(UNTITLED)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000200160045-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 9
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 29, 2004
• Sequence Number: 45
• Publication Date: August 8, 1964
• Content Type: OPEN

18082 Approved For F C4a9l~~b / Ab :Pdi1 6 o3 000200160045-2 August' $
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call.
the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I:
ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded. l:
understand that the distinguished Sena-
tor from Ohio [Mr. Yot Rol has a brief'
talk that he would like to make.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
A TIME TO BE PRO JD
this is a time for all Americans, and in
fact for free people all over the world,
to be proud. Today, in the Plain Dealer
of Cleveland, Ohio, one of the Nation's
great newspapers, an article was pub-
lished by Philip W. Porter, an associate
editor and a noted writer in my State
of Ohio. He wrote about the feeling of
pride that Americans have by reason of
the firm, resolute, and unyielding action
taken by our President following the un-
provoked attack on August 2 on the
destroyer Maddox, which was repelled.
Our destroyer then continued its pa-
trol in international waters where this
amazing event took place.
Then, on the night of August 4 two
American destroyers, the Maddox and
the C. Turner Joy, were assailed by North
Vietnamese PT boats in a premeditated
naval attack that lasted a matter of
hours. At that time not only was the
attack repelled, but also the attackers
were either destroyed or dispersed.
The President made plain, both in his
address to the Nation on Tuesday night
and in his talk at Syracuse University
last Wednesday, that the United States
seeks no enlargement nor escalation of
the conflict.
However, this Nation is united in its
belief that, in President Johnson's
words, *'There can be no peace by ag-
gression and no immunity from reply."
Whenever our Nation has faced inter-
national crises, the American people, re-
gardless of political party, have united
behind firm action by our Presidents. It
Is a firmly established tradition that poli-
tics stops at the water's edge when our
national security is threatened. I am
proud to have voted for the resolution
supporting our President.
Mr. President, Philip Porter's article is
entitled "A Time To Be Proud." This
thoughtful and concise praise of Presi-
dent Johnson's action is the finest I have
read anywhere since the crises began
earlier this week. I commend this arti-
cle to my colleagues and ask unanimous
consent that it be printed in the RECORD
as a part of my remarks.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
(From the Plain Dealer, Aug. 8. 19641
A TIME To Bs PROUD
(By Philip W. Porter)
Something magnificent comes over Presi-
dents of the United States when they face
international crises that might lead to war,
and they lay it on the line for the Nation to
face. It happened to Lyndon Johnson this
week over North Vietnam.
It happened previously to John F. Ken-
nedy over Cuba, to Dwight D. Eisenhower
over Quemoy and Matsu, to Harry S. Tru-
man over Korea. It's been so long now that
many may have forgotten Franklin D.
Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor, but those who
did hear him will never forget.
Roosevelt spoke his historic phrases to the
Nation over the radio, for TV didn't exist
then, and it was in its Infancy when Truman
had to cope with Korea. But the last three
Presidents have spoken with grim and meas-
ured words over TV, and none who watched
could doubt that In each case the man was
speaking as the leader of a united nation.
with deep conviction and far above politics.
One who watches and listens at such a
time is bound to feel an emotional tug of
pride In his country. It comes from the
knowledge that no matter which man oc-
cupies that office of crushing responsibility
and inescapable loneliness, when the chips
are down he rises above petty politics, sec-
tionalism, parochialism and personal faults,
and becomes the President.
Our quality of closing ranks when the
national safety or honor are threatened, even
when civil strife and political partisanship
have been filling the air, is something the
governments and the people (they are not
always the same) of Europe, Asia and South
America seem unable to understand. We
are the only big power that takes the golden
rule seriously and gives away billions play-
ing the Good Samaritan. For years we ap-
pear to tolerate, even enjoy being played for
a sucker while cv niclsm and self-interest
are the guidelines of all other nations.
But when the day suddenly comes that we
know we have been pushed too far by a
conscious aggressor, then look out. Over-
night, the President turns from politician to
statesman, the Nation closes ranks, and the
opposition party speaks the same language
as the President.
Senator GOLDWATER's prompt and strong
statement In support of President Johnson
was In the same vein of patriotism that
brought Henry L. Sttmson and Frank Knox,
Republicans, into FUR's Cabinet: that in-
duced Gen. George Marshall to serve Presi-
dent Truman, that transformed Arthur
Vanderberg from just another Republican
Senator to a world statesman.
As I listened to Mr. Johnson in grimly,
measured tones, tell the audience at Syra-
cuse that we had responded to attacks on
our naval vessels, I realized all over again
that no matter which party elects a Presi-
dent, our foreign policy is continuous. We
debate It during elections, but we do what
we must when aggressors try to push us
around.
Up to now the Communists have played
a slow, cagey game of infiltration, guerrilla
warfare and the doublecroes In Laos and
Vietnam. They have cost us some lives and
billions of dollars, and it seems likely to go
on that way indefinitely. But when they
openly attacked American naval vessels In
international waters, miles off the coast,
they were asking for retaliation, and they got
it.
We can hope they'll learn, and believe
what President Johnson said. For one, I felt
mighty proud of him for saying it.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPRO-
PRIATIONS, 1965
The Senate resumed the consideration':
of the bill (H.R. 11389) making appro-,;
priations for military construction for'
the Department of Defense for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1965, and for other
purposes.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I ask
for the yeas and nays on the passage of
the bill.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr, STENNIS. Mr. President, this is
the appropriation bill for military con
struction for the fiscal year 1965. As the..,
Senate knows, there must first be a bill
that authorizes these projects before
there can be appropriations. The
thorization bill went through the Armed
Services Committee and was handled by
a subcommittee that happens to have
several members who are also members
of the Appropriations Subcommittee
which handled the appropriation bill.
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr.
SALTONSTALL I is the ranking minority
member of each of the subcommittees,
and I am the chairman of each of the
subcommittees. The two of us have fol-
lowed these matters all the way through
the year, and through two hearings.
There were something like 1,200 items
in the original authorization bill, and
we took proof on each of those items,
considered each one of them, and made
a recommendation.
The requested authorization originally
was $1,850,912,000. The authorization
bill as it passed the Congress authorized
for military construction $1,521 million
which is a net reduction of $329 million.
I emphasize the fact that in the au-
thorization bill and the appropriations
bill we did not take out any item that
of the military program. We did not
take out any item that we considered
in any way necessary or essential. How-
ever, we took out items that we thought.
should be postponed or that we did not
think were practical or a necessary part
of our military program.
In the .authorization bill as passed by
the Senate we were about $68 million
below the amount allowed by the House
but we left an authorization for appro-
priations of $1,534 million.
I shall review only a few of the larger
items that were left out of the authoriza-
tion bill, which are of some interest, and
to ask some questions about them.
Many of these larger figures are classi-
fied.
The Nike-Hercules items were left out:
Certain items for the Navy were left out'
because we thought they could wait an-
other year. We allowed some of their,
and left out others. I have skipped over
those that are classified. Most of the
large figures are classified.
We took out the defense intelligence
building in the District, an. Item of $17.-
900,000. It is a matter in which there
was some interest. I move on now to a
brief statement. I hope the Senator
from Massachusetts will interrupt me
or will make a statement of his own at
any point that he may wish to do so.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200160045-2
 Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R00T200160045-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 18083
Mr. President, with that explanation
of the authorization bill for military con-
struction I will now move to an explana-
tion of the fiscal year 1965 military con-
struction appropriations bill as approved
by the Senate Appropriations Committee.
The bill passed the House with a figure
of $1,599 million. We have made a net
reduction below the House of $16,045,001).
The report of the committee, on page
1. carries a summary of the effect of the
committee changes in the bill.
There is a table at page 40 of the re-
port. It also carries the breakdown of
line items by States, beginning at page
26. The appropriation request for family
housing is shown in the report beginning
at page 20. Similar material is found in
the large tables.
There is one small item in which there
is an increase over the budget estimate.
That was an increase of $4,800,000 for
the Army National Guard nationwide
construction program.
For military construction the bill con-
tains $965,318,000.
For family housing the bill contains
$617,651,000. That is a decrease of $32,-
707,000 under the House, and $93,349,000
under the original authorization.
In regard to family housing, I believe
I should indicate clearly what the corrm-
mittee did. The budget request was $71.1
million, for 12,500 family housing units
for the Army, Navy, and Air Force. This
amount was reduced to 9,886 family
housing units in the authorization bill.
The House in the appropriations bill
provided for 9,590 housing units.
Our subcommittee has studied this
program for a number of years. In view
of rapid changes in the defense program
and due to obsolescence, we thought
there should be a yearly review.
We have adhered to this principle for
several years. This year we have pro-
vided the necessary funds for 7,500 units.
The Department of Defense has the re-
sponsibility of selecting the housing units
that are to be built with this money, in
accordance with a priority list within
the services. In other words, the com-
mittee did not undertake to select the
housing for each service, but approved
the list and provided the money with
which to build 7,500 units, with the De-
partment of Defense making the selec-
tions as to how many units each service
will actually build.
I point out that the cost of the world-
wide military housing that we already
have is $3,260 million. The number
of housing units we have worldwide is
374,398.
A large percentage of this housing is
in the United States. However, we are
satisfied that the building rate, as re-
quested by the Department of Defense,
is too rapid, in view of changing weap-
ons and changing situations, and the
possibility of reducing the manpower.
We have approved a good, hard, steady
program of 7,500 units for several years
now, and that is rapidly taking care of
most of the places where the need is ur-
gent. The program has been completed
in many places.
The housing program has been cleaned
up since a few years ago, when we had
the Capehart program. This has no
reference to former Senator Capehart,
as an individual. It was named for him
because he introduced the bill, under
which we did not appropriate the money,
although eventually we would have to
pay for it. Through some bad contract
awards, the Capehart program got into
trouble, and the Congress terminated
the program.
Now we have the program all cleaned
up. We have a businesslike manage-
ment of the funds, and we are now build-
ing houses through use of direct appro-
priated funds. The $660,605,000 re-
quested here seems like a very large fig-
ure; however, part of this is the cost to
the Government of approximately $850 a
year to maintain each of these family
housing units.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I am glad to yield to
the Senator from Massachusetts, who
made a very fine contribution over the
months. He attended the hea-rings and
helped weigh the items in the bill, and
gave his careful attention to the con-
sideration of the bill, which in some
ways is rather complicated.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. I thank the
Senator. What I did, of course, I did
under the guidance of the Senator's
chairmanship. The Senator from Mis-
sissippi was very conscientious during
the long hearings.
Did the Senator bring out the fact
that the housing at this time consists
of 374,398 units, and that the cost of
taking care of the operation and mainte-
nance and the debt payment on these
units-the O. & M. account-is $617 mil-
lion this year? These are substantial
figures.
Mr. STENNIS. They are very large
sums, indeed; but we announced that
program, even though it seemed high per
unit, is being well handled now, and we
are on the road to constructing the best
family military housing we have ever
had.
There is one other item I wish to dis-
cuss. It is the only item in the bill that
is not in the budget. The subcommittee
added $4,800,000 to the budget estimate
of $6 million, making a total of $10,800,-
000 for armory projects, projects as to
which there is a local contribution, either
by the State or by the county, and in-
cluding for 25 nonarmory projects. We
provide small sums nationwide each year,
and these additions are nationwide ad-
ditions for armories and nonarmories.
The committee does not select the
items that will qualify for this amount
of money, but we have a formula that
is applied by the National Guard Bu-
reau. It is fair and impartial. The
money will provide for a few more
armories throughout the Nation and also,
I believe, for four National Guard sum-
mer training projects, for the benefit of
men who have been called into the serv-
ice for training. It is a small amount. It
will provide summer training for some
fine National Guard units. This sum will
be used to build small messhalls, shops,
supply headquarters, latrines, and items
of that kind.
I observe the distinguished Senator
from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS] in the
Chamber. He has an interest in one
item. I shall yield shortly to him for a
question about it.
The bill has received thorough scru-
tiny. Each of the services has examined
it, as have the Secretary of Defense and
the Bureau of the Budget. As a result
of action by the Committee on Armed
Services, the authorization legislation
reflects substantial reductions. Reduc-
tions were also :made in the subcom-
mittee of the House Committee on Ap-
propriations.
The House subcommittees have done
an extraordinary fine piece of work in
handling these matters over the years.
The Senate subcommittee has reviewed
the bill carefully, and its work is re-
flected in this reduction.
I believe the bill is as austere as is de-
sirable, if we are to provide adequately
for the actual needs of our Armed Forces.
Much interest was expressed in the
fieldhouse for the Air Force Academy.
That item was authorized and is ap-
proved in the bill; but the full amount
of money is not appropriated this year.
However, we have allowed $350,000 to be
certain that there will be enough money
for the architectural and engineering
planning for the entire project, with the
idea that we expect to approve the full
amount for the project next year. This
item was omitted entirely by the House,
so the $350,000 will be in conference.
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Mississippi yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield to the Senator
from Colorado.
Mr. ALLOTT. I express deep appre-
ciation to the distinguished chairman of
the Subcommittee on Military Construc-
tion Appropriations. Like other appro-
priation bills, this one requires much at-
tention, and the distinguished Senator
from Mississippi has given careful at-
tention to it.
I realize that the House omitted the
item for the fleldhouse for the Air Force
Academy. The record should be made
clear that the Air Force .Academy has no
adequate place where its cadets can ob-
tain the kind of physical training that
is needed on a year-round basis.
I sincerely appreciate the considera-
tion given this item by the distinguished
Senator from Mississippi and also the
distinguished Senator from Massachu-
setts, the ranking minority member of
the subcommittee. I believe and hope
that with the money that the commit-
tee has allowed for the planning of the
fleldhouse, we shall be in a better posi-
tion to submit a better, more forward-
looking plan than would otherwise have
been possible. I am very happy about
the action that has been taken.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator
from Colorado. I believe he is correct in
his evaluation of the situation.
Did the Senator from Illinois wish me
to yield to him for a question?
Mr. DOUGLAS. I will wait until the
Senator has concluded.
Mr. STENNIS. I have practically con-
eluded my remarks. I had not planned
to discuss every item unless questions
were asked about them.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200160045-2
 ?18084
Approved For ease 2005/02/10 CIA-RDP66BO0403IQ00200160045--2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE August 8
Mr, SALTOY$STALL. Mr.- President,
will the Senator from Mississippi yield?
114r: SNIS Perhaps the Senator
from Massachusetts had better make his
do ent first.
`Mr. SATTONSTALL. My remark re-
lates to' the Air Force Academy field-
house. 'The fleldhouse had been author-
ized, and we feel we are moving ahead
as fast as we can in a proper, careful
manner, so as to obtain the best field-
-house possible, and to have it constructed
as economically and efficiently as pos-
sible. Therefore, we have included suf-
ficient money this year to accomplish
that purpose.
Mr, STENNIS. The money has been
earmarked for that purpose, so that it
will not have to compete with other plan-
Yling money.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Also, there is
other planning money that could be used
The amendment which we have prepared
reads as follows:
None of the funds appropriated in this act
may be expended for the purpose of con-
strutting new facilities in any other State
to replace the facilities of any installation
ordered reduced or closed "for economy rea-
sons" in any State pursuant to the an-
nouncement of the Secretary of Defense
dated December 12, 1963, or April 24, 1964.
. This language is similar to the lan-
guage of the amendment offered to the
.authorization bill, accepted by the Sen-
ate, but dropped in conference.
There was a rather full discussion of
the subject on the floor of the Senate in
connection with the authorization bill.
It is not my purpose to go over the same
ground. However, it seems there is much
sense in saying that if an electronics
warehouse, for example, is in fine condi-
tion in the State of New York, it would
be false economy to close that facility
Mr STENNIS. That is 'a good point. . and build the same type of warehouse
,Should the specific amount provided not in any other State. The only purpose of
be enough, there is other planning money the amendment is to preclude such a
that can be drawn on. move. Perhaps it should have attached
Mr, DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will to it some qualifying language, to pro-
the Senator yield? vide an opportunity for such action to
Mr. STENNIS- , I am happy to yield to be taken in extraordinary circum-
the Senator from Illinois. stances and under unusual conditions.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I notice on page 29 But it is difficult for me to conceive
of the report that the committee recom- of circumstances under which it would
'mends the appropriation of $4,521,000 for be proper for funds to be expended in
construction at Fort Sheridan. I should that manner.
like to ask if all of this has been caused Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will
by the projected transfer of 5th Army the Senator from Mississippi yield?
Headquarters from Chicago to Fort Mr. STENNIS. I am glad to yield.
Sheridan. Mr. PASTORE. I quite agree with the
Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is correct. Senator from New York. . This problem
This transfer has required some new -has concerned and disturbed me over a
building. By the way, the Senate re- long period of time, because there are
jetted one of these items for $1 million in some facilities in Rhode Island which
the authorization bill. We had to yield have been abandoned and have not yet
it in conference, but it is left out of the been used for other activities. I realize
bill. However, I think we have it ad-
justed.
Mr. DOUGLAS. In other words, this
"economy" move will cost '$4,500,000
extra?
Mr, STENNIS. There will be a debit
on the debit side of the ledger, to start
with, against the alleged economy move.
The Senator is correct,
`Mr. DOUGLAS. I am. very glad the
Senator from Mississippi says "the al-
leged economy move."" It is a proposal
foisted into this bill by political inter-
ests which -will cost $4,500,000 in the
name of economy. Blessed is the name
of economy.
Mr. STENNIS. I appreciate the Sen-
ator's sentirrlents. We were not saying
there would be no economy. But we do
not accept all the formulas that are
thrown at us all the time.
Mr, ' KEATING.. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr, KEATING, I -am sure the Sena-
tor remembers the amendment which
my colleague from New York [Mr.
JAVrrs] and I offered to the military con-
struction authorization bill.
Mr. STI NNIS.. Yes.
Mr KEATING. That amendment
was -adopted by the Senate but was
dropped in conference. I should like to
make a plea for the incorporation of that
amendment in this appropriation bill.
ways to do what is best for our country
and its security, even when it means that
a facility must be removed from one
place and started again in another.
If there is a strategic reason for it, I do
not believe that any Senator is so pro-
vincial that he would object to that. But
the problem has not been exactly that..
Sometimes a facility is closed for rea-
sons of economy and shortly thereafter
that same facility springs up in another
area. When it becomes necessary to re-
open it, they do not wish to go back to
-the old location, they wish to go to a new
one.
But I realize that this is a difficult
problem to handle by an amendment be-
cause we could never provide for all the
contingencies involved.
Possibly we should write into the con-
ference report what the intention or the
concern of Congress is with relation to
this problem, and advise the Defense De-
partment that if the facilities are re-
quired again to take into account the ex-
isting facilities, the skills which have
been developed, and the money and the
investment that would be lost if they
were .moved to another area.
I believe that the report should so
state. I do not believe we could do it by
amendment, because we could not cover
all the complexities involved. ' -
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,
will the Senator from Mississippi yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I am glad to yield to
the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. I agree with
what the Senator from Rhode Island has
said. I believe I could add a comment to
the Senator from New York, that if this
admonition is put in the form of a report
and added to it, if the Secretary of De-
fense or the Secretary of any of the serv-
ices finds that it is necessary to build a
new plant where one has been closed,
they should make a report to the appro-
priate committees of Congress and give
the reasons why it is necessary, after
having closed a plant, say, in New York,
Rhode Island, or Massachusetts.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Mississippi yield further?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mrt. KEATING. I recognize the force
of what the distinguished Senators from
Rhode Island and Massachusetts have
said. I wonder whether it would not be
appropriate to take the amendment to
conference, with the idea that it should
be discussed either in the form of an
amendment or included in the report.
The language, which may be too tight,
would be accepted with a proviso per-
mitting some latitude on the part of the
Secretary of Defense in the case of unus-
ual circumstances, or it would be the
basis for inclusion in the conference re-
port of language indicating that it is the
sense of Congress that such a thing
should be done only under most unusual
circumstances. A case. should be made
for it before it is done.
Mr. STENNIS. Yes. I appreciate the
Senator's position. Let me point out to
him that I am not at all unsympathetic
toward his problem, but this is a question
of what is sound legislation. It is even
down to the point of what is legislation
on an appropriation bill. .
I believe, as a whole, that there is a
very rigid surveillance of these matters,
first by the representation in Congress
from the State, and next b.? the Depart-
ment of Defense, which approaches this
problem in an earnest way. Then the
committee passes upon these matters
when it recommends the appropriation.
Nearly always some money changes are
required, except with respect to the facil-
ity which was totally abandoned in Mis-
sissippi, involving a sizable Air Force
training installation at Greenville. It
was taken out. I mention that to show
that I have been as much a victim as
anyone else in the canceling out of instal-
lations.
I do not believe that we can put the
Department of Defense in a straitjacket
in any way. But we did consider the
Senator's amendment at the last confer-
ence, as I stated. We took it and said
that we would see what language could
be worked out. Frankly, there was noth-
ing in the language that could be worked
out which the House felt it could sup-
port. But it was considered.
The_Sgnator is eternally vigilant. We
are at the point of legislation on an ap-
propriation bill, especially since the Sen-
ator has had his day in court before,
which is why I have to make this point.
I would be in favor of language in the
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200160045-2
 1964
Aped For Rehmpt- a 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R00200160045-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
report, as suggested by the Senator from
Massachusetts, which would point out
the problem, emphasize it, and under-
score it, and ask for a report on these
matters to the'Congress.
Frankly, I will not permit myself to
favor a `report before there is any action
at all, because that stirs up everything,
and a new start is made. But the Sen-
ator from New York is entitled to the
utmost consideration in these matters-
as any Senator is.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Mississippi yield fur-
ther?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. KEATING. I appreciate the com-
ments of the Senator from Mississippi.
I emphasize this point that this question
involves only a case in which an identical
installation is built somewhere else to do
the work or perform the function of the
abandoned facility. I suppose many
Senators have had some installations
taken out of their States. That is one
thing; but this problem involves a very
limited area, in which an installation is
taken out, and a similar facility is built
somewhere else. It seems to me difficult
to justify that sort of action on grounds
of economy.
I recognize the practical problem in-
volved in endeavoring to get through an
amendment in the face of united oppo-
sition from the distinguished committee,
but we feel that many Senators have this
problem and would be deeply apprecia-
tive, if it could be discussed in conference
and If some language could be incorpo-
rated in the conference report which
would make it clear that it would re-
quire unusual circumstances to justify
doing the sort of thing which my amend-
ment would prevent the Department of
Defense from doing.
I would be the last one to wish to tie
the hands of 'the. Secretary of Defense or
our armed services in any way in the
proper performance of their functions,
but some eyebrows have been raised over
certain things which have gone on in the
recent past. I believe that it is impor-
tant that there be a continuing surveil-
lance of this problem by the Appropria-
tions Committee, as well as by the Armed
Services, Committee which the Senator
serves so ably.
Therefore, I appreciate the comments
of the Senator from Mississippi and shall
not press the amendment at this time.
Mr. STENNIS. I appreciate the Sen-
ator's remarks. I assure him that we
are in sympathy with his problem; but
we could hardly carry through the rem-
edy proposed.
Mr. DAVITS subsequently said: Mr.
President, I would like to join my able
colleague from New York in requesting
that the Conference Committee give very
serious consideration to the wording of
our, proposal, which was initially incor-
porated in amendment No. 1076 which
Senator KEATING and I `introduced to
H.R. 10300, the military construction au-
thorization bill. That amendment's
wording was as follows:
SEC. 610. No -funds shall be authorized to
be expended by this bill for the purpose of
constructing new facilities in other States
to replace facilities at installations ordered
reduced or closed pursuant to the announce-
ments of the Secretary of Defense dated De-
cember 12, 1963, or April 24, 1964, for "econ-
omy reasons."
That amendment was intended to'pre-
vent the Defense Department from
spending funds to construct new facili-
ties to replace facilities that were ordered
closed pursuant to the announcements
of the Secretary of Defense on December
12, 1963 or April 24, 1964. The amend-
ment was considered by the Conference
Committee on the military construction
authorization bill, now enacted as Pub-
lic Law 88-390, but was not adopted.
Its purpose of insuring true economy
with respect to the transfer of functions
of installations ordered closed to installa-
tions in other States to be built, is, I be-
lieve, a most worthy one. I hope very
much the conferees on the pending bill
will give serious consideration to the in-
tent of the proposal which Senator KEAT-
ING and I have advanced and will include
language in their report to implement
it.
Mr. STENNIS. The Senator from
Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALLI has a
point he wishes to make at this time.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. I thank the Sen-
ator: We in Massachusetts are acutely
aware of the problem, the Senator has
outlined in the closing of the Watertown
Arsenal, which has been an arsenal in
the Army for more than 100 years.
Certainly, we are very sympathetic.
We want to get something in the con-
ference report to cover this item. The
Senator realizes, I believe, that the con-
ference report is for the House alone.
The Senate can only get in the confer-
ence report what the House Members
agree to put in.
I assure the Senator that I agree with
the chairman of the subcommittee, the
Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS].
We shall try to have the item included
in the conference report.
Mr. KEATING. I appreciate that
statement.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I ap-
preciate the remarks of the Senator from
New York.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. HOLLAND. There is only one item
concerning Florida. This came up late.
It was discussed at some length when
-the authorization bill was being ap-
proved. It had to do with the Sanford
Naval Air Station. I believe the ques-
tion arose from the fact that the Navy
'decided to locate its bases of operations
for long-range reconnaissance after their
original budget request had been made
up.
Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is correct.
Mr. HOLLAND. I ask the the dis-
tinguished Senator from Mississippi if
the item requested by the Navy to com-
plete or to continue its increased facil-
ities at that station is represented by
the $2,004,000 item, which I notice is in-
cluded in the bill.
Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is correct.
All four items for the Sanford naval in-
stallation are included in the bill. They
are not included in the House version.
But I believe that is due, as the Senator
18085
said, to the lateness of their presenta-
tion.
We hope to have these Items included
in the conference report.
Mr. HOLLAND. Is it the. understand-
ing of the Senator that the Navy states
very frankly that it made a change in its
plans after the original budget request
on this item, and that it is highly im-
-portant In order to have it fulfill its
mission in the South Atlantic and Carib-
bean area, that its request be granted as
quickly as possible, so as to accomodate
the long-range reconaissance aircraft?
Mr. STENNIS. The Senator has cor-
rectly described the situation. We con-
sider it to be an important Item. We
feel it will appeal to the House Members
in conference.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I ap-
preciate the assistance which the Sena-
tor from Mississippi has rendered. The
Senator knows that I never take up any
military matters with him or with other
members of the committee, except upon
such a showing as this. My understand-
ing has been that the Navy air authorities
feel this is an urgent matter which
should be taken care of this year.
Mr. STENNIS. That is correct.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I
thank the Senator for his courtesy in
this matter.
Mr. STENNIS. I appreciate the in-
terest of the Senator. I believe this
item will survive the conference.
I thank the staff members who have
been so faithful in their service. I thank
Mr. V. M. Rexroad, the clerk to the
subcommittee, and Mrs. Gloria Butland,
who have rendered faithful and out-
standing service.
I again thank the Senator from Massa-
chusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALLI as well as
other members of the subcommittee.
I yield the floor. We are ready for
a vote.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. I compliment
the chairman on the, conscientiousness
of his work.
At the outset of my remarks let me
pay tribute to the chairman of our sub-
committee, the Senator from Mississippi
[Mr. STENNIS] who once again has done
a careful and painstaking job of review-
ing the money requests for items in the
military construction program. He has
followed this bill with care through the
authorization process where he and I sit
on the Senate Committee on Armed
Services when such matters are con-
sidered for authorization and again when
they come before the Senate Committee
on Appropriations. The result has been
a carefully developed bill which I heartily
support because'it adequately cares for
the needs of our military in the field of
construction and at the same time it has
effected savings which will benefit our
overall economy.
The major sums involved in this bill
are for defense and training establish-
ments. In these two areas economies are
difficult, for we cannot stint in the train-
ing of our men or in the retaliatory pro-
tection our missile bases give our Na-
tion. As war plans change, our emphasis
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200160045-2
 18086
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 CIA-RDP66B00403R000200160645-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE August 8
seems to go in these two directions:
Greater emphasis on the qualities of the
individual soldier who must be trained
in self-reliance under the most adverse
conditions, and greater emphasis on the
heavy retaliatory forces of the Air Force.
Speaking from the Massachusetts point
of view, our contribution is in the scien-
tific and industrial backup which these
activities need. But the Nation needs,
these facilities which form the base of
our armed services.
I should like to speak first on the prob-
lem of general decisions which were made
effecting this bill and then I should like
to direct the attention of the Senate to
some of the more important specific
items considered in this bill.
One of the largest annual requests
which is made Is for family housing for
the military in this country and around
the world. My concern has not been so
much over the amount of the annual
construction cost but rather with the
nu-be r of units which are already in
our inventory and on which we pay in
this bill over $617 million for operation,
maintenance and debt payments. We
have in our housing inventory at this
time 374,398 units. The budget request
this year was for 12,500 units and the
House appropriations bill funded 9,877
units at a cost of $177.5 minion. In our
consideration of the family housing we
decided to treat the matter as we have
in the past 2 fiscal years and funded
7,500 houses at a cost of $134.8 million,
thereby reducing the cost by $32.7 mil-
lion. We treated this as though all of
the units were authorized and available
to be funded, and we have suggested that
the Department determine the priority
in building 7,500 homes for which we
have recommended funds.
Turning now to the problem of bache-
lor officers quarters-we have decided to
fund approximately one-half of the $22.2
million and again request the Depart-
ments to place a priority on where these
bachelor officer quarters should be con-
structed. We have thus effected a sav-
ings of over $9.5 million and there re-
mains in this bill as it is presented to the
Senate the sum of $12.6 million for the
construction of bachelor officers quar-
ters.
Turning now to some of the more Im-
portant individual items which the com-
mittee considered in developing this bill,
I should first mention the fieldhouse for
the Air Force Academy which was denied
by the House and on which considerable
testimony was heard when the matter
was before our committee. The House
action was based primarily on the cost
of the structure, as well as the planning
which had gone into it. The House
denied the Item on the basis of the cost
which was estimated at $6.9 million.
When the matter was presented to the
Senate it was on the basis of a cost esti-
mate of $6.2 million. I, for one, feel
very strongly that the Air Force Acad-
emy should be given a fieldhouse-not
only because the other service academies
have such an athletic structure, but also
because it is badly needed for athletic
activity which cannot be conducted on
the outside in inclement weather.
I would be less than frank if I did not
state that I have been deeply concerned
over the many problems in construction
which have been experienced at the Air
Force Academy in the past. I need not
recount that there have been serious de-
fects discovered which could have been
eliminated by better design and engineer-
ing. For this reason r was very glad to
see this building delayed for 1 year. We
have voted for the inclusion of $350,000
for planning money so that when the
matter is next presented to our commit-
tee we will have a better assurance of the
cost and the design adequacy for con-
structing such an expensive building.
I will not dwell at length on the money
which has been Included in this bill to
permit the move of the 5th Army
Headquarters from Chicago to Fort
Sheridan, Ili. I discussed this matter
when the authorization bill was before
the Senate. I feel this is a necessary
move and that savings will be achieved
by making available the present head-
quarters for the use of other Government
agencies presently renting space In Chi-
cago. We have removed from this bill an
elaborate underground communications
center and the cost figure has thus been
reduced in excess of $1 million by this
reduction.
Turning now to the matter of gym-
nasiums, athletic and recreational facil-
ities and commissaries. The committee
has attempted to determine the need for
these, based on the remoteness of the
area In which the base is located, and
the fact that such facilities are not avail-
able in the surrounding communities.
We feel that such matters are required
by our servicemen who are called upon
to perform duty in remote areas.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I want to
say again that this bill has been care-
fully considered and I feel it Is deserving
of the support of every Member of the
Senate. It allows a measured increase
of military facilities and housing which
is determined by the pace of our defense
needs. I am pleased to support our able
chairman in presenting this bill and in
recommending its passage.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, con-
struction funds for fiscal year 1965 were
requested for only one military installa-
tion in Utah, Hill Air Force Base. The
military construction authorization bill
passed by Congress, approved renova-
tion and modification of facilities at Hill
Air Force Base in the amount of $2,-
108,000.
Unfortunately, when H.R. 11369 was
considered by the House, a misunder-
standing arose In regard to maintenance
facilities to be used for repair and over-
haul of the F-4-C aircraft. Two mem-
bers of the House committee interro-
gated Air Force witnesses as to the pos-
sibility of F-4-C maintenance being ac-
complished by the Navy or at some other
Air Force installation without the ne-
cessity of expenditure of additional
funds. Although the Air Force made a
strong presentation, the House Appro-
priations Committee eliminated all funds
for the F-4-C mission at Hill Air Force
Base, leaving only $321,000 in the bill for
construction of a new gymnasium at the
Utah installation.
The decision to place the F-4-C main-
tenance mission at Hill Air Force Base
wad made only after careful and detailed
studies by the Office of the Secretary of
Defense and by the Secretary of the Air
Force. These studies included review of
capability of all other Air Force instal-
lations and research into the possibility
of having the Navy perform cross-
service maintenance on the F--4-C, since
this is a jointly used aircraft.
These resource utilization studies con-
cluded that Hill Air Force Base was
superior to any other air materiel area
for the F/RF-4C mission.
All of the funds requested for the
F-4-C mission are for modification and
updating of existing facilities to permit
Hill Air Force Base to perform work on
new super-high thrust engines. Because
modern jet aircraft are constantly being
Improved, it is necessary from time to
time to modify Air Force facilities which
perform overhaul and maintenance mis-
sions. Hill Air Force Base will utilize
approximately $21 million in existing
facilities in support of the F-4-C mis-
sion. The nearly $2 million requested
in the military construction bill will per-
mit modification and minor facility addi-
tions required for the F/RF-4C main-
tenace program.
The line items required are:
Turbojet engine test cell, $244,000;
communications and electronics shop,
$590.000; logistical facility depot, $738,-
000; sound suppressor engine runup
hangar. $215.000.
Mr. President, I sincerely hope that
the Senate will concur with the Appro-
priations Committee and fully restore
the $1,787,000 deleted by the House for
modification of facilities at Hill Air Force
Base, so that there will not be any delay
in performing this assigned mission.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, speak-
ing as one who is not on this subcom-
mittee, I appreciate the fine work that
the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. S?rEx-
rns], the Senator from Massachusetts
[Mr. Su.soxsru.L], and their associates
have doneon this committee.
All Senators possess the same view
that I have, that on these matters under
no circumstances should a Senator make
a request unless it is based on something
that he has been told by the components
of the service is of great importance to
include. That has been my own method
of procedure.
We find Senators to be most compe-
tent in meeting what they understand
to be the real needs for the protection
and defense of our country.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I thank
the Senator. His attitude is always help-
ful. I appreciate it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that a comparative statement of
appropriations for fiscal year 1964, and
the estimates and amounts recommended
for the bill for the fiscal year 1965 be
printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the com-
parative statement was ordered to be
printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200160045-2
 '1964
Approved For COES~ON/,1~~t66B EQR000200160045-2 18087
Comparative statement of appropriations for 1964, and estimates and amounts recommended in the bill for 1965
Increase (+) or decrease (-), Senate bill
Amount recom-
. compared with-
Item
Appropriations,
Budget esti-
Recommended
mended by
1984
mates, 1965
in House bill
Senate com-
mittee
Appropriations,
Budget esti-
house bill
1964
mates, 1965
Military construction, Army -___ ----------------
$200, 648, 000
$408, 000,000
$301, 000, 000
$311, 977, 000
+$111,331,000
-$96, 023,000
+$10, 977, 000
Military construction, Navy ____ _________ ______
Militar
construction
Air Force
_
_
198, 853, 000
468
275
000
278, 000, 000
406
000
000
247, 000,.000
46
000
000
250, 899, 000
+52,046, 000
-27101, 000
+3,899,000
y
,
_ __________
_
__ _________
,
,
,
,
,
,
3
342, 986, 000
-125,289,000
-63, 014, 000
-3,014,000
Military construction, Defense Agencies__________________
24,000,000
34,000,000
12,656,000
12,656,000
-11,344, 000
-21;344000
----------------
Military construction, Army Reserve____________________
4,500,000
6,000,000
- 5,000,000
5,000,000
+500,000
________________
----------------
Military construction, Naval Reserve --------------------
6,000,000
,
7,000,000
7,000,000
7,000,000
+1,000,000
----------------
------- ________
Military construction, Air Force Reserve_________________
4,000
000
5,000,000
5,000,000
5,000,000
+1,000,000
----------------
_____-__________
Military construction Army National Guard-------------
ilit
5,700, 000
6,000,000
6,000,000
10, 800,000
+5,100,000
+4,800,000
+4,800, 000
M
ary construction, AirNationalGuard_______________
16,000,000
14,000,000
14,000,000
14,000,000
,
-2,000,000
----------------
________________
Loran station____________-__________._.___..---._.--...-
20,500,000
5,000,000
5,000,000
5,000
000
-15,500,000
----------------
----------------
Total, military construction________________________
948,474,000
1,168,000,000
948,656,000
965,318,000
+16,844,000
-202,682,000
+16,662,000
FAMILY HOUSING
Family housing, Army:
Construction________________________________________
34,681,000
52,728,000
40,446,000
32,216,000
-2,465,000
-20,512,000
-8,230
000
Q ration, maintenance, and debt payment ----------
F
il
h
sin
N
183,396,000
173,328,000
173,328,000
173,328,000
-10,068,000
_
,
y
ou
g,
avy and arine Corps:
am
Construction
O eration,maintenance, and debt payment
i
F
68,248,000
93,944,000
96,219,000
97,739,000
72,481,000
97,739,000
59,144,000
97,739,000
-9,104,000
+3,795,000
-37,075,000
. -13,337,000
ly housing, Air Force:
am
Construction
61,027,000
88,635,000
64 013 500
,
,
52 873,000
,
-8,154,000
-35,762,000
O eration;maintenance, and debt payment
amily housing
Defense agencies:
193,514,000
198,859,000
198
859
000
198
859,000
+5,345,000
_
,
Construction_________________________________________
50,000
981,000
,
981,000
,
983,000
,
+931,000
_
Operation,maintenance, anddebt payment ----------
r r
2,546,000
2,511
000
2,511
000
2,511
000
-35,000
----------------
Total, family housing ----------------- -----
637,406,000
711,000,000
650,358,500
617,651,000
-19,755,000
-93,349,000
-32,707,500
Total- __ ___ _ __ _ _
1, 585, 880, 000
1, 879, 000, 000
1, 599, 014, 500
1, 582, 969, 000
-2,911,0 0
-296, 031, 000
F
-16, 045, 000
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, the
total appropriation recommended by the
Senate Appropriations Committee
amounts to $1,582,969,000. This is an
amount of $16,045,500 under allowances
provided by the House and $296,431,000
under the budget estimate of $1,879
million.
For military construction for the Ac-
tive Forces of the Department of the
Army, the, committee has approved an
amount totaling $311,977,000. This is an
increase of $10,977,000 over the amount
of $301 million approved by the House,
and a decrease of $96,023,000 from the
budget estimate of $408 million.
For military construction for the Ac-
tive Forces of the Department of the
Navy, the committee has approved an
amount totaling $250,899,000. This is an
increase of $3,899,000 over the $247 mil-
lion allowed by the House and a decrease
of $27,101,000 from the budget estimate
of $278 million.
For military construction for the Ac-
tive Forces of the Department of the Air
Force, the committee has approved an
amount totaling $342,986,000. This is a
reduction of $3,014,000 from the $346
million allowed by the House and a de-
crease of $63,014,000 from the budget
estimate of $406 million.
For the Army Reserve, the committee
recommends an appropriation of $5 mil-
lion, which was the budget estimate
figure and the amount allowed by the
House.
For the Naval Reserve, the committee
recommends an appropriation of $7 mil-
lion, the budget estimate, and the same
amount as was allowed by the House.
For the Air Force Reserve, the commit-
tee recommends ds an appropriation of $5
million, the budget estimate and the
same amount as was allowed by the
House.
For the 'Army National Guard, the
committee recommends an appropria-
tion of $10,800,000, which is $4,800,000
No. 154--7
hnore than the House allowance and
budget estimate of $6 million.
For the Air National Guard, the com-
mittee recommends an appropriation of
$14 million, the budget estimate, and the
same amount as was allowed by ' the
House.
For the Department of Defense agen-
cies, the committee recommends an ap-
propriation of $12,656,000. This is $21,_
344,000 below the budget estimate and is
in agreement with the amount allowed
by the House. The appropriation break-
down is as follows:
Defense Atomic Support Agency, $6,-
546,000; National Security Agency, $1,-
711,000; Defense Supply Agency, $1,954,-
000; and other projects, $743,000. This
appropriation recognizes a saving of
$298,000 from prior years funds for
which an adjustment has been made.
The committee also recommends for the
Department of Defense general support
program, including planning, design and
minor construction, $2 million. The
committee has approved an appropria-
tion of $5 million for loran stations.
This-is the same as the budget request.
For the Department of Defense family
housing account, the committee recom-
mends an appropriation of $617,651,000.
This appropriation consists of the fol-
lowing: For Army $205,544,000; for Navy
$156,883,000; for Air Force $251,732,000;
for Defense agencies, $3,492,000.
FAMILY HOUSING
Mr. President, at this point I would
like to go into more detailed discussion
of the Department of Defense family
housing. The Department of Defense
has a worldwide housing inventory of
374,398 housing uints with an acquisi-
tion value of $3,260 million. There are
286,607 units located in the United
States and 87,791 units overseas. In
maintenance and operation and debt
payment alone, these housing units cost
the American taxpayer $469,926,000.
From 1952 to about 1960, the armed
services, under the Wherry Act, the
Capehart Act, and Appropriations Act,
built approximately 16,000 units of hous-
ing per year. I point out these figures
to show that in the past, the Congress
has been rather generous in providing
homes for our service people. In the
past 2 years, the Congress has provided
7,500 units a year. For fiscal year 1965,
the Department of Defense asked for
12,500 units. The authorizing act pro-
vided 9,886 units and the House Appro-
priations Committee reduced the hous-
ing units further to 9,590. The Senate
Appropriations Committee, after due
consideration recommended 7,500 new
housing units. At this point, - I would
like to break down the cost figures.
The Department of Defense requested
approval of a family housing program
for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and De-
fense agencies amounting to $711 mil-
lion. This amount was reduced by the
Congress in the Military Construction
Authorization Act for fiscal year 1965-
Public Law 88-390=to $660,605,000.
The House of Representatives, in the
appropriation bill H.R. 11369 which this
bill accompanies, has further reduced the
amount to $650,358,500. The commit-
tee has approved the amount of $617,-
651,000. This figure includes, for Army
construction, $32,216,000, and for main-
tenance, operations, and debt payment,
$173,328,000. For the Navy, the com-
mittee recommends for construction,
$59,144,000, and for operation, mainte-
nance, and debt payment, $97,739,000.
For the Air Force, the committee rec-
ommends for construction, $52,873,000,
and for operation, maintenance, and
debt payment, $198,8$9,000. For Defense
agencies, the committee recommends for
construction, $981,000, and for operation
and maintenance, $2,511,000.
The 7,500 new housing units will cost
$134,804,000 broken down as follows:
Army 1,621 housing units at a cost of
$29,116,000; Navy 3,149 housing units at
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200160045-2
 18088
Approved For Release 2005/02/10: CIA-RDP66B00403R0002 60045-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE August 8
a cost of $56,594,000, which includes 100 DEPARTMZNTOFT A>ZUT Also included in the aforenamed sum
units for the naval shipyard, Bremerton, Mr. President, to review briefly, the are projects for a clinical research build-
Wash.; and for the Air Force 2,730 hous- committee approved an appropriation of Ing at Edgewood Arsenal and Range In-
ing units at a cost of $49,094,000. $327,777,000 for military construction strumentation Facilities at. Whitesands
Mr. President, I want it clearly under- within the Department of the Army. Missile Range.
stood that the committee did not delete This represents an appropriation of The last grouping for the Army con-
any specific housing project from the $311,977,000 for the active forces, $5 mil- cerns general support which Includes
bill. A total of 9,877 houses are on the lion for the Army Reserve and $10,800,000 training, supply, maintenance, military
eligible list, but funds are made available for the Army National Guard. This is services, communications networks, and
only to provide for the construction of a reduction of $91,223,000 from the Army Security Agency requirements. I
7,500 units. The committee charges the budget of $419 million. Later in my dis- should add, also, that included in this
Department of Defense with the respon- cussion, I will cover the National Guard category are the funds for planning, de-
sibility of selecting the housing units and items. sign, minor construction and access
the sites on which they will be built on The program before the Congress rep- roads. An item of special interest Is the
the basis of priority within each of the resents the Army's most urgent construc- construction at the U.S. Military Acad-
services. tion needs and has been coordinated emy, West Point, for which the commit-
Mr. President, the Appropriations with Army programs related to materiel tee approved $20,228,000. The bulk of
Committee believes that the housing pro- and research and development. Many of this item is for the construction of the
gram proposed Is a realistic program and the projects in this bill meet the require- new Washington Hall barracks complex.
one which will adequately meet the De- ments generated by the expansion of I might say in passing that this Is the
partment of Defense requirements, existing Army missions and the replace- beginning of a $10 million program to
VNOBLIOATED BALANCffi ment of existing temporary inadequate renovate the physical plant of the Army
One of the large restorations made to facilities. By the way of explanation, Military Academy. Construction at West
the bill from the House reduction is that nearly one-fourth of the Army's physical Point is a very expensive proposition,
of the unobligated balances. The resto- plant is comprised of temporary World due to the fact that the construction
ration for the three services amounted to War II structures. These facilities were costs approximately 100 percent more
$15,779,000. This is the largest restora- constructed more than 20 years ago for than comparable construction in the
tion made in the entire bill. rapid mobilization for World War it. Washington area. This increase in con-
The amounts restored were approved The committee is pleased to note that struction cost is due primarily to the fact
by the committee on the basis of the the Army is instituting a replacement that West Point is located practically on
testimony presented by each of the serv- program particularly in the field of troop solid rock, labor costs and transportation
ices that these cuts would have the effect housing. Fort Hood, Tex. and Fort Dix, costs
of preventing construction of approved N.J., have extensive troop housing pro- ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
projects. According to testimony, all of grams in this bill. The committee approved $10,800,000
the unobligated balances are required Mr. President, rather than go through for the Army National Guard. This is
to construct or complete authorized the bill, item by Item or by the Army's an increase of $4,800,000 over the budget
projects previously cleared by this com- organizational structure, i will proceed estimate. This increase will allow the
mittee. to outline by function and mission group- National Guard to proceed with a firm
The committee was advised by letter ings that are used within the Depart- program of 40 armory and 25 nonarmory
dated July 24, 1964, from the Deputy ment ofDefense for all programing. The projects.
Secretary of Defense: first category is Continental Air and Mis- DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
Another serious reduction made by the site Defense Forces for which an appro- The committee recommends an appro-
House is the cut in the estimate not asso- priation of $600,000 was approved. I priation of $257,899,000 for military con-
ciated with any adjustments to the line might say that at this point in the struction for the Department of the
items, but slump-sum reduction against authorizing bill, this program was re- Navy. This amount is composed of two
the total program estimate. We have no
basis to forecast, at this time, bids for the duced by $45 million. This was mainly parts-$250,899,000 for the Active Naval
items supporting the program which may authorization requested to move the Nike and Marine Corps forces, and $7 million
generate a savings in the magnitude of the Hercules batteries to Inland positions. for the Reserve forces. It is $27,101,000
House cut. As in the past, we hope that The second grouping, General Purpose less than the budget estimate of $278
minor savings will be generated, but any such Forces, the committee approved approxi- million and $3,899,000 greater than the
savings will be utilized to finance projects mately $60 million. Major Items In- appropriation approved by the House of
not previously approved by the Congress, Chided in this appropriation are aviation Representatives.
only after our normal practice o ns requesting support facilities, additional training and This year's program of the Navy is a
tes. l Thus, the Appropriations these tees. the Congress these maneuver areas for the STRAC divisions continuation of a long-range program
committee approvals exercises control over at Fort Riley and Fort Carson. In addi- for the orderly development and modern-
the use of savings or surplus funds which tion, troop housing complexes were ap- Ization of Its shore installations. The
may be generated throughout the course of proved at Fort Hood, Fort Dix, and Fort primary aim is to improve fleet readi-
a fiscal year. Carson, Improvements in our logistical ness. This objective will be achieved by
We most strongly recommend these res- facilities have been made in Korea. The providing proper facilities to support
torations to the House approved estimates. third category, Airlift and Sea Forces, modern ships, aircraft and weapons, up-
The committee recognizes that certain contains a small request of $1,200,000 to dated training programs and adequate
projects will be constructed at a cost enable the Army to relocate activities personnel accommodations.
less than was anticipated, but these from Fort Mason to Oakland Army Ter- This Navy program consists of six pro-
savings will be needed for other projects minal In keeping with the Department of gram groupings. Program I, strategic
for which bids are not favorable and to Defense program to increase efficiency retaliatory forces: This includes a total
finance true emergency items which arise and reduce costs through consolidation of approximately $8 million for Polaris
during the year. Many of these proj- wherever feasible. support facilities. It will provide nec-
ects, such as work in Vietnam which The next grouping is research and essary facilities for the continued buildup
this committee recently approved, can- development for which the committee of the Navy's Polaris weapon system and
not await normal programing cycles recommends an appropriation of ap- will increase the ability of this deterrent
without adversely affecting the defense proximately $40 million. The major force to prepare for and, if necessary,
effort. portion of this appropriation contains to wage warfare in ocean areas generally
Furthermore, facilities destroyed by $30.6 million to provide facilities sup- far removed from our shores.
fire, typhoon, and earthquake must also porting the test and evaluation of the Program II, continental air and mis-
be funded from savings or project de- Nike X system, upon which a decision slle defense forces: This includes the
letions within these military construc- concerning future deployment of the total of $3,484,000 for projects In support
tion appropriations. antimissile system will be based. of our oceanographic facilities, missile
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200160045-2
 1964
S 00160045-2
App oved For ESSI()N~L R CO D66SENATE
18089
defenses and antisubmarine defense support these intercontinental ballistic eral force support services and various
effort. missile systems, primarily the Minute- activities and missions not included in
Program III, general purpose forces: man, Of this amount, $57.6 million will the primary systems and programs prev-
.This includes a total-of $109 million for provide facilities for a single Minute- iously discussed.
ships, aircraft, and weapon system sup- man II squadron to be colocated with The $25 million for design will provide
port.; These line items support Opera- one of the first five wings. A further those funds needed in fiscal year 1965
tiops of the fleet in- protecting our sea $27 million included here will be used to primarily to complete design of the fis-
lines of communicationThis program complete the facilities for the sixth wing cal year 1965 military construction pro-
also contains those projects, required for previously mentioned. The program also gram and to initiate design of the fiscal
the training. and effective utilization of includes $1.1 million for technical-type year 1966 construction program.
the Marine Corps in support of national support facilities at existing support The committee approved a total of
objectives. bases, .$13.2 million for minor construction in
Program IV, Reserve and Guard Aerospace defense continues to be, a fiscal year 1965. These funds are ap-
Forces: This program includes a total of vital requirement for national security. plied only to urgently required projects
$7 million for facilities required in sup- Further improvements are needed and not otherwise authorized by law. Each
port of, essential Naval Reserve. and Ma- this construction approval includes ap- project so funded is estimated to cost
rive Corps Reserve training to provide proximatly $10 million to continue pro- over $25,000 with a maximum limit of
a cadre for immediate mobilization in, viding our aerospace defense forces a $200,000. Projects in excess of $25,000
the event of.any national emergency. more survivable, dispersed, and flexible .must be approved by the Secretary of the
Program V, research and development: fighter-interceptor capability and ground Air Force and if over $50,000, by the
This program includes a total of $25. mil- control environment. Secretary of Defense. Therefore, all Air
lion far new and expanded facilities re- Projects directly associated with im- Force minor construction projects
squired to Insure technological develop- proved capabilities for fighter-intercep- funded from this appropriation are ap-
merit of our fleet units. tor aircraft were approved in the amount proved at the Washington level. The
Program VI, general support: This of $3.2 million. These projects consist present atmosphere of rapid change and
,program includes a total of $100 million of improvements to aircraft ready shel- technological advances, and the need to
for repair, expansion, or replacement of ters and alert facl.liti.es and the construe- respond to worldwide military contin-
many facilities which now provide over- tion of additional maintenance and sup- gencies, makes the availability of this
all logistic support to the operating port facilities at the locations of the authority essential.
forces, but which are nearing the end of interceptor units. The amount of $6 million is approved
their useful life. A total. of $7.8 million was approved to finance the Air Force portion of re-
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE for facility improvements at bases of quirements for construction of off-base
The committee has approved a total our control and warning systems. access roads and improvement or relo-
of $361,986,000 for military construction: A substantial portion of the Air Force cation of existing public highways where
$342,986,000 for the Active Forces, and construction program, over $41 million the need is generated by Air Force op-
$19 million for the Reserve Forces. is devoted to facilities for operation and erations. Right-of-way acquisition and
These amounts are exclusive of family direct support of the general purpose construction work related to these roads
housing. The committee allowance rep- forces. These forces consist primarily is performed for the Air Force by the
resents a reduction of $63,014,000 in the of the tactical fighter and tactical recon- Bureau of Public Roads after certifica-
budget estimate of $425 million ,and is naissance units, and include our oversea tion by the Secretary of Defense. One-
$126,289,000 below the funds appropri- forces. The projects we approved are half of the funds requested will be used
ated for the fiscal year 1964. needed to give an operational capability for provision of access to the ballistic
The $342,986,000 program for con- to new units of these forces and to new missile sites. The balance will be applied
struction of facilities, for the Active types of equipment. to improvement of access to, existing
Forces includes projects at 144 of our The committee is pleased that the Air bases.
major installations. worldwide. Of these, Force has been able to accommodate Mr. President, this completes the pres-
107 are. in the 50 States, and 37 are out- major portions of the expanding airlift entation of the military construction ap-
side.. In addition, the program provides capabilities of transport aircraft with propriation bill for fiscal year 1965. The
facilities at a number of other locations existing base facilities. Some additional committee believes this to be an austere
and minor sites, including those of the facilities have been added, however, pri- bill; however, we are certain that only
A.C, -& W. networks, communications marily to provide adequate servicing and those essential items were approved
sites, missile range stations, and sites of maintenance facilities for new types of which will materially contribute to the
.classified activities. transports. This construction request combat effectiveness of the U.S. military
A major portion of the strategic pro- contains $9 million for support of the forces both home and abroad.
11 gram, or 28 percent of the total, provides airlift forces. Of this total; $6.4 million Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
facilities in direct support of the forces will provide necessary facilities for sent that the committee amendments be
of the Strategic Air Cornmand, This MATS and TAC transport aircraft at agreed to en bloc, that the bill as thus
amount consists of facilities for the in- eight bases inside the United States, amended be considered as original text
tercontinental ballistic missiles, and for We all recognize the need to stay ahead for the purpose of amendment, and that
.manned bombers and their supporting in development of military capabilities no points of order be considered waived.
tanker aircraft, and the tremendous military and eco- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
As the Senator knows, we have com- nomic advantages to be derived by our objection? The Chair hears none, and
pleted the construction of facilities for research and development efforts. The it is so ordered.
the Atlas and Titan systems and these level of research required or to be un- The amendments agreed to en bloc are
missiles are now in an operational sta- dertaken is, of course, no automatic indi- as follows:
tus, The construction of facilities for cator of the extent of associated facility . On page 2, at the beginning of line 4, to
the first, four wings of Minuteman is or construction requirements. The strike out "$301,000,000" and insert "$311,-
complete. Construction., for the fifth unique and technical requirements of 977,000".
wing is approximately 98 percent com- many approved R. & D. programs are On page 2, line 14, after the word "appro-
plete and well ahead of , schedule. A such, however, that provision of addi- priation", to strike out "$247,000,000" and
contract, for construction of the sixth tional or special facilities is inherent to insert "$250,899,000".
Minuteman wing, sited at Grand Forks accomplishment of the research effort. On page 2, at the beginning of line 24, to
Air Force Base, N.. Dak., was awarded in To provide such facility support for Air strike out "$346,000,000" and insert "$342,-
February of this year. The Grand Forks Force research and development pro- 986,000".
wing will be the first of the improved grams, we approved appropriations in the On page 4, at the beginning of line 21, to
Minuteman, or Minuteman II, as it has amount of $27 million. strike out "$6,000,000" and insert "$10,800,-
".
been designated. Projects totaling approximately $155 000On page , line 17, the word "", Included in the missile package is million are contained in the general sup- strike out 5$650,358,500"rand insert "$617,-
$90.2 million for additional facilities to port grouping. This portion covers gen- 651,000".
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200160045-2
 18090
Approved For CONGRESSIONAL 1RCQRI3DP6$RR00020f11'60045-2 August 8
On page 5, line 22, after the word "con-
struction", to strike out "$40,448,000" and
Insert "$32,216,000".
On page 6, line 2, after the word "con-
struction", to strike out "$72,481,000" and
insert "$59,144,000".
On page 6, line 6, after the word "con-
struction", to strike out "$64,013,500" and
insert "$52,878,000".
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
is open to further amendment. If there
be no further amendment to be proposed,
the question is on the engrossment of the
amendments and the third reading of the
bill.
The amendments were ordered to be
engrossed, and the bill to be read a third
time.
The bill was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
having been read the third time, the
questions is, Shall it pass? The yeas
and nays have been ordered, and the
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that
the Senator from Indiana [Mr. BAYS],
the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr.
CLARK], the Senator from Michigan [Mr.
HART], the Senator from Washington
[Mr. JACKSON], the Senator from South
Carolina [Mr. JOHNSTON], the Senator
from Ohio [Mr. LAuscHEI, the Senator
from Missouri [Mr. LONG], the Senator
from Maine [Mr. MUsKIE1, the Senator
from Rhode Island [Mr. PELL], and the
Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERSI,
are absent on official business.
I also announce that the Senator from
New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON] and the
Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KEN-
NEDY] are absent because of illness.
I further announce that the Senator
from West Virginia [Mr. BYRD], the Sen-
ator from Connecticut [Mr. DODD], the
Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. EDMOND-
SON], the Senator from Tennessee [Mr.
GORE], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr.
[Mr. DODD 1, the Senator from Oklahoma
[Mr. EDMONDSON], the Senator from
Tennessee [Mr. GORE], the Senator from
Michigan [Mr. HART], the Senator from
Washington [Mr. JACKSON], the Senator
from South Carolina [Mr. JOHNSTON],
the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr.
KENNEDY], the Senator from Ohio [Mr.
LAVSCHZ], and the Senator from Mis-
souri [Mr. LONG] would each vote "yea."
Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the
Senator from Nebraska [Mr. CURTIS],
the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSENI,
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. GOLD-
WATER), the Senator from Idaho fMr.
JORDAN], the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
PEARSON), the Senator from Pennsyl-
vania [Mr. SCOTT], the Senator from
Wyoming [Mr. SI MPSON], and the Sena-
tor from Texas [Mr. TowzR] are neces-
sarily absent.
The Senator from New York [Mr.
JAVITS). the Senator from Kentucky [Mr.
MORTON ] , and the Senator from North
Dakota [Mr. YOUNG] are detained on
official business.
If present and voting, the Senator from
Nebraska [Mr. CURTIS], the Senator from
Illinois IMr. DIRKSEN1, the Senator from
Arizona [Mr. GOLDWATER], the Senator
from New York [Mr. JAVITSI, the Sena-
tor from Idaho [Mr. JORDAN], the
Senator from Kentucky [Mr. MORTON],
the Senator from Kansas [Mr. PEARSON],
the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr.
SCOTT I. the Senator from Wyoming [Mr.
SIMPSON]. the Senator from Texas [Mr.
TOWER], and the Senator from North
Dakota [Mr. YOUNG] would each vote
"yea."
The result was
nays 0, as follows:
YEAS-64
Aiken
Hartke
Morse
Ailott
Hayden
Mundt
Bartlett
Hlckenlooper
Nelson
Beall
Hill
Neuberger
Bennett
Holland
Pastore
Bible
Hruska
Prouty
Boggs
Humphrey
Proxmire
Brewster
Inouye
Ribicoff
-Burdick
Jordan. N.C.
Robertson
Carlson
Keating
Russell
Case
Kuchel
Salinger
Church
Magnuson
Saltonstall
Cooper
Mansfield
Smith
Cotton
McCarthy
Sparkman
Dominick
McClellan
Stennis
Douglas
McGee
Thurmond
Eastland
McGovern
Walters
Yilender
McIntyre
Williams, N.J.
Ervin
Mechem
Williams, Del.
Pong
Metcalf
Young. Ohio
Fulbright
Miller
Gruening
Monroney
LONG], the Senator from Michigan [Mr.
McNAMARAI, the Senator from Utah [Mr.
Moss], the Senator West Virginia [Mr.
RANDOLPH], the Senator from Missouri
[Mr. SYMINGTON], the Senator from
Georgia [Mr. TALMADGE], the Senator
from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH], and the
Senator from Nevada [Mr. CANNON] are
necessarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator
from Virginia [Mr. BYRD] is absent be-
cause of illness in the family.
I further announce that. if present
and voting, the Senator from Texas [Mr.
YARBOROUGH], the Senator from Georgia
[Mr. TALMADGE], the Senator from Mis-
souri [Mr. SYMINGTONI, the Senator
from Florida [Mr. SMATHERSI, the Sen-
ator from West Virginia [Mr. RAN-
DOLPH], the Senator from Rhode Island
[Mr. PELL], the Senator from Maine
[Mr. MUSKIE], the Senator from Utah
[Mr. Moss], the Senator from Michigan
Mr. [MCNAMARA1, the Senator from
Louisiana [Mr. LONG], the Senator from
New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON], the Sen-
ator from Indiana [Mr. BAYHI, the Sen-
ator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD], the Sen-
ator from West Virginia [Mr. BYRD],
the Senator from Nevado [Mr. CANNON],
the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr.
CLARK], the Senator from Connecticut
NAYS-O
NOT VOTING-36
Anderson
Hart
Muskie
Bayh
Jackson
Pearson
Byrd. Va.
Javlts
Pell
Byrd. W. Va.
Johnston
Randolph
Cannon
Jordan. Idaho
Scott
Clark
Kennedy
Simpson
Curtis
Lausche
Smathers
Dirksen
Long, Mo.
Symington
Dodd
Long. La.
Talmadge
Edmondson
McNamara
Tower
Goldwater
Morton
Yarborough
Gore
Moss
Young. N. Dak.
So the bill (H.R. 11369) was Passed. credit agencies, the committee recom-
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I move mends $1,630,579,524-a decrease of $20,-
that the vote whereby the bill was passed 329,690 below 1964 appropriations, $81,-
be reconsidered. 176,525 over the House bill-as ad-
Mr, MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I justed-and $1,644,075 below the amend-
move to lay that motion on the table. ed budget estimates.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200160045-2
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I move
that the Senate insist on its amendments,
request a conference with the House of
Representatives thereon, and that the
Chair appoint the conferees on the part
of the Senate.
The motion was agreed to; and the
Presiding Officer appointed Mr. STENNIS,
Mr. RUSSELL, Mr. BIBLE, Mr. ELLENDER,
Mr. BYRD Of Virginia. Mr. XUCHEL, Mr.
SALTONSTALL, and Mr. HRUSKA conferees
on the part of the Senate.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
APPROPRIATIONS, 1965
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the unfin-
ished business be laid aside temporarily,
and that the Senate proceed to the con-
sideration of Calendar No. 1275, H.R.
11202, the Agriculture Department ap-
propriation bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
will be stated by title.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (H.R.
11202) making appropriations for the
Department of Agriculture and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1965, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the request of the Senator
from Montana?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the bill, which had
been reported from the Committee on
Appropriationswith amendments.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, we
now have under consideration H.R.'
11202, the annual supply bill providing
appropriations for the Department of
Agriculture and related agencies. Ap-
propriations in the bill as recommended
by the committee are $5,338,672,525, an
increase of $56,176,525 over the House
bill-as adjusted. It is $344,784,075 be-
low the amended budget estimates and
$907,624,690 under the 1964 Appropria-
tion Act.
May I digress to say that printed rec-
ords of the hearings are available.
Printed reports of the committee are
available. I believe all Senators will be
able to inform themselves completely
about the details of this rather long bill
from the papers which are available to
each of them.
Subsequent to the passage of the bill
by the House, amended budget estimates
were sent directly to the Senate in Senate
Documents 82, 83, and 85, involving in-
creases totaling $46,250,000 and decreases
totaling $51,547,000 for a net decrease of
$5,297,000. All of the decreases had al-
ready been made by the House.
Title I of the bill covers the general
activities of the Department; title II
covers the credit agencies; titre III covers
corporations; and title IV, the Farm
Credit Administration. For titles I and
II covering the general activities and