[CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN MILITARY, NAVAL, AND AIR FORCE INSTALLATIONS]

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120008-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 16
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 26, 2006
• Sequence Number: 8
• Publication Date: July 1, 1955
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2006/07/28 -. CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120008-9
1 U55
Mr. MANSFIELD.
never spoken.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
8299
before the Senate the unfinished busi- million of the Navy authorization is for
ness, which is H. R. 6829. operational facilities. Troop housing,
The Senate resumed the consideration which means barracks and bachelor offi-
of the bill (H. R. 6829) to authorize cer- cers quarters, constitutes about $71 mil-
tain construction at military, naval, and lion. Family housing makes up $56 mil-
Air Force installations, and for other lion of the total. The remainder of the
purposes. Navy program is for land acquisitions,
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- research and development, training fa-
pore. The question is on agreeing to the cilities, the acquisition of avigation ease-
committee amendment, which is in the ments around naval air stations, a pollu-
nature of a complete substitute for the tion abatement program, and for welfare
bill. and recreational facilities.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, the The Air Force authorization is greater
Senate is considering the so-called mili- than that of the Army and the Navy
tary construction bill for the budget year combined. As Senators know, we are
1956. striving for a 137-wing Air Force in 1957.
The purpose of the bill is to authorize This Air Force construction program is
construction by the military departments intended to provide the additional facili-
and the Central Intelligence Agency in ties to support that force level. The Air
a total aFnount of $2,35''3,7M, This Force construction is spread among 255
authorization is distributed $527,027,000 bases-151 are in the United States and
for the Army; $571,620,300 for the Navy; 104 overseas. There are two new bases
$1,205,170,000 for the Air Force; and in the Air Force program. One at the
$53,500,000 for the Central Intelligence Buckingham Weapons Center in Florida
Agency. I invite attention of Senators and the other a new Air Defense base in
to the fact that the committee report the Milwaukee, Wis., area. As has been
contains a breakdown by States and by true in recent years, the Strategic Air
military department of the authoriza- Command gets a lion's share of the Air
tions contained in this bill. The bill as Force authorization. Viewing the pro-
introduced at the request of the Depart- 'gram from categories of construction,
ment of Defense totalled $2,354,352,300; airfield pavements is by far the largest
However, subsequent to the bill's intro- item. -
duction, the Department requested Title IV of the bill authorizes the con-
amendments increasing the authoriza- struction of a headquarters installation
tion by some $41 million. These amend- for the Central Intelligence Agency. I
ments were for the purposes of providing believe it is widely recognized, in Con-
additional facilities to accommodate the gress at least, that the Central Intelli-
increased production of B-52's recently gence Agency is scattered among several
approved by the Congress, and to provide temporary buildings in Washington, and
facilities for a new technique in air de- that it could operate more effectively
fense. Thus, despite the fact that the and economically in buildings designed to
committee has made changes in the bill, suit its requirements.
our reductions unfortunately have been There is local opposition to some of
largely obscured by the addition of the the items in this bill, principally those
authorizations requested after the bill pertaining to land acquisition. The
was introduced. committee has afforded everyone who ad-
In round figures, the pending bill as vised. us of his desire to do so, an op-
now presented is $28 million under the portunity to testify. Committee action
total budget estimate submitted, and $11 on the more controversial items is sum-
million, in round figures, under the bill marized in the committee report on page
as it passed the House. 11. Some of our decisions were diffi-
The reductions and additions made by cult ones and we claim no infallibility.
the committee are set forth in the com- We have, however, exercised our best
mittee report in summary form at the judgment, bearing in mind the require-
end of the title to which they pertain. At ments of national defense and the views
the conclusion of my statement, I shall of the persons most directly affected by
be glad to discuss any item in which any our actions.
Senator is particularly interested. Of special significance, I think, is the
In the Army title, $160 million, or 30 housing authorization contained in this
percent of the program, is for continu- bill. Scattered throughout titles I, II,
ing the antiaircraft facilities commonly and III are authorizations for the con-
known as nike sites. Sixty-four million struction of almost 17,000 units of mili-
dollars is for troop housing and troop tary family housing. In the realization
support facilities. Eighty-eight million that this request constitutes only a Small
dollars is for family housing, $38 mil- part of the requirements for family hous-
lion is for land acquisiton. Twenty-six ing, these authorizations have been left
million dollars is to continue construe- virtually intact. In approving this
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. The Secretary will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE MARINE
CORPS
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President, I wish to take this oppor-
tunity to thank the distinguished mem-
bers of the Senate conference commit-
tee on defense appropriations for their
successful efforts which resulted in the
preservation of funds for the Marine
Corps.
It means that. the Marine Corps will
be able to keep itself in trim shape and
be ready, as it has in the past, to defend
our Nation in time of emergency.
I feel that this is a major victory for
national defense, and, while my feelings
on this matter are well known, I wish
again to thank the distinguished mem-
bers of the conference committee, and
especially the distinguished Senator
from Georgia [Mr. RUSSELL].
I believe this action will prove in the
future to be very beneficial to our na-
tional defense.
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
A message from the House of Repre-
sentatives, by Mr. Bartlett, one of its
clerks, announced that the House had
passed the bill (S. 2090) to amend the
Mutual Security Act of 1954, and for
other purposes, with amendments, in
which it requester: the concurrence of
the Senate; that the House insisted upon
its amendments; asked a conference
with the Senate on the disagreeing votes
of the two Houses thereon, and that Mr.
RICHARDS, Mr. MORGAN, Mr. ZABLOCKI,
Mr. VORYS, and Mr. JUDD were appointed
managers on the part of the House at
the conference.
ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED
The message also announced that the
Speaker had affixed his signature to the
following enrolled bills, and they were
signed by the Acting President pro tem-
pore :
H. R. 928. An act for the relief of Eugenio
Maida; and
H. R. 3194. An act for the relief of E. S. tion in Alaska and Okinawa, two of our
Berney. most important strategic areas today.
Try ^T ~- - The remaining authorization, approxi-
/
N
T
CTTON .. - mately 30 percent of the t
t
l i
i
te
d
d
O
S
RU
o
a
s
n
n
e
INSTALLATIONS
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate proceed to the consideration of
the unfinished business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. Without objection, the Chair lays
velopment, training, community facili-
ties, medical facilities, and other miscel-
laneous requirements,
The Navy title, which totals $571 mil-
lion, constitutes another step in the pro-
gram to keep the Navy's shore establish-
ment adequate to service its ships, air-
craft, and weapons. Approximately $345
authorization, we have not been un-
mindful of the military housing authori-
zation contained in the bill reported by
the Banking and Currency Committee
which later passed the Senate. That
bill would provide $1,350,000,000 in au-
thority to guarantee mortgages on hous-
ing for military personnel. This au-
thority could be used over the next 3
years and, if fully utilized, could pro-
vide 100,000 units. It is reported that
this title has been eliminated from the
bill in the House and we are unable to
Approved For Release 2006/07/28: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120008-9
 Approved For Release 2006/07/28: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120008-9
8300 CONGRESSIONAL, RECORD - SENATE
July 1
estimate what will emerge from con- timore Is undesirable. This facility was best motives in the interest of the Air
ference. formerly at Wright-Patterson Airfield. Force.
There is no questioning the fact that We made no objection at the time it was Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator
the need for additional family housing is moved, because we felt that, as Members from Ohio; I sincerely appreciate his
one of the most serious problems of the of Congress, certainly we could trust the comment.
Department of Defense. The Depart- leadership of the Air Force in selecting Mr. FLANDERS. Mr. President, will
ment has considered various methods, the site which for their purposes would the Senator yield?
including deferred payment through an- be in order. They selected the present Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
nual appropriations, lease purchase con- site, and now they find it is not suitable Mr. FLANDERS. I wish to make an
tracts, working-capital funds utilizing and are asking that the facility be re- observation. About 212 years ago, with
unexpended balances of prior appropria- turned to the place where it should be, at the cooperation of the Department of
tions, creation of a military housing cor- Wright-Patterson Airfield. The fact that Defense, I made a tour of all the princi-
poration with authority to issue bonds, I come from Ohio is not important, but pal producing centers of airframes and
and direct appropriations. The Depart- it is important that this facility be 10- air engines throughout the country. At
ment assured the committee that the cated at the Wright-Patterson Air Force that time the manufacturers of air-
simplest method, and the cheapest one Base at Dayton, Ohio. If it were in Mis- frames and engines were unanimous in
in the long run, involved the providing sissippi I would feel exactly the same their belief that the facility should be
of public quarters through the tradi- way. If it were in Missouri I would feel located at Wright Field or near Wright
tional use of funds directly appropriated exactly as I do now. But I think it is 9, Field. They said it would be a cause of
for that purpose. I invite the attention mistake to move the facility. If it were continuing confusion to have it separated
of Senators to the charts appearing on in the State of Texas I would feel good from Wright Field.
pages 26 and 27 of the committee hear- about it, too. i was sorry to see that the Cook report
ings, These charts illustrate that after If the Senator from Mississippi will raised the question adversely. I believe
20 years these houses have paid for them- bear with me for a moment. I should like that the experience of the industry and
selves, including interest and the cost of to state the reasons why we feel the fa- the present judgment of the Air Force
maintenance and operation. cility should be returned to its former should be taken into consideration. I
Mr. BENDER. Mr. President, will the location. hope the matter will be looked at from
Senator from Mississippi yield? Ohio is the cradle of aviation. It all sides before a decision is made.
Mr. STENNIS. I should like to add would be a tribute to Dayton to have the Mr. STENNIS. I appreciate the con-
one thought in connection with the facility located in that area. As I stated tribution to the discussion which has
housing matter. before, we did not object when the Air been made by the Senator from Ver-
Mr. President. the full committee re- Research and Development Headquar- mont. He is unusually well qualified to
port points out the problem with refer- ters were moved away several years ago, speak on the subject, both from a tech-
ence to a housing program for the mili- because we had confidence in the good nical standpoint and also as a member
tary authorities, put into one pattern. judgment of the Air Force officials, and of the Committee on Armed Services.
We do not know what provision, if any, we were sure they were doing what His contribution in this field has been
for military family housing will be in- seemed best to them, valuable.
cluded in the so-called housing bill as it The Secretary of the Air Force, Mr. Mr. PAYNE. Mr. President, will the
finally passes the Congress. There is Talbott, is requesting Congress to all- Senator yield?
need for more housing than is carried in propriate money to do the thing which Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
the bill which is now under considera- he feels is best for the Air Force. I am Mr. PAYNE. I wish to congratulate
tion. But the Armed Services Committee sure there is nothing personal about it. my colleague, the junior Senator from
thinks there should be a complete re- I am sure that as a result of his great ex- Mississippi, and all other members of
study of the entire program, and It has perience he is suggesting what he feels the committee, for the consideration
directed a subcommittee to continue is essential to the efficiency of the Air which they gave the bill to the building
such a study until next January. We Force. of what I understand will be 17,000 fam-
hope that by next year a definite cen- I feel certain that the committee will Ily-housing units for the personnel of
tralized program and authority can be take a second look. We have been talk- the Armed Services. I am especially
established. without duplication, with- ing about taking second looks. So I interested because I happen to serve on
out conflict, and without competition. trust the committee will take a second the Subcommittee on Housing of the
Many Government agencies have pro- look regarding this matter and will con- Committee on Banking and Currency,
vided family housing for military fami- sider the value and the need for this which had very substantial testimony,
lies. The committee thinks, as does the facility to be where the Air Force wants extending over several days, from those
Secretary of the Department of Defense, it, who are interested in the problem. I
that after all is said and done, the best Mr. STENNIS. I assure the Senator am particularly interested in the state-
thing in the long run for the Govern- from Ohio that I think the point he ment which was made by Gen. Curtis
ment is to appropriate the funds, build makes is well taken. I am glad he en- LeMay, of the Strategic Air Command,
the houses, and then charge rent to the tered into the debate on the question. with reference to the serious shortage
servicemen to be paid from their family The committee's action Is no refutation which exists in satisfactory housing for
allowances, so that in the course of of the recommendation which was military personnel as it pertains to his
events the Government gets its money made by the Secretary of the Air Force. command, and the fact that something
back and still has the family housing. The committee proposes to follow the must be done, definitely, to retain in the
I now yield to the Senator from Ohio, suggestion of theSenator from Ohio and service well-qualified, trained personnel
Mr. BENDER. Mr. President, if my to leave the question to a decision by the of a type which can carry out its mis-
distinguished friend from Mississippi will Air Force. sion in any event.
yield for a brief statement in connection But, in view of the Cook report and the Would the Senator from Mississippi be
with the committee report, on page 13 recommendations made to the commit- good enough to advise me as to whether
there is a comment regarding the Air tee as to the bill, we think the matter in the course of the testimony before his
Force authorization request, referring to should be reexamined, or examined committee-because I have not had an
an item for air research and develop- somewhat further. We indicate a will- opportunity to go through the entire re-
ment. specifically, the decision of the Air ingness to provide a site, the present one port-the shortage which was estimated
Force to move this divison from its pres- being inadequate, but we do not feel to exist at present, as it pertains to the
ent location back to the Wright-Patter- like chopping it off at this moment, in armed services, is somewhere in the vi-
son Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio. spite of the conflict of testimony. So cinity of 300,000 family housing units.
The construction authorization, as I this is our proposal. Since we could Certainly it is necessary to bring up the
understand, has been removed from Bal- not be sufficiently positive, we left the number of housing units to a point where
timore Air Field, but left in the bill is a question open, we can retain our personnel, and ade-
provision for a location to be determined. Mr. BENDER. I thank the Senator quate housing will be a very real advan-
I was glad to see the comment, not be- from Mississippi for his cooperation in tage to them.
cause I am narrow and provincial, but the matter. I am certain his commit- Mr. STENNIS. About 180,000 family
because I feel that the location near Bal- tee was animated and activated by the type units are needed in the United
Approved For Release 2006/07/28: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120008-9
 Approved For Release 2006/07/28: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120008-9
1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
States. In addition, there is a deficit of
11,000 in the Territories and possessions,
and 56,000 in foreign countries. Thus,
the total worldwide deficit is now esti-
mated to be 247,000 units.
Mr. PAYNE. That is somewhere near
the figure I mentioned. We were told
by Assistant Secretary of Defense Floete,
when he appeared, that approximately
300,000 units were needed.
It is true that under the direct appro-
priation it may be possible to continue
on the same basis as we are proceeding
this year, which is a step forward. It
would take approximately 20 years to be
able to bring housing up to the point
where the shortage can be entirely re-
lieved. That, of course, is the very rea-
son why a provision was included in the
housing bill for the construction of mili-
tary housing by the Department of De-
fense by the issuance of bonds.
I sincerely hope that there may be
both types of housing, in order that the
job may be finished as quickly as
possible.
Mr. STENNIS. The housing program
as a part of the military program is just
beginning to get under way, because
there were other items which necessarily
had to be given preference during the
past 3 or 4 years. Almost all the run-
ways had to be extended, and hangars
had to be enlarged and, in some cases,
replaced by new ones. Everything had
to be done with reference to the opera-
tional end of the airbases.
Now we are getting around to the
housekeeping, and family housing is one
of the major items.
I hope the Senator from Maine will
agree that since the program is begin-
ning to develop and will have to be sus-
tained over the years, a definite, unified
policy should be adopted, and should
then move forward on that front.
To that extent, the Committee on
Banking and Currency, of which the
Senator from Maine is a member, has
provided this year that housing which
will be built as a result of authoriza-
tion by that committee must be under
the jurisdiction of Assistant Secretary
of Defense Floete.
Mr. PAYNE. That is correct.
Mr. STENNIS. That is a step in the
:right direction.
Mr. PAYNE. The reason for my
making these remarks is that I am
familiar with the situation. I happened
to enjoy the privilege of being with the
first group which was activated in the
20th Air Force under Gen. Curtis E.
LeMay. Only last week I had occasion
to be with two enlisted Air Force per-
sonnel-sergeants, as a matter of fact-
who are being transferred from one base
to another.
During the course of my conversation
with them, because they happened to
serve with me, I asked them whether
they were going to make the Air Force
their career. They had been in the serv-
ice for some time.
The fact that they are being trans-
ferred to an area where there is not
proper housing available is leading those
men, who have been trained to perform
important duties and who are giving
their great experience to the Air Force,
to come to the definite. conclusion that
probably they will not reenlist again, be-
cause their wives will not join them at
the location to which they are to be sent,
since adequate housing is not available.
I think such a situation must be
remedied.
Mr. STENNIS. The Senator from
Maine has made a fine summary of the
situation which the committee also found
to exist.
We found that the bill, which carries
more than $2.3 billion, had exceptionally
fine backing from the service, especially
from Assistant Secretary of Defense
Floete and his staff. They had combed
the bill thoroughly. The necessities and
requirements were reduced to a mini-
mum. The committee promptly ap-
proved every item in the bill, after a par-
ticular examination of it, line by line,
and after receiving the advice of a civil-
ian construction engineer who had been
on our staff for many months, and who
went into the entire matter, checked the
unit costs for the various items, gave a
final recommendation, and virtually ap-
proved the bill.
We wish especially to thank Assistant
Secretary of Defense Floete and his ex-
cellent staff, as well as those in the serv-
ice who worked on the bill.
The other members of the subcommit-
tee are the junior Senator from South
Dakota [Mr. CASE] and the junior Sen-
ator from Washington [Mr. JACKSON],
who made excellent contributions to the
long, and sometimes rather laborious
hearings which were held in the con-
sideration of the bill.
I feel especially indebted to all the
members of the Committee on Armed
Services for their earnest attention and
outstanding work- on the bill. I hope
each of them will have something to say
about it. I wish especially to thank them,
as well as our excellent staff member who
has been particularly charged with re-
sponsibility in this matter, Mr. William
Darden, who _ rendered outstanding
service.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield to the Sena-
tor from Montana.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Can the Senator
from Mississippi inform the Senate
whether or not H. R. 6829 has already
passed the House? It is my impression
that it has passed the House, but I should
like to have that point clarified. Is that
correct?
Mr. STENNIS. The bill under consid-
eration today has already passed the
House.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Does the distin-
guished Senator from Mississippi antici-
pate that there will be any difficulty get-
ting an appropriation to carry out the
provisions of the measure, once a confer-
ence report has been agreed on?
Mr. STENNIS. I think the Appropri-
ations Committee will have before it an
appropriation for a major part of these
authorizations, and, in addition, for au-
thorizations from the previous year.
I cannot speak for the committee, of
course, but as a member of the commit-
tee, and as one who is familiar with what
will come before it, I think the answer
to the Senator's question is "Yes."
8301
Mr. MANSFIELD. Will the Senator
yield further?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. MANSFIELD. On page 23 of the
report there appears an item of $1,350,-
000 for housing at the Glasgow site in
Montana. That means that $1,350,000
of the $4,706,000 would be allocated spe-
cifically to housing at the Glasgow site,
would it not?
Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is correct.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Does the Senator
have any idea how many housing units
would be built for that amount of
money?
Mr. STENNIS. In round numbers,
100. I wish to say to the Senator from
Montana that I am not certain that item
in its entirety will be asked for in the
appropriation bill, but I think most of
the item will be asked for. The appro-
priation bill will follow the authorization.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I thank the Sen-
ator.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, there
is an amendment which has been agreed
to by the subcommittee, but which came
in late and therefore was not before the
full committee. The subcommittee has
unanimously agreed to its adoption. It
has to do with housing with reference
to the Nike sites, and would permit the
Secretary to rent or lease housing at the
Nike sites rather than build them. We
think the matter ought to be further
developed in testimony, but we feel the
amendment is worthy and that it should
be taken to conference,
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. Is the Senator speaking of an
amendment to the amendment?
Mr. STENNIS. It is an amendment
to the bill, which is really a committee
amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. The clerk will state the amend-
ment.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERIC. It is proposed
at the end of the bill to add the following
new section:
SEC. -. During the fiscal years 1956 and
1957 the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and
Air Force, respectively, are authorized to
lease housing facilities at or near military
tactical installations for assignment as pub-
lic quarters to military personnel and their
dependents without rental charge upon a
determination by the Secretary of Defense
or his designee that there is a lack of ade-
quate housing facilities at or near such mili-
tary tactical installations: Provided, That
not more than 1,000 housing units may be
so leased and the rental cost to the Govern-
ment for any housing unit may not exceed
$150 per month.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr.
President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I shall be happy to
yield, or I can yield the floor, if the
Senator wishes the floor in his own right.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Particu-
larly with respect to the pending amend-
ment, I should like to have the RECORD
show that I believe the amendment
should be taken to conference, but be-
fore the conference is held there should
be a hearing so that testimony can be
taken on it. The amendment as drawn
provides that the housing, if leased, may
be assigned as military quarters. That
implies forfeiture of military allowances
to which military personnel are entitled
Approved For Release 2006/07/28: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120008-9
 Approved For Release 2006/07/28: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120008-9
8302 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
July 1
when housing is not provided. At the Fort Sill is to have Its jurisdiction or tives of the wilderness societies, and so
same time, the amendment provides that territory expanded considerably under forth, would like to have more private
the housing may cost as much as $150 a the particular authorization now under land taken.
month, which would be in excess of the consideration. The purpose of that ex- What we did was, first of all, try to
average quarters allowances. pansion is to make possible a firing range meet the public interest by insisting
There may be some special urgency for modern weapons. so as to be able to that the private owners adjacent to the
for such housing in connection with the accommodate the weapons. area be required to give up their land.
Nike program, and provision for hous- Will the Senator tell me how many I think the arrangement which has
ctical
l
th
ing where the Nike installations have
been authorized, but before we make the
exception and provide for what amounts
to a raising of military quarters allow-
ances, it seems to me some testimony
should be taken, before the matter is
finally acted on In conference. In order
that the amendment may be taken to
conference, however, I have no objec-
tion to its adoption at this time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. The question is on agreeing to
the amendment to the committee
amendment offered by the Senator from
Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS].
The amendment to the amendment
was agreed to.
Mr. STENNIS. I heartily concur in
the recommendations and sentiments of
the Senator from South Dakota.
One of the general provisions of the
bill is section 507, which amends section
407 of Public Law 765, 83d Congress,
by increasing from $25 million to $100
million the authority to provide housing
through use of the proceeds from the
sale of surplus agricultural commodities
by the Commodity Credit Corporation.
The revised section amends the provi-
sion with respect to the reimbursement
of Commodity Credit Corporation and
provides that the limitation of $100 mil-
lion shall apply to the amount of the
expenditure of foreign currencies rather
than to the value of the houses. This
will enable the Department of Defense,
in appropriate cases, to utilize troop
labor without a reduction in the total of
the authority to use proceeds from the
sale of surplus agricultural-commodities.
We feel that carrying out the pro-
gram should be encouraged by the re-
flection that although $100 million Is a
relatively very small amount, the author-
ization certainly indicates that a start
is being made. I think the Secretary
should be commended for his attitude
and action.
Section 510 of the bill will cancel $802
million in authorizations no longer required
that have already been identified. as well
as an additional authorization totaling at
least $300 million more. The section will
cancel, as of July 1, 1958, all authorizations
enacted prior to October 1, 1951.
Those authorizations were made dur-
ing the early stages of the Korean war.
Many of them were carried out. In
others we found that changes were nec-
essary. The provision does not cancel
any authorizations where work is under
construction or is felt to be needed.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I should like to ask
the Senator a question or two with re-
spect to expansion of facilities at Fort
Sill, Okla., for the canonn-firing range
which is contemplated in the program
for the Military Establishment.
First, I should like to preface my ques-
tion by stating that, as I understand,
lion, and where the expansion is to come
from?
Mr. STENNIS. I am going to ask
unanimous consent that the Senator
from Washington [Mr. JACKSON] answer
those questions. He was the one who
took the testimony on this matter. I
ask that he be permitted to answer the
Senator's questions.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, it is
my understanding that the total acqui-
sition will be approximately 30,000 acres
or, to be exact, 31,020 acres of land. Of
this total, 10.700 acres are a part of the
Wichita Wildlife Refuge. The remain-
der-20.320 acres-private land. Rough-
ly, that is the total amount of acreage
involved.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Will the 10,700
acres be taken from private lands?
Mr. JACKSON. That acreage Is a
part of the Wichita Wildlife Refuge,
which is owned by the Federal Govern-
ment.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Is it a part of the
national park system?
Mr. JACKSON. No ; it is part of the
Fish and Wildlife system.
Mr. HUMPHREY. It is used for the
propagation of wildlife, Is It?
Mr. JACKSON. That is correct.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, If
the Senator from Washington will yield
to me at this point, let me say that the
part to be taken by this requirement has
been on lease to the military for a num-
ber of years; it is not the part of the
refuge which is used for wildlife propa-
gation. In fact, the wildlife area is quite
a number of miles removed from the
portion being requested in connection
with this measure.
Mr. JACKSON. It is my further un-
derstanding. I should like to say to the
distinguished senior Senator from Min-
nesota, that the area where the public
participates is farther north. The area
we are proposing to take Is not, for the
most part, enjoyed by the public as a
whole.
We had the problem of trying to make
It possible for the Army to utilize its
latest and newest field-artillery weap-
ons-including the "Honest John," which
has a very long range, and the 280-milli-
meter gun. I may say that the "Honest
John" is still unreliable, according to the
testimony presented before the commit-
tee; in other words, itIs impossible to be
sure just where the shells from that gun
will land.
The committee heard testimony from
representatives of the wildlife societies
and from the private-property owners.
We asked the representatives of those
groups what they would do in this situ-
ation, In light of the military require-
ments. Roughly, the answer was, of
course, that those who had private land
would like to have the- Army leave them
alone, and go farther into the wildlife
refuge. And of course the representa-
y pra
e on
been worked out is
one unless Fort Sill is to be abandoned.
That Is what this situation really boils
down to, because at Fort Sill the con-
ventional type artillery is still in use,
as well as the new types of artillery.
The same troops cannot be properly
trained in all these weapons, If a part
of their training Is given to them half
way across the country, and a part is
given to them at Fort Sill.
At first I felt about this matter just
as the distinguished Senator from Min-
nesota does, I am sure-in that I looked
with great apprehension upon the acqui-
sition of the lands involved. We have
this problem in my State and all the
other western States. Frankly, when
we look at all the cold, hard facts, there
is no alternative but to do what the Army
has requested in this case.
I say frankly that this matter has
been reviewed and rereviewed by all
those in the executive branch. Finally,
we asked all those who were involved to
come in and sit around the table and
listen to the statements by the Army rep-
resentatives. Those who attended that
meeting had to admit there was no
alternative.
They did suggest the working out of
an arrangement whereby the firing might
be over the town of Fort Sill and over
one of the main U. S. highways.
In terms of simple dimensions and
mathematics, the question is just this;
Where are we going to end?
I feel that every effort should be made
to prevent this sort of thing; but when
we are confronted with an actual situa-
tion, for which there appears to be no
alternate approach, I do not see what
else we could do.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Will the acquisi-
tion of the 10,700 acres of the wildlife
refuge in any way make unusable the
other areas of the refuge which are set
aside for purposes of wildlife propaga-
tion, and also for park and public use?
Mr. JACKSON. To my knowledge, it
will not. It will preserve the integrity -
of the refuge.
Mr. MONRONEY. It will preserve
the integrity of the refuge. The part
to be taken is the most inaccessible part
and the part which is used neither by the
public nor for game propagation.
But it so happens that this particular
plot lies in the only direction in which
Fort Sill can expand. We are faced
with a hard choice. Abandonment of in-
vestment of $200 million or $300 million
In the finest artillery center the world
has ever known, where artillerymen
from all friendly nations are today being
trained; or expansion of the firing range
to accommodate newly-developed artil-
lery weapons, anyone who visits Fort
Sill today will see classes from our
friendly allies being trained there. But
the weapons of today have outgrown the
firing range we now have. The entire
area of the reservation is only about
Approved For Release 2006/07/28: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120008-9
 Approved For Release 2006/07/28: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120008-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 8303
74,000 acres in total size. I can assure
the Senator from Minnesota that the
Army has reduced its proposal for land
acquisition to the bare minimum for
purpose of a firing range; the Army is
not asking for more. ground for maneu-
vers or for building or housing sites but
is- asking only for land for a target
range, so modern artillery weapons-
which, of course, have been greatly in-
creased in range-can be accommodated.
Either we must close the center, which
is dedicated to artillery training, and in
closing it waste hundreds of millions of
dollars and cause years of delay in set-
ting up a new artillery center; or else
we must have second-rate artillery, un-
less the additional land is acquired.
I am sure we do not want our field
artillerymen and officers who are trained
there to use anything less than the most
modern weapons, developed and used to
their full capacity. Unless we obtain
this additional land, it will be absolutely
impossible to maintain the artillery cen-
ter at the proficiency at which it must
be maintained, in view of the develop-
ments of today.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, the
Senator said the integrity of the game
refuge will be protected. I assume he
means that the jurisdictional boundaries
will be protected. I wish to ascertain-
and I should like to have -a frank an-
swer-whether, after the 10,700 acres
are added to the artillery-target area,
the remainder of the refuge will be
made unusable?
Mr. JACKSON. No; not at all. Not
all the remaining areas can be used by
the public, and wildlife will still abound
there, although perhaps not to the ex-
tent that it would if artillery firing were
not going on. But the remainder will be
tremendous in size. As a matter of fact,
the highway will remain as it is, and peo-
ple can enter the. area as they did before.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Is there any
other area adjacent to Fort Sill which
could meet the requirements of a modern
artillery range? I certainly wish to say
that we want the best we can have in
this area of our defense. But is there
any other area in the immediate vicinity,
adjacent and contiguous to the existing
property of Fort Sill, which could be
used?
Mr. JACKSON. There are other areas
which could be used, if the committee
wished to take the risk of jeopardizing
human life. We would have to extend
the range in such a way as to have the
guns fire across the main highway; and
if that were done, a stray shot could
kill people on the highway or in the town
of Fort Sill.
Mr. MONRONEY. Instructions have
been issued for the minimum firing of
these heavy guns. If the full range were
now to be used, the guns would be firing
not only over one United States highway,
but firing over two United States high-
ways and over the town of Fort Sill.
Unless a more satisfactory situation can
be obtained-and this land is the only
land in the direction in which the range
can be expanded-then either the use
of the best artillery must be sacrifled,
or second-rate artillery instruction must
be given.
Mr. STENNIS. Let me point out to
the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Presi-
dent, that the question now before the
Senate is whether the taking of the land
shall be authorized.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Mississippi yield to me?
Mr. STENNIS. In just a moment.
First, let me say that the same proposi-
tion will come before the same sub-
committee, for there must be agree-
ment with the Armed Services Commit-
tee regarding the final taking and use
of the land.
If at that time there are any reason-
able restrictions which can be imposed
as a safeguard of the wildlife land, the
subcommittee will certainly seriously
consider them, and everyone interested
will have an opportunity to be heard. I
am sure that such restrictions will be
imposed as are considered consistent
with the necessary purposes for which
the land is to be used.,,
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr.
President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. I merely
wish to supplement what the distin-
guished chairman of our subcommittee
has said with respect to the careful con-
sideration which will be given when the
actual proposal for acquisition of this
land comes before the subcommittee.
There will be an effort to reach an agree-
ment with the Committee on Armed
Services with respect to land acquisition.
I hope the Defense Department will be
on due notice that, at the time it makes
its presentation it will be expected to
show, if it is to justify this acquisition,
that it is impracticable to consider the
use of some alternate range in some
other part of the country for the firing
of the long-range pieces which are here
involved.
As the Senator from Washington [Mr.
JACKSON] has well stated, there are only
two practical alternatives to using Fort
Sill for artillery-firing purposes, namely,
either to obtain some additional range
or to abandon the post.
I recognize that the tremendous in-
vestment the Government has at Fort
Sill raises some very grave questions. At
the same time, I am not insensible to
the fact that we would be destroying a
wildlife area which cannot be re-created,
as one of the witnesses said, in a thou-
sand years, if it is once destroyed. It
may not be destroyed by the proposed
operation. At the same time, its value
as a wildlife refuge would be greatly im-
paired. Let there be no mistake about
that.
Consequently, I feel that when the
Defense Department comes before the
subcommittee to make its presentation
for the actual acquisition, and to discuss
the terms of acquisition, it must be pre-
pared to defend against an alternate
proposal that the firing of the very long-
range guns be transferred to a field exer-
cise to be conducted in some other part
of the country, where a long range-as
much as 5 miles, or 25,000 yards-could
be provided without the involvement
threatened in this case.
I think the committee could take no
other action than it took on the evidence
before it as to the military necessity.
At the same time, this is not final action.
The proposal will have to come before
the committee again, and the alterna-
tive which I have mentioned can be con-
sidered at that time.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
,Mr. STENNIS. I am glad to yield to
the Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. HUMPHREY. First of all, I wish
to thank very much the Senator from
South Dakota. I have a great regard for
his judgment in these matters, as I have
for that of the Senator from Mississippi,
the Senator from Washington, the Sen-
ator from Oklahoma, and other Sena-
tors.
The thing about which I am con-
cerned, and with respect to which I wish
to express my concern, is that while we
may be taking, or considering an au-
thorization: for taking, some 10,700 acres
from the wildlife refuge area, it is some-
what questionable whether or not this
will be adequate in the days to come. I
gather that this Is an almost irreducible
minimum for the cannon and heavy ar-
tillery we now have. If that be the case,
of course, we shall have to go out farther
and farther.
It seems peculiar to he arguing the
merits of a wildlife refuge, on the one
hand, as against a great military instal-
lation, on the other; but I think the
point is well made that there are not
too many of the areas known as wildlife
refuges left In the country. There is
plenty of wasteland which would fur-
nish a suitable place for the shooting of
big cannon. In those areas such missiles
are the only things which will arise from
the earth or travel over the earth.
So, I hope if the authorization is com-
pleted in this bill that the responsible
committees which will have to consider
the question further will look into the
long-range needs of the United States
Army, particularly with respect to ar-
tillery, and see whether or not Fort Sill,
as proposed to be expanded under the
contemplated authorization, will be
adequate.
I hesitate to try to pose in the role of
a prophet, but, knowing a little about
this subject from some of the informa-
tion which has come to my attention, I
am of the opinion that what we are do-
ing is authorizing only enough now to get
us over the hump momentarily. I pre-
dict that before long, in order to main-
tain Fort Sill as a going Military Estab-
lishment, it will be necesary to ask for
additional land. I hope that will not
be the case, but we appreciate the views
of those in the Wildlife Service and in
the great conservation organizations to
the effect that that is what will happen.
I should like to ask the-Senator from
Mississippi a question. Has there been
in the hearings any evidence from the
military which would indicate to mem-
bers. of the committee that the expan-
sion of Fort Sill, under the contemplated
increase of some 30,000 acres, will be
adequate for the foreseeable future? Or
is this, as I have indicated to be my
opinion, only enough to get us by tem-
porarily?
Approved For Release 2006/07/28: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120008-9
 Approved For Release 2006/07/28: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120008-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE July 1
Mr. STENNIS. I understand that this
is the minimum. I will ask the Senator
from Washington [Mr. JACKSON] to
answer that question.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, I asked
that question in connection with the
hearings. The answer was that, based
upon the present requirements, this pro-
posed acquisition would meet the need.
That includes provision for the "Honest
John" and the 280 millimeter gun. I
assume that it should meet the needs
for some time. However, if we are to
engage in the test-firing of long-range
rockets, obviously that will have to be
conducted in another part ofthe United
States. These weapons, the "Honest
John" and the 280 millimeter, are es-
sential to the immediate support of the
ground forces, and are extensions of what
might be called conventional artillery.
I am sure that if we undertake the test-
firing of rockets, which involves a very
substantial range, the test firing must
occur in some other part of the country,
because the Defense Department could
not possibly find enough land in Okla-
homa to meet the requirements.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I thank the Sena-
tor from Washington.
I conclude by saying that I think there
are times when we must make so-called
valued judgment choices. In this in-
stance the taking of a section of a wild-
life refuge might be justified because of
the great investment already made in
Fort Sill. But I invite attention to the
fact that in the past the Army has not
shown any reluctance to move in and
take over highways, villages, towns, and
communities when it saw the necessity
for purposes of defense.
I hope that the limited area remain-
ing in this country which can be devoted
to wildlife refuges will be carefully pro-
tected. At times there seems to be the
feeling that somehow or other this activ-
ity is not particularly important. How-
ever, with growing population, and with
more and more people seeking oppor-
tunity for the enjoyment of outdoor
activity, it seems to me that we ought
to be doing our best to try to protect
wildlife refuge areas.
I shall not offer any amendment. I
know that the Senator from Washington
has dedicated his entire life to conserva-
tion programs and the preservation of
areas of recreation and wildlife refuge.
I am deeply concerned about this ques-
tion. I would be less than candid if I
did not say that practically every con-
servation group in America has written
to Members of Congress, including the
Senator from Washington and myself.
They are deeply concerned over what
this authorization provides.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, I share
the Senator's concern, and I appreciate
his comments.
Mr. HUMPHREY subsequently said:
Mr. President, the junior Senator from
Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS] will probably
recall our earlier colloquy about the Fort
Sill project. I ask unanimous consent
that a statement I have prepared on this
subject matter be printed at the point
in the RECORD where the discussion about
the acquisition of additional land for
Fort Sill was had.
There being no objection, the state-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
SrATSMzNT BY HvasRr H. Hum7HRVr
I am constrained to call attention to one
item in this bill. S. 1765, which would auth-
orize the acquisition of certain lands to be
added to the Fort Bill Military Reservation
near Lawton. Okla., including about 10.000
acres of the Wichita National Wildlife Ref-
uge. This attempt on the part of the Army
to gain control of a large segment of this
Important and urgently needed national
wildlife refuge is one of the principal rea-
sons for the introduction of my refuge bill.
5. 2101. I earnestly believe that the Con-
gress should give much more attention to
this or any other attempt to break down the
wildlife refuge system that has been built
up with painstaking care over a period of
many years.
The Wichita Mountains area, which is one
of the oldest refuges, was established by
President Theodore Roosevelt in 1905. For
many years it was administered by the United
States Forest Service, but In 1935, It was
transferred to the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service of the Department of the
Interior. It is a unique and magnificient
wildlife area, and it Is used heavily as a
public recreation area. Three generations
of Oklahomans and Texans are dependent
upon the splendid facilities that are avail-
able for wholesome relaxation. Last year
over 850,000 people used the recreational fa-
cilities, the better part of which are con-
centrated in the area that the Army pro-
poses to take.
There is no real justification for this ac-
quisition. Fort Sill has, for many years,
had a close working relationship with the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
whereby the Army has used portions of the
refuge for gun emplacement positions for
the firing of the heaviest artillery that they
have. The shells have been landing on the
present reservation. They also have used the
refuge for firing some of the heavier rockets
and there seems to be no reason why the
present needs cannot be met by a continua-
tion of this cooperative agreement. The
taking over of this refuge land will not ex-
tend the length of the range unless they
have additional Requisitions In mind which
have not been made known. I would be the
last one that would delay action on any
measure that was needed for national de-
fense. But. so far as I can determine, the
needs at Fort Sill can be met just as well by
a cooperative arrangement similar to that
under which the Army has operated for
many years. If that can be accomplished, the
public still can have use of those oustanding
recreational facilities, and that essential
wildlife refuge can be preserved.
The Army presently seems to be conduct-
Ing all of the operations at the Fort Sill
Artillery School for which It claims that the
additional land Is needed. I have not had
an opportunity to investigate all of the facts;
however, It is believed that the so-called
"Atomic Cannon." for which the Army says
that It needs additional land to practice
with at Fort Sill. already is considered ob-
solete and is no longer in production. These
are some of the questions that should be
explored more fully by the Members of the
Senate before authorizing any such expan-
sion of the installation in Oklahoma. Then
again, I am wondering if that type of long-
range firing should be practiced in such a
populated area. Other such military opera-
tions have been performed in the more re-
mote sections of Arizona and Nevada.
This appropiration calls for the purchase
of more than 20.000 acres of good agricultural
and ranch lands from protesting private
owners. Representatives of the landowners
associations and national conservation or-
ganizations registered vigorous protests be-
fore the House Armed Services Committee.
There Is widespread public opposition to any
reduction in the meager amount of land that
has been reserved by the Federal Government
for wildlife purposes. The opposition that
has been registered by such organizations as
the Wildlife Management Institute, the Na-
tional Wildlife Federation, the Izaak Wal-
ton League of America, and the Outdoor
Writers Association of America, is ample
testimony of the public sentiment toward the
repeated attempts to whittle away at the
wildlife refuges, the national parks and na-
tional monuments, and the like.
The Army has been trying to get control
of the Cabeza Prieto Game Range and the
Kota Refuge in Arizona. and of additional
wildlife lands in Alaska, and I think that
these efforts should be scrutinized more
carefully. It is hoped that my colleagues
will give prompt consideration to my refuge
bill. S. 2101. We simply cannot, in the face
of the constantly increasing need for out-
door recreational facilities for a growing
human population, sacrifice any of the piti-
ful amount of refuge lands that are needed
to preserve the valuable wildlife resources.
The Director of the Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice. Mr. John L. Farley, stated before a House
subcommittee last July that the Federal
Government should acquire and develop 4
million acres of the remaining refuge goal,
and that the States collectively should ac-
quire and develop a minimum of 5 million
acres, if the wildlife resources are to be
maintained at somewhere near their exist-
ing level. In other words, It is clear that we
should not permit the Army to take over
and close to public use 10,000 acres of the
best recreational land in the Wichita Na-
tional Wildlife Refuge. Aside from the good,
clear-water lakes that provide public fishing,
and several much-used picnic areas, the
Army would close the door to Mount Lin-
coln, one of the spectacular mountains of
the region. As it is, both the people of Okla-
homa and Texas, and of Fort Sill, have free
access to the scenic drives, the lakes and
streams, the camping and picnic sites, and
to the extraordinary wildlife and geological
attractions of the rugged terrain that rises
far above the Oklahoma prairies.
The Wichita Mountains are the blissful
retreat of a vast horde of persons that an-
nually seek a respite from the sweltering
sun of the great semiarid Southwest.
The Wichita Refuge is the one remaining
place In the United States where the present
day Americans can get some concept of the
waving grasses of the pioneer prairies. It is
about the only place that the botanists,
ecologists, and other scientists can study the
original flora and fauna in somewhere near
Its original state. Nearly 1,000 buffalo
(American bison) roam the vast expanses,
along with deer and elk. America's biggest
herd of longhorn cattle, more than 350
prized specimens can be seen at close range.
Many of the steers have horns as long as
7 feet. The present-day Davy Crocketts can
see some of the few remaining towns of
prairie dogs, which formerly were common
throughout the West. Pronghorn antelope
and most of the other forms of original
Inhabitants of the plains add to the enjoy-
ment of those that are privileged to visit
the area.
The Wichita refuge has been the source
of many animals that have been provided
to public zoos. The surplus big-game ani-
mals are disposed of annually to keep the
herds within the carrying capacity of the
range. It is no wonder that the Army or
anyone else would want to gain control of
this fabulous wonderland that presents such
a singular example of the kind of range-
land that can be maintained under a sound
management program.
Approved For Release 2006/07/28: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120008-9
 Approved For Release 2006/07/28: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120008-9
1955
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
It is my understanding that the Secre-
tary of the Interior has given his consent
to the transfer of the 10,000 acres of refuge
lands to the Department of Defense. Evi-
dently he is reluctant to take a stand
against any kind of an appeal based on
theoretical national defense needs. Perhaps
he is not aware that those at Fort Sill have
been after the refuge lands for a long time.
This is merely a renewed attempt by the
Army, as is evident by the letter that C. R.
Gutermuth, secretary of the Natural Re-
sources Council of America, sent to all coun-
cil members on April 12, 1955. His en-
closure, which I also would like to have
entered in the RECORD, is from Bud Jackson,
the field representative of the National Wild-
life Federation. Mr. Jackson indicated quite
well why there is local public support for
this move, when he said, "This time, busi-
ness interests in Lawton are being soft-
soaped with the story that expansion will
build a better Lawton, double Fort Sill's
personnel,. increase business and raise Law-
ton's dollar income. It would be quite in-
teresting to know exactly how many tour-
ists' dollars the city would lose with the
loss of the refuge. The good burghers of
the Oklahoma town may not have consid-
ered that angle."
Now then, in connection with H. R. 5306,
which was introduced by the Honorable LEE
METCALF, and which is a companion bill to
my S. 2101, here is a letter that Chairman
HERBERT C. BONNER, of the House Merchant
Marine and Fisheries Committee, received
from Mr. John L. Farley, the Director of the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
Chairman BONNER had informed Director
Farley that the House would not. be able
to take action on H. R._ 5306 during this
session, and requested that no action be
taken by the Fish and Wildlife Service on
the disposition of refuge lands without con-
sulting his committee and without holding
public hearings. From this you can see
that Director Farley, under date of June 24,
1955, indicated that no such action was con-
templated, and that the committee's request
would be honored. It is difficult to reconcile
this letter with the supposed consent that
was given by the Secretary of the Interior.
Mr, HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
also ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the RECORD two communica-
tions which I received, one from the
Natural Resources Council of America,
and an exchange of correspondence in-
volving the Honorable LEE METCALF,
Member of the House of Representa-
tives, Hon. HERBERT C. BONNER, chairman
of the House Committee on Merchant
Marine and Fisheries, and John L. Far-
ley, Director of the Fish and Wildlife
'Service of the Department of the Inte-
rior.
There being no objection, the corre-
spondence was ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, as follows:
NATURAL RESOURCES
COUNCIL OF AMERICA,
Washington; D. C., April 12, 1955.
To All Council Members:
The renewed attempt by the Army to take
over the Wichita National Wildlife Refuge,
and described quite poignantly in the en-
closed copy of a letter by Bud Jackson in the
last issue of Outdoors Unlimited, merits
prompt attention.
Your secretary endeavored to ascertain
whether or not an appropriation is being
requested by the Department of Defense for
the acquiring of additional land at Fort Sill,
but to no avail. While the subject obviously
is under consideration, the appropriation bill
has not been formulated and is not available.
It is clear, however,., that the defense
appropriations will have to be considered by
the House committee before long, and when
this money bill starts through the hopper,
there. will be little time for amendments or
changes.
Sincerely,
C. R. GUTERMUTH,
Secretary.
WICHITA WILDLIFE REFUGE AGAIN IN DANGER
SPRINGFIELD, MO.
Mr. J. HAMMOND BRowN,
President, Outdoor Writers Association
of America, Baltimore, Md.
DEAR MR. BROWN: From a high Govern-
ment official, I learn the disquieting news
that the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge
in southwest Oklahoma is again in great
jeopardy, this time from a bold, open move
by the Army Artillery School at Fort Sill,
near Lawton, Okla., to absorb the refuge Into
the military reservation.
The military's recently announced budget
reveals $40 million for expansion of existing
facilities. It was revealed simultaneously
in Washington and in Lawton that $2.7 mil-
lion of it is needed to purchase lands around
the Wichita refuge so that the refuge may
be taken into the military reservation as a
"paper transfer." Thus finally unmasked is
the same group which so blandly spread its
hands and insisted, "No savvy," when con-
fronted last year with what it had thought
were its "secret" plans for invading the
Wichitas. The mnemonic abilities of the
Army are startlingly poor.
New strategy apparently calls for adopting
the open approach. We who've dealt with
the Army in the past aren't unaware of the
chamber-of-commerce techniques occasion-
ally invoked by the military (and brought to
their highest state of polish by the Corps of
Engineers). This time, business Interests
in Lawton are being softsoaped with the
story that expansion will "build a better
Lawton" (familiar?), double Fort Sill's per-
sonnel, increase business and raise Lawton's
dollar income. It would be interesting to
know exactly how many tourist dollars the
city would lose with loss of the refuge. The
good burghers of the Oklahoma town may
not have considered that angle.
Actually, however, whether the refuge is
economically more important than a double-
In-size artillery school isn't the question.
There are questions which suggest them-
selves, as follows:
1. Is there actual need for expanding
Fort Sill's facilities to the degree that an
area as large as the refuge need be taken
over?
2. If so, cannot this expansion move in
other directions than into the refuge?
3. Is it possible that this great yen for
expansion into the refuge has its origins in
the hunting and fishing instincts of the high
brass, a not inconsiderable possibility from
past experience?
4. Is national defense better served by
turning a wildlife refuge over to, the Army
for playground purposes or by reserving it
for the whole people?
For one, I am sick to the death of this sort
of thing. It seems to me that we who are
seeking to teach conservation fight most of
our battles against instruments of the people
who spend the people's money in planning
coups against the people. The military
spends too much of our money fighting us
and too darned little fighting the enemy.
Let's let our Congressmen in on the battle of
the Wichitas.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT
MARINE AND FISHERIES,
Washington, D. C., June 29, 1955.
Hon. LEE'METCALF,
Member of Congress, House of Repre-
sentatives, Washington, D. C.
DEAR LEE: In view of the heavy schedule
of hearings by the Committee on Merchant
8305
Marine and Fisheries, it is probable that
there will be no opportunity to consider your
bill, H. R. 5306, to protect and preserve the
national wildlife refuges. Inasmuch as I
share your concern for the future of the
wildlife refuge program, I wrote the Director
of Fish and Wildlife Service suggesting that
notice be given to the committee before dis-
posing of any refuge. The attached letter is
his reply to my proposal.
In my opinion, the information contained
in Mr. Farley's letter indicates that there Is
no urgency in connection with your bill and
accordingly it is my intention to defer con-
sideration until the next session.
Sincerely yours,
HERBERT C. BONNER,
Chairman.
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT Or THE INTERIOR,
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,
Washington, D. C., June 24, 1956.
Hon. HERBERT C. BONNER,
Chairman, Committee on Merchant
Marine and Fisheries, House of
Representatives, Washington, D. C.
MY DEAR MR. DONNER: I am more than
pleased to assure you that this Service has
no plan to dispose of any wildlife refuge at
this time. Should any proposals for the dis-
posal of any refuge be presented to the
Service, I shall be glad to so Inform you. No
action would be taken on such proposals
without a thorough review of the proposal,
including appropriate public hearings, all of
which would require more than the 30 days
which you have suggested in your letter.
It would appear that you had received
some Information indicating that the Service
has some definite plan of disposing of wild-
life refuges, and I assure that no such plan
or program exists.
Sincerely yours,
JOHN L. FARLEY,
Director.
Mr. NEUBERGER. Mr.
will the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I am glad
the Senator from Oregon.
Mr. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, I
share the feeling of alarm which has
been expressed by the distinguished
Senator from Minnesota over the
diminution of the Wichita Mountains
Wildlife Refuge.
I think it would be useful and ap-
propriate if, at this point in the RECORD,
there should appear, for the information
of Members of Congress, the executive
department, and the country, some of
the letters which I have received from
the National Wildlife Federation and
various other conservation groups re-
garding the reduction in size of the
Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge. I
ask unanimous consent that the letters
be printed in the RECORD at this point
as a part of my remarks.
There being no objection, the letters
were ordered to be printed in the REC-
ORD, as follows:
NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION,
Takoma Park, Washington, D. C.,
June 23, 1955.
Hon. RICHARD L. NEUBERGER,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D. C.
DEAR SENATOR NEUBERGER: I appreciate
your taking the time to study the proposed
expansion of the Fort Sill Military Reserva-
tion in Oklahoma Into the Wichita Moun-
tains Wildlife Refuge. This is one of the
items in S. 1765, the military public works
bill presently under consideration by the
Senate Armed Services Committee.
Approved For Release 2006/07/28: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120008-9
 Approved For Release 2006/07/28: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120008-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE July 1
May I request, Senator NEUBERGER, that
in considering this particular item you
keep these facts in mind:
(1) Wichita Mountains is one of the most
historic and valuable of the national wild-
life refuges. It was established by Execu-
tive order of President Theodore Roosevelt
in 1905. It provides recreation for more
than one million visitors annually.
(2) The Army presently is conducting all
operations at the Fort Sill Artillery School
for which it says It needs this additional
land. We are reliably Informed that the
so-called atomic cannon, which the Army
says It needs to practice with at Fort Sill.
already is considered obsolete and is no
longer under production. While we do not
pretend to pose as military experts, we ques-
tion the adequacy of even the proposed ex-
panded Fort Sill Reservation to keep pace
with modern military developments. These
questions, of course, will be explored most
thoroughly by the Senator.
(3) The conservation organizations of the
United States are Inclined to look upon this
proposal as an unnecessary Invasion of
the limited areas that have been reserved
by the Federal Government for wildlife
conservation purposes.
Again thanking you for your time and
courtesy, I remain,
Sincerely yours.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION,
CHARLES H. CALLISON,
Conservation Director.
NATIONAL PARKS ASSOCIATION.
Washington, D. C., May 17, 1955.
The Honorable CARL VINSON,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Serv-
ices, United States House of Repre-
sentatives, Washington, D. C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN VINSON: H. R. 5700 in-
cludes an item authorizing extension or fecii-
ities at Fort Sill. OUR., amounting to
$3,058,000. of which $2,500,000 Is for land
acquisition, according to testimony present-
ed to your committee by representatives
of the Army. The National Parks Associa-
tion urges as strongly as possible that this
land acquisition request be denied by your
committee.
Army witnesses stated this money was to
be used to acquire 20,300 acres of privately
owned land adjacent to the Wichita Moun-
tains National Wildlife Refuge, and 10,000
acres within the refuge Itself. Although
they asserted this would not affect recrea-
tional or wildlife values significantly, they
had been advised this land is of critical Im-
portance for these purposes. Within the
refuge, the area includes its most beautiful
mountains and three lakes essential to wild-
life. The private lands to the south have
considerable importance with respect to rec-
reation and wildlife.
This refuge receives greater recreational
use than any other in the refuge system,
and Is the most valuable recreational prop-
erty In that part of Oklahoma and Texas,
a region otherwise almost devoid of such
facilities. It supports great number of bison,
deer, and other mammals, and- the- only rep-
resentative herd of long-horn cattle-extant,
all of which use the areas proposed to be
acquired as an essential part of their range.
We understand it Is intended to use this
land as an atomic artillery range. A more
catastrophic misuse of this refuge and its
environs could hardly be conceived, and the
activity would inevitably spread destruction
beyond the lands directly Involved. Safety
and security precautions would almost cer-
tainly prevent any significant recreational
use of the area in- any event.
In 1953, Army authorities made a direct
attempt to gain jurisdiction over the whole
refuge, and it is not unreasonable to pre-
sume their ambition has not changed. The
military now controls hundreds of square
miles of desert where such activities can be
conducted with minimum damage; if there
is some slight inconvenience involved, that
Is a small price to pay for preservation of
one of the best recreational and wildlife
reserves in the United States.
In the reply to our protest to the Secre-
tary of the Army of April 6. 1955, we were
advised studies following the deletion of the
similar land acquisition item from the 1954
budget demonstrated this acquisition was
not necessary.
The Department of the Interior and the
Department of the Army have long had sound
working agreements that permit use of some
refuge lands for nondestructive military
purposes, and these have been functioning
without disadvantage to either department.
The last paragraph of the Secretary of the
Army's letter reads:
"The Army has decided to endeavor to
carry out Its mission at Fort Sill without
acquiring additional land, either privately
owned or in the refuge, for an indefinite
period in an effort to determine if the prob-
lem of range requirements can be resolved
short of acquisition. Accordingly, there are
no plans for expansion into the wildlife
refuge In the Immediate future."
We accepted this reassurance in good faith,
and asuened the Secretary was honest in
his statement. His letter has not been can-
celed. and the conditions promoting it do
not appear to have been changed. There
appears to be no justification whatever
for the revival of this proposal, and we urge
It be denied, and that your committee ad-
vise the Army authorities such acquisition
will not be allowed unless and until a na-
tional emergency arises that Is so serious as
to make it essential to the national security.
It is requested this letter be made a part
of the official record.
Yours sincerely.
FRED M. PACKA?D,
Executive Secretary.
Whereas the Oklahoma Ornithological
Society. Inc.. has been informed that an at-
tempt is being made to include in an appro-
priation bill the amount of 92.300.000 to be
used for the purchase of land adjoining the
Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge and to
transfer a portion of the wildlife refuge to
the military: and
Whereas the said wildlife refuge is one of
the few remaining untouched areas of our
country abounding In buffalo, deer, elk, ante-
lope. wild turkey, and other forms of wild-
life including the only remaining herd of
longhorn cattle: and
Whereas the Wichita Mountains Wildlife
Refuge is important as an education and
scientific area and its wildlife and recrea-
tional values cannot be replaced; and
Whereas we believe that the Invasion of
this refuge by the military places in jeopardy
all of the area of the Wichita Mountains
Wildlife Refuge and all such national parks
and monuments; and
Whereas we believe that the preservation
of the natural beauty of our country and the
protection of its disappearing wildlife is im-
portant to the American way of life; and
Whereas, acreage In less populated and
unused areas is available and offers less
danger to the lives of many people: There-
fore be it
Resolved, That the Oklahoma Ornitho-
logical Society, Inc.. assembled In Its annual
State meeting at Craterville Park, expresses
Its disapproval of the efforts being made to
acquire the Wichita Mountains Wildlife
Refuge to be used for military purposes; and
be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution
be made a part of the permanent records
of the Oklahoma Ornithological Society,
Inc., and that copies be sent to the Oklahoma
delegation in the Congress of the United
States, and to other Interested persons.
J. E. MARTIN.
President.
RELxN BANGS,
Secretary.
RESOLUTION OF THE TULSA, OKLA., AUDUBON
SOCIETY
Whereas the Tulsa Audubon Society has
been Informed by the press that an attempt
is being made to Include in an appropriation
bill the amount of $2,300,000 to be used for
the purchase of land adjoining the Wichita
Mountains Wildlife Refuge and to transfer
a portion of the wildlife refuge to the mili-
tary: and
Whereas the said wildlife refuge is one of
the few remaining untouched areas of our
country abounding in buffalo, deer, elk, ante-
lope, wild turkey, and other forms of wild-
life, including the only remaining herd of
longhorn cattle; and
Whereas the Wichita Mountains Wildlife
Refuge Is important as an educational and
scientific area and Its wildlife and recrea-
tional values cannot be replaced; and
Whereas, we believe that the Invasion of
this refuge by the military places In jeopardy
all of the area of the Wichita Mountains
Wildlife Refuge and all such national parks
and monuments; and
Whereas we believe that the preservation
of the natural beauty of our country and the
protection of its disappearing wildlife Is im-
portant to the American way of life; and
Whereas acreage in less populated and un-
used areas Is available and offers less danger
to the lives of many people: Therefore be it
Resolved, That the Tulsa Audubon Society,
assembled in a general meeting in Tulsa ex-
presses its disapproval of the efforts being
made to acquire the Wichita Mountains
Wildlife Refuge to be used for military pur-
poses: and be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be
made a part of the permanent records of the
Tulsa Audubon Society, and that copies be
sent to the Oklahoma delegation in the Con-
gress of the United States and to other influ-
ential persons.
Approved April 29, 1955.
ALFRED STErrz, Jr.,
Vice President.
Mrs. RALPH KELTUnI.
Secretary.
PCESERVATION OF THE WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
Whereas America's -wildlife refuges are
relatively small, strategically located areas
of particular Importance to the conservation
of native plants and animals; and
Whereas the Wichita Mountains National
Wildlife Refuge is an outstanding and his-
torical refuge, possessing scientific, educa-
tional, and recreational values; and
Whereas the United States Army desires
to acquire this area by transfer and the sur-
rounding lands by purchase for an artillery
range, thereby obliterating the refuge and
destroying Its unique collection of fauna
and native grassland; and
Whereas such an act would jeopardize
other refuges which might be desired by
other or the same agencies; and
Whereas the Oklahoma Federation of
Garden Clubs Is strongly opposed to an un-
necessary abandonment of a refuge as ade-
quate alternate sites are available; There-
fore be it
Resolved, That the National Council of
State Garden Clubs, assembled in Chicago.
Ili.. on the 25th day of May 1955, urges that
Congress withhold sanction and funds for
the purchase of the lands around the re-
fuge for military use; further
Resolved. That the Department of the
Army withdraw plans for the acquisition of
the refuge lands; further
Resolved, That the National Council ex-
presses its opposition to the reduction or
abandonment of wildlife refuges so long
as the resources which they preserve are
dependent upon such protection for their
continued existence; further
Resolved, That this resolution appear in
a forthcoming Issue of the National Gar-
dener.
Approved For Release 2006/07/28: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120008-9
 Approved For Release 2006/07/28: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120008-9
1955 ,
Presented by Paul Shepard, conservation
chairman.
Mr. NEUBERGER. I should like to
point out to the Senator from Missis-
sippi, to the Senator from Washington,
and to the Senator from South Dakota,
who have worked so hard on the pending
bill, that the reason why I share the mis-
givings of the Senator from Minnesota
is that all over the country there is a
great deal of pressure to reduce the size
of the national parks and the national
.forests and the wildlife refuges. In my
own State there is a great deal of pres-
sure to cut down the size of the Tule
Lake Wildlife Refuge in northern Cali-
fornia and southeastern Oregon. There
is also a great deal of pressure to reduce
the size of the Hart Mountain Refuge.
In the State of Washington, as the dis-
tinguished Senator from Washington
knows, certain lumber companies would
like to reduce the size of the Olympic
National Park. I feel none of the situa-
tions can be separated one from the
other.
Furthermore, as the Senator from
South Dakota has so frankly admitted,
taking 10,700 acres from the Wichita
Mountains Wildlife Refuge will not help
the refuge, of course. Anyone as can-
did as the Senator from Mississippi will
admit that once the 10,700 acres have
been taken for other purposes, the value
of the wildlife refuge will be impaired.
Of course the next reduction will be
much easier to make. Certainly there
can be no doubt about that.
As the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr,
MONRo ezy] knows, the Wichita Moun-
tains Wildlife Refuge is one of the most
historic wildlife refuges in the United
States. I believe it was established as
long ago as 1905 by President Theodore
Roosevelt, who was one of the most il-
lustrious conservationists.
I know the distinguished members of
the subcommittee will scrutinize very
carefully the whole situation before an
appropriation is made and before the
Army is authorized to go ahead with the
project and take land from the Wichita
Mountains Wildlife Refuge.
The Senator from Oklahoma knows
that thousands of people in his own State
have had the privilege of enjoying whole-
some recreation in this area, and that
once it is seriously breached and de-
stroyed, its usefulness as a recreation
facility will be gone. I thank the mem-
bers of the committee for their careful
consideration of this matter.
Mr. STENNIS. I am entirely in sym-
pathy with the Senator's sentiments and
remarks. I assure him that the mem-
bers of the subcommittee will do all they
can, when the matter comes before the
subcommittee again, to preserve the
wildlife refuge, with all its functions.
Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. KUCHEL. I wish to express my
apprehension with regard to the naval
magazine installation at Port Chicago,
Calif., which is provided for on page 96
of the bill, in lines 22 and 23, as follows:
Naval magazine, Port Chicago, Calif.: Ord-
nance facilities, and land acquisition,
$1,929,000.
No. 112---3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 8347.
The committee, in its report, at page
12, states:
While the land acquisition at Port Chi-
cago has been approved, the committee is
seriously disturbed that entire towns, in-
cluding Port Chicago, will be left within the
danger zone. The committee believes that
the Department of Defense should restudy
the safety problem at Port Chicago and sub-
mit to the Congress a program that will
comply with the Department's own regula-
tions on safety distances at this location.
I have been informed that the House
committee, in considering the request of
the Navy Department for money with
which to purchase additional properties,
was greatly concerned with the problem
involved at Port Chicago, particularly
with respect to the town itself, and for
that reason declined to approve the re-
quest of the Navy Department.
My colleague from California [Mr.
KNOWLAND] is not in the Chamber at
the moment, and I do not desire to speak
for him, but I do wish most urgently to
remind my friend, the chairman of the
subcommittee, that the city of Port Chi-
ago, which is in the San Francisco Bay
area, was almost completely destroyed
during World War II by a tragic explo-
sion of ammunition, which had been
stored there.
I believe the Navy Department, in its
desire to purchase additional land, has
been influenced in part by considera-
tions of safety. My point is that the
decision of the Navy Department should
be so provably correct that no one would
be able to quarrel with it. By reason of
the concern felt by the people of that
community, I am not in a position to
accept the recommendation of the Navy
Department.
In view of the fact that the House com-
mittee declined to approve the item, I
wonder whether I may ask the distin-
guished chairman of the subcommittee
if, during the conference on the bill,
the position which the Members of the
House committee took will be thoroughly
explored:
Mr. STENNIS. I can certainly assure
the Senator from California that that
situation will be thoroughly explored,
and that the reasoning of the Members
of the House committee will be care-
fully considered. It is one of the most
serious problems, that came before the
committee in its consideration of the
bill. We tried to effect a consolidation
of the two ammunition bases in that
area, but that proved to be impracticable.
We therefore authorized the acquisition
of the land at Port Chicago. However,
we still had great concern, even after
doing it. We were greatly concerned by
the entire problem. The problem will
remain with us even if the land is ac-
quired. There is no absolute solution
to it. The matter will be brought back
to the committee, and we will consider
any suggestion which may be made to
us.
The Senator from Washington [Mr.
JACKSON] is personally familiar with the
location and with its history. I shall be
glad to yield to him for a statement, if
he desires to make one.
Mr. JACKSON. The only comment I
wish to make is that I believe the dis-
tinguished chairman of the subcommit-
tee has made an excellent statement on
the situation. As the chairman has in-
dicated, the committee was in a terrible
dilemma on this matter. $30 million
has been invested at Port Chicago. The
replacement cost is $70 million. We
were confronted with a land acquisition
program which was entirely inadequate
to provide even the security established
by the Defense Department.
I certainly share the concern of the
members of the subcommittee and the
concern expressed by the distinguished
Senator from California [Mr. KuCrizL].
I shall keep an open mind-as I know
the other members of the committee will
also-in trying to find a solution to the
problem. I believe it requires further
explanation. It is certainly a very bad
situation at the moment.
Mr. KUCHEL. I appreciate the com-
ment of the Senator from Washington,
particularly because there is a continu-
ing hazard at Port Chicago, Calif. I
appreciate the fact that we are con-
sidering an authorization bill, not an
appropriation bill, and the Senator's
statement relative to the required justi-
fication, which the committee will re-
quire the Defense Department to pro-
duce before any moneys will be made
available, is satisfactory. On the other
hand, if there is any reasonable ground
upon which the present decision of the
Department of Defense is based, I would
urge the conference committee to go
slowly. If I understand the statement
of the Senator from Washington, the
whole matter will be completely re-
explored in the conference committee.
Mr. JACKSON. I wish to assure the
Senator that we shall look into it very
carefully. I might add that, as the Sen-
ator probably knows from the record, we
spent considerable time listening to out-
side witnesses and we went into the
whole question thoroughly. I hope that
a -better solution may be reached than
that which has been proposed by the
Army and the Navy.
Mr. KUCHEL. I am most grateful to
the Senator from Washington.
I should like to make this brief state-
ment in connection with the problem.
The authorization for land acquisition,
if followed by an appropriation, would
effectively remove approximately 5 per-
cent of the taxable real property of the
county involved. If I correctly under-
stand, the Defense Department would
not utilize this land by way of any im-
provement until M-day. If that be true,
it constitutes another reason for pro-
ceeding slowly, and I think that is some-
thing which the conference might well
consider.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President, will the Senator from
Mississippi yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. I
notice that in the bill as reported by the
committee the Fort Jackson, S. C., medi-
cal facility has been stricken from the
bill. The House had included the sum
of $8 million for that item in the bill as
it came to the Senate. I wish to assure
the Senator from Mississippi that there
is a dire need for that facility at the
present time, and I should like to know
the attitude of Senators so far as con-
Approved For Release 2006/07/28: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120008-9
 Approved For Release 2006/07/28: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120008-9
8308
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE July 1
terns giving the item due consideration
when it comes before the conference.
Mr. STENNIS. It is an open question.
We did not hear, consider, and then re-
ject the item of the hospital for Ft. Jack-
son. We have an open mind on the
question, and have in mind very distinct-
ly and definitely the Idea of giving it
every consideration in the conference.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. I
wanted to bring it to the attention of
the chairman of the subcommittee at
this time. I imagine the House will want
the item to be retained. I wished to
ascertain, if I could, the attitude of the
Senate conferees.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Mississippi yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. JACKSON. I certainly shall give
it most sympathetic consideration in
the conference. As the distinguished
chairman of the subcommittee has
pointed out, we did not have an oppor-
tunity in the committee to consider the
matter on a formal basis. The ques-
tion, of course, will be taken up in its
entirety in the conference, and I wish
to assure the distinguished senior Sen-
ator from South Carolina and the dis-
tinguished junior Senator from South
Carolina that I shall give it most sym-
pathetic consideration.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
I notice that the bill has been changed
with reference to the Charleston, S. C.,
Air Force base in several particulars.
When we speak of air defense we real-
ize that we must keep prepared in the
air to meet all opposition which might
come in case of another war. I. for
one, feel that this item is very impor-
tant and that it should be retained.
I should like to get the attitude of the
chairman of the subcommittee on that
particular item.
Mr. STENNIS. We appreciate the in-
terest and the comment of the Senator
from South Carolina, and I assure him
that the item to which he now refers
is in the same category as the one pre-
viously explained.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, I feel
the same way about it.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Mississippi yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. THURMOND. I thank the dis-
tinguished Senator from Mississippi. I
should like to invite his attention and
the attention of the other members of
the committee to the importance of the
hospital at Fort Jackson. During
World War II no other camp trained
more soldiers than did Fort Jackson.
It is an installation containing more
than 200,000 acres of land, with hun-
dreds and hundreds of buildings, and
it is one of the finest training grounds
to be found anywhere. The nature of
the soil is such that shortly after a rain
the soldiers can resume training. There
is an absence of mud and other de-
terrent factors.
We must preserve this splendid train-
ing camp for the Defense Department.
For a long time there has been a vital
need for a permanent hospital there.
The hospital existing at the present time
is a frame building which is not in good
repair and is not adequate to meet the
situation. I am sure the Defense De-
partment feels that there is a great need
for a modern hospital. The people of
Fort Jackson and Columbia also realize
the need for it.
We are anxious to have the item re-
tained, but for reasons which the dis-
tinguished Senator from Mississippi and
other members of the subcommittee have
told me, my distinguished colleague and
I have decided not to offer an amend-
ment at this time. We appreciate the
attitude of the members of the commit-
tee with reference to taking the matter
to conference. It is a worthwhile au-
thorization, and we shall appreciate
every consideration that can be given to
the matter in conference.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Pres-
ident. will the Senator from Mississippi
yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. The dis-
tinguished Senator from South Carolina
has spoken to me about the matter sev-
eral times, and there is considerable
merit in his statement. There seems to
be some question as to whether Camp
Jackson as a whole is in the category of
what is called a permanent installation,
or whether it is in the category of a war-
time training camp. Naturally, whether
it is in one or the other of those cate-
gories, has some bearing on the question.
As I have said. there is some question
as to whether the camp is of a permanent
character or is more of a wartime train-
ing installation. I think some evidence
on that point might be presented to the
members of the committee with profit
before the conference takes place.
Another point is that the $8 million
suggested is a larger allocation for a hos-
pital than was presented, so far as I can
remember. for any other hospital in the
entire bill. Most hospital units have
carried a smaller amount.
I think there should be some showing
as to why an $8 million hospital should
be proposed, when for most installations,
even when they are of a permanent na-
ture. a lesser figure has been provided.
I say that in all candor and because I
think evidence on those points would be
proper for the conference committee to
consider.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, the two
Senators from South Carolina have cer-
tainly impressed the subcommittee with
their interest and with the need for this
hospital. Senator JOHNSTON of South
Carolina has conferred with me many
times on the floor about it, and Senator
THURMOND has written to me about it
and has explained and repeatedly urged
the merits of the matter in conferences.
I wish to assure them that the matter
will have full consideration, but we can-
not make any commitment as to what we
can agree to.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President. I
should like to say, in answer to the junior
Senator from South Dakota, that my in-
formation is that there has never been
a formal order contravening the order
of General Marshall, placing Fort Jack-
son on a permanent basis. Several years
ago, for some reason, Fort Jackson was
omitted from the permanent list, but
there has not been a formal order strik-
ing it from the permanent list of sta-
tions. I am quite certain the records of
the Department of Defense will bear out
my information on that point.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr.
President, I may supplement the state-
ment by the Senator from South Caro-
lina by observing that I think it would
be helpful if we had some information as
to the nature of the other buildings on
the post-that is, other new construction
of a permanent, temporary, or mobiliza-
tion type. I am not expecting an answer
to my suggestion now; but in the very
finest spirit of friendship and candor I
mention this, because I think when
specific information of that sort is avail-
able, it helps a committee in conference.
I may say that I have admired greatly
the interest of the junior Senator from
South Carolina [Mr. THURMOND] in all
matters pertaining to national defense.
He has come before the Committee on
Armed Services on many occasions, par-
ticularly at times when the committee
was considering the subject of the Re-
serve components of the Defense Estab-
lishment. His experience in this field is
always helpful, I can assure him. There-
fore, his presentation in connection with
this matter will receive very serious con-
sideration.
Mr. THURMOND. The kinds words
of the Senator from South Dakota are
highly appreciated. Although there are
no brick buildings that I know of on the
base, there are some very fine buildings,
nevertheless. Since there has been no
formal order striking Fort Jackson from
the permanent list of stations-as a mat-
ter of fact, it should still be on the list-
consideration of the item by the commit-
tee will be appreciated.
The Charleston Air Force base is one
of the finest to be found anywhere. The
people of Charleston and Columbia have
been most cooperative with the service
personnel. It is my sincere hope that
the appropriation for the Charleston Air
Force base will be restored by the com-
mittee of conference.
We are living today in a very dan-
gerous age, an age in which a plane,
in 22 minutes' time, can bomb New York,
Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washing-
ton. It is an age in which aircraft can
fly from Moscow to Los Angeles in 10?2'
hours, from Moscow to Chicago in V z
hours, and from Moscow to Washington
in 8 ! z hours.
I feel that the defense appropriations
for the air bases are most essential. It
is my earnest hope that the appropria-
tion for the Charleston Air Force base
will be retained.
Again, I express my deep appreciation
to the able junior Senator from Missis-
sippi and his distinguished colleagues
for their encouragement and their sin-
cere consideration of these appropria-
tions.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator
from South Carolina.
Mr. MARTIN of Pennsylvania. Mr.
President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. MARTIN of Pennsylvania. What
I am about to say is intended more to
help the committee in the future than
Approved For Release 2006/07/28: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120008-9
 Approved For Release 2006/07/28: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120008-9
1955
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
to be of any assistance in connection
with what the Senate is considering this
morning. I assume the Senator from
Mississippi, in considering the appro-
priations, has given much attention to
the consolidation of stations and posts
throughout the United States.
Mr. STENNIS. The committee cer-
tainly gave consideration to that sub-
ject, I do not know if we have made
much progress, but we have urged the
consideration of the matter, and I think
something was accomplished along that
line before the ? bill came to the com-
mittee.
Mr. MARTIN of Pennsylvania. I real-
ize that it is a most difficut problem.
in my own State, we feel that our in-
stallations probably are the most im-
portant from a national defense stand-
point. However, since there has been a
consolidation of the land, sea, and air
forces in one department, it seems to
me that a great number of posts and sta-
tions throughout the United States could
be eliminated. That would apply prob-
ably particularly to the service side of
the Armed Forces. Every post or sta-
tion requires a commander, a certain
amount of staff, and protection. Per-
sonnel are being used for servicing the
posts who probably should be a part of
the combat forces.
The time has come when the cost of
defense in this country must be reduced.
I think much could be done to accom-
plish that end.
I know that in Pennsylvania we will
strongly object to the removal of any
post or station. I do not remember now
the number of establishments that are
located in Pennsylvania. However, I
merely say this to encourage the Sen-
ator's excellent committee to study the
matter further. It will be up to all of
us to assist in every possible way to
eliminate obsolete. military, naval, and
Air Force installations.
Much more ground is needed now for
the training of troops than was formerly
the case, even at the close of World War
1. Instead of 15,000 or 20,000 acres,
250,000 acres are now needed in order
properly to train the ground forces. In
like manner, air bases having much
longer runways are now necessary.
I think the time has come when all
of us must assist the Committee on
Armed Services in every way possible in
order to bring out the facts and to
assist in effecting greater economy.
Mr. STENNIS. The members of the
committee appreciate the sentiments
and the excellent contribution to the
discussion which has been made by the
senior Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Pres-
ident, will the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. I should
like to add a few words in reference to
what the senior Senator from Pennsyl-
vania has said. Emphasis or attention
is generally devoted to the items which
are contained in a bill. Of course, the
bill under consideration deals partially
with new authorizations; but one of the
important jobs of the subcommittee is to
pass upon real estate disposal proposals
for the selling or liquidation of excess
land areas. That is done in sessions of
the committee which are held on call
of the committee; no special publicity is
given to those sessions.
However, I think that in view of the
remarks by the senior Senator from
Pennsylvania, it would be helpful if the
clerk of the committee were to compile,
for the RECORD, a summary of the dis-
posal projects which have been con-
sidered by the subcommittee during the
past year. I myself have been im-
pressed by the increasing number of
projects which have come before the
committee. A tract of land may con-
sist of a fraction of an acre, or in some
instances several acres. But I dare say,
as a guess, that the committee at this
session of Congress has approved not less
than 20 or 30 disposal projects, compris-
ing land which has been declared excess
to the needs of some branch of the De-
fense Establishment. It would be en-
lightening for all Members of the Senate
to know what has been and is taking
place in this respect.
Mr. STENNIS. We appreciate the
recommendation made by the Senator
from South Dakota.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. SPARKMAN. First let me com-
pliment the Senator from Mississippi,
and his subcommittee, and the whole
committee, for what I consider a very
excellent job done in presenting this
most important bill.
I wished to ask a few questions relat-
ing to family housing. The Senator is,
of course familiar with the provision
for hbusing for military personnel under
an insured mortgage plan, which was
contained in the overall housing bill
recently passed by the Senate. Does
this bill in any way replace, displace, or
supplant such housing, or is it supple-
mental to it?
Mr. STENNIS. The committee does
not have the idea that the bill displaces
the program of housing contained in the
bill presented by the Banking and Cur-
rency Committee. We think the pend-
ing bill represents the primary military-
housing program, and that the program
to which the Senator from Alabam re-
ferred is a supplemental program; but
in my opinion there is no conflict be-
tween the two, under present conditions.
Mr. SPARKMAN. I noticed there was
a discussion with reference to Wherry
housing. Might I assume that the com-
mittee had in mind such housing, even
though the bill does not specifically refer
to Wherry housing?
Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is cor-
rect. Reference was made to so-called
Wherry housing or a similar plan.
Mr. SPARKMAN. I take it from the
statements in the report that the great
deficiency which exists in military hous-
ing is recognized, and that over a period
of a number of years it will be necessary
to use all possible means in order to at-
tain our goal. Is that correct?
Mr. STENNIS. In the opinion of the
Senator from Mississippi, the effort will
continue for some time.
Mr. SPARKMAN. There have been
complaints which I wish particularly to
8309
call to the attention of the Senator from
Mississippi. With reference to housing
bills authorizing direct appropriations
for different branches of the armed serv-
ices, oftentimes housing will be built at a
particular installation without taking
adequately into consideration the hous-
ing needs of the community as a whole,
or the ability of the community as a
whole to supply housing. For example,
we have heard of a number of instances
of private industry having gone into an
area and built houses which were being
rented at reasonable figures, and then
the military establishment building
houses on its own. As a result there was
created a surplus of housing in the par-
ticular area. Is there any provision in
this bill to make certain that an analysis
of the situation prevailing in a certain
area will be made before housing is built?
Mr. STENNIS. The justification sheets
presented to the subcommittee repre-
sented that consideration had been given
to each line item. Consideration had
been given to civilian housing, to so-
called Wherry housing, and other so-
called insured housing. In addition to
that, it was shown that there was a need
for the particular line item of housing
indicated.
Let me say that the housing bill which
is now before the Congress requires that
military housing shall be cleared through
the Secretary of Defense. We have been
assured by Assistant Secretary Floete,
who is the representative of the Secre-
tary of Defense in these matters, that
there will be coordination and planning.
Based on his successful consideration of
like matters in other fields, I think that
so far as the point the Senator is making
is concerned, we may expect improve-
ment.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Under this bill is
each branch of the armed services. simply
authorized to build so many units, and
then must it come back to Congress for
an appropriation?
Mr. STENNIS. These are specific au-
thorizations for particular bases. Unless
land has to be acquired, the Department
does not have to come back to the com-
mittee, but it does have to get an ap-
propriation.
Mr. SPARKMAN. The committee has
studied each of these locations with ref-
erence to the availability of private
housing, and has been satisfied that
there is a deficit and that the housing
provided for by the bill is needed. Is
that correct?
Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is correct.
Mr. SPARKMAN. The armed services
will not be authorized to build other
projects without coming back to the
committee and asking for them. Is that
correct?
Mr. STENNIS. Does the Senator
mean additional authorizations?
Mr. SPARKMAN. Yes.
Mr. STENNIS. That is correct. We
have had an understanding that even
though the Banking and Currency Com-
mittee bill, if it should become law, will
not require express approval by the sub-
committee, at the same time the sub-
committee will be taking appropriate
matters into consideration, and will
make reports available, and advise and
Approved For Release 2006/07/28: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120008-9
 Approved For Release 2006/07/28: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120008-9
8310
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE July 1
counsel as to the progress of the pro- Mr. President, in my judgment, the dis-
gram. tinguished Senator from Mississippi and
Mr. SPARKMAN. The Senator from members of the Armed Services Sub-
Mississippi will recall that an amend- committee deserve high praise for doing,
ment to the bill along that line was
accepted.
Mr. STENNIS. That is correct.
Mr. SPARKMAN. There Is one other
phase, that of cost, about which I should
like to inquire. I notice that the average
cost for buildings in the continental
United States is $13,480. That is very
close to the figure provided in the other
bill, which I think was $13,750, including
utilities and site preparation. The site
preparation does not include the value of
the land, does It?
Mr. STENNIS. It does not.
Mr. SPARKMAN. It Includes making
the land ready for the builder, does it
not?
Mr. STENNIS. That Is correct.
Mr. SPARKMAN. The Senator may
recall that our late beloved colleague, the
distinguished Senator from South Caro-
lina, Senator Maybank, who was chair-
man of the Banking and Currency Com-
mittee, used to object to the high cost of
housing built by the Armed Forces under
direct authorization. Does the Senator
feel that situation will be pretty well con-
trolled by the pending bill?
Mr. STENNIS. It is our opinion that
that problem has been met, and that a
reasonable unit cost basis has been ar-
rived at.
Mr. SPARKMAN. I thank the Sena-
tor.
Mr. STENNIS. With reference to the
amendment offered by me, let me say
that I was not assuming the other bill
would become law. Even If It does not
become law, the Secretary of Defense
has promised that the programs involv-
ing housing will be at least cleared by
our subcommittee. I think the Senator
from Alabama has raised a good point,
and I commend him for his contribution.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, will the Senator from Mississippi
yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield to the Senator
from Texas.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I have studied with gratification
the very important report submitted on
Thursday by the Committee on Armed
Services, authorizing construction at
military, naval, and Air Force Instal-
lations.
The significant place my own State of
Texas occupies in the national-defense
picture is evidenced by the long list of
construction projects authorized for mili-
tary installations located there. Texans
always have been proud, and with rea-
son, of their contributions in peace and
war to our national security.
These construction projects are Im-
portant and necessary, in keeping our
physical defenses up to date. In provid-
ing training facilities second to none in
the world, and in building the morale of
our men in uniform.
Speaking for the Texas communities
which will be affected by these projects,
I can say with assurance that they will
continue to offer the fullest cooperation
to our armed services and towelcome the
military personnel manning these instal-
lations.
and doing well, a hard and painstaking-
and eminently necessary-job. They
have made a noteworthy contribution to
our national defense, and I wish to ex-
press my personal appreciation for their
fine work.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Mississippi yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield to the Senator
from Louisiana,
Mr. ELLENDER. As the distinguished
Senator from Mississippi will remember,
I called his attention to a project lo-
cated in the southern part of my State,
but I took no part in the committee's
consideration of the project, except to
point out to the Senator from Mississippi
the Appropriation Committee's policy of
insisting upon the selection of the best
possible place, at the least cost to the
taxpayers, for any military training fa-
cility including naval training.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Navy basic train-
ing.
Mr. ELLENDER. As the Senator
knows, New Iberia, where the new naval
airbase is to be built, is within 100 miles
of Houma, the site of a naval air facility
which was built during World War II.
Has the Senator from Mississippi satis-
fled himself that the land and other fa-
cilities at Houma are not suitable for
this new air facility, and that it will be
more economical to have the Navy build
at the site selected near New Iberia?
Mr. STENNIS. I can say to the Sen-
ator from Louisiana that after the most
careful as well as the fullest considera-
tion, the entire 3-member subcommittee
reached the conclusion, on the facts,
that the New Iberia location, for the pur-
poses needed and required, was the one
we would have to authorize. We did that
over considerable personal inclination in
favor of the landowners at New Iberia
and in favor of utilizing, if possible, the
land already owned by the Government.
But in the final analysis, the military
necessity had to prevail; and the proof
on that point was very pronounced. So
we reached that conclusion.
Mr. ELLENDER. As the Senator from
Mississippi knows, the Appropriations
Committee, of which we are both mem-
bers. has always taken the position that
whenever possible existing Government-
owned facilities should be utilitzed be-
fore a new facility is erected.
Mr. STENNIS. That is correct, and
that Is the attitude of our subcommittee,
also.
Mr. ELLENDER. That has been the
extent of my Interest in this matter.
Mr. STENNIS. Yes.
Mr. ELLENDER. My interest in the
location of this new facility stems from
the fact that the Navy spent from $17
million to $18 million on the now-de-
activated facility near Houma. It was
my feeling that the existing facility
there should be used if possible In order
to recapture, to some extent at least,
some of the money previously expended
by the Navy.
The committee has taken all of these
factors into consideration, I understand,
and has concluded that by selecting the
New Iberia cite, not only will the Govern-
ment obtain a better and more effective
site, but the entire cost of erecting the
new facilities at New Iberia, including
land purchases, will be less than the cost
of renovating or reconstructing the fa-
cility at Houma. Is that correct?
Mr. STENNIS. Yes; it will be more
advantageous to the taxpayers, despite
the fact that the Government already
owns land at Houma.
Mr. E LENDER, It is my under-
standing that the land at New Iberia
is in a potential oil-producing area, and
at the present time an oil company is
exploring there for oil. Has the com-
mittee considered the additional amount
of money which will have to be spent to
acquire that site, in contrast to other
possible sites for this project. The Sena-
tor from Mississippi well knows that if
oil is discovered there before the Navy
purchases the land in question, that fac-
tor will Inevitably increase considerably
the cost of the land to the United States
Government. Did the committee take
Into consideraion that fact, namely, that
the area Is In a potential oil field, and
that a company is now in the process of
exploring for oil there?
Mr. STENNIS. That was included in
the proof we took, and the subcommit-
tee definitely considered that fact. Of
course, we could not have before us any
actual figures of a valuation on that
basis.
The Senator from Louisiana will un-
derstand that the same land project will
come back before our subcommittee, not
only in connection with this project, but
also in connection with others; and at
that time we hope to work out an ar-
rangement for the highest possible utili-
zation of those mineral rights, despite
the use to which the land will have to be
put.
Mr. ELLENDER. Of course the Sen-
ator from Mississippi knows that before
final action is taken on this matter, the
proposal will have to come before the Ap-
propriations Committee, where the
amount proposed to be spent must be
justified.
Mr. STENNIS. Yes: at that time it
must be finally justified and finally de-
termined.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr.
President
Air. STENNIS. I yield to the Senator
from South Dakota.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr.
President, I wish to say that the com-
mittee was greatly impressed by the tes-
timony submitted by Vice Adm. A. K.
Doyle, Chief of Naval Air Training. He
testified on several occasions before the
committee. In particular, I refer to his
testimony which begins on page 738 of
the hearings, where Senators will find
that Admiral Doyle testified that in
September 1954 he received a directive
to make a special study of the matter of
a site. He said he examined, by means
of their airway charts, all possible sites
in the United States; and then he said:
It is an amazing thing that there Is no
spot In the United States that has access to
the gulf that has not already been pre-
empted by the Air Force, Navy, or Army ex-
Approved For Release 2006/07/28: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120008-9
 Approved For Release 2006/07/28: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120008-9
1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE
cept down from New Orleans toward Lake
Charles.
Then, following considerable discus-
sion and considerable questioning by the
committee regarding the several sites-
New Iberia, Houma, and others, Admiral
Doyle finally said, as appears on page
746 of the hearings:
New Iberia was the only one where the tax-
payer will get a safe return on his Invest-
ment in our opinion. The others are not
a good second best.
After he had reviewed the soil condi-
tions, the price, the elevations, and all
other factors, that statement by him was
such a categorical one-and I emphasize
that it was the testimony of the Chief
of Naval Air Training-that, to me, it
was quite persuasive. I repeat it:
New Iberia was the only one where the tax-
payer will get a safe return on his investment
in our opinion. The others are not a good
second best.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Mississippi yield fur-
ther to me?
Mr. STENNIS. I am glad to yield.
Mr. ELLENDER. Is it not also a fact
that testimony was produced showing
that although the facility at Houma was
erected several years ago by the Navy,
yet, because of the additional weight of
the aircraft which will use this new fa-
cility, the present runways at Houma are
inadequate?
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Yes; and
the problem of extending the airways
raised many complicating factors.
Mr. ELLENDER. I also understand
that the housing facilities at Houma are
for the most part unusable, and also that
because of soil conditions at Houma, the
additional cost of pilings for buildings,
and so forth, will be substantial. As .a
matter of fact, I went into the matter
with our naval officials quite carefully.
As I have said, my sole interest in it was
to see to it that the Navy got the site it
needed in order to carry out its training
program, and at the same time that it se-
lected the site which would cost the
least to erect-and maintain.
Speaking frankly, it has always been
my policy as a United States Senator to
confine my influence in matters such as
this to determining whether the Govern-
ment agency involved is making the most
efficient use of the facilities it already
has available. I have not favored any
proposed site over another, since I feel
it is my duty to represent all the people
of my State. I merely wish to see that
the Navy has the facilities it needs, at
the place they are needed and where they
can be best utilized at the least possible
cost to our taxpayers.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, we
greatly appreciate the sentiments of the
Senator from Louisiana on that matter.
His views certainly were helpful to us;
and that certainly was his position all
the way through, quite consistently.
We were concerned about this mat-
ter-so much so, Mr. President, that
after we heard all the other proof, we
had Admiral Doyle return before the
subcommittee, along with Admiral Perry,
Chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks;
and Admiral Clark; and Admiral Russell,
who is Chief of the Bureau of Aero-
nautics; and at that time we had a very
thorough hearing, with testimony from
them, in order to obtain their opinion
and their judgment as to the possible
alternatives.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. The question is on agreeing to
the committee amendment, as amended.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr.
President, I shall not detain the Senate
long, but I desire to speak briefly on the
bill, and with a special emphasis on two
or three of its features.
Mr. President, this is the third of the
military works authorization bills with
which it has been my privilege to be
associated. On the basis of that ex-
perience, I would say that the represent-
ations made to us, this time, by the rep-
resentatives of the Defense Establish-
ment were in the best shape of any that
have been submitted to the committee in
connection with any of the three bills.
The Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Properties and Installations, Mr. Floete,
and his assistant in charge of construc-
tion, Mr. Fulling, and the members of
their staffs, and the other representa-
tives of the services, have done an ex-
cellent job. The careful presentation of
the proposed appropriations is ample
justification, in my opinion, for the cre-
ation of the position of Assistant Secre-
tary of Defense for Properties and In-
stallations. Before that position was
created, the committees necessarily had
been confronted with presentations by
interested witnesses-that is to say, rep-
resentatives of the particular branches
of the service which were involved.
Here we had the benefit of an overall
look, and the overall look was presented
by men who were qualified to look at the
proposals and the various projects from
the standpoint of the total defense needs.
On other occasions I have referred to
the fact that General Marshall used to
say that his problem as Chief of Staff
was to overcome the "localitis" which
often crept into presentations from a
particular field when allocations of ma-
teriel or personnel were requested. The
same situation, of course, exists when we
are dealing with the three main serv-
ices. Each one sees the problem or the
mission from its point of view. It is
necessary and helpful to have someone
review the projects from the standpoint
of the needs of the Defense Department
as a whole and the budgetary questions
which are involved.
It was a great privilege to serve on this
subcommittee under the chairmanship
of the Senator from Mississippi [Mr.
STENNIS]. I have been associated with
him in many activities-in the Commit-
tee on Public Works, the Committee on
Armed Services, and this particular sub-
committee for 3 years. He brings to the
position of chairman the benefit of great
experience, the tact and diplomacy
which are characteristic of his personal-
ity, and the ability which is the out-
growth of the fact that he is a great -
student, a great lawyer, with great abil-
ity for analyzing evidence. -'I pay trib-
ute to his excellent leadership in this
chairmanship. .
8311
It was also a privilege to work with
the Senator from Washington [Mr.
JACKSON]. The Senator from Washing-
ton brought to this committee a particu-
lar quality growing out of his long asso-
ciation with the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy and his experience' on ap-
propriations in the House of Repre-
sentatives. Many of the projects which
are proposed to this committee deal with
facilities for the housing or utilization
of nuclear weapons. The background of
the Senator from Washington in that
field was invaluable to the committee in
its consideration of those particular
projects.
There has already been considerable
discussion on the floor with reference to
the housing program. I should like to
supplement what has been said by men-
tioning two things.
First, the committee is continuing its
study of the housing program. The
committee has issued a specific directive
to the Defense Department which will
result in the submission of additional
figures and data to the committee be-
tween now and January. The report
calls attention to the fact that the com-
mittee will continue its study of housing.
We recognize that housing is an im-
portant factor in the strength of the
Military Establishment. Reference has
already been made by the distinguished
Senator from Maine [Mr. PAYNE], to the
testimony by General LeMay as to the
value of good housing in obtaining re-
enlistment of trained personnel. That
factor has always had a great deal of
importance, but never so much as in the
present day, when we have such a high
requirement for training in the Navy, the
Army, and the Air Force. If we lose a
man who has spent 6 or 10 years in train-
ing, it requires a long time and the ex-
penditure of a great deal of money to
replace him adequately. Consequently,
the subject of housing has greater. im-
portance in the efficiency of the Military
Establishment than ever before.
As a collateral of the longer period of
training required for technicians and for
pilots in the modern Military Establish-
ment, we have the natural fact - that
some men reach the age where they be-
come married and have families. So
family housing has a much greater part
to play in maintaining the efficiency of
the Military Establishment than ever
before. That is why, in this bill, the
committee has provided as much as $250
million or more for military housing.
The second aspect of the matter is
that raisedby the Senator from Alabama
[Mr. SPARKMAN] in asking the question
as to whether or not the committee had
carefully considered the existence of
other housing, rental housing - in the
community, Wherry-type housing, or
other housing, in approving the alloca-
tions here requested. For the RECORD, I
invite attention to the table which ap-
pears at page 11 of the committee report.
I ask unanimous consent that that table
may be printed in the RECORD at this
point as a part of my remarks.
There being no objection, the table was
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows;
Approved For Release 2006/07/28: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120008-9
 Approved For Release 2006/07/28: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120008-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE July 1
Analysis of family housing requirements at installations with existing Wherry projects and
for which housing would be authorized by the bill
Itiame and location of Installation
Fam11c
bowing
rrrluire-
menu
F,trsttng
WLury
Eibttng
govern-
meet
Cammu-
airy
suPIN I,
efic
get
detlclt
Athor-
Iuvi is
ill
UnRntls-
1k l
dell,it
ARMY
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md-----------
1,442
796
73
2110
873
36
fort Lee
Va ------------
1, 247
300
S
493
496
15,11
Zia
.
I )uewuy Proving (}round, Ulah----------
495
44x)
Si
0
0,
16
49
x7
2
fort 11elvolr, Va__________________________
1,814
182
2
4,59
2112
6txS
111
Sit
594
4011
1
275
114
411/
:
875
47
Fort O wen s , Alass-----------------------
tort
,
$ MI
M
35
2045
,
1.021
4011
44
)
*
1
K _
hurt K OoX
3, 815
1,7110
422
fi11)
1.021
1
-*33
,
_______________________
[la
Port Ileonine
362;
1,71x)
93.5
1,`L12
8.460
I"4
3,333
.
__
______________________
e. C
Fort Rraee
0,b74
4
2,r4ID
243
$500
4x
3.331
440
2, 1!41
___
.
v_______________________
Port Cum phell, K
F1, 47
4Th
1,251
3311
3,
0 1
39
3,5511
4411
440
3,149
,
Fort McClellan. Al a______________________
ella
140
49
490
2
1
3
375
4f4
13
0
JIM
22'
nf
V
2
n----------------_----------
Fort Maud
7,M7
:418
1,372
172
,
4.
2.
.
.
Fort Itiley,Kane-------------------------
2,432
414
44x1
ion
121
1,543
40
Out
153
53
1
2110
1(111
491
5:
Fort :heridan. III __-_--__
:mina Base, N. Islts____________ _______
1,474
300
322
3W
506
9o
41(
NAVY
Camp Pendleton (DM C), Calif_ -----------
0.R'.N
1,502
760
1,119
3,47.7
332
3,121
?Pwrntynine Palms I:i1Cl'Cj, Calit-------
931
403
0
191
290
2
tai
AIR FORCE.
McGuire Air Force Base. N. J------------
2. 593
Win
10
895
1 . 125
T
Rf
Mountain Home Air Force liasc, Idaho.--
1.142
1194'
124
M
G13
1`Al
34
bhuw Air Force Base, S. C ................
1, 979
6 4)
152
477
0311
3 K)
547
Total- -----------------------------
C% 4x92
13, 611
3 009
13, 294
25, 44^45
i 4, 511
30,97
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Pres-
ident, I shall not read the table, but
I invite attention to the fact that it rep-
resents an analysis of the major hous-
Ing proposals, where Wherry projects
exist, in relation to the authorizations
carried in the bill.
The first column cites the family hous-
Ing requirements. The second column
shows the existing Wherry units. The
third column shows the existing Gov-
ernment units. The fourth column
shows the community support in the
way of family housing. The fifth col-
umn shows the net deficit. The sixth
column shows the authorization in the
bill. The final column shows the un-
satisfied deficit. I think the fact that
the final column shows an unsatisfied
deficit, even after all the existing hous-
ing is listed, plus that proposed by the
bill. is a complete answer to the ques-
tion raised by the distinguished Sena-
tor from Alabama. Even with the hous-
ing proposed in the bill, even with the
community housing, even with the ex-
isting Government housing and the ex-
isting Wherry housing, there still re-
mains an unsatisfied deficit. I think
that provides an answer to anyone who
may have any fears on that score.
This bill and the two prior bills in this
field clear up some old existing authori-
zations. In the bill 2 years ago the com-
mittee rescinded authorizations totaling
approximately half a billion dollars.
We made re-application In that bill of
approximately $290 million of prior
authorizations. That was whittling
away at the $80 billion authorizations
outstanding, which the Defense Depart-
ment inherited when the Eisenhower ad-
ministration took over.
In this bill we cancel the old author-
izations in this field prior to 1951, with
the exception of those with respect to
which a start has been made, or with
respect to which appropriations and
commitments have been made. We con-
tinue the authorizations only to the ex-
tent of completing the projects with re-
spect to which starts have been made.
That helps to put us on an even keel.
When the subcommittee was overseas,
I for one, was astounded at the antiq-
uity of the authorizations under which
construction was proceeding, We found
that, 7 or 8 years prior to the fall of 1953,
authorizations had been made under
which construction was then proceeding.
Obviously. when that same situation
exists both abroad and at home, we have
authorizations outstanding which are
antiquated, which do not bear a realis-
tic relationship to current missions or
stations, and which need review. The
committee reviewed many of them and
decided that the authorizations which
were made prior to 1951 should now be
extinguished unless they were in process
of liquidation by construction. I think
that is a constructive result which this
committee accomplishes by the annual
review of military authorizations.
The chairman of the subcommittee has
already alluded to the progress now be-
ing recorded in utilizing surplus com-
modities for the acquisition of overseas
housing. Overseas housing presents one
of the most difficult questions which con-
front the committee from time to time.
We have several programs for providing
housing overseas. One means, of course,
is rental. Another is the payment of al-
lowances, with a special allowance for
the cost of living at any particular sta-
tion, under which military personnel can
rent housing if it is available. But many
times It is not available in any satisfac-
tory degree or quality, or proximity to the
military station. Consequenty, the
committee is under a great deal of pres-
sure to provide housing either by direct
appropriation of funds or by a guaranty
of occupancy for rental projects. That
has caused a great deal of concern to
the committee.
Some years ago Congress authorized a
commitment of $100 million for guaran-
teeing the rental for 95 percent oc-
cupancy of projects built overseas. The
projects have to be submitted to the
committee as they come up. The com-
mittee has been very reluctant to guar-
antee that kind of occupancy anywhere
except where there is a substantial num-
ber of United States personnel, and also
the committee has been reluctant to ap-
prove any project where a rental guar-
antee would extend beyond 5 years. In
a few instances during the past few
months the committee has approved
some 7-year guarantees, in and around
Paris and at some other centers, where
it appears that such a long guarantee
could be made without, in effect, provid-
ing that we would supply the money and
someone else would build the projects
at asubstantial profit to the builder.
A proposal for the use of some surplus
agricultural commodities was placed in
the public works bill a year ago. We
are pleased to have a report from As-
sistant Secretary Floete that the pro-
gram is beginning to produce some re-
sults. He cited 3 or 4 instances of acqui-
sition of some military housing projects
through the sale of surplus agricultural
commodities for local currencies. We
are assured that procedures have been
worked out to extend that activity.
There is in the bill a provision for the
acquisition of military quarters in a more
direct fashion where the housing is avail-
able by the use of funds derived from
the liquidation of loans extended by the
Commodity Credit Corporation or the
purchase funds which It may have in-
vested in the surplus commodities. This
will give assurance of the extension of
that approach to the problem of overseas
military housing.
There is very little further to be said
on the bill so far as the minority mem-
bers of the Committee on Armed Serv-
ices are concerned. The bill was pre-
sented to the full committee yesterday.
In the committee there was full discus-
sion of it by both the majority and mi-
nority members. The questions raised
in committee were the kind of questions
which have been raised today in de-
bate on the floor. The bill was unani-
mously endorsed by the full committee.
There was no dissenting vote. There-
fore the bill comes to the Senate with
the unanimous support of the Commit-
tee on Armed Services. I hope it will
be passed.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, before
a vote is had on the bill I shall suggest
the absence of a quorum. First, I wish
to thank especially Mr. George Vinzant,
of Vicksburg, Miss. He is a civilian en-
gineer with the Corps of Engineers. He
was on loan to the subcommittee for
about 60 days, at personal sacrifice to
himself. He rendered very able service
to the subcommittee In the capacity of
a practical construction engineer. His
review of all the work was quite helpful
to us. He approved the bill as to unit
cost and as to need in virtually every
item.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr.
President, I should like to associate my-
self with the remarks which the Sena-
Approved For Release 2006/07/28: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120008-9
3
3
7
 Approved For Release 2006/07/28: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120008-9
1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
tor from Mississippi has made with ref-
erence to the beneficial service record by
George Vinzant. The Senator from
Mississippi has already alluded to our
staff. I should like to associate myself
with those remarks also. We believe,
too, that the services of William Dar-
den, the clerk of the subcommittee, have
been invaluable. He has been inde-
fatigable in his efforts to further the
work of the committee. He has always
been a source of information to us and
has always been ready to supply it. He
was always on call whenever we wanted
to ask for information. He has cer-
tainly done a good job, and I should
therefore like the RECORD to show my ap-
preciation of his good work.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator
from South Dakota. The provisions in
the bill reflect only in part his very fine
knowledge of the subject matter. There
is no way to calculate or estimate the
extent of the valuable services of the
Senator from South Dakota not only
this year, but also in the previous years
when he acted as chairman of the sub-
committee. He has carried a heavy
load, and he has certainly made a fine
contribution.
I should like to point to a proviso in
the bill which has not been mentioned.
It reads:
Provided further, That at such time as
the central intelligence Agency occupies the
headquarters installation authorized by this
title, the Administrator of General Services
is authorized and directed to accomplish the
demolition and removal of temporary Gov-
ernment building space in the District of
Columbia of equivalent occupany to that
relinquished by the central Intelligence
Agency,
If this provision is carried out it will
lead to the demolition of at least a part
of the temporary buildings on the Mall
and on Constitution Avenue, which are
now occupied by the central Intelligence
Agency. They will be demolished with-
out displacing anyone, because the
present occupants will be moving out of
them.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. The Secretary will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinde.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem.-
pore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the
committee amendment as amended.
The amendment, as amended, was
agreed to.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. The question is on the eligross-
ment of the amendment and the third
reading of the bill.
The amendment was ordered to be en-
grossed and the bill to be read a third
time.
The bill (H. R. 6829) was read the
third time and passed.
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I wish
at this time to express my deep appre-
ciation to the Senator from Mississippi
[Mr. STENNIS], the Senator from Wash-
ington [Mr. JACKSON], and the Senator
from South Dakota [Mr. CASE], for the
very excellent work they have done on
the bill which the Senate has just passed.
There are few measures which are more
tedious and which require more exact-
ing work than does one of these com-
prehensive military construction au-
thorization bills. The subcommittee has
rendered a real service to the Senate and
to the country by the very careful at-
tention they have given to this measure.
Mr. President, I move that the Senate
insist upon its amendment, request a
conference with the House of Repre-
sentatives thereon, and that the Chair
appoint conferees on the part of the
Senate.
The motion was agreed to; and the
Acting President pro tempore appointed
Mr. STENNIS, Mr. JACKSON, Mr. BYRD, Mr.
CASE of South Dakota, and Mr. SALTON-
STALL conferees on the part of the"Senate.
APPOINTMENT OF SELECT COMMIT-
TEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Pres-
ident, I move that the Senate proceed
to the consideration of Order No. 697,
Senate Resolution 120.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. The clerk will state the resolu-
tion by title for the information of the
Senate.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A resolution
(S. Res. 120) providing for the manner
of the appointment of the Select Com-
mittee on Small Business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. The question is on agreeing to
the motion of the Senator from Texas.
The motion was agreed to; and the
resolution (S. Res. 120) was considered
and agreed to, as follows:
Resolved, That the. chairman and mem-
bers of the Select Committee on Small Bus-
iness, created by Senate Resolution 58, 81st
Congress, 2d session, shall be appointed
in the same manner and at the same time
as the chairmen and members of the stand-
ing committees of the Senate at the begin-
ning of each Congress.
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
A message from the House of Repre-
sentatives, by Mr. Maurer, its reading
clerk, announced that the House had
agreed to the report of the committee
of conference on the disagreeing votes
of the two Houses on the amendments
of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 5502)
making appropriations for the Depart-
ments of 'State and Justice, the Judici-
ary, and related agencies for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1956, and for other
purposes; that the House receded from
its disagreement to the amendments of
the Senate numbered 2, 12, 13, 27, 35,
37, and 46 to the bill, and concurred
therein, and that the House receded
from its disagreement to the amend-
ments of the Senate numbered 30 and
49 to the bill, and concurred therein,
each with an amendment, in which it
requested the concurrence of the Senate.
ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED
The message also announced that the
Speaker had affixed his signature to the
8313
following enrolled bills, and they were
signed by the Acting President pro tem-
pore:
S. 727. An act to adjust the salaries of
judges of the municipal court of appeals for
the District of Columbia, the salaries of the
judges of the municipal court for the Dis-
trict of Columbia, the salary of the judge
of the District of Columbia tax court, and
the salary of the judge of the juvenile court
of the District of Columbia;
H. R. 989. An act for the relief of Dr. Louis
J. Sebille;
H. R. 990. An act for the relief of Takako
Riu Reich;
H. R. 1111. An act for the relief of Philip
Mack;
H. R. 1163. An act for the relief of Lee
Houn and Lily Ho Lee Houn;
H. R. 1247. An act for the relief of Carol
Brandon (Valtrude Probt);
H. R. 1255. An act for the relief of Ferenc
Babothy;
H. R. 1281. An act for the relief of Carlo
Nonvenuto;
H. R. 1283. An act for the relief of Olga
Joannou Georgulea;
H. R. 1287. An act for the relief of David
Mordka Borenstajn, Itta Borenstajn nee
Schipper, and Fella Borenstajn Reichlinger;
H. R. 1357. An act for the relief of Chin
York Gay;
H. R. 1417. An act for the relief of Charles
(Carlos) Gerlicz;
H. R. 1467. An act for the relief of Stijepo
Buich;
H. R. 1472. An act for the relief, of Victor
Manuel Soares De Mendonca;
H. R. 1473. An act for the relief of Eleanore
Hauser;
H. R. 1474. An act for the relief of Ross
Sherman Trigg;
H. R. 1475. An act for the relief of Wing
Chong Chan;
H. R. 1525. An act for the relief of Ardes
Albacete Yanez;
H. R. 2470. An act for the relief of T. C.
Elliott;
H, R. 2933. An act for the relief of Mrs.
Berta Mansergh;
H. R. 3069. An act for the relief of Eu-
fronio D. Espina;
H. R. 3070. An act for the relief of Mrs.
Lee Tai Hung Quan and Quan Ah Sang;
H. R. 3075, An act for the relief of Virgil
Won (also known as Virgilio Jackson);
H. R. 3271. An act for the relief of John
Lloyd Smelcer;
H. R. 5502. An act making appropriations
for the Departments of State and Justice,
the Judiciary, and related agencies for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1956, and for other
purposes; and
H. R. 6042. An act making appropriations
for the Department of Defense for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1956, and for other
purposes.
ENROLLED BILL PRESENTED
The Secretary of the Senate reported
that on today, July 1, 1955, he presented
to the President of the United States the
enrolled bill (S. 727) to adjust the sala-
ries of judges of the municipal court of
appeals for the District of Columbia,
the salaries of the judges of the mu-
nicipal court for the District of Colum-
bia, the salary of the judge of the Dis-
trict of Columbia tax court, and the
salary of the judge of the juvenile court
of the District of Columbia.
DEPARTMENTS OF STATE AND JUS-
TICE, AND JUDICIARY APPROPRIA-
TIONS-CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, I sub-
mit a report of the committee of con-
Approved For Release 2006/07/28: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120008-9
 8314
Approved For Release 2006/07/28: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120008-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE July 1
ference on the disagreeing votes of the sored schools or institutes of American the program. If they are eliminated, the
two Houses on the amendment of the studies-for example, the Salzburg program will fall.
Senate to the bill (H. R. 5502) making Seminar In Austria, or Roberts College in It Is interesting to note, also, that
appropriations for the Departments of Istanbul-in other foreign countries. one of the principal criticisms of the
State and Justice, the judiciary, and re- I assume that since foreign currency opposition in the other body is that the
laced agencies for the fiscal year ending grants of this type are clearly authorized program Is not administered efficiently.
June 30, 1956, and for other purposes. in public Law 584, the limitation stated Can they really believe that a drastic
I ask unanimous consent for the present in the report will not cripple this ac- cut will improve the administration of
consideration of the report. tivity. I also assume that the fact that, the program? Obviously it will only
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- in some cases, foreign governments and injure it.
pore. The report will be read for the universities-the University of Oslo, for Finally, the report reflects what I con-
information of the Senate. example-are so receptive to the pro- sider to be an extremely shortsighted
The legislative clerk read the report, gram that they offer the use of their policy which has not been justified in any
(For conference report, see House pro- physical facilities for these purposes, way by the evidence presented. Such
ceedings of June 30, 1955, pp. 8276-8277, will not militate against the continuance action Is even more astonishing today,
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.) of this activity, which is very modest in when we are spending billions for mili-
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- scale and very effective in reaching key tary and economic aid to foreign coun-
pore. Is there objection to the present groups overseas who cannot come to the tries.
consideration of the report? United States. Certainly military and economic aid
There being no objection, the Senate Mr. President. the effort to restrict the are important and necessary. Their pri-
proceeded to consider the report. program by this provision is but another mary aims, however, are specific, and
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I example, in my view, of the usurpation are geared to short-range objectives.
wish to register my opposition to the by the Committee on Appropriations of They are in no sense a substitute for
action of the conferees in agreeing to a legislative function. Public Law 584 the solid basis of mutual understanding
the cut of $4 million under the budget specifically authorizes the sending of which is achieved by the educational-
request for the international exchange foreign students to American institu- exchange program.
activities. The budget request was for tions abroad; and the meaning of -Amer- This program has proved that it is
$22 million, and the Senate approved scan institutions" has been, by a long one of the most effective means at our
that amount. The House originally course of action, developed to include in- disposal to influence those foreign na-
voted for only $12 million, but in the stitutions such as Roberts College in Is- tionals who are directly or indirectly re-
conference the sum of $18 million was tanbul and the Salzburg Seminar in sponsible for the formulation of na-
agreed to. The $18 million figure rep- Austria. I think this is either an effort tional policy and molding public opin-
resents an actual cut of $577,000 below directly to override the specific legisla- ion in their respective countries. It
the 1955 appropriation. tive authorization, or is a misconception seems to me particularly unfortunate
Such action takes no account of the of what actually has been taking place that we should even consider retrench-
recommendations which have been made under the program. I think this is a ment at this time, when it Is evident
over the past years by Members of the provision which should not be included in to anyone that our antagonists are be-
Congress, disinterested officials at the any appropriation bill. report. or act. I ginning to emphasize the use of cultural
highest level of Government, and lead- am glad to say hat the Senate did not activities in their efforts to win the cold
ing private citizens, in countless fields include such a provision: it was placed war.
of activity throughout the country who In the report at the insistence of the I believe the action of the conferees is
through close observation of the program House. not in the best interests of the country.
have become convinced of its efficacy The limitation of $3,300,000 for ad- We profess in this country an interest
in achieving the country's aims in world ministration is not adequate to carry out in peace. We seek to enlighten the free
affairs and strengthening free-world a program of $18 million with probable world so that it may settle its differences
solidarity. private contributions of an additional by reason and by peaceful procedures.
The execution of the program in past $8 million to $9 million. The cost of I believe the majority of the people of
years has built a strong basis for greatly administration in 1955 was $3,899,015 the United States deeply desire to fol-
increasing the effectiveness of this vital for a program of the same level. To cut low such a course of action.
instrument In our foreign relations back approximately $600,000 will serious- But, Mr. President, the action of Con-
through a modest increase in the scope ly cripple the program and the Depart- gress, especially of the other body, ne-
and level of operations. The proposed ment's effort in encouraging private con- gates such a policy. The Members, as is
budget represented sound, careful, and tributions to supplement the grant pro- evident everyday on the floor, are eager
realistic planning based on up-to-min- gram paid with appropriated funds. I to appropriate vast sums for guns and
ute requests from the United States Ms- have seen or heard nothing in the con- for military bases throughout the
sions overseas. It would have permitted ference report or elsewhere that would world. It is notable that on one base in
a strengthening of the program in the justify this apparently arbitrary limita- North Africa. according to a report we
critical areas of the Far East, the Near tion. had last year, more was wasted than
East, south Asia, Africa, and Latin Amer- Of course, the administration of the the total cost of the program I am dis-
ica, where educational exchange might program is a very complex and difficult cussing since its beginning. But the
well throw the deciding weight in deter- matter. i suppose it is difficult for mem- Members are eager to appropriate money
mining the direction which people and bers of the committee to realize that in- for bases and for guns. Recently, only
governments will take in world affairs. dividuals, human beings, cannot be a day or two ago, with scarcely any
I call attention also to the fact that handled in the same way as guns, bags question, and certainly no criticism, al-
as the report puts it, "None of the funds of wheat, or sacks of cement. A large most $32 billion was appropriated for
made available in this item shall be used proportion of the total amount is for such purposes.
to pay the cost of sending foreign stu- administration: but the key to the suc- small program now under con-
dents from their country to study at a cess of the program is an Intelligent ad- The siderati smfor which now under r on-$22 million
foreign university of another foreign ministration, especially the wise and been cut $4 million,
country." careful selection of the individuals who requested, p has I think that is some-
neighborhood that is
request is my understanding that the budget participate. nearly 20 percent.
one-
request of the Department did not in- The success of the program hinges where re in
twentieth of the 1 percent hb the of one-
elude any proposal to use funds for such completely upon the wisdom of the pro- twe nt wof 1 perof f one bill for
a purpose. As the record of the hearings cedure of selection, and that procedure, which and was
ar ppment.
clearly indicates, the Department pro- of course, accounts for the chief cost
posed to spend $35,154 for grants to 222 of the administration of the program. I cannot help feeling very sorrowful,
foreign nationals to attend, not a "for- The binational commissions which are and in a sense I am humiliated, as a
eign university of another foreign coun- created and set up In each of the par- citizen of the United States, that every
try," as the conference report limitation ticipating countries cost some money, year this one program, sponsored by the
reads, but to attend American-spon- but they are essential to the success of Government, which can be said to be
Approved For Release 2006/07/28: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120008-9