: Page 6, line 2,
strike out "$1,808,832,000" and insert "$1,-
807,832,000;".
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 9 and concur therein
with an amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed, insert "$1,-
802,832,000".
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report
the next amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 13: Page 6, line 8,
strike out "$6,133,747,000" and insert "$6,-
153,747,000 :"
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 13 and concur therein
with an amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed, insert "$6,-
214,697,000".
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: Page 6, line 18,
insert ": Provided further, That the Secre-
tary of the Army may transfer up to 5 per
centum of the amount of any subdivision of
this appropriation to any other subdivision of
this appropriation, but no subdivision may
thereby be increased by more than 10 per
centum and the Secretary of the Army shall
notify the Congress promptly of all transfers
made pursuant to this authority.
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 matter proposed, insert ":
Provided further, That the Secretary of the
Army may transfer up to 3 per centum of
the amount of any subdivision of this ap-
propriation to any other subdivision of this
appropriation, but no subdivision may there-
by be increased by more than 5 per centum
and the Secretary of the Army shall notify
the Congress promptly of all transfers made
pursuant to this authority.
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report
the next amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 23: Page 7, line 14,
strike out "$6,023,200,000" and insert "$6,013,-
683,000:
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. MAHON
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read az follows:
Mr. MAHON moves that the House recede
from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 23 and concur therein
with an amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed, insert "$6,004,-
950,000".
?
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report
the next amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 26: Page 8, line 4,
strike out the word "more" and insert "less".
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 26 and concur therein.
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report
the next amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 27: Page 8, line 6,
insert "and not less than $359,919,000 shall
be available for the performance of such
work in private shipyards:".
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 27 and concur therein.
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: Page 8, line 12,
insert ": Provided further, That the Secre-
tary of the Navy may transfer up to 5 per
centum of the amount of any subdivisions of
this appropriation to any other subdivision
of this appropriation, but no subdivision may
thereby be increased by more than 10 per
centum and the Secretary of the Navy shall
notify the Congress promptly of all transfers
made pursuant to this authority.
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 ":
Provided further, That the Secretary of the
Navy may transfer up to 3 per centum of the
amount of any subdivision of this appropria-
tion to any other subdivision of this appro-
priation, but no subdivision may thereby be
increased by more than 5 per centum and
the Secretary of the Navy shall notify the
Congress promptly of all transfers made pur-
suant to this authority."
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 9,
after line 7, insert ": Provided further, That
the Secretary of the Navy may transfer up
to 5 per centum of the amount of any sub-
division of this appropriation to any other
subdivision of this appropriation, but no sub-
division may thereby be increased by more
than 10 per centum and the Secretary of the
Navy shall notify the Congress promptly of
all transfers mad y pursuant to this authority.
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 matter proposed, insert ":
Provided further, That the Secretary of the
Navy may transfer up to 3 per centum of
the amount of any subdivision of this appro-
priation to any other subdivision of this
appropriation, but no subdivision may
thereby be increased by more than 5 per
centum and the Secretary of the Navy shall
notify the Congress promptly of all transfers
made pursuant to this authority."
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report
the next amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 35: On page 9, line
18, strike out "$1,124,154,000" and insert in
lieu thereof "$117,192,000".
. 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 35 and concur therein
with an amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed, insert
108,442,000".
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report
the next amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 36: On page 9, line
20, strike out "$1,014,091,000" and insert in
lieu thereof "$1,014,082,000".
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 amendments
of the Senate numbered 36 and concur there-
in with an amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed, insert "$1,-
006,332,000."
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report
the next amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 39: On page 9,
line 23, strike out "82,318,938,000" and insert
In lieu thereof "$2,311,568,000".
"$1,-
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 39 and concur therein
with an amendment as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed, insert "$2,-
304,868,000".
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report
the next amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 44: On page 10, line
7, insert ", to be expended on the approval
or authority of the Secretary of the Air Force,
and payments may be made on his certificate
of necessity for confidential military pur-
poses, and his determination shall be final
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP751300380R000500260014-8
H 11822
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500260014-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE December 20, 197V
and conc:.usive upon the accounting officers
of the Cevernment:".
MOFION OFFERED BY MR, MAHON
Mr. AHON. Mr. Speaker. I offer a
motion.
The Cl.erk read as follows:
Mr. MAHON moves that the House recede
from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 44 and concur therein
with an smendment, as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed, insert to
be expended on the approval or authority of
the Secretary of the Air Force, and peynents
may be made on his certificate of necessity
for confidential military purposes:".
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report
the next amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 45: Page le , line
14, insert ": Provided further, That th Sec-
retary of the Air Force may transfer Up to
5 per centum of the amount of any subdivi-
sion of this appropriation to any other sub-
division of this appropriation, but no sub-
division May thereby be increased by more
than 10 rer centum and the Secretary of the
Air Force shall notify the Congress promptly
of all trensfers made pursuant to this au-
thority.".
MOTION OFFERED BY , MR, MAHONT
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I crTer
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. MAHON moves that the House recede
from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 45 and concur therein
with an amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed. insert
": Provieted further, That the Secretary of
the Air Force may transfer up to 3 per centum
of the amount of any subdivision of this ap-
propriation to any other subdivision of this
appropriation, but no subdivision may there-
by be intireased by more than 5 per centum
and the Secretary of the Air Force shall no-
tify the Congress promptly of all transfers
made pursuant to this authority.".
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will 'report
the nest amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 49: Page 11, line
12, strike "450,859,000" and insert in lieu
thereof "1$448,159,000".
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. MAHON
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I cffer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. M MON moves that the House recede
from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 49 and concur therein
with an amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed, inert
"$446,850,000".
The motion was agreed to.
The 13PEAKER. The Clerk will report
the next amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 50: Page 11, line
13, strike "$1,650,408,000" and insert in lieu
thereof "$1,456,198,000".
MDTTOIR OFFERED BY MR. MAHON
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion,
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Xenon moves that the Home recede
from MI disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 50 and coneer therein
with an aznendneent, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed, insert
"$1,454,1198,000".
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report
the next amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 51: Page 11, line
13, insert. ", to be expended on the approval
or authority of the Secretary of Defense, and
payment may be made on his certificate of
necessity for confidential military purposes,
and his determination shall be final and cen-
ctusive upon the accounting officers of the
Government:
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. MAHON
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I offei.
r otion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. MAHON moves that the House recede
from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 51 and concur therein
with an amendment, w. follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed, insert ", to
he expended on the approval or authority of
the Secretary of Defense, and payment may
to made on his certificate of necessity for
confidential militarypurposes".
The motion. was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report
the next amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 52: Page 11, tine
e3, insert ": Provided further, That the Sec-
retary of Defense may transfer up to a 5 per
t entum at the amount of any subdivision of
this appropriation to any other subdivision
of this appropriation, but no subdivision may
thereby be increased by more than 10 per
enturn and the Secretary of Defense shall
notify the Congress promptly of all transfers
made pursuant to this authority.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. MAHON
Mr. MAHON. Mr, Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. lelerioer moves that the House recede
:from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 52 and concur therein
with an amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed, insert
.7rovided further, That the Secretary of De-
:elle? may transfer up to 3 per centum of the
emount of any subdivision of this appropria-
-don to any other subdivision of this 'wino-
oriation, but no subdivision may thereby be
increased by more than 5 per centum and the
.secretary of Defense shall notify the Con-
gress promptly of all transfers made pursuant
in this authority.".
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report
the next amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 55: Page 13, line 19,
strike "n23,000,000" and insert in lieu there-
of "$222,800,003.
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 55 and concur therein
with an amendment, ex follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed, insert '%K121,-
900,000".
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER The Clerk will report
the next amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 56: Page 14, line
12: Strike "$524,000,000" and insert in lien
thereof "$523,839,000".
MOTIEN OFFERED RI 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 membered 55 and concur therein
'with an ameadment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed. iesett,
"$524.400.000'.
The moticn was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report
the next amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment 53, 58: Page 16, line 9,
insert:
CONTINCENCIE:3, DEFENSE
For emergencies and extraordinary ex-
penses arising in the Department of Defense,
to be expended on the approval or authority
of the Secretary of Defense: and such expenses
may be accoverted for solely on his certificate
that the expenditures wax.,.! necessary for con-
fidential military purposes; $5,000,000: Pro-
vided, That a report of disbursements under
this item of appropriation shall be made
quarterly to Congress.
MOTION OFFERED E!,: MR. MAHON
Mr. MAEON. 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 58 and concur therein
with an amendment, as follows:
In lieu of ,the matter proposed, insert:
CONTINGENCIES. DEFENSE
For emergencies and extraordinary ex-,
penses arising in the DepilEtMellt of Defense,
to be expended on the approval or authority
of the Secretary of Defense and such exe
penses may be accounted for solely on his
certificate that the experditures were neces-
sexy for confidential military purposes;
$5,000,0e0.
The motion was agreA to.
The SPEAKER. The- Clerk will report
the next amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 62: On page 19,
line 14, strife out "$46,100,000 which shall
be derived by transfer from Procurement of
Ammunition, Army 1975/1975'" and insert
in lieu thereof: "8146,000.000, of which $100,-
000,000 shall be derived by transfer from the
Army Stock Fund, aim $46,100,000 which
shall be derived by transfer from 'Procure-
ment of Ammunition, Army, 1975/1975',".
MOTION OFFERED R C MR. MAHON
Mr. MAHON. Mr. f3pe.aker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. MAHON moves that the House recede
from its disagreement te the amendment of
the Senate numbered 62 and concur therein.
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report
the next amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read as foilows:
Senate amendment No. 71: On page 2e,
line 30, strike out "32,692,800,000" and insert
in lieu thereof "$2,470,900,000-.
MOTIEN OFFERED BC MR. MAHON
Mr. MA30N. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follov,Is:
Mr. R.1 A HC N moves that the House recede
from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate .aumbered 71 and concur therein
with an amendment, as follows:
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500260014-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500260014-8
December 20, 197S CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?HOUSE H 11823
In lieu of the sum proposed, insert "$2,-
720,400,000".
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER: The Clerk will report
the next amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 75: On page 26,
line 14, strike out "$1,605,600,000" and insert
in lieu thereof "$1,589,300,000".
MOTION OFFERED 13Y 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 75 and concur there-
in with an amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed, insert
"$1,542,700,000".
The motion was agreed to..
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report
the next amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 78: On page 27, line
18, insert "and in addition, $3,500,000 to be
derived by transfer from 'Research, De-
velopment, Test, and Evaluation, Army,
1973/1974',".
MOTION OFFERED DE 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 '78 and concur
therein,
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report
the next amendment In disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 79: On page 28, line
2, strike out "$2,616,065,000" and insert in
lieu thereof "$2,647,995,000".
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 79 and concur therein
with an amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the sum proposed, insert "$2,-
651,805,000".
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider the votes by
which action Was taken on the confer-
ence report and the several motions was
laid on the table.
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I would
like to amend the unanimous-consent re-
quest which I made earlier and ask unan-
imous consent that all Members be per-
mitted to have 5 legislative days in which
? to revise and extend-their'remarks on the
conference report.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Texas? :
There was no objection.
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 11771,
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE APPRO-
PRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 1974
Mr. PASSMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to the unanimous-consent request that
was granted yesterday, I call up the con-
ference report on the bill (H.R. 11771)
making appropriations for Foreign As-
sistance and related programs for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, and for
other purposes, and ask unanimous con-
sent 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
Louisiana?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the statement.
(For conference report and statement,
see proceedings of the House of Decem-
ber 19, 1973.)
Mr. PASSMAN (during the reading).
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the further reading of the state-
ment of the managers be dispensed with,
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Louisiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. PASSMAN. Mr. Speaker, in my
considered judgment, this is the best bal-
anced foreign aid bill it has been my
privilege to bring back to this House
since I became chairman 19 years ago.
I am sure that Members would like
to know that the conference report is
$53,478,000 below the House bill that we
passed with a very substantial margin
a few days ago.
The conference report is $1,212,483,000
below the budget request. This is a large
reduction.
There are one or two things I would
like to bring to the attention of the Mem-
bers and that is, in the conference we had
a determined group of conferees on eith-
er side trying to streamline this bill?
not to wreck it, but to streamline it; and
make the administrators just as respon-
sible as could be.
I stated in the committee, and of ne-
cessity I must restate for the record at
this time, that we have actually reduced
the administrative expense of AID far
too low. They just cannot operate the
AID program and administer the pro-
gram with the administrative expenses
we have allowed.
Therefore, I contend that any other
accounts can be used to supplement the
administrative expenses and other op-
erating costs if justified to the Commit-
tee on Appropriations of the House and
the Senate.
This is in keeping with the intent of
the House and the Senate conferees. I
mentioned the Appropriation Commit-
tees, because the authorizing committees
had previously authorized a higher fig-
ure for administrative expenses than
that agreed upon by the House and the
Senate conferees handling the appro-
priation.
Furthermore, the authorizing legisla-
tion permitted transfers, as mentioned
above. In the conference of December 19,
I stated categorically that we were deny-
ing the administration sufficient funds
for the administrative expenses for the
AID program.
Today I discussed this matter again
with Senator INOUYE, and it is my un-
derstanding he concurs with my views,
that if the AID Agency can establish that
the amount appropriated is insufficient
and can justify additional funds for the
administrative expense by transfer, that
he would have no quarrel with this pro-
cedure.
Now, there is one other significant
change that we made in conference, and
that is, with respect to the aid for Israel.
Members may recall that the House bill
called for $2.2 billion in emergency mili-
tary assistance for Israel, with $1 bil-
lion being on a grant basis. After, I am
assured, lolig deliberations in the other
body, the Senate provided that $1.5 bil-
lion should be on a grant basis and the
other $700 million on credit terms that
can be worked out according to the leg-
islation on the books.
I certainly supported this amendment
in conference, because when I look at
the amount of military assistance we
have given world-wide and I look at the
very fact that we have never given Israel
any grant military assistance as such, I
think this is fair compromise. We have
made sales to Israel and the record in-
dicates they have never been delinquent
on the repayment of any of their obliga-
tions covering these credits; so the con-
ference committee went along with this
proposal.
I thought we were right, because this
nation is, indeed, an ally of the United
States.
As I said when I reported the bill, and
I repeat here, if Israel should go down
the drain, that in my considered judg-
ment it is just a matter of time until all
the Arab nations, including 150 million
people, would come under the domina-
tion of the Russians. With that would
go a great portion of the Mediterranean,
the Suez Canal, and 70 percent of the
known oil reserves of the world.
So in reality, in providing ample mili-
tary assistance for Israel, I think we are
putting an umbrella over the entire Arab
world and in due time, I believe it would
be accepted on that basis.
At this time I will yield to the distin-
guished gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. SHUSTER).
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, did I un-
deistand the gentleman to say a few
moments ago that in his view there is an
adequate funding for the administration
of the AID programs? Because of that
aid, the administrator would be able to
take moneys from other areas of appro-
riations to use in the administration of
the program?
Mr. PASSMAN. The authorizing legis-
lation had transfer authority, but in
conference we locked it up to where they
could not draw on other funds if they
should become short. Knowing some-
thing about what is costs to administer
the program, I felt we had cut it too
low, that we had locked them out and
they would not be able to administer
the program on the amount of funds we
had provided in conference.
I further stated, and I think that is
the way the record reads, at a subsequent
date if and when they feel that they
must have additional funds, then they
must be justified by the Appropriations
Committees of the Congress. If they can
justify additional funds, the committee
may draw those funds from other
sources.
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500260014-8
7 11824 Approved For ReleemermosvogT:A?Ililgi7153003EV:Z0s0E05002600D14e-c8.07,
ber 20, 1973
Mr. SHUSTER. But, they have already
justified those to the Committees of the
Congret*, and this House would not have
an opportunity to vote on the matter, is
that correct?
Mr. EASSMAN. Not on that par; of it.
It is very minor, compared with the ever-
all bill, and I think the members of the
confereece agree with me that we have
cut it to the extent that they jus can-
not admintster the program. I am not a
foreign aid enthusiast, but I am a realist,
and we cannot expect them to adminis-
ter the program unless they get sufficient
administrative funds.
I think the case is well made, and I am
sure that when they come berme the
Congress, they will have to hay( very
good justifications because Senator
INOUYE is just as determined as I am
that we should streamline the Program.
If I may return briefly to the question
of Israel, I would not want to mislead
the Merebers. We also provided $50 mil-
lion in the bill for Israel under support-
ing assistance; $36,500,000 for the So-
viet Jewish refugees, and $300 minion
for military -credit sales. So, all in all,
Mr. Speaker, may I repeat that I think
this is a 'well balanced bill. The conferees
worked very hard to balance the bill out,
to bring a conference report back which
the Members could support.
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. PASSMAN. I yield to the gentle-
man from Illinois.
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Speaker, I Amulet
like to craw the attention of the distin-
guished chairman of the subcommittee
to page 11 of the report, amendme at 44.
It has laaguage that is unusual, not with-
out pretedent put nevertheless unisual.
It makes the availability of funds for
Israel cantingent upon the enactment
of authorizing legislation.
Mr. PASSMAN. That is correct, and
the leg:is/atm& is on the Senate tic or at
this time, and it is my understanding,
and we were assured yesterday be the
conferees from the Senate, that this leg-
islation would be enacted into law.
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Speaker, the rea-
son I draw the gentleman's attention to
this language is in the hope that a
clarification can be made in the event
that the authorizing legislation has a
figure in it lower than the amount au-
thorized to be appropriated by this con-
ference report.
Mr. PASSMAN. Mr. Speaker, may I
respond to the gentleman? If the House
and the Senate voted $2,200,000,000, it
is locked in at that figure. The only ques-
tion is as to whether or not we have an
authorization bill. If we do not get an
authorization bill, of course, none of the
funds can be spent.
Mr. FINDLEY. But suppose the au-
thorization bill in its final form as signed
by the President has a figure, let us say,
of $1 billion as opposed to $2.2 billion.
Which will be the limit on appropria-
tions?
I raise that question because ir the
normal rationale of our legislative proc-
esses, the authorization figure is a limita-
tion on the Congress, not on the execu-
tive branch.
So, if the limitation placed in the au-
thorization bill is lower than that in this
conference report? ?
Mr. PASSMAN. Mr. Speaker, inasteuch
as we waive the provision in the bill and
the House bill was handled by rule on
this floor, then of course we would have
to abide by whatevar is in the authoriz-
mg legislation. because we agreed in con-
erence that we woeld have to abide by
the authorization bill. If they cut the au-
thorization till to $200 to Israel, then
*1200 is exactly what they will get. They
will never do that, though; they will
sever go that low.
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr Speaker, my second
euestion?and I am glad to have that
ilarification--there is also a prove-eon
.:n it which purport; to establish a limit
to grants considerebly higher in the
louse version.
Mr. PASSMAN. No, it does not say
'hat. It says, "not more than" so much
will be available for grants. I think I hat
.s the way it reads.
Mr. FINDLEY. There is a limitation on
grants of $1.5 billion, as proposed by the
;3enate, instead of $e billion, as proposed
by the House.
Now, here again, let us speculate and
assume that the authorizing language
holds to the lower figure.
Mr. PASSMAN. Then we would hav-s to
abide by the lower figure.
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank
the gentleman for his clarification.
Mr. -GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the
eentleman yield?
Mr. PASSMAN. I yield to the gentle-
man from Iowa for a question.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentleman for yielding.
I believe the gentlienan said something
ebout $700 million being subject to
terms and conditions. What kind of
terms and what kind of conditions are
see talking about?
Mr. PASSMAN. Under the regular
military credit sales program, as I un-
cierstand it, 10 years is the maximum
length of the credits at the ongoing rate
cf interest. Let me just refer to the re-
port and see if there has been any mod-
ii.cations in that.
The House committee in reporting this
till out, on a motion made by my good
friend, the gentlemen from Massachu-
setts (Mr. Coemz), agreed that we ex-
tend the terms to Israel to 25 years, and
let me say to the gentleman that I sup-
ported it, because around the world we
will find that many nations, conducting
their business, even for commodities, are
going up to 25 years. I think it watt a
good motion, and I hope it can soon be
put into effect
The report language says that in view
of the predicted economic difficulties of
the State of Israel, I he committee nae-
ommends a maximum credit repayment
period of 25 years for that nation.
I hope that can be implemented fully
S) that it may be carried out.
Mr. GROSS. Does that provide a grace
period, 10 years with no interest?
Mr. PASSMAN. No, There is no con-
e ission marked out itS such in this bilk
Mr. GROSS. But it is a 25-year loan;
is that right?
Mr. PASSMAN. It can go up to 25
Mr. GROSS. It can go up to 25 years.
Mr. Speaker, I will ask the gentleman,
is it not trie that Israel owes the United
States $1 billion as of sow?
Mr. PASSMAN. Mr Speaker, I do net
know just what the to al indebtedness is.
I can state to the gentleman that over
a period of yrswe n ado military loans
to Israel :for minter:- equipment. The
terms have been lowee in some instance,
but they have never Leen delinquent on
one dollar.
I checked the figures recently, and
found they paid $218 million to the
United States on their indebtedness up
to last year.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I misspoke
myself. I said, "As of now." They owed
us $1 billion before the war broke out in
the Middle East; is thet not correct?
Mr. PASSMAN. My guess is that it is
even greater than $1 Lennon.
Mr. GROSS. It is reater than that
amount now, that is for sure.
Mr. PASSMAN. They have been able
to pay their indebtedness up-to-date.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has a right
to be critical of this, but I will tell the
gentleman that we hieve a true ally in
Israel, and if we ever let Israel go down
the drain, we will find that 150 minion
Arabs and all of the Arabian nations
will come under the domination of the
Soviets and Soviet Rue da will gain all of
those oil reserves, as well as the Suez
Canal.
Mr. GROSS. That is, of course, an as-
sumption made by the gentleman. He is
entitled to his opinion concerning what
will happen, and I an entitled to ray
opinion concerning whet will happen.
Mr. PAIMAN. It is only an assump-
tion on the gentlemae's part, and it is
based on observation.
Mr. GROSS. The gentleman does not
have a scintilla of evi'lence to back up
what he says.
Mr. PASSMAN. The gentleman from
Iowa and I do have a lot cif fun arguing
about these things.
Perhaps I should simply wish the gen-
tleman a Merry Christmas and termi-
nate the discussion.
Mr. GROSS. I did not think the gentle-
man would want to continue it very long.
Mr. PASSMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank
the gentleman, if that is the way he
wishes to leave it.
Mr. LONG of Maryland. Mr. Speaker,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PASEMAN. I elf Id to the gentle-
man from Maryland fat a question.
Mr. LONG of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I
thank the gentleman fcr yielding.
The gentleman from -iiotrisiana feels as
I do, am I correct, that it is very impor-
tant that 70 percent of the world's oil
supply should not fall under the control
of Russia or even under the influence of
Russia; is that not so?
Mr. PASSMAN. Mr. Speaker, let me
say that I have led tile fight for the
funds for Israel. Of course it is. Important
to keep the oil supplies free from Russian
domination.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Sieeaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500260014-8
,
ipzproved FivaenesgaR8Z3WEEMDP7M3pRRO00500260014-8
December 20, s M25
original Senate amendment, under the
special responsibilities of the Secretary.
WELFARE OECIPIENTS
Mr, President, I was pleased that we
were able to reach agreement with the
House on language in the joint explana-
tory statement with regard to special
consideration for welfare recipients in
filling EEA jobs. I had authored a pro-
vision on the Senate floor to the S. 1560,
which provided for due consideration for
welfare recipients in filling EEA jobs,
but I believe the joint statement lan-
guage adequately addresses my concern.
It states:
The Senate amendment requires that due
consideration be given to the employment of
welfare recipients. The House amendment
has no comparable provision. The Senate
recedes, but in the understanding .that wel-
fare recipients are eligible for consideration
for employment, and may be eligible for spe-
cial consideration under paragraph 7 of sec-
tion 205.
INFORMATION FOR BILINGUAL PERSONS
While a bilingual information provi-
sion I authored in S. 1560 as adopted by
the Senate mandating the provision of
Information in appropriate areas regard-
ing public service job availability for in-
dividuals of limited English-speaking
ability in their primary language was
not specifically retained in the confer-
ence report.
I believe several other provisions of the
conference report express the intention
of the Congress in that regard, particu-
larly sections 105(a) (1) (D) , 105(a) (2) ,
105(a) (3) (A), 107(a) (1) (A) (vi), 104,
305(b) (B) , and, with particular direct
impact for title II public service jobs pro-
grams, section 209(2) of the bill.
TITLE I?COMPREIIEIsTSIVE MANPOWER SERVICES
PRIME SPONSORS
Mr. President, both the House and
Senate bills recognized the overwhelm-
ing argument for decentralization of
manpower programs. Throughout the
last several years that I have worked on
this legislation, I have heard inumera-
ble witnesses urge that local communi-
ties be free to design and operate their
own Manpower programs within a de-
centralized manpower system. There are
presently over 10,000 separate contracts
which are administered .by the Depart-
ment of Labor, under the Economic Op-
portunity Act of 1964 and the Manpower
Development and Training Act of 1962.
Local, officials were adamant that this
new legislation not make them subordi-
nate to a system operated, basically, by
the 50 Governors. I believe the confer-
ence report has fully and successfully
reconciled all these concerns.
In the Sm.-late version of S. 1559, I
authored a ifrovision?identical to one
I authored in 1970 and which was re-
tained in the vetoed bill sent to the
President that -year?which provided,
that, when two units of general purpose
government both qualified with regard to
population as prime sponsors, such as a
city within a county in which both the
ity and the county qualified by popula-
% ion, the Secretary was directed to
esignate to serve as prime sponsor for
the common area, the unit which could
more effectively carry out the respon-
sibilities of a prime sponsor under the
act. I saw this as a mechanism to limit
unnecessary and duplicative program
administrators?thereby enabling more
Federal dollars to go into jobs and job
training?and a way of maximizing the
use of experienced program sponsors.
Unfortunately, this time the House
conferees were unwilling to accept any
such provision, nor would they accept a
modification I offered to provide that
In limited exceptional circumstances,
where the larger unit of government
containing a smaller unit?both with
an eligible population?manifested a
"clearly superior" capability for carrying
out the purposes of the act, the Secre-
tary could designate the large unit as
the prime sponsor.
I believe that this modification would
have resulted in more effective program
administration. However, I am hopeful
that the Secretary will fully utilize his
authority under section 103(b) ?the pro-
vision which reserves not more than 5
percent of the appropriated funds to
the Secretary to encourage voluntary
combinations of units of government as
described in section 102(3)?to urge such
combinations. And I urge Governors to
make recommendations for such com-
binations to the Secretary inappropriate
situations as they are entitled to do under
the conference provision.
It should be stressed, Mr. President,
that this provision is applicable not only
to contiguous cities or counties, but to
cities and counties in situations such as
I just described. I would, thus, very
strongly urge the Secretary to urge com-
binations in such situations before des-
ignating as prime sponsor the smaller
unit submitting or approvable compre-
hensive manpower plan, because I sin-
cerely believe that such combinations can
result, in many instances, in more effec-
tive, economical, and efficient programs.
An example of the type of situation
where I think the Secretary could effec-
tively foster such a combination is in
Alameda County, Calif.
In Alameda County, there are several
communities which will qualify as prime
sponsors under the 100,000 population
requirements of the conference report?
Berkeley, Oakland, and Hayward, for
example. The county, in this instance,
has had a long history of program re-
sponsibility in the manpower area, and
up until very recently, administered the
manpower programs for all the cities in
the county. It would be foolish, I think,
to now turn around and designate four
prime sponsors where there previously
had been only one?necessitating ex-
penditures for four separate program
administrations and so forth.
I would hope, Mr. President, that in
areas such as this, the Secretary would
use his 103(b) incentive money to en-
courage cities and counties to form a
combination prime sponsorship?thereby
eliminating unnecessary duplication and
waste.
LINKS TO REAL JOBS
Mr. President, the biggest single fail-
ing of adult manpower training programs
in the past has been the failure, with the
obvious exception of Emergency Employ-
ment Act programs?to provide strong
linkages to real jobs. For too often man-
power trainees have been funneled from
one "training" program to another.
Because I was so concerned about this:
I offered two amendments to the Senate
bill?adopted in committee and included
in the Senate version of S. 1559 that went
to conference, first, providing priority
in funding for training programs in
which strong job commitments had been
obtained by the prime sponsors, and, sec-
ond, requiring the prime sponsor to follow
up on such commitments by conditioning
future funding on the ability of the spon-
sor to demonstrate that it had done
everything possible to place the success-
ful trainee in such employment or itself
to employ the trainee.
After much discussion, Mr. President, I
believe we were able to work out a min-
imally acceptable oompromise requiring
that training and OJT programs, wher-
ever possible, lead to meaningful jobs at
decent wages. I hope the Secretary will
Implement this provision in a most ag-
gressive fashion. The joint explanator
statement clearly reflects the very strong
concern of the conferees in this regard.
It states:
The Senate amendment requires the estab-
lishment of program goals, a description of
employment and training needs and that pri-
ority be given to programs where public and
private employers make employment com-
mitments to prospective participants. The
House amendment also requires that prime
sponsors receiving funds under title II, as
well as this title, integrate their title II pro-
grams with activities financed under title
I. The conference compromise adopts the
provisions of the House amendment, as well
as the provisions of the Senate amendment
on establishing goals and a provision re-
quiring, wherever possible, that training lead
to employment providing economic self-
sufficiency.
LABOR MARKET INFORMATION AND COMPUTER
JOB BANK
Mr. President, I was very pleased that
the conference report retained the pro-
visions in the Senate bill with respect to
the development of more adequate labor
market information. This provision de-
rives from a provision I originally au-
thored in S. 3311 in the 92d Congress,
which I have reintroduced again this year
as S. 793, the proposed "Public Service
Employment Act of 1973." In order to as-
sure implementation of this important
provision, I had added in committee a
provision mandating a set-aside of funds
to begin the difficult and detailed task
outlined in the Senate provision. This set-
aside was retained in section 312 of the
conference report.
Also contained in section 312 of the
conference bill, is a provision directing
the Secretary to establish a computerized
job bank and matching system?utilizing
the job listing requirements of section
2012(a) of title 38 of -the United States
Code, which I described earlier in my
remarks?and the title 38 linkup part
which I had authored in the Senate bill.
BILINGUAL MANPOWER PEOGRAMS
Mr. President, I would like to express
my appreciation for the able assistance
of Congressman BADILLO in helping me
effect a good compromise between the
two bills with regard to the required com-
ponents of manpower and employment
programs for limited English-speaking
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500260014-8
23.626
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500260014-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE December 20, 1973
people under the new act. The Congress-
man had authored a provision in the
House bill similar in intent to a provision
I had authored in the Senate bill, specify-
ing the component; of such bilingual-
type programs.
The joint explanatory statement, dis-
cusses this provision as follows:
The Senate amendment requires the Secre-
tary to establish procedures to insure that
programs for person; of limited English
speaking ability provide such training and
supportive services as will increase employ-
ment and training opportunities for them.
These procedures.,shall also provide that pro-
grams for such people emphasize occupations
that do not require proficiency in Er,glish,
emphasize technical English vocabular;, nec-
essary fcr specific occupations, train bi-
lingual instructors and otherwise establish,
maintain and operate programs to ineriease
employment and advancement opportunities
for persons of limited English speaking abil-
ity. The liouse amendment provides that in
carrying out his special responsibilities the
Secretary shall establish procedures to in-
sure that programs for such persons will in-
crease their employment and training op-
portunities. The Senate receded in light of
the agreement in section 301 (b) .
Basically, what the conference provi-
sion represents in 301(b) are the crucial
components of the Senate provision?
including, provision of job training serv-
ices at alternative times, so that pres-
ently employed individual would have an
opportunity to learn new skills; pro-
grams designed to increase the promo-
tional opportunities of limited English-
speaking people; programs teaching
skills which do not require a high pro-
ficiency in English; programs teaching
specific English technical vocabulary
necessary to the performance of certain
occupations; and the conduct in the
primary language of participants of pro-
grams themselves, and the provision of
information about jobs and job training
programs, including conduct of outreach
programs to enroll those needing such
programs, using the participants' pri-
mary language.
Mr. President, I think we have a good
provision here, and I would hope that
the Secretary will carry out his respon-
sibilities under it very vigorously, and
promote new and innovative bilingual
manpower and employment programs
both as national emphasis programs,
and to be carried out by title I prime
sponsors and title II eligible applicants.
COMMUNITY -BASED 0505I1'S AND LOC? L
MANPOWER COUNCILS
Mr. President, in our haste to decen-
tralize the manpower program bueeau-
cracy, I felt it was imperative that we
ensure a continuing role for programs
and groups which have already demon-
strated their effectiveness, and insure
that the poverty community had a real
voice in program decisionrnaking.
I was, consequently, very gratified_ that
we retained in the conference bill provi-
sion to require that the Secretary termi-
nate financial assistance to prime spon-
sors, after full opportunity for a hearing,
"failing to serve equitably the significant
segments of the population" or "failing
to give due consideration to funding pro-
grams of demonstrated effectiveness."
We were also able to agree on a defi-
nition of "community-based organize-
tions" which includes an exemplification
of several programs which I believe are
"of delnonstrated effectiveness"?includ-
ing jobs for progress ?SER?a program
Which I believe should be retained in the
many communities it has so effectively
served, and opportunities industrializa-
tion centers and community action ac-
tions, also of long experience in carry-
ing out manpower and training pro-
grams.
Finally, in this same connection, after
long debate the House conferees accepted
a compromise between versions which I
and Congressman STH GER offered to con-
tinue the Senate bill requirement of
mandatory local manpower advisory
councils appropriately representative of
local poverty, community-based, labor
and business groups, and other appro-
triate groups and interests. The Senate
1.111 included provisions I authored spe-
cifically including representatives of vet-
erans on the local councils, as well as on
the State councils to be established un-
(ler section 107(a) (1), and on the Na-
tional Manpower Policy Commission, es-
tablished under section 105(a) (1) , of the
conference report. The exclusion of this
seecification was in no way intended to
aiscourage such veterans representation
in these councils, which would obviously
be appropriate given the great stress
Placed on the employment and training
reeds of veterans throughout the con-
ference report, which I discussed earlier.
CONCLUSION
Mr. President, we have a bill. We have
a good bill. It is one which has been care-
fully scrutinized. I urge my colleagues to
support the conference report?so that
we may get on with this so desperately
needed manpower program reform.
Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. President, I
want to commend the Senator from Wis-
consin (Mr. NaLsoiv) and the Senator
from New York (Mr. Jams), the chair-
man and ranking minority members of
the Manpower Subcommittee of the
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare
on which I serve for the excellent job
they have done on this very important
legislation. I have had the privilege of
working with them from the inception
of the bill in subcommittee through con-
ference and know firsthand of the tre-
mendous effort and leadership they have
shown in producing a bill which Will
go a long way toward helping the unem-
ployed and underemployed in our Nation.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I previously
wrote the distinguished senior Senator
from New York, asking for his support
and assistance in resolving the langua
cf the Comprehensive Manpower Act o
1973 in conference so that a local gen-
eral government such as Wilmington,
with a population of less than 100,000,
may qualify as a prime sponsor for com-
prehensive manpower programs. Senator
JAVITS has been most gracious and help-
ful in this regard. I thank him for his
efforts.
Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, I am
particularly concerned with section 3 of
" the Comprehensive Employment and
Training Act of 1973 as reported by the
conference committee. This section deals
with the transition from existing man-
power programs under the Manpower
Development and Training Act and the
Economic Opportunity Act to those
under the proposed?Comprehensive Em-
ployment and Training Act.
I interpret section 3 of the bill as re-
ported by the conference to mean that
there will be no lessening of manpower
training efforts as we phase from the old
program authority into the new com-
prehensive ' program. I take section 3 to
mean that under the authority existing
prior to June 30, 1973, programs may
continue to be funded up to midnight
June 30, 1914, and that they may there-
after run their full and formal course.
I also assume that with the language of
section 3, my colleagues on the confer-
ence committee mean to protect the Fed-
eral invesment made in programs under
the old manpower authority by assuring
that there will be adequate staff in
appropriate agencies-- the State depart-
ments of education, for example?to
assure that ongoing programs will be
adequately Jnonitored and that there will
be sufficient program staff to insure the
efficient phase-down In programs under
the old authority into that of the new.
Fortunately through the past 10 years
of program operations under the MDTA,
Indiana has developed a fine manpower
capability. 'This resource will, I am sure,
be invalualik as we phase into and then
get the new comprenensive program
going. At the present time the State
Board of Vccational and Technical Edu-
cation is responsible for institutional
manpower training. The board is over-
seeing some $3.2 million in manpower
training programs including millions of
dollars in valuable training equipment.
My purpose in seeking clarification of
section 3 is simply this: In Indiana
and throughout the Nation we have a
sizable investment of federally funded
resources which were generated under
1VIDTA and EOA. These resources are
curently being used to provide manpower
training services. I seek reassurance that
it is the intent of the conferees that these
resources will be fully used, with no, fall-
back from &cal year 1974 training plans,
up to July 1, 1974. I further seek reassur-
ance from the conferees that there will he
no decrease in the manpower training
effort during the time required for phras-
ing into the new program under the Com-
prehensive Employment and Training
Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
t o is on agreeing to the conference
rt.
he report was agreed to. .
PARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPRO-
PRIATION BILL?CONFERENCE
REPORT
Mr. MANSFIEL1V'Mr. President, I
submit kreatoulAtCerie?ectnunittee of con-
ference:on H.R. 11575, And ask for its
inunedra4 cone.ra. . Oen.
The P/tESMING OleriCER. The re-
port will be stated by title.
The legislative clearly read as follows:
The committee of conference on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
11575) making appropriations for the De-
partment of Defense for the fiscal year end-
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500260014-8
Amryved For EteimisOsOftilikNy ity&til:615.1ggiffili000500260014-8
Deadner 20, S 23627
ing June 30, 1974, and for other purposes,
having met, after full and free conference,
have agreed to recommend and do recom-
mend to their respective Houses this report,
signed by a majority of the conferees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the consideration of the con-
ference report?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the report.
(The conference report is printed in
the House proceedings of the CONGRES-
SIONAL RECORD of December 19, 1973, at
pp. 1.111676-H11677.)
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, on
Tuesday, December 18, the conferees on
the Department of Defense appropriation
bill for fiscal year 1974, after 7 hours of
deliberation, reached agreement on the
differences between the two Houses.
The total amount agreed to was $73,-
714,930,000. This is 43,535,793,000 under
the budget. If transfers are excluded,
the net reduction is $3,032,493,000 under
the budget.
This is the goal we sought earlier this
year when the Defense Subcommittee
set a tentative target figure for defense
at $3 billion under the budget. I believe
that we have achieved this ceiling with-
out harm to either the ongoing opera-
tions of the military services or detri-
ment to future preparedness.
The conferencq agreement figure is
$386-,379,000 under the House bill and
$450,303,000 over the Senate bill. It is
$1,669,643,000 under the appropriation
for fiscal year 1973.
The conference was completely free
with every difference carefully consid-
ered and some issues vigorously con-
tested. Since there are hundreds of in-
dividual items involved., I believe the
conferees on the part of the House and
of the Senate acted with proper expedi-
tion and good judgment.
The following are some of the major
Items which were agreeti to in confer-
ence:
MILITARY ASSISTANCE SERVICE FUNDED SUPPORT
TO LAOS AND SOUTH VIETNAM
The House bill included $1,008,500,000
while the Senate bill provided $650,000,-
000. The conferees agreed on a figure of
$900,000,000 for military support to the
two countries. Under the provisions of
the continuing resolution there have
been obligations of $470 million through
December 14. If the Senate figure of $650
million were provided, the assistance
would have terminated prior to the end
of February 1974, assuming obligation of
funds at the same rate as has occurred
since the beginning of the fiscal year.
The conference agreement of $900 mil-
lion will result in some reduction of as-
sistance to Laos and Vietnam during the
remainder of the fiscal year yet permit
the program to continue.
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY
The conferees agreed to the Senate
reduction of $10.5 million in the A-4M
Skyhawk aircraft program which buys
20 aircraft instead of the 24 funded in
the House bill. The conference agreed
to a Senate reduction of $11 million in
the A-6E Intruder aircraft program,
which reduces the fiscal year 1974 buy
from 15 to 13 aircraft. The conference
agreed to the Senate reduction of $22
million in the A-7E Corsair II aircraft
program, reducing the number of air-
craft to be procured from 42 to 30. The
conferees also agreed to provide the full
amount of the budget request, $401,400,-
000, to procure 45 S-3A Viking aircraft.
This is an increase of $66 million over
the Senate allowance, which provided
funds to purchase 36 aircraft.
WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY
The Senate had restored the House
reduction of $14.1 million for advance
procurement of the Harpoon missile. The
conference agreed to restore the funds
to the "Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation, Navy" appropriation. The
conferees agreed to the House denial of
$12.4 million for the AGM-83A Bulldog
missile. The House provided $26.6 mil-
lion for the fleet satellite communica-
tions system, while the Senate included
$44.1 million for the program. The con-
ference agreed on $36.6 million for this
communications system.
SEA CONTROL SHIP
The conference agreed to provide $29.3
million in advance procurement funding
for the sea control ship as proposed by
the Senate. The House had provided no
funds. The conferees further agreed
that no funds are to be obligated for the
program pending completion of a desig-
nated study and until specific written
approval has been granted by each Ap-
propriations Committee.
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
The conference agreed to provide $70.1
million for the procurement of 24 A-7D
Corsair II aircraft as proposed by the
Senate and $151.6 million for 12 F-111F
aircraft as proposed by the House. The
House provided $764 million for 68 F-15
aircraft while the Senate included $714
million for 60 aircraft. The conference
agreed to provide $736 million to procure
62 F-15 aircraft. The conference agreed
to provide $7.6 million for the E-3A
air-
borne warning and control system air-
craft program. The House had provided
no funds while the Senate had included
$11.7 million. The conference agreed to
provide $32.3 million for a fourth E-4A
advanced airborne national command
post aircraft as proposed by the Senate.
The House had included no funds. The
conferees agreed that no further 747
aircraft are to be included in budget re-
quests for the program until the com-
mand-control-communications electron-
ics package has been completely devel-
oped and thoroughly tested.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
The conferees agreed to delete the
$26.2 million requested for the submarine
launched ballistic missile phased array
radar program.
The conference also agreed to provide
$110 million for the site defense pro-
gram. The House had provided no funds,
while the Senate figure was $135 mil-
lion.
The conference restored $22.6 million,
which the Senate had deleted, for the
SAM-D missile program, thus providing
the full amount of the budget request of
$193.8 million.
The House provided no funds for Proj-
ect Sanguine, whereas the Senate bill
included the full budget request of $16.6
million. The conference agreement pro-
vides 48.3 million with a statutory pro-
vision that one of the funds shall be
used for full-scale development.
The House bill did not include funds
for the advanced medium short take off
and landing tra'nsport aircraft. The Sen-
ate provided the full budget request of
$65.2 million. The conference agreement
provides $25 million.
The Senate deleted $10 million from
the A-10 close air support aircraft pro-
gram. The conference agreement re-
stored the $10 million and provides the
full authorization of $107.4 million.
The Senate bill included a general
provision limiting the supply of petro-
leum products to Southeast Asia. The
conference amended the language to
read:
None of the funds contained in this Act
shall be usd to furnish petroleum fuels pro-
duced in the Continental United States to
Southeast Asia for use by non-United States
nationals.
I ask unanimous consent that a tabula-
tion summarizing the action of the
House, Senate, and conference be printed
111 the RECORD.
There being no objection, the table was
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATION, 1974, BILL (H.R. 11575)
Appropriations (by functional title)
? Revised fiscal
year 1974
budget request House allowance Senate allowance
Conference compared with--
Conference Budget
agreement estimate House allowance Senate allowance
TITLE I--MILITARY PERSONNEL
Ml tang personnel, Army
Mil tary personnel, Navy
Md tary personnel, Marine Corps
Md tary personnel, Air Force
Reserve personnel, Army
Reserve personnel, Navy
Reserve personnel, Marine Corps
Reserve personnel, Air Force
National Guard personnel, Army
National Guard personnel, Air Force
Total, title I -Military personnel
7, 211,
400, 000
7,
131, 437,
000
7, 098, 050,
000
7,109, 950, 000 - 101, 450, 000
-21,487,000
+11,900,000
5, 355,
600, 000
5,
281, 995,
000
5, 271, 350,
000
5, 271, 350, 000 -84,250,000
-10, 645, 000
1, 555,
800, 000
1,
549, 452,
000
1, 547, 000,
000
1, 547, 000, 000 -8, 800, 000
-2, 452, 000
6, 932,
500, 000
6,
886, 411,
000
6, 863, 350,
000
6, 863, 350, 000 -69,159,000
-23,061, 000
463,
700, 000
452, 408,
000
452, 408,
000
452, 408, 000 -11, 292, 100
212,
100, 000
209, 403,
000
209, 403,
000
209, 403, 000 -2, 697, 000
67,
500, 000
61, 173,
000
61, 173,
000
61, 173, 000 -6,327,000
139,
300, 000
126,962,
000
126, 962,
000
126, 962, 000 -12,338,000
587,
100, 000
555, 900,
000
555, 900,
000
555, 900, 000 -31, 200, 000
181,
500, 000
177, 500,
000
177, 500,
000
177, 500, 000 -4,000, 001,
22, 706,
500, 000
22,
432, 641,
000
22, 363, 096,
000
22, 374, 996, 000,-331, 504, 000
-57,645,000
+11,900,009
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500260014-8
S 23628
Approved For ReMeitiOsOs1/Sgin: kitaRg75BR48A)0050026B3e1c1,798ber 20r 1.973
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, APPROPRIATION 1974, BILL (H.R. 11575)--Continued
APProPri Aeons (by functional title)
Revised fiscal
year 1974
budget request
House allowance Senate allowance
TIT LE II-RETIRED MILITARY PERSONNEL
Retired pay, del coca.
Dill III-OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Operation and maintenance, Army
Operation and maintenance, Navy
Operation and u7alatenance, Marine Corps .
Operation and maintenance, Air Force
Operation and maintenance, Defenr,e. agencies
Operation and maintenance, Army Reserve_
Operation and maintenance, Navy Reserve _
Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve___.........._t_
Operation and maintenance, Air Foxe Reserve
Operation' end maintenance, Army National Guard
Operation and smintenance, Air National Guard
National Board for the promotion of Rifle Practice
(!laims, Defense_
Contingencies, Defense
Cart at Military Appeals
4,705,900, 000
4, 681, 900,1100
4, 681, 900, 000
6,401, 700, 000
6, 156, 700, 000
417, 000, 000
6,717, 100,000
1, 478, 400, OM
260, 400,000
175, 400,000
11, 400, 0110
227, 600,000
540, 000, 000
524, 500 040
159, 000
49, 100, 000
5,000, 000 .
864, 000
6, 133_747, 000
6, 023, 200, !MO
411, 645, 000
Ii, 532, 100, NO
1650, 408, r100
255, 000, (100
172, 000, 000
11, 000,7100
223, 000,7100
524, 000,1700
518, 000, 000
159, 000
49, 100, 400
864, 300
6, 153, 747, 000
6, 013, 633, 000
410, 645, 000
6, 458, 241, 000
1456, 193 000
253, 900, 000
170, 750, 000
11, 000, 000
222, 800, 000
523, 839, 000
510, 500, 000
159, 000
49, 100, 000
5, 000, 000
864, 000
Total, tile III-Operation and maintenance
22, 965, 323, 900 22,
504, 223, o00
22, 240, 426, 000
TITLE IV- PKOCUREM ENT
Aircraft procuremerit, Army
Transfer from other accounts
Missile procurement, Army
Transfer frown other accounts
Procurement of weapons and tra, eked combat vehicles, Army .... ...- _
Procurement of ammunition, Army
Transfer from other accounts
Other procurement, Army
Transfer from other accounts
Aircraft procurement, Navy
Transfer from other accounts
Weapons proem ement, Navy ....
Shipbuilding and conversion, Navy
Other procurement, Navy
Transfer from other accounts .
Procurement, N arine Corps
Transfer from other accounts
Aircraft procurement, Air Force
Transfer from other accounts
Missile procure tient, Air Force._ ,
Transfer Nana other accounts
Other KC-Amain eat, Air Force_
Transfer from other accounts _
Procurement, Defense agencies
Transfer from other accounts__
Total, title IV-Procurement
Transfer from other accounts__
TITLE V-RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EF ALLIATION
Research, dove opment, test, and evaloation, Ai my_
Transfer from other acceents, .
Research, deve opment, test, and evaluation, Navy_
Research, done eminent, test, and evaluation, Air Force
Research, dune opment, test, and evaluation, Defense agencies
Director of Tea': and Evaluation, Defense_
Total, ti In V - Research, development,,test, and evaluation
Transfer from other accounts_ .a.-
TITLE VI--SPLCIAL FOREIGN CURRENCY PROGRAM
TITLE WI-GENERAL PROVISIONS
Adoitional tran3fer authority, sec. 735
TITLE VW-RELATED AGENCY
Defense Ma nrx wer Cnmmission
New obligation )1 authority
Transfers ions other accounts .....
Total, funding available
Transfer authority
181, 000, 000
569, 500.000
238, OGO, 000
1, 138, 900, 000
551, 900,0410
2, 927, 500, 000
933, 400.000
3, 754, 100, 001)
1, 393, 800, 000
190,000, 000
2, 906, 800, 030
1, 519, 600, 000
2,004, 900, 000
70, 700, 000
139, 400, 000
(21, 400.(100)
514, 600,100
(22, 000, (100)
224, 300, (100
931, 300,1100
(46, 100, (100)
502, 290,1100
(27, 000. IMO)
2, 785, 200, (100
(106, 800. 000)
790, 700, 300
3, 45-3, 800, 300
1, 261, 000, 000
(45, 000. 100)
173, 932, 300
(5, 000, 100)
2,693, 800, 100
(54, 000. 100)
1,371, 500, 100
(30, 000, 000)
1,605, 600 300
(30, 000, )00)
66,000 000
138, 400, 000
(21,400, 000)
525, 100, 000
(22, 000, 000)
224, 300,000
676, 100, 000
(146 100, 000)
460, 590, 000
(39, 504,000)
2, 646, 7001, 000
(106, 800, 000)
834, 700, 000
3, 468, 100, 000
1, 202, 300, 000
(45, 000, 000)
173, 932, 000
(5, OM, 000)
2, 470, 900,000
(54, 000, 000)
I, 395, 800, 000
(30, 00(1, 000)
1, 589, 300, 000
(3(1, 000, 000)
66, 280, GOO
18, 370, 100, 000
_
16, 513, 422 900
(387, 300 300)
15, 872, 502, 000
(499, 800, 000)
2, 095, 200, 000
2, 709, 100. 000
3, 192,0011,800
479, 940,000
24, 600,000
I, 866, 458 000
_
2, 616, 065, 300
2, 998, 000, 000
461, 400 000
24, 600. 000
1, 915, 908, 000
(3, 500, 000)
2, 647, 945, 000
3, 057, 000, 000
457, 900, 000
24, 600, 000
8, 500, 300, GOO
7, 966,523, 000
_
8, 103,353, 000
(3, 500, 000)
2,600,000
2, 600, 000
2, 600, 000
(1, 000, 000, 000)
(500, 000, 000)
(750, 000, 000)
77, 250, 723, COO
77, 250, 723,000
(1, 000, 000, 000)
750, 000
73, 264, 627, 000
(503, 300, 000)
73, 767, 927, 000
(750, 000, 000)
74, 10130?, 000
(387, 300 /00)
74, 488, 609 000
(500, 000, 000)
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, this rep-
resents the best possible compromise be-
tween the defense appropriation bill
passed by the Senate and that of the
House. There was some hard bargaining
and many compromises, but I believe
that even when a cut as deep as $3.5
billion below the budget is made for the
Defense Department, it can.live with it,
and that the research, development and
production of the very necessary :aew,
modern weapons can go forward, I sup-
port the position taken by the distin-
guished Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Mc-
CI, ELLAN) .
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I thank
Conference compared with-
Conference Budget
agreement estimate House allowance Senate allowance
4, 681, 900, 000 -24, 00( , 000
6. 214, 697, OM -147,003 000 -1-80,900,060
6 004, 950, DOD -151758 000 -18, 250, 000
410, 645, 000 --6, 351, 000 -I, 000, 000
6,504. 294,000 -212,801,000 -27,006,000
I, 454, 898,000 -23,509,000 -195, 510, 000
253, 900, 000 --6, 501, 000 -I. 100, 000
170, 750, 000 --4, 651, 000 -1, 250, 000
11, 000, 0110 -4011,000
221, 900, ON --5, 70(?0 -1,107,0410
524, 400, 000 -15,600, 000 +400, 000
514, 250, 000 -10, 250, 000 -3, 750,000
159,000
49, 100, 000
5,000,000 +5, 000, 000
864,000
+60, 950, 000
-8,733,000
+46, 053, 000
-1,2:00, 000
-900, 000
+561, 000
+3, 750, 000
22, 340, 807, 0000 -624,11111,0019 -163,4110,000 +100,381,000
138, 400, 000 -42,6011,000 -1,00), 000
(21, 400, 000) (+21,40(1, 000)
525, 100, 000 -44,4011,600 +10,50,000
(22, 000, 000) (+22,001, 01(0)
224, 300,000 -13,701,000
784, 300,000 -354. 600, 000 -147, 000, 000 +108,200, 000
(146, 100, 000) (+146 I0(,000) (+100,00,, 000)
461, 690, 000 -90,2111,0410 -to, 604, 000 +1,100, GOO
(39, 500,000) (+39, 500,000) (+12, 500, 000)
2, 722, 200,000 -204, 8011, 000 -62,940,000
(106, 800, 000) (+106, KO! 000)
800, 700, 000 -132,703,000 -1-10,6011,0110
7,468 100,000 -286,00), 400 +14,501,000
1, 204, 200, 000 -189,601,000 -56,001,000
(45 OM, 000) (+45,009,000)
173, 932,800 --6,063, 000
(5.000, 000) (+5, 00), ON)
2, 720, 400, 000 -186,403,000 +26, 6071, 000
(54, 000, 000. (-I- 54, 001, 000)
1,393 300,000 -126,301, 000
(30, 000,000.) (+30.001), 000)
7, 542, 700, NO -462, 204), 000 -62,90'), 000
(3(1, 000, 000) (-I-30,00(1, 000)
66,000, 000 -4, 707, 000
+76,1100,000
-34, 000,000
+1 3013, 000
+249, 500, 000
+21, 800, 000
-2, 500,000
-46, 7500, 000
-.NO, 000
.16, 225, 822, 000 -2,144,270,000 -287, 600, 000 +353,120,000
(499, 800, 000) (+499, 803, 000) (+112, UM, ON)

(.912, 100, 000 -103,103,0019 +45, 642, 000 -3, 808,000
(3, 500, 0(10) (+3, 503, OOP) (+3,504,000)......
7, 651, 805, POO -57, 295,000 +55,740,000 +3,860,000
3, 042, 000, 000 -150, 003, 000 +44,004,000 -15,100,000
457, 900, 000 -21,503,000 -3,500,000
24, 600, 000
--?
3, 088, 405, 000 -411,895,000 +121,802,000 -14, 948, 000
, 500, 000) (1-3, 509, 000) (+3, 500 MO)
2,600, 000
(625, 000, 000) (-375,0041,006) (+125,0 0, 000) (-125, 000, 000)
400,000 +400,000
1-400, 000 350, COO
/3, 714, 930, 000 -3, 535,793, 000 -386, 379, 000 +456 303, 000
(503, 300, 000) (+503, 310, 000) (+116 0,0, 000)
74, 218, 230, 000 -3,4132, 493.000_ -275,9/9 000 +450, 303, 060
(625, 000, 000) (-:375, 060, 000) (+125, OL 0, 000) (-1,25, 000, 000)
th e distinguished Set. ators MCCLELLAN
and YOUNG for receding in the confer-
ence to allow the full amount for re-
search and development, in respect to
the A-10 plane which is of great im-
pedance both in a defense sense and to
the manufacturer, Fairchild, in my State,
as it relates to employment, to reminn
in the conference retort as the House
d it.
Although the amount was relatively
so call, to the total ay eropriation, about
$100 million, that roughly 10 percent
made a great difference according to the
analysis and the subiaittal of the con-
tract which I submitted to the conferees
with the support of the local Congress-
man from that particular area.
It is most gratifying that though the
amount is small they were willing to en-
tertain consideration of the matter as an
element in the negotiations with the
House.
Also I wish to thank the committee for
an item which was not in conference but
very important to the area. I refer to
keeping open the Sti Alban's Hospital in
Queens which involves tens of thousands
of veterans being served there, which
was in danger of immediate closing. Now.
we have a chance to save it by getting
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500260014-8
4P` Alart For Nedins2s9RWORTd8AWFIWRAIR000500260014-8
December 20, roved .797,Y Co S 23629
the VA to take it over, or in some other
proper way.
wish again to express my apprecia-
tion to the committee with respect to
Fairchild and the A-10 program. I wish
to name Representative RONCALLO from
that area who worked with me in the
effort to get favorable consideration in
the conference.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I thank the distin-
guished Senator from New York for his
comments.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of
a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk
prooeeded to call the roll.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICtR. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I direct
the attention of the Senator from Arkan-
sas to page 18 of the printed conference
report, near the bottom, the paragraph
which reads:
With respect to the fibcal year 1973 pro-
curement of U-X utility aircraft by the
Arnay and CX-X utility aircraft by the Air
Force, the conferees agreed that the funds
already appropriated, be held in abeyance
until this program is rejustified to Congress.
My question is, is it the understanding
of the Senator from Arkansas, regarding
the action by the conferees, that it does
strike out the money and calls on the
Department of Defense, if it sees fit to
come back and prove its request, if it
has one, for an authorization first, by
the authorization committee?
Mr. McCLET TAN. Well, Mr. President,
the money for that was appropriated in
1973. They were prohibited from spend-
ing it. This provides that until the pro-
gram is rejustified, the Congress?I
would assume that means the present au-
thorization?I do not know how Congress
can demonstrate its justification except
by authorization. I know of no other way
to do it.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator
very much. That is the answer I thought
he would give me, even though we have
not had a conference about this.
Mr. McCLELLAN. / do not know of any
other way Congress can authorize spend-
ing money except by legislation.
Mr. STENNIS. It was suggested to me
that a possible interpretation was it
- could be rejustified by us merely by going
before a committee or something of that
kind, which I do not think is possible.
Mr. McCLELL4N. I would assume
those interested in the program, when
the military defense bill authorization is
tIp in the next session of Congress, if
they were interested in renewing the pro-
gram, would go before the Defense Au-
thorization Committees and justify it,
that it be included in a further authoriza-
tion in the bill, so that the authorization
would be restored.
Mr. STENNIS. Either restored or re-
jected.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Yes. If Congress felt
It justified, they would restore it.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator
very much and compliment him as well
as the Senator from North Dakota (Mr.
Yourrc) for the extraordinary amount of
fine work they have done, day and night,
during this whole year. I know they
started working on this bill last Decem-
ber. I have observed some of it. I have
not been making my contribution to it,
but I know what they have done and the
amazing amount of work they have done.
We are all indebted to them?and so is
the country.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I may say to the
distinguished Senator from Mississippi
that the very thorough and efficient work
of the Armed Services Committee was a
great aid to those of us on the Appropri-
ations Committee, which made it much
easier for us to determine many of these
requests on their merits. We also have
the benefit of the counsel of the distin-
guished Senator from Mississippi (Mr.
STENNIS) as we considered the appropri-
ations. We were very fortunate in that.
While he did not get to contribute as
much and be present in the Appropri-
ations Committee deliberations this year
as much as he normally would, he was
very valuable to us in the conference just
ended, and we appreciate his contribu-
tions there.
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I also wish
to thank the distinguished Senator from
Mississippi for his competence and for
his real contribution in helping develop
this bill. Although he was not able to be
here much of the year, we did consult
with. him often, and he was very helpfill
In the conference, especially on the more
Involved subjects.
Mr. STENNIS. It is a privilege to work
with the Senator from North Dakota and
the Senator from Arkansas.
ENROLLED BILLS PRESENTED
The Secretary of the Senate reported
that on today, December 20, 1973, he pre-
sented to the President of the United
States the following enrolled bills:
S. 1435. An act to reorganize the govern-
mental structure of the District of Colum-
bia, to provide a charter for local govern-
ment in the District of Columbia subject
to acceptance by a majority of the regis-
tered qualified electors in the District of
Columbia, to delegate certain legislative
powers to the local government, to imple-
ment certain recommendations of the Com-
mission on the Organization of the Govern-
ment of the District of Columbia, and for
other purposes;
S. 1529. An act to authorize the Secretary
of the Interior to enter into agreements
with non-Federal agencies for the replace-
ment of the existing American Falls Dam,
Minidoka project, Idaho, arid for other
purposes;
S. 1945. An act to amend the Agricultural
Adjustment Act, as reenacted and amended
by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement
Act of 1937, so as to authorize certain grape-
fruit marketing orders which provide for an
assessment against handlers for the purpose
of financing, a marketing promotion program
to also provide for a credit against such
assessment in the case of handlers who ex-
pend directly for marketing promotion; and
S. 2493. An act to authorize the disposal
of silicon carbide from the national stock-
pile and the supplemental stockpile.
THE REPUBLICAN REPORT
Mr. HUGH SCOTT. Mr. President, it
is customary for the Republican leader
at the end of each session of Congress to
submit to his colleagues a report on what
has .happened during the year. Today I
submit such a report and ask unanimous
consent that it be printed in the RECORD
at the conclusion of my brief remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HUGH SCOTT. Mr. President, I
also ask unanimous consent that this
Republican report, entitled "Congress
Rediscovers Itself" be printed as a Sen-
ate document, and that the staff of the
Minority Policy Committee be author-
ized to make revisions in the tabulated
midportion as of the time the Senate
adjourns sine die.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
CONGRESS REDISCOVERS ITSELF
INTRODUCTION
Mr. President, at the outset of this Report
I must admit that my job has been made pos-
sible only by virtue of the fine relationship
I have enjoyed with the distinguished Ma-
jority Leader, the Senator from Montana
(Mr. MANSFIELD). Our friendship is of long
standing, and our close working relation-
ship started the very first day I was elected
Republican Leader. I owe him much, the
Senate owes him much, the Nation owes him
much.
I wish also to commend the vigorous and
balanced way the Majority Whip, my good
friend from West Virginia (Mr. ROBERT C.
BYRD), has handled the difficult assignment
of keeping the Senate moving ahead on the
Nation's business.
On my side of the aisle I am, of course,
deeply indebted to the untiring efforts of
the Assistant Republican Leader, the fine
and distinguished Senator from Michigan
(Mr. OFt/FFIN). His help has been enormous,
his energy boundless and his sagacity great.
The rest of the Republican leadership, the
energetic and thoughtful Conference Secre-
tary (Mr. BENNETT) , and our distinguished
Conference Chairman, the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mr. COTTON), have likewise been
of inestimable assistance. At this point I
must interject my own feeling of sorrow
that Senator BENNETT and Senator COTTON
have determined not to seek reelection next
year. Their strong voices of reason and their
remarks, always sense-making, will be sorely
missed in this chamber. Great thanks must
also be given to the Chairman of the Re-
publican Policy Committee (Mr. TOWER), for
the capable and vigorous way he has directed
the affairs of that committee and the con-
tributions he has made to the orderly process
of legislation.
It has been an honor to serve my Republi-
can colleagues as their floor leader. Their
fine cooperation and their willingness to help
on all occasions have made it possible for me
to carry on my job.
The year 1973 brings to an end ten tumul-
tuous years in American history. At least, we
can hope it all moderates with 1973. To go on
as we have been is more than even our strong
country ought to be asked to bear.
The 1860's and the 1940's may have been
bloodier?the 1890's may have had more la-
bor-management violence?
But nothing quite matches the wild va-
riety of shocks to which the American people
have been subjected during the decade just
past: assassinations of our leaders; head-on
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500260014-8
S 23630
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500260014-8
CONGRESS1ON.AL RECORD ? SENATE December 2 0 ,tftr3
confrontations and racial violence in the civil
rights struggle; riotous upsurges of student
radicalism ivory towers toppling in the
groves of -academe; Increasing east in blood
and treasure for an undeclared war 1.1,000
miles away; resort to violent protest against
that conflict; attempts to smash the orderly
proceedings of major political parties nomi-
nating presidential candidates; vast swings
in public epinion, from overwhelming Demo-
cratic victory in 1961 to the second-closest
election in history in 1968 to overwhelming
:Republican victory in 1972; pell-mell in-
creases iii :public expenditures for social wel-
fare progeams, together with growing dis-
illusionment as to the efficacy of such pro-
grams; sudden and far-reaching changes in
moral codes for fernlike, for public enter-
tainment, for personal conduct; luntuiant
growth in personal spending habits for
"youth" as well as adults; great revolutions
in American foreign policy with respect to
China and Russia; and finally the drop from
the 1972 heights of political popularity of the
Nixon Administration as a result of revela-
tions and investigations in 1973.
How will history treat this time? Certainly
there will be a more vivid record of it than
was avails ele for any historians of earlier
times.
Perhaps our instant. minute-by-minute
media techniques of reporting everything
virtually as it happens have helped make this
decade seem so_ wild, undisciplined, oven
mindless.
Every crime, every act of violence, every
tragic accilent, every confrontation of any
magnitude throughout the United States (in
itself more like an entire continent than a
mere country), and the entire world. comes
smashing into our living rooms each ever ing,
arouses us in the morning. accompanies os in
our work all day.
With it comes a demand for instant salu-
tion, immediate reparation, Cr at the very
least, total public investigation.
This ceaseless dramatization of human
travail becomes the inspiration for page slier
page of proposed legislation in the Congres-
sional Record.
It leads to the feeling that everything is
collapsing all around us. We forget that solid
Inundations of civility, human kindness and
community assistance still exist. We ignore
the thickets of laws and ordinances so long
grown to protect family and friend from
these terrible blasts of human irrationality.
The one place this should not be forgot-
ten?et least one would so think?is Wash-
ington, DC, And yet I sometimes feel the
dramatizatoon of humanity's predicaments
has become so concentrated in this District
cf Columbia enclave as to cause Congress to
twitch and jerk in never-ending response. We
in Congress; were elected not just to reflect
end represent: we were elected to distinguish
between fool's gold and the real thing, to
filter the beet thoughts, the most honorable
wishes, the finest- hopes from the great wash
of human utterance and outcry of 210 mil-
lion people
Instead, ;he reverse seems .o be true. Be-
yond the Potomac there is not the same pre-
occupation with politics and government.
That is perhaps to be expected. For beyond
the Potomac there is also a calmer, more re-
strained, more objective attitude toward the
Washington dramas of personality and power.
It
We live In an age that is hard cheese on
tradition and precedent. Lest year the ken-
ate in its majesty cast 532 record votes,
thereby breaking a 184 year-old mark.
Unfortunately for this new record, the Sen-
ate this year Ines voted on so many subjects,
and at such a furious pace as to run far be-
yond 1972. In fact, it could well come close
to the 800 xreark, which to us, may be coneici-
ered as something like the magic 1,000 Dow-
Jones market average. This means that if the
Senate Should lapse ineo somnolence next
year--or exert a bit more discipline--and
produce a mere 150 votes (which would of it-
self been a record only a few years ago) it
will nevertheless set an all-time record vote
total for a two-year congress, breaking a
mark that stood in solitary "splendor" for
90 years.
What then did the Senate vote on, and why
so often?
The entanglement of education, health and
welfare programs., of foreign policies and mil-
leery preparedness, of environment, energy,
agriculture, and election campaign reform all
stanulated the legislative glands. To this
most be added a unique relation in our pollt-
icel history: the Majority Party in Congress
has faced a President of the opposite Party
since 1969.
eerhaps we should start with this political
factor. When the 1st Session of the 93d Con-
gress began in January, 1973, Senate Demo-
crets had an explanation for the contradic-
tions of the 1972 election: they announced
that the continuation of the Democrats as
majority party in House and Senate, along-
side the overwhelming victory of Republican
President Nixon, proved the American people
did not want "one-party" government.
Perhaps they are right; perhaps not; we
mey never return to those bad old days
between 1938 and 1953, and again between
1961 and 1969, when the Nation groaned
under "one-parte" Democrat government.
In any event, the clash between Executive
and the Congressional Majority has been a
gnat constant in the 1st session of the 9:_td
Congress. It began, and it will end, with the
gem issue of Executive Budget versus Legisla-
tive Appropriations. But in addition to the
President's efforts to curtail inflationary
spending, this historic conflict has flared over
such matters as "executive privilege" versus
the investigatory powers of Congress; the
power to appoint versus the power to con-
firm; the "war powers" of President and
Coe gress.
Disagreement between President and Con-
gress over dimension and content of the
budget is an annual affair. Indeed, it would
be cause for real alarm i Congress supinely
accepted the budget as trundled down from
the Executive Office.
The debate was sharper and more dis-
agreeable in 1973 because of Inflation. What
President Nixon-proposed this year is closely
related to what Senate and House failed to
do last year, and the year before: set limits
on Federal spending and root out pnagrams
which either were duplicatory, or no longer
justifiable.
Some of the proposed program terrnina-
tams or revisions had been advocated earlier
by President Nixon, and President Johnson
as well. Congress' response has heretofore
been to refuse to impose an overall budget
limit, and to shy away from hard decisions
on terminating programs. In October, 1972,
the task of curbing spending to check infla-
tion was, in effect, thrown to the President
by House and Senate. Hie response in Janu-
ary, 1973, was to propose that the FY 1974
Budget level be held at $268 billion. To make
sure this was_ a ceiling and not a take-off
pace he ordered the withholding of funds
and/or phasing out of programs sufficient
to cut current spending by about $9 billion.
The President justified this anti-spending,
anti-inflationary program in broad terms. He
argued that he had to execute all laws faith-
fury; that he was 'bound as much by laws
aimed at fighting inflation; requiring the
public debt limit not be exceeded, or deter-
mining the environmental impact of pro-
grams, as he might be by specific program
aul horizations and appropriations.
And he could point to "impounding" or
"reserving" of funds appropriated by Con-
gress by Presidents from Jefferson to Lyndon
Job neon.
As far as can be determined, most such
actions by previous Presidents were not chal-
lenged in cotrt. Some of the more recent
refusals to upend, Involved considerable
moneys for specific defense programs. Per-
haps it would only be fair to point out that
one would hardly expect the Department of
Defense to attempt to litigate the matter
as against the Commander in Chief.
This time the situation was different. Not
only was Congress' authority challenged, but
large numbere of private groups, of city,
county and State agencies, were cut off from
funds for which Acts of Congress had made
them eligible. Thus when the legal battles
began, the cast of litigants and the law in
question differed In each ease. President
Nixon was not the defendent; rather it was
the particular Federal official obligated to
administer the particular law under which
funds were distributed. And that particular
law?not a broad constitutional theory?was
the determinant as to whether funds were
properly withheld or not, In almost all such
litigation, the courts have held the funds
were withheld improperly, that Congress had
made clear why and how such funds were
to be obligated and allocated, and had left
no discretion to President or Federal official
charged with Ealministerin; the law.
It might then be argued that the Executive
has lost the "impoundment" or "reservation"
of funds battle; that the powers of Congress
have been refurbished and clarified.
On the other hand, early .hls year Congress
enacted legislation placing a. ceiling on the
FY 1974 Budget of $268 billion--something
it refuied to do last year. Even more impor-
tant, because more far-reaching, committees
in House and Senate, after lengthy hearings.
have reported out separate bills to improve
procedures by which Congress first considers
the entire budget and only thereafter' au-
thorizes and ae propriates.
The whole question of reserving appro-
priated funds or curtailing programs has
proven more comp/Mated than either Execu-
tive or Congress realized when, battle was
joined last January. One measure of this is
that although numerous secalled anti-im-
poundment birla were proposed, and differing
versions of one bill were passed by Senate
and House, final considerat ion of this ques-
tion has been postponed until next year.
These reforms are long past due.
Finally, we move back to Square-One: the
fight against inflation fed by Federal spend-
ing. For this has also been the primary jus-
tification offered by President Nixon in,most
of his vetoes of legislation enacted by Con-
gress this yea o and last. And :despite the
solid Democratic majorities: in Congress, all
but the last al his nine vetoes--that of the
War Powers Azt?were sustained either by
House or Senate. Insofar as the taxpayer is
concerned, the veto is the last handle avail-
able to turn of the money faucet, whether
it be a recklese flow or a ceaseless drip.
The sustaining of Presidential vetoes on
money matters is a tribute to the cohesive-
ness of Senate and House Republicans, and
their allies in the all-inuortant battle to
save the taxpayers' purse.
THE 1.0WEELS Or CC MGREss
Congress, because it is such a living re-
flection of America with all our strengths
and weaknesses, seems to be subject to con-
tinuous disparagement. Our home-grown
critics overlook' what foreign observers con-
alder meet rernamkablei that it ir4 still a high-
ly vialene lawireeking body. There are few leg-
islatures or parliaments in the free world
that can still initiate laws, as well as amend
or refuse laws suggested by the executive.
A few years ago?particularly during those
long dark expensive nights of "one-party"
government when Democrats controlled both
Congress and the Presidency?Congress was
continuaully lectured by its critics to give
the Executive the powers he needed. The
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000500260014-8