January 31, 1978


H.R. 3372

A ~l to amend title 23 of the United States

to provide for the Federal funding

of and easement acquisitions and the

ono action and improvement of neces-

sary and scenic viewing facilities in

order develop a national scenic and

recreation 1 highway program.

Be it by the Senate and House of

Representative of the United States of

America in Tress assembled, That chap-

ter 1 of title 23 f the United States Code

is amended by inrting at the end thereof

a new section as fo ws:

"5 146. Development f a prototype of a na-

tional highwa program.

"(a)(1) The congresss nds-

"(A) that there are gnificant esthetic

and recreational values t be derived from

making places of scenic an natural beauty

and historical, archeologica or scientific

interest accessible to the publ

"(B) that there is a deflcienc n the num-

ber and quality of scenic roads;,parkways,

and highways available to the rotoring


"(C) that with increased population, great-

er leisure time and higher percentage of' ri-

vately owned automotive vehicles, more fap-

lies than ever are seeking suitable areas ih

which to drive for pleasure and recreation;'

"(D) that the growth of cities and large

metropolitan centers has decreased the

quantity of open-space and recreational

areas available to the general public, espe-

cially urban dwellers; and

"(E) that substantial economic, social,

cultural, educational, and psychological

benefits could be gained from a nationwide

system of attractive roadways making pos-

sible widespread enjoyment of natural and

recreational resources.

"(2) It is therefore the purpose of this

section to provide assistance to the States

and to other Federal departments and agen-

cies having jurisdiction over Federal lands

open to the public in order to develop high-

ways throughout the Nation to satisfy such

needs and to prove the actual national feasi-

bility of such a system through direct Fed-

eral participation in the improvement and

construction of the Great River Road and

attendant facilities and to further provide

for Federal participation in the celebration

of the tricentennial of the discovery of the

Mississippi River.

"(b) As soon as possible after the date of

enactment of this section, the Secretary shall

establish criteria for the location and con-

struction or reconstruction of the Great

River Road by the ten States bordering the

Mississippi River in order to carry out the

purpose of this section. Such criteria shall

include requirements that-

"(1) priority be given in the location of

the Great River Road near or easily acces-

sible to the larger population centers of the

State and further priority be given to the

construction and improvement of the Great

River Road in the proximity of the conflu-

ence of the Mississippi River and the Wis-

consin River;

"(2) the Great River Road be connected

with other Federal aid highways and prefer-

ably with the Interstate System;

"(3) the Great River Road be marked with

uniform identifying signs

"(4) effective control as defined in section

181(c) of this title, 9 signs, displays, and

devices will be provide along the Great River

Road; /

(8) the provisions bf section 129(a) of

thi title sha not apply to any bridge

Stnnel on e Great River Road and no

tUt shall charged for the use of any fa-

duty constucted with assistance under this

nation. /

"(c) .r the purpose of this section the

*Iiostruction' includes the acquisition

of historical, archeological, or scien-

tific interest, necessary easements for scenic

purposes, and the construction or reconstruc-

tion of roadside rest areas (including appro-

priate recreational facilities), scenic viewing

areas, and other appropriate facilities deter-

mined by the Secretary for the purpose of

this section.

"(d) Highways constructed or recon-

structed pursuant to this section (except

subsection (g)) shall be maintained by the

appropriate state or local jurisdiction and

shall remain within their present highway

system designation except with respect to

such provisions of this title as the Secretary

determines are not consistent with this sec-


"(e) Funds authorized for each fiscal year

pursuant to subsection (h) (1) shall be ap-

portioned among the ten States bordering

the Mississippi River on the basis of their

relative needs as determined by the Secretary

for payments to carry out the purpose of this


"(f) The Federal share of the cost of any

project for any construction or reconstruc-

tion pursuant to the preceding subsections

of this section shall be 80 per centum of such


"(g) The Secretary is authorized to con-

sult with the heads of other Federal depart-

ments and agencies having jurisdiction over

Federal lands open to the public in order to

spter into appropriate arrangements for nec-

essary construction or reconstruction of

highways on such lands to carry out the pur-

pose f this section. To the extent applicable

criteria. applicable to highways constructed

or reco.ructed by the States pursuant to

this section shall be applicable to highways

constructed or reconstructed pursuant to

this subsectioQ. Funds authorized' pursuant

to subsection 1) (2) shall be used to pay

the entire cost o .construction or reconstruc-

tion pursuant to t s subsection.

"(h) There is ao oprzed to be appropri-

ated out of the High ay Trust Fund (1) not

to exceed $20,000.000 lr each of the fiscal

years ending June 30A,1974, and 1975, for

allocations to the State% pursuant to this

section, and (2) not to exceed $10,000,000 for

each of the fiscal years ending June 30, 1974,

and 1975, to carry out the provisions of sub-

section (g)."

SEC. 2. The' table of contentpiof chapter 1

of title 23 of the United States Code is

amended by inserting at the end thereof the


"145. Development of a prototype of a na-

tional scenic and recreational ligh-

way program.".

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

previous order of the House, the gentle-

man from Massachusetts (Mr. O'NEILL)

is recognized for 15 minutes.

[Mr. O'NEILL addressed the House.

His remarks will appear hereafter in the

Extensions of Remarks.]


The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

previous order of the House, the gentle-

man from Hawaii (Mr. MATSUNAGA) is

recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, it is

with great pleasure that I request per-

mission to insert into today's RECORD a

resolution from the 11th Guam Legis-

lature hailing the election of the terri-

tory's first Delegate to the House of Rep-

resentatives, my good friend and col-


Delegate WON PAT has served his peo-

ple well, as many of you here know. For

over two decades TONY WON PAT has been

coming to Washington as an emissary

before the Federal Government for his

constituents. During the years TONY has

made countless appearances before con-

gressional committees in his efforts to

gain additional benefits for Guam. And,

the amazing record of his accomplish-

ments as a result of his hard work is a

tribute to TONY WON PAT.

As this resolution indicate , the leg-

islature and the people t Guam are

proud of the tremendous rogress, both

politically, and economi lly, which they

have made in the pa few years, and

rightly so. It is hard f6r those of us who

enjoy the full benefits of our American

citizenship to realia just how far our

fellow Americans in the Western Pa-

cific have come. Less than 6 years ago,

even though they too were American

citizens, the people of Guam not only

lacked representation n Congress, but

they were denied the right to choose

their own Dovernor and Lieutenant Gov-

ernor. Moreover, Guam was not included

in the overwhelming majority of Fed-

eral .grant programs, thereby placing a

serious stumbling block in their prog-


Largely due to the dedicated efforts

of one man, TONY WON PAT, and with

the generous understanding of the Con-

gress, Guam today participates in over

100 aid-in-grant programs, elects its

own chief executive, and last November

the people of Guam voted to send its

foremost spokesman, Delegate WON PAT,

to serve with us in the House.

As an old friend of the Guam Dele-

gate, I welcome him as our colleague, as

I am sure so do my fellow Members.

The Guam Legislature's resolution




Introduced by F. T. Ramirez, W. D. L.

Flores, J. B. Butler, J. R. Duenas, T. C. Char-

fauros, J. A. Perez, A. A. Sekt, A. L. Cristobal,

L. S. N. Paulino,. A. C. Sanchez, F. R. Santos,

P. J. Bordallo, O. L. Delfin, F. G. Lujan, and

G. M. Bamba.

Relative to commending the Honorable

Antonio B. Won Pat upon his election as

Guam's first non-voting delegate to the

United States Congress and declaring the

election of Guam's representative in Con-

gress as one of the milestones in Guam's at-

tainment of local self-government.

Be it resolved by the Legislature of the

Territory of Guam:

Vereas, the territory of Guam was ceded

to theUnited States as a result of the Treaty

of Paribof December 10, 1898, which ended

the Spanish-American War; and

Whereas,. the island of Guam was ad-

ministered by the United States Navy for al-

most fifty years, its indigenous people hav-

ing the status of nationals of the United

States; and

Whereas, the Organic Act of Guam enacted

by the United States' ongress in 1950 estab-

lished civil government on Guam and be-

stowed American citithip upon its in-

habitants, the Congress Oj the United States

thus granting the people of Guam a sub-

stantial measure of self-government; and

Whereas, another milestone in the terri-

tory's constitutional development was

achieved in 1968, with the passage by the

United States Congress of the Elected Gov-

ernorship Bill for Guam, which resulted in

the election of Guam's first elected Governor

and Lt. Governor in November of 1970; and

Whereas, H.R. 3237 enacted by the 92d

Congress of the United States in 1971 ex-

H 652 col

tended represents on to the territory of

Guam in the Unt States House of Repre-

sentatives; and

Whereas, Hono ble Antonio B. Won Pat

was elected in N ember of 1972 to hold the

prestigious office of Guam's first non-voting

delegate to the use of Representatives; and

Whereas, the embers of this Legislature

recognize that e cornerstone of our dwo-

cratic system government is the concept

of self-gover ht in which the people deter-

mine their o form of government; and

Whereas, it s the consensus of this Leg-

islature that t e people of Guam desire closer

ties with the fellow citizens in the Ameri-

can Mainlan and that, having gained a

voice in the olls of the United States Con-

gress, Guam as made substantial and un-

deniable pro ess toward the attainment of

this goal; an

Whereas, e people of Guam who now en-

joy this m ure of self-determination and

self-gover nt consider any requirements

for periodic ports to foreign powers or the

United Nati ns relative to their political, eco-

nomic, and ial status as an intrusion and

infringeme on their dignity and rights as

a self-gove ng people; now therefore be


Resolved, hat the Eleventh Guam Legisla-

ture on be f of the people of Guam does

hereby co end the Honorable Antonio B.

Won Pat u n his election in November of

1972 as Gu 's first elected Non-Voting Dele-

gate to the nited States Congress; and be

it further

Resolved, at the Eleventh Guam Legisla-

ture on be f of the people of Guam does

hereby decla any requirement for making

periodic rep to any foreign power or to

the United N tons on its political, economic

and social st tus to be an infringement on

Guam's pre t level of self-rule and de-

meaning to t e people of Guam and does

hereby assert that any such requirement

should theref be terminated forthwith;

and be it fourth

Resolved, th the Speaker certify to and

the Legislative ecretary attest the adoption

hereof and that copies of the same be there-

after transmitted to the Honorable Antonio

B. Won Pat, to t e Secretary of the Interior,

to the Secretary of State, to the Speaker of

the House of Re resentatives, to the Presi-

dent of the Sena e, to the Chairman, House

Committee on In rior and Insular Affairs,

to the Chairma , Senate Committee on


Interior and I ular Affairs and to the

Governor of Gu

Duly and regul ly adopted on the 17th

day of November, 1 72.


Acting Speaker.

F. G. Lua.N,

A fing Legislative Secretary.

The SPEA R pro tempore. Under a

previous order of the House, the gentle-

man from M ryland (Mr. HOGAN) Is

recognized for 0 minutes.

[Mr. HOG addressed the House. His

remarks will a ear hereafter in the Ex-

tensions of Re arks.]




(Mr. SIKES asked and was given per-

mission to extend his remarks at this

point in the RECORD and to include ex-

traneous matter.)

Mr. SIKES. Mr. Speaker, for the in-

formation of the Members of the House,

I am pleased to. submit details on the

fiscal 1974 budget request for military

construction. The total of the request for

a new obligational authority is $2,937,-

900,000. This compares with an appro-

priated amount for fiscal 1973 for $2,-


As indicated, the total increase in

funds is almost $615 million. Of this,

$432 million is for military construction

and $183 million for family housing.

The number of new family housing

units requested this year is 11,688. This

compares to the 11,720 funded directly

last year and the 11,938 new units pro-

gramed from all funds last year. The

Army has greatly increased its new fami-

ly housing units as compared to last year,

whereas the other services have declined.

Nevertheless, the amount programed for

new units in fiscal year 1974 is $357,-

604,000, an increase of approximately $50

million over the previous year. This is

largely due to proposals to upgrade the

JSE January S1, I7

type of housing being constructed and

to meet cost increases. The amount fi

improvements and-minor construction of

family housing is to increase by $5.6 mil-

lion from fiscal year 1973 to fiscal year

1974. Last year the committee added $13

million to the minor construction pro-

gram, so that overall there are significant

increases in this important area. There

are also major increases for operation-

$40 million---and nmintenance-$45 mil-

lion. There is a significant increase in

leased units from approximately 14,000

units in fiscal year 1973 to about 16,700

units in fiscal year 1974.

A major increase in military construc-

tion is for Army bachelor housing facil-

ities. This program has been increased

from $238 to $412 million from fiscal year

1973 to fiscal year 1974, an increase- of

$174 million.

There is another lesser increase of $27

million in the medical category. The total

requested for fiscal year 1974, which is

$118 million, would have been consider-

ably higher had not the new generation

hospital proposed at Travis Air Force

Base been slipped from fiscal year 1974

to fiscal year 1975, because of the com-

plexity of the planning involved. There

is likewise no construction money for the

Combined Armed Services Medical

School. This is largely -due to the fact

that DOD apparently has not defined

the manner in which the school will be


Pollution abatement funds are to In-

crease for the Navy and decrease for the

other services.

The overall picture for military con-

struction for 1974 poses a healthy in-

crease over previous programs and rec-

ognition of the fact tha$ there ls a re-

quirement for improved living, working,

and training facilities for the military

services If morale and retention goals are

to be achieved.

I have prepared a table showing a com-

parison of funding for 1973 and funding

requests for 1974 by agency and item:


New budget Budget esti- Increase (+) or New budget Budget esti- Increase(+)rt

(obligational) mates of new decrease(-), (obligational) matesof new decreas(-),

Agency and item authority ap- budget (obli- 1974 budget com- Agency and item authority ap budget (obli- 1974 budetm-

propriated, gational) au- pared with 1973 propriated, national) au- pared with 1973

1973 thority, 1974 appropriations 1973 thority, 1974 appropriations

Military construction, Army............ $413,955,000 $664,900,000 +$250,945, 000 Military construction, Air Force Reserve .... $7,000,000 $10,000,000 +$3,000,000

Military construction, Navy......-. 517, 830, 000 685, 400, 000 +167, 570, 000

Military construction, Air Force........... 265,552,000 291,900,000 +26, 348,000 Total, military construction-........ 1,355,841,000 1,787, 500,000 +431,59,000

Military construction, Defense agencies.... 36, 704, 000 19,100, 000 -17, 604, 000

Transfer, not to exceed ....20, 000, 000 20, 000, 000 ... Family housing, Defense----........ .... 1,064,046,000 1,250,567,000 +186,521,000

Military construction, Army National Guard. 40, 000, 000 35, 200, 000 -4, 800, 000 Portion applied to debt reduction..... -96, 666,000 -100,167, 000 -3, 501,000

Military construction,Air National Guard._. 16, 100, 000 20, 000, 000 +3, 900, 000

Military construction, Army Reserve...... 38,200,000 40,700,000 +2,500,000 Subtotal, family housing........... 967,380,000 1,150,400,000 +183,020,000

Military construction, Naval Reserve...... 20, 500, 000 20, 3000, 00 -200, 000

Grand total, new budget (obliga-

tional) authority ................ 2, 323, 221,000 2, 937, 900, 000 +614,J79,00



(Mr. SIKES asked and was given per-

mission to extend his remarks at this

point in the RECORD and to include ex-

traneous matter.)

Mr. SIKES. Mr. Speaker, the moment

of truth is fast approaching for the

families of American MIA's. Prisoners of

war lists thus far published by the Com-

munists show a shockingly large number

who still are unaccounted for. It is a very

sad commentary that many and quite

probably the majority of the 1,300 who

are carried as missing in action will not

be found. It is to the families of these

brave men that the sympathy of all

America should go out. These are days

of terrible trial to wives, children, moth-

ers, fathers, sisters, and brothers of the


Some of those listed as missing will,

of course, eventually be accounted fol

and some of them will be returned to

their homes. Surely, there are those wM

are in the hands of the Vietcong or th

Pathet Lao or In remote areas in SoUt1

*Wary 31, 1973 CC

, tn m or Laos. Still others may be in

Ol = In small villages as yet unaware

of the cease-fire.

The brave families who still must sit

and wait for word while others around

them rejoice at the virtually certain re-

turn of their loved ones are truly the

herole figures of this tragic war. Every

family In our country which is held in

ths terrible suspense should be helped

and comforted by all those around them.



(Mr. MEEI asked and was given

permission to xtend his remarks at this

point in the oRDn.)

Mr. MEEDS, Mr. Speaker, I am intro-

ducing today, behalf of 13 colleagues

and myself, l elation to give news re-

porters and th editors near-absolute

privilege to pro ect confidential sources

of information.

Frantly, I am ppalled that this legis-

lation is necessa . It should not be. The

first amendment in the Bill of Rights

states quite clear that freedom of the

press is not to be bridged. But a serious

threat has arisen a result of Supreme

Court action last ear. The threat ap-

pears even more nous in the current

climate of repressi n against the news


As Members know, the Supreme Court

ruled 5 to 4 that ar orter has no auto-

matic right to refus to appear before

a grand jury; to ref e to divulge infor-

mation gained in co ence, and to re-

fuse to name the sour e of the informa-

tion. The result was to egitimize an open

subpoena season on 'nvestigative re-

porters. All too often he pursuit of a

reporter's source ass es greater im-

portance than an inv tigation of the

abuses the story may Ive revealed.

Certain other relatio ips in our so-

dety are deemed suffici ntly important

to be classified as privile ed communica-

tions. These include co unication be-

tween husband and wife, tween doctor

and patient, and betweqn lawyer and

client. As a lawyer and f rmer prosecu-

tor concerned about the free flow of

Information in our society I believe the

reporter-source relations is at least

5 important as these otr privileges.

It was horrifying to me hat the Su-

PImae Court did not rec ize the re-

Plorer-source privilege as a ommonlaw

aght, let alone a constitution al right. It

I all too easy to visualize he chilling

effect on the news media.

An investigative reporter n w faces an

awOalng dilemma: Am I pre ared to go

to Jail to protect this source? ich leads

to the next question: Is this s ory really

'Worth the trouble? How m y stories

revealing abuse of power or ngdoing

In our society will end up spik on a desk

41 dst-covered in a reporter's rawer-

ors to reach the public bec use of a

of privilege to protect th source?

She many informants ' entrust

careers and .the well-bein of their

they can't pr ct what

will do if faced with t e choice

the informant or going to

= logical extreme of this vision is

output of stultify bland-



ness designed not to offend the sensibili-

ties of the local district attorney. It must

never be allowed to happen if this coun-

try is to survive as a free society.

In last year's decisions the Supreme

Court did point out that Congress may

enact legislation give news personnel

the privilege to protect sources. I believe

the legislation we are introducing today

can offer sufficient protection.

Basically, the $ill would offer news-

persons absolutely privilege, with the

stipulation that this privilege could not

be used as a defense in a civil libel suit.

There are significant differences, how-

ever, between our bill and other news

shield legislation.

First, it is spelled out that the privilege

extends to editors or supervisors of the

reporter who may have knowledge of con-

fidential material or sources. Much of the

investigative reporting in this country is

done on a "team"basis and this language

is to cover the possibility of the editor

being subpoenaed without privilege.

Second, the bill specifically closes the

loophole opened ty a court in Los Angeles

when reporter William Farr temporarily

left the news media. It was on this basis

that he was jailed for refusing to reveal

the source of a story in the Los Angeles

Herald-Examiner Our bill covers a re-

porter regardless of whether he left the

news media after the story appeared.

Our bill also covers material gathered

for the story but left unpublished or not


There is no provision in this bill setting

criteria for a U.S. district court order to

remove privilege ctder certain circum-

stances. It was our feeling after review-

ing recent rulings that as few loopholes

as possible should b1e left.

I urge favorable Consideration for our



(Mr. MICHEL asled and was given

permission to extend lis remarks at this

point in the RECORD and to include ex-

traneous matter.)

Mr. MICHEL. Mr. *eaker, as we be-

gin this 93d Congress under a cloud of

fiscal uncertainty we are hearing a lot

about how the Congress needs to re-

assert its authority over the budgetary

processes of the Fede al Government,

and how the House ang Senate need to

stand up on their hind 1 s and take back

the control they have 1ist over Federal

appropriations. r

One of the perennial fiscal problems

we face is our inability, to process the

annual appropriation hills before the

start of the new fiscal year to which they

apply. During the past 8 ears, only six of

nearly 100 regular approslriation bills be-

came law before the beginning of the new

fiscal year. The 91st and 92d Congresses

saw none of these bills approved in time.

Now, there are many valid reasons for

these delays, not the leasf of which is the

ever increasing amount qf time required

to review a Federal budget that becomes

more complex each year. But, the fact

is that every funding bill delayed past

July 1 creates confusion }nd hardship at

all levels of government, and leaves

schools, hospitals, and dommunities all

over the country in a fiscal limbo.

H 653

I think one of the best places to begin

fiscal reform is right here, by changing

the Federal fiscal year to coincide with

the regular calendar year, and today 90

of my colleagues and I are introducing

legislation to accomplish this.

This change from 4 July-June Federal

budgetary period to a January-December

one would eliminate much of the present

confusion, extend our fiscal deadline, and

bring the system into line with the real-

ities of our present Congressional sched-

ule and workload.

The current situation is disruptive not

only for the Federal budgetary process,

but also for the managing and planning

of State and local budgets throughout

the country. The Federal Government

is not the only place where administra-

tors are by law accountable on a split

calendar year basis. All but three of the

States use the same fiscal year as the

Federal Government. This at one time

may have been convenient, but any con-

venience has long qince ceased to exist.

Public understa ding of the fiscal

process is another ictim of our present

system. The split ear really lends it-

self well to the kind of shell games some

folk seem to enjoy laying with the budg-

et. It is difficult enough for Members of

Congress who are closely associated with

the budgetary proc ss to understand the

complexities of slit-year accounting,

but for much of tie general public, the

whole system is a complete mystery.

I know that I df not have to explain

to any other Member of Congress the re-

sults of the failure of our present sys-

tem. We have all heard from the educa-

tors when the eduation bills are late;

we have heard frpm the hospital ad-

ministrators, from the builders, from our

State and local of fiials, and from many

others when appropriation bills have

been delayed.

Of course, when we have a veto situ-

ation, as with the fiscal 1973 Labor-

HEW bill, these problems are com-

pounded, but the point is, if we could

put our own flscall house in order here

in Congress, we world be in a much bet-

ter position to del with such contin-


The difficulties re face in this area

of fiscal timing hive no single source,

but have developed because of a number

of substantial changes which have oc-

curred in Congress and in the Federal

Government in recent years. Above all,

these problems are hot the result of ob-

stinacy, of procrastination, or of inten-

tional delay. They are of quite a differ-

ent nature.

Take the budget for example. I have

served in this body Since 1957, and have

been closely associated with its opera-

tions since 1949. During that time I have

seen the Federal budget move from

around $41 billion annually to where it

is today.

As a member of the House Appropria-

tions Committee, I have watched and

waited while authorization" bills were

stalled in committee, necessitating a rush

of tardy appropriations during the legis-

lative logjam that occurs near the end

of a late-running session of Congress.

One of the principal reasons for this

is that the large number of annual au-

thorizations and the proliferation of Fed-


era programs in all areas have required Over a hundred years ago Congress of course, is how Congress can deal

lon and longer periods for considera- ran into a similar problem when they the level of the total budget, as well

tion both authorization and appropri- met in December and tried in the next 3 the individual items.

ation Is. or 4 weeks to pass all appropriation bills Clearly, all these problems demand our

As th role of the Federal Government for a fiscal year beginning January 1. attention and our conscientious efforts'

expands, t becomes more and more diffi- This system worked for a time, but if we are to adequately fulfill our re-

cult for gress not only to obtain the when the activities of the Federal Gov- sponsibilities as legislators.

kind of i ation we need to legislate ernment increased and the budget ex- But, we have to crawl before we can

and to app priate wisely, but also to panded and became more complex, Con- walk, and looking at the situation very

digest it, to alyze it in order to arrive gress kept 'falling further and further realistically and practically, I believe the

at any mean' ul conclusions on which behind. place to start is with a change in the

to base policy cisions, and this process So, in 1842, the fiscal year was pushed dates of the Federal fiscal year. The time

simply takes mo time than we are al- 6 months ahead to begin on July 1. Why is right, the climate is right, and the

lotted under our resent Federal fiscal should we now hesitate to make a similar need is clear, so I urge my colleagues to

year system. needed change? support the proposal we are present"

In recent years, s e appropriation The shift from the split year to a this afternoon.

bills have not been e cted until the calendar year would not be without prob-

12th month after the b et was pre- lems, of course. Some Members may feel

sented. Major appropriation ills may re- that they would not be able to exert the NO RETURN TO VIETN

quire nearly a year for enac ent, and impact they would like on Federal fiscal (Mr. BINGHAM asked an as given

on the average over the past de de, the matters, since in the first session of each permision to extend his re rks at this

largest ones have required a ut 8 Congress, the Government would be op- point in the RECORD and include ex-

months. We are, in effect, already op- erating on funds appropriated by a prev- traneous matter.)

erating on a calendar year basis. ious session of Congress. Mr. BINGHAM. M Speaker, today I

As we look at the problems associate Another problem relates to the budget am introducing 1 ' ation which pro-

with changing the fiscal year to coincide nd the economic report. The budget vides that, after t release of all Amer-

with the calendar year, it is apparent wouldd have to be delayed until the spring ican prisoners o ar and a full account-

that the benefits of such a shift far out- if )tis to contain any information about ing for all o missing in action, no

weigh the disdvantages. the dances of the previous fiscal year. further ex ditures may be made for

Perhaps more to the point, there are Con ess rarely gets organized until U.S. milit involvement in Indochina

no compelling reasons why such a change well intb ebruary anyway, and the budg- without ecific congressional approval.

should not be made, and many good rea- et delay uld also afford the Appropria- This striction aplies to all funds, in-

sons why it should. tions Comrttees more opportunity for clu ' g those which were appropriated

For instance, many businesses have independent amination of special fiscal p ' r to the signing of the Paris cease-

a natural fiscal year, which ends at the problems whi they feel need more at- e agreement.

seasonal low of their activities. In the tention, prior t receipt of the line-item This bill is identical to S. 578 whch

administration of Federal finances, how- justifications. was introduced in the Senate on Friday,

ever, there is no natural period for re- The economic report might beco a January 26, by Senator Cas andd Senator

ceipts and expenditures. semiannual or qua ly report, a in CHURCH: I am honored to have as co-

Tax collections and other receipts this way the timespan economy' fore- sponsors of this legislation Mr. ADDABBO,

reach their low point in October, with casting and advance planning eight be Mr. BADILLO, Mr. BERGLAND, Mr. BOLAND,

other lows in March, May, and July, and reduced. C- Mr. BURKE of Florida, Mrs. Chisholm,

peaks in April, June, September, and in- There are likely to be blems for Mr. CoNYERS, Mr. DAjIELSON, Mr. DRINAN,

termediate levels in other months. State and local governor ts adjust- Mr. EILERG, Mr. FAUNTROY, Mr. FRASER,

Expenditures reach low points in Feb- ing to a change in the F eral fis year, Mr. GREEN Of Pennsylvania, Mr. GDE,.

ruary and July, but tend more toward but again, the obvio benefits ad- Mr. HARRINGTON, Mr. HECHLER Of West

2- or 3-month highs rather than monthly ministration and 1 g-range plan g Virginia, Mr. HELSTSKI, Miss HOLT-

peaks. would outweigh e disadvantages M MAN, Mr. HOWARD, Miss JORDAN, Mr. LEG-

Obligations data show a different such adjustment . GETT, Mr. LEHMAN, Mr. MCCLOsKE, Mr.

month-to-month pattern from receipts I will be t first to concede that zINsKY, Mr. MOAKLEY, Mr. O'HARA,

or expenditures. One review of obliga- simply chan g the dates of the fiscal RANGEL, Mr. ROSENTHAL, Mr. SAR-

tions, for instance, showed that the high year would o little to solve some of the BAN Mr. SEIBERLING, Mr. STUDDS, Mr.

months for defense obligations were Jan- more ba authorization-appropriation SYni oN, Mr. THOMPSON Of New Jersey,

uary, June, and November, and that the problem we face. Mr. NAN, Mr. VAN DEERLIN, Mr.

high months for nondefense obligations Asi from allowing Congress to "make WALDIE, a Mr. YATRON.

were April and June, followed by Sep- an nest woman" of our fiscal process The Ame an public welcomes the end

tember and November. b egitimatizing what we are doing now of the lengt and tragic U.S. involve-

These patterns occur despite the fact actual practice, the principal benefits ment in the Iiochina fighting, and in

that the fiscal year ends with June. /of changing the fiscal year would be in my judgment it ants no recommitment

But, if there is no natural fiscal ye helping those whose operations are de- of our military fo es in Vietnam, Laos,

for the U.S. Treasury, there definitely pendent on Federal funds to plan better, or Cambodia once tur POW's are home

is one for the U.S. Congress. That year and hopefully, to utilize our tax dollars and our MIA's are counted for. How-

starts with the beginning of each ses- more wisely and effectively. ever, unless this Cong s takes the initi-

sion in January and ends with the close I do not believe that this, in itself, is ative in reasserting its ' htful role, the

of the session-usually December now. an inconsequential goal. road will remain open the President

No-one who has been associated with There are many aspects of the author- to reinvolve American mi ry forces in

the work of the Congress ivill deny that ization-appropriation process which need the Indochina struggle.

we all tend to think in terms of winding improvement, even drastic overhauling. The present cease-fire in ndochina

up a session, and cleaning up or clearing The quality of the budgetary information represents a very fragile pe for its

the legislative de for the new one. on which Congress must base its funding success depends upon the coope tion of

This is the se imposed deadline we decisions, for example, and the whole adversaries who are fundamen op-

work toward, e end of the natural question of how we can accurately meas- posed to each other and who hav

period for t conduct of the congres- ure program effectiveness, need atten- willing to continue their armed co at

sional bu' ess-including the business tion. The problem of how to project for two decades. The cease-fire a

of appro action. budgetary needs for the next fiscal year ment leaves unanswered the basic qu

If we cannot use the argument that the with any kind of preciseness is another tion of how the peace will be enfo

prese fiscal year is natural, neither problem that currently plagues the President Nixon has made the cmi-

can e raise the objection that it should executive branch as well as the Con- nous suggestion that the United States

not be changed because of tradition, gress. And perhaps the biggest problem, would "see to it" that the agreement


r g was d retucees for the Russians and Secretary of the Treasury, and the Council of He is a member of the House Post Office and

1r theat de tlers who arranged the Economic Advisers, all going off in their sepa- Civil Service Committee and the House Bank-

~u t I t was serious, although temporary rate directions. Some one has to make a deci- ing and Currency Committee.

di er fo y everyone else involved. sion about what policy Is best for the coun- As a first term legislator he bid his own

I ay tppoary I believe that we try as a whole. Some one has to determine bill passed by the House of Re resentatives.

an learn much fro this event. the common good, and then bring the troops The Hanley bill, of the 89th ngress, pro-

If the Unteda Sin a going to have the into line in pursuit of that goal. vides for expanded benefit for dependent

o pptunity Ia the o future to sell I know that you understand and appreciate parents and children of cemen who died

its agrloultural prod n throughout the the need for stability and consistency in the of service-connected inj es. The 90th Con-

werld, then sound eno policy dictates economy, and this means that all segments gress created a new st ding subcommittee

that we step holding land t of production. and all competing forces in the economy of the House Post Of e and Civil Service

Why pay for nonprodactiont a time when must be brought together. Committee, entitled' ubcommittee on Em-

demand for American food fiber is at Again, I appreciated having this opportu- ployee Benefits," a Congressman Hanley

analltileig h nity to share in this festive occasion. This was elected as its arman. On February 16,

Artificial limits on product , without new building is ample proof of the truth of 1970, the House of Representatives passed

controls on espgrta, force the American the words of the then national master, James the Job Evalua on Policy Act of 1970, cul-

housewife to compete with her terms in Draper, who told the Grange in 1886, "for this minating th years of efforts on the part

other countries who are willing ti p much great work the Grange was organized, and it of the Subc ttee.

more for food than she is. was not born to die nor will it fail in the During first term in office, Mr. Hanley

Let me hasten to add that I suppo the accomplishment of its purpose". was a str g supporter of Medicare and au-

effort to increase farm income because in- Thank you. thored amendment which substantially

~reased farm income Is the only logical y improv the legislation. In 1965, the Con-

to eep large numbers of Americans in a CONGRESSMAN HANLEY WILL SPEAK AT GRANGE gress an was instrumental in obtaining

oulture. I am committed to keeping Amerl- BUILDING DEDICATION funp enabling Le Moyne College, Syracuse,

can agriculture in the hands of the millions, New York State Grange will dedicate its tor evelop a pilot program, known as "Up-

not the few. Whether they fully appreciate -4 million new headquarters building here rd Bound," designed to alleviate the prob-

it or not, the housewife and the small farmer o new street, Grange Place, Sunday, start m of high school dropouts by providing a

share a common interest in this matter. ing t 3 p.m. Principal dedication address program allowing unlegislation.

Serious shortages of agricultural produc- will given by 31st District Congssm In 1965, the Congressman was instrumental

tion cause artificial price increases of sub- James . Hanley of Syracuse. in obtaining funds enabling Le Moyne Col-

stantial proportions, while overproduction Seren ad by the Homer High School d ege, Syracuse, to develop a pilot program,

results in harp declines in farm income. and wec ed by Master of Ceremonies ch- known as "Upward Bound" designed to al-

Understandably so, we have been concerned ard A. Ch ch of Dryden, the group also leviate the problem of high school droputs

about the adverse effects of overproduction hear from te Senator Tarky Lom di Jr., by providing a program allowing underprivi-

in the past. However, r believe that agricul- Syracuse; mblyman L. S. ord Jr., leged area students to participate in a sum-

tural policy for the years to come should be Auburn; and Jerome Davs, R y, Ind., mer higher education program at the college.

based as much on our best understanding High Priest of Demeter of Nation This program has proven most successful

of what the world marketplace will buy as Grange and is now administered on a nationwide

on our recollections of the past. A number of pre nation ill be part of basis through the Offce of Education.

Consider for a moment some of the dilem- the ceremonies: Congressman Hanley has taken a leading

mas Congressmen face because, the country Ofcial opening of city-built street role in focusing federal attention on the

_s Ce Official opening of t city-built street necessity of a program designed to rehabil-

-has no consistent economic policy. We helped by Cortland Mayor Mor ss. necessity of a program designed to rehabill-

to wipe out the national reserves pf feed Formal presentation the new building tate America's destroyed small lakes. He

grains because central New York dairy farm- fagpole by William . nan, director of availablodue Fed legislation which would make

ers lost their crops due to bad weather last public relations an adve sing for Brock- available Federal money and r e s to

year. I found myself supporting legislation way Motor Trucks save the Nation's dying urban lakes, and he

to impose control on the foreign sales of Gift of a newAmerican own over -v u e oe .. a

feed grains and wheat at the same time I G ift of a new American flowPrince proved by the House in the 90th Congress.

was urging the President to life import re- and Princess ernon Smith d Barbara measure, the Senate failed to act on that

strictions on oil. I fought against a policy Stepf for Eas ay Junior Grange nondaa measure, he reintroduced in the t Con-

which encouraged mports of dairy products County). gress and it was approved by both Houses.

to meet domestic demand at a time when Gift of Grange emblem flag by e State The Congressman served two terms on the

ithe Government was doing little to encour- Grange uth director, Mr. and Mrs. onald House Veterans' Affaire Committee, and in

Gran u drcoran Mr.ndn 1969 was elet o to the Bank ..

age an increase in the domestic production Drake erry Valley, with Prince and n- rency omm ee. e a memer o ur-

o dairy products cess y Grifth and Phyllis Geason rency Committee. e s a member of th Sub-

I happen to believe that it is possible for s y- committees on Urban Mass Transit, Small

the United States to adopt an economic g. Business, and Insurance and Bank

the United States to adopt an economic yto the building extended by Archite Supervision.

policy toward agriculture which will promote rl Wendt, Cortland. In 1973, he was elected Chairman of the

strong farm income, encourage sufficient pro- Gift of a grand piano from Cortland subcommittee on Postal Service, which has

duction tomeet foreigndemand, and still County Granges presented by Pomona Mas- Jurisdiction over the US. Postal Service

keep the price of a loaf of bread below ft ter Roland Oaks. e t labor management relations and

SGift of furnishings for the State master's fac ties.

If some of the positions have out d office in the building by Oswego Pomona

above seem Inconsistent, it is because ere Grange presented by Oswego Grange Deputy

is no consistent economic policy d gned Andrew Porter, Sandy Creek. ( GUDE asked and was given per-

in the short and long run to bal ce the A brief dedication ceremony will be sol- mission to extend his remarks at this

economic realities of our time. For example, emnized by State Grange Master Robert S. point in he RECORD and to include ex-

Americans discovered that price ntrols on Drake, Woodhull; Lecturer Mrs. Howard traneous tter.)

agricultural products did not rk because Reed, Sauquoit; Secretary Morris J. Halla- n ous rm.)

-they were not addressed to e causes of day, Groton; and Chaplain Bert S. Morse, [Mr. GUE's remarks will appear

the price increases. Controls nly served to Marathon. hereafter in tw Extensions of Remarks.]

create shortages. And yet ay we find the State officers will be presented by Grange -

Cost of Living Council t g to hold down Service and Hospitality Chairman Mrs.

the price of fertilizer the price of milk Cecelia Pile, Cowlesville, State Master Drake, SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED

Without action on factors producing assisted by Junior Grange Prince and Prin-

th rising costs. cess Philip Rhodda and Ann Emerson, will By unanimous consent, permission to

The United States ust end the practise of cut a ribbon, followed by an officers' recep- address the House, following the legis-

e:alag from one le in the total economic tion. lative program and any special orders

dike to another, t ing to hold back the tide. Other Grange participants include Francis heretofore entered, was granted to:

Ta economic locations we are dealing Robbins, Schuylerville, leading the National

Cannot b cured by emergency, almost Anthem, and Grange Young Couple Nelson (The following Members (at the re-

:tic, solutlbns of a temporary nature. and Mary Eddy, Black River, leading the quest of Mr. PEYSER) and to revise and

lldles and gentlemen, I submit that the Pledge of Allegiance. extend their remarks and include ex-

5I long past due for the President to call The principal speaker, Congressman Han- traneous matter:)

0 his team to work together in support of ley, has served the 31st District in Congress Mr. KEMP, for 10 minutes, today.

Sound and consistent policy. What a since 1964. He is a graduate of St. Lucy's Mr. CLEVELAND, for 5 minutes, today.

e we have with the Secretary of Academy, Syracuse, and a member of St.

ttare, the Secretary of Commerce, the Patrick's Parish. He Is married and the father Mr. BAKER, for 10 minutes, today.

at the-Cost of -Living Council, the of two children, Christine, 19, and Peter, 17. (The following Members (at the re-

H 9970

quest of Mr. STE

extend their rem

traneous material



utes, today; and

remarks and incl

Mr. PATMAN for

and to revise and e

include extraneou


and to revise and e

include extraneous

(The following

quest of/Mr. RYA

extend their rem

traneous matter: )


Mr. FUQUA, for 5


Mr. DAvIs of Sou

utes, today.

(The following

quest of Mr. AND

lina) to revise and

and include extra

Mr. FRASER, for 5

Mr. DULsKI, for 5

Mr. BENITEZ, for 5

Mr. FULTON, for 5

Mr. CLARK, for 5 n


LMAN) to revise

rks and include

r 5 minutes, today

Wyoming, for 60

revise and exten

.e extraneous ma

0 minutes, tomor

tend his remarks


r 30 minutes, to

tend his remarks


Members (at the

) and to revise

rks and include

5 minutes, today

minutes, today.

Cor 10 minutes, tc

Carolina, for 5

embers (at the

ws of North C

xtend their rem

us material:)

inutes, today.

nutes, today.

minutes, today.

minutes, today.

utes, today.


By unanimous ent, permissi

revise and extend marks was gr


Mr. RousH.

Mr. MAHON, his marks today.

Mr. ECKHARDT, ; remarks prec

the vote on the La r-HEW appro

tions conference re ort today.

Mr. ROGERS in fi e instances, al

include extraneous material.

Mr. BIAGGI, his r marks prior t(

vote on the motion recommit ox

Labor-HEW confer ce report tod

Mr. GRAY in two tances, and t

clude extraneous m terial.

Mr. FRASER, and include extra

matter notwithstan g the fact th

exceeds 41/2 quarter pages of the


the Public Printer to cost $888.25.

The following M bers (at th

quest of Mr. PEYSER and to includ

traneous matter:

Mr. BROWN of Ohi

Mr. DERWINSKI in t 0 instances.

Mr. KEMP in four itances.

Mr. KUYKENDALL two instances.

Mr. YOUNG of Alas


Mr. BROYHILL of Vi ginia.


Mr. WYMAN in two i tances.

Mrs. HOLT.


Mr. Bos WILSON in two instances.


Mr. SrITH of New York.



Mr. STEIGER Of Wisconsin in



Mr. TAYLOR Of Missouri in




and. Mr. HOSMER in two i

ex- Mr. BURKE of Florid4

Mr. MICHEL infive in


min- Mr. HUBER.

d his Mr. COLLIER in five it:

tter. (The following Mert

rrow, quest of Mr. STEELMA

and extraneous material:)


,day, instances.

and Mr. HOGAN.

Mr. PRITCHARD in five

re- Mr. BROYHILL of No

and Mr. ZION.

ex- Mr. SPENCE.


. (The following Men

quest of Mr. RYAN)

today. traneous matter:)

min- Mr. SISK.

Mr. COTTER in 10 ins

re- Mr. GONZALEZ in th

Caro- Mr. RARICK in three

arks Mr. MINISH.





Mr. BADILLO in two




(The following Me

on to quest of Mr. ANDREW

rted lina) and to include


Mr. STARK in 10 insta


ding Mr. LEHMAN.

pria- Mr. STOKES.


d to


* the The SPEAKER ann

ay. ture to an enrolled bill

o in- the following title:

s. 1081. An act to amen

neous Mineral Leasing Act of 19

at it a trans-Alaska oil pipeli

CON- purposes.

d by




Mr. HAYS, from th

House Administration,

committee did on this d

President, for his ap

House of the following

HR. 4771. An act to au

of Columbia Council to re

rents in the District of C



Speaker, I move that ti


The motion was agree

(at 5 o'clock p.m.) the ]

until tomorrow, Wedne

two 14, 1973, at 12 o'clock












Fibers (at the re-

) and to include

w York in three


th Carolina.

bers (at the re-

Ld to include ex-


e instances.


,e inst ss.


bers (at the re-

of North Caro-

extraneous ma-



lnced his signa-

of the Sente of

5 section 28 of the

, and to authorize

be, and for other


Committee on

ported that that

y present to the

val a bill of the


orize the District

late and stabilize



h Carolina. Mr.

e House do now

to; accordingly

house adjourned

day, November




Under clause 2 of rule IV, executive

communications wer en from the

Speaker's table and referred as follows:

Nove nber 13, 197*

1548. A letter from

United States, trans

plemental appropriate

for the Supreme Co

to the Committee o

ordered to be printed.

1549. A letter from

United States; transm

plemental appropriate

for the Department

93-189); to the Commi

and ordered to be p

1550. A letter fr

Agency for Interna

partment of State, tr

the implementation of

Foreign Assistance Act

during fiscal year 1973;

Foreign Assistance.

1551. A letter from

Health, Education, and

a draft of proposed 1

and extend the Public

Health Service Corps

program; to the, C

and Foreign Commerce,


1552. A letter from

eral of the United S

report on the examinat

ments of the Federal

Corporation for calen

pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1

on Government Operat

1553. A letter from

eral of the United Stat

port on the examinati

ments of the Export-

United States for fiscal

31 U.S.C. 841 (H. Doc.

Committee on Govern1

ordered to be printed.

the President of tiie

itting proposed sup-

os for fiscal year 197*

(H. Doc. No. 93-185),

Appropriations akd

the President of the

tting a proposed sup-

a for fiscal year 1974

Labor (H, Doc. No

tee on Appropriations

the Administrator,

SDevelopment, De-

smitting a report on

section 620(s) of the

of 1961, as amended,

to the Committee on

e Acting Secretary of

Welfare, transmitting-

gislation to improve

Health and National

scholarship training

ittee on Interstate


e Comptroller Gen-

tes, transmitting a

on of financial state-

iome Loan Mortgage

years 1971 and 1972,

2; to the Committee


e Comptroller Gen-

s, transmitting a re-

n of financial state-

rport Bank of the

ear 1973, pursuant to

No. 93-190); to the

ent Operations and



Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of

committees were delivered to the Clerk

for printing and reference to the proper

calendar, as follows:

Works. Senate Joint i solution 155. Joint

resolution authorizing the securing of stor-

age space for the U.S. S nate, the U.S. House

of Representatives, anL the Office of the

Architect of the Capito (Rept. No. 93-629).

Referred to the Conmllttee of the Whole

Mr. SIKES: Committee on Appropriations.

H.R. 11459. A bill making appropriations for

military construction for the Department of

Defense for the fiscal year ending June 30,

1974, and for other purposes. (Rept. No. 93-

638.) Referred to the Committee of the Whole

House on the State of the Union.


Works. S. 2503. An act

office building in Dallas,

bell Federal Building".

Referred to the House C1


Works. H.R. 6862. A bill

quarters building in ti

National Center under

ton, Va., as the "John V

Building". (Rept. No. I

the House Calendar.


Works. H.R. 9430. A 'bi

courthouse and Federal

construction in New Orle

Boggs Federal Building'

poses. (Rept. No. 93-6

House Calendar.

Mr. PIKE: Committee

ference report on S. 2401

Ordered to be printed.

Mr. BOLLING: Comm:

Resolution 694. Resolute

to name a Federal.-

Tex., the "Earle Ca-

(Rept. No. 93-6387).


mittee on Public

to name the head-

Geological Survey

onstruction in Res-

esley Powell Federal

3-635). Referred to

mittee on Public

i to name the U.S.

office building under

ms, La., as the "Hale

and for other pur-

1). Referred to the

of conference. Con- -

(Rept. No. 93-634).

;tee on Rules. House

n providing for the

nunuwo n an n

Noriember 1i, 1q73

consideration of H.R. 112

Public Law 98-60 to incr

tion for appropriations tc

Commission in accordan,

of the Atomic Energy Act

ed, and for other purposes

Ordered to be printed.


House Resolution 695. R

for the consideration of I

provide a 7-percent increi

benefits beginning with

additional 4-percent incr

June 1974, to provide incr

tal security income %en,

purposes (Rept. No. 9 -E


Mr. MURPHY of Illin

Rules. House Resolution

providing for the resolutil

pressing the sense of the ]

atives with respect to ac

be taken by Members c

being convicted of certs

other purposes (Rept. Nc


6. A bill to amend

ase the authoriza-

the Atomic Energy

e with section 261

of 1954, as amend-

(Rept. No. 93-630).

amittee on Rules.

solution providing

:.R. 11333. A bill to

;e in social security

[arch 1974 and an

ase beginning with

ases in supplemen-

Its, and for other

I1). Ordered to be

is: Committee on

700. A resolution

n (H. Res. 128) ex-

ouse of Represent-

tons which should

the House upon

n crimes, and for

93-632). Referred

Mr. SISK: Committee on Rules. House

Resolution 701. A resolution waiving points of

order against the consideration of the bill

(H.R. 11459) and waiving points of order

against unauthorized items of appropriation

in said bill (Rept. No. 93-633). Referred to

the House Calendar.


Under clause 4 of iae XXII, public

bills and resolutions we e introduced and

severally referred as f lows:.


HER. 11415. A bill to E mend section 6334

of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to ex-

empt from levy 90 percer of an individual's

wages or salary; to the mmittee on Ways

and Means.

By Mr. BIAGGI (f himself, Mr. RON-

cALLO of New rk, and Mr. WON


H.R. 11416. A bill to pr vide for the estab-

lishment within the De rtment of Health,

Education, and.Welfare a National Center

on Child Abuse and Ne lect; to provide a

program of grants to Sta es for the develop-

ment of child abuse and neglect prevention

and treatment programs; and to provide fi-

nancial assistance for res arch, training, and

demonstration programs n the area of pre-

vention, identification, d treatment of

child abuse and-neglect; the Committee on

Education and Labor.

By Mr. 9OLLINS Texas:

H.R. 11417. A bill to pr vide that daylight

saving time shall be of erved on a year-

round, basis; to the Coe ittee on Interstate

and Foreign Commerce.


R.R. 11418. A bill to at end title II of the

Social Security Act to e iminate the earn-

ings test and reduce the e of eligibility for

benefits under the OASI program, and to

amend title XVIII of sue act to eliminate

all deductibles and coins rance and provide

coverage for drugs, eyegla es, dentures, hear.

ing aids, and other items under the medicare

program; to the Commi tee on Ways and


By Mr. DULSKI (b request):

.R. 11419. A bill to i re that the com-

pensation and other emol ments attached to

the Office of Attorney neral are those

Which were in effect on nuary 1, 1969; to

the Committee on Pos Office and Civil



1 5.11420. A bill to ex ude from gross in-

ki sm the first $1,000 of in rest received from

hisng account deposits i n home lending in-_

eIt ons; to the Comm tee on Ways and


BROWN of Ohi

North Dakota,


Mr. FISHER, and

H.R. 11421. A bill to

Election Campaign Act o 1

munications Act of 1934 ;

effective regulation of el

office, and for other purl

mittee on House Admini t


H.R. 11422. A bill to es

land Regional Power

Protection Agency for th

ing adequate and reliab

power to the people of Ne

ing and enhancing the

providing a vehicle for re

ment programs; to the C

state and Foreign Comme


H.R. 11423. A bill to a

United States Code to de

Reed Library at the State

of Fredonia in Fredonia,

library; to the Committee


By Mr. HAYS:

H.R. 11424. A bill to au

tions for the U.S. Informant

Committee on Foreign Aff


H.R. 11425. A bill to

Stamp Act and other law

charging of any Federal fee

who has attained age 65 f

hunting, trapping, or fish

mittee on Merchant Marin


H.R. 11426. A bill to ame

States Code, to promote pu

the legislative branch of t]

the United States by require

by Members of Congress

ployees of the Congress of

interests; to the Committee

Official Conduct.

By Mr. KEMP:

(for himself, Mr.





nend the Federal

1971 and the Com-

provide for more

actions for Federal

oses; to the Com-



ablish a New Eng-

d Environmental

purpose of assur-

low-cost electric

England, protect-

environment, and

arch and develop-

mmittee on Inter-


end title 44 of the

ignate the Daniel

University College

Y., as a depository

on House Admin-

horize appropria-

on Agency; to the


West Virginia:

mend the -Duck

to prohibit the

to any individual

the privilege of

g: to the Con-

and Fisheries.

d title 18, United

)lic confidence in

Government of

g the disclosure

nd certain em-

certain financial

on Standards of

H.R. 11427. A bill to amnd the National

Traffic and Motor Vehicle 84fety Act of 1966

to prohibit the Secretary Transportation

from imposing certain se belt standards,

and for other purposes; to te Committee on

Interstate and Foreign Con erce.

By Mr. LONG of Lo siana:

H.R. 11428. A bill to pro ide housing for

persons in rural areas of tle United States

on an emergency basis and to amend title V

of the Housing Act of 1949; to the Commit-

tee on Banking and Curren y.

By Mr. McCOLLISTEF (for himself,

Mr. WARE, and Mr. FzY) :

H.R. 11429. A bill to amen the Clean Air

Act to provide temporary authority to sus-

pend certain stationary source fuel and emis-

sion limitations; to the Com iittee on Inter-

state and Foreign Commerce4

By Mr. McCORMACK or himself, Mr.

TEAGUE of Texas, . MOSHER, Mr.



Mr. FOLEY, Mr. OBE, Mr. MCCLos-


Oregon, Mr. SAsAraNS, Mr. LUJAN,

Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois, Mr. COHEN,




H.R. 11430. A bill to provide for the early

commercial demonstration of he technology

of solar heating by the Natioijal Aeronautics

and Space Administration in cooperation

with the National Bureau of Standards, the

National Science Foundation, the Secretary

of Housing and Urban Development, and

other Federal agencies, and for the early

development and commercial demonstration

of technology for combined solar heating

and cooling; to the

and Astronautics.




nia, Mr. SAR



TEN, Mr. B



homa, Mr. M

Mr. BYRON, a

ida) :

H.R. 11431. A bill

commercial demonstr

of solar heating by th

and Space Administ

with the National Bu

National Science Fo

of Housing and Ur

other Federal agency

development and co

of technology for com

cooling; to the Co


By Mr. McCOR



Mrs. OaAsso,

Mr. SEzsRL.



CASEY of Tex

H.R. 11432. A bill

commercial demons

of solar heating by

and Space Adminis

with the National B

National Science Fo

of Housing and Ur

other Federal agency,

velopment and comm r

technology for comb

cooling: to the Co


By Mr. McCOR



CAN, Mr. B

Ohio, Mr. B

Moss, Mr. E






Massachuset ,


H.R. 11433. A bill

of research, develop

demonstrations in g

nologies, to direct tl

Foundation to fund b

search relating to ge

direct the National e

Administration to r

demonstrations in h

cial utilization of g t

eluding hot dry rock n

to the Committee


H 9971

committee on Science

CK (for himself, Mr.

as, Mr. MOSHER, Mr.

JOHNSON of Califor-

n, Mr. YATRON, Mr.



LIS, Mr. McKAY, Mr.

CK, Mr. MCEWEN, Mrs.

No, Mr. JONEs of Okla-


id Mr. YOUNG of Flor-

provide for the early

tion of the technology

National Aeronautics

nation in cooperation

eau of Standards, the

dation, the Secretary

n Development, and

s, and for the early

nercial demonstration

ined solar heating and

ittee on Science and

ACK (for himself, Mr.

xaa Mr. MOSHER, Mr.

r. DU PONT, Mr. RHuER,

Sr. RYAN, Mrs. Boaos,

o, Mr. SKurrz, Mrs

ifornia, Mr. RINALDO,

Mr. RHODES, and Mr.

provide for the early

tion of the technology

National Aeronautics

Ltion in cooperation

eau of Standards, the

nation, the Secretary

n Development, and

and for the early de-

cial demonstration of

ed solar heating and

ittee on Science and

ACK (for himself, Mr.

Xas, Mr. MOSHER, Mr.

. ULLMAN, Mr. DuN-

WEN, Mr. CAaNEY of

cY, Mr. ROUSH. Mr.

LEMAN, Mr. JoNEs of


of California, Mr.



sin, Mrs. HECKLER of

Mr. CORMAN, and Mr.

further the conduct

ent, and commercial

thermal energy tech-

he National Science

asic and applied re-

hermal energy, and to

ronautics and Space

ry out a program of

nologies for commer-

thermal resources in-

d geopressured fields;

Science and Astro-

By Mr. McCO ACK (for himself, Mr.

TEAGUE of xas, Mr. MosHER, Mr.


of New Yor , Mr. RHODES, and Mr.

CASEY of T as):

H.R. 11434. A bill further the conduct of

research, developme , and commercial dem-

onstrations in geot rmal energy technolo-

gies, to direct the N tional Science Founda-

tion to fund basic d applied research re-

lating to geothe energy, and to direct

the National Aerona tics and Space Admin-

istration to carry a program of demon-

strations in technol es for commercial uti-

lization of geotheral resources including

hot dry rock and geqpressured fields; to the

Committee on Science and Astronauticsa

1 9972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE November 18, 1971,

By Mr. McCORMACK (for himself, Mr. By Mr. RARICK (for himself, Mr. By Mr. HANLEY:

ITEAGUE of Texas, Mr. MosHER, Mr. TREEN, Mr. LANDRESE, Mr. HUDNUT, H.J. Res. 8238. Joint resolution to provide

GOLDWATER, Mr. MURPHY of New Mr. SYMMS, Mr. WHITEHURST, Mr. for the designation of February 20 of each

York, Mr. FOLTON, Mr. PODELL, Mr. COLLINS of Texas, and Mr. LEHMAN) : year as "Postal Employees ; to the Ooam-

, Mr. ROBINsON of Virginia, Mr. H.R. 11444. A bill to amend title XI of the mittee on the Judiciary.

E HADT, Mr. CoarE, Mr. HUBER, Social Security Act to repeal the recently By Mr. WIDNALL:

Mr. ASEn, Mr. McKAY, Mr. BLACK- added provision for the establishment of Pro- _.J. Res. 824. Joint re lution designating

sUaN, r. HELSTOSKI, Mr. JOHNSON fessional Standards Review Organizations to November 11 of each ye as "Armistice Day";

of Col ado, Mr. YaTRON, Mr. KET- review services covered under the medicare to the Committee on e Judiciary.

CHUM, . HOGAN, Mr. MATSUNAGA, and medicaid programs; to the Committee on By Mr. THO N of New Jersey:

Mrs. Gas ,Mr. PREYER, Mr. CARNEY Ways and Means. H. Res. 693. Resol ion to provide funds for

of Ohio, Mr. HAMILTON) : By Mr. REES: the Committee on e Judiciary; to the Com-

H.R. 11435. A bill further the conduct H.R. 11445. A bll to provide emergency se- mittee on House administration.

of research, develop nt, and commercial curity assistance authorizations for Israel; By Mr. NGHAM (for himself and

demonstrations in geotrrmal energy tech- to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Mr. M LET)

nologies, to direct the Nat nal Science Foun- By Mr. RODINO: H. Res. 696. solution to establish as part

dation to fund basic and plied research H.R. 11446. A bill to assure opportunities of the cong asional internship program an

relating to geothermal ener , and to direct for employment and training to unemployed internship program for senior citizens in

the National Aeronautics and pace Admin- and underemployed persons; to the Commit- honor of ohn McCormack, and for other

istration to carry out a program of demon- tee on Education and Labor. purposes- to the Committee on House Ad-

strations in technologies for mmercial By Mr. ROGERS (for himself, Mr. minister ion.

utilization of geothermal resourcelncluding KYROS, Mr. PREYER, Mr. Roy, and y Mr. FROEHLICH (for himself, Mr.

hot dry rook and geopressured field to the Mr. CARTER) : EATING, Mr. RONCALLo of New York,

Committee on Science and Astronatics. H.R. 11447. A bill to amend the Federal Mr. BAvMAN, Mrs. HOLT, Mr. Nuen,

By Mr. McCORMACK (for himseN Mr. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide a Mr. HDNVrT, Mr. LANDGREBE, Mr.

TEAGUE of Texas, Mr. MOSHER, Mr. mechanism to obtain information bearing on LOTT, Mr. MAzzOI, Mr. MINSHAI.7. of

GOLDWATER, Mr. TIERNAN, Mr. THoV- the adulteration or misbranding of food; to Ohio, Mr. O'BaIEN, Mr. POWEn of

SON of Vilsconsin, Mr. FISH, M the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Ohio, Mr. REGVLA, Mr. ROE, Mr. ST


DEERLIN, Mr. POAGE, Mr. DENHOLM. H.R. 11448. A bill to amend the Feder Mr. THONE, Mr. VANIe, Mr. WALSH,

Mr. SHouP, Mr. LUJAN, Mr. McDADE, d, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide - Mr. WHrEHUsT, and Mr. WON PrT) :

Mr. KEMP, Mr. SCHNEEBELI, Mr. FOR- cr ed assurance against adulterated or s- H. Res. 697. Resolution creating a select

SYTHE, Mr. HICKS, Mr. DERWINSKI, bra ed food; to the Committee on I er- committee to study the impact and rami-

Mr. RoDNo, Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois, state d Foreign Commerce. fications of the Supreme.Court decisions on

Mr. PEPPER, Mr. BOLAND, and Mr. Mr. SISK: abortion; to the Committee on Rules.

WRIGHT) : H.R. 1 449. A bill to abolish the U. . Postal By Mr. KEMP:

H.R. 11436. A bill to further the conduct of Service, repeal the Postal Reor ization H. Res. 698. Resolution creating a Stand-

research, development, and commercial dem- Act, to ree t the former provist s of title ing Committee on Small Business In the

onstrations in geothermal energy technol- 39, United tes Code, and for other pur- House of Representatives; to the Committee

ogies, to direct the National Science Founda- poses; to the mmittee on P t Office and on Rules.

tion to fund basic and applied research re- Civil Service. By Mr. O'NEILL (for himself and Mr.

lating to geothermal energy, and to direct By Mr. ST GERS: BROWN of Michigan):

the National Aeronautics and Space Admin- H.R. 11450. A bil o direc he President to H. Res. 699. Resolution to seek peace in the

istration to carry out a program of demon- take action to ass thr gh energy con- Middle East and to continue to support

strations in technologies for commercial servation, rationing, d their means, that Israel's deterrent strength through transfer

utilization of geothermal resources includ- the essential energy s of the Unitedsup-

ing hot dry rock and geopressured fields; to States are met, and f their purposes; to pf Phanto the Committee on Foreign Affairy sup-

the Committee on Science and Astronautics. the Committee on ter ate and Foreign A

By Mr. MARAZITI: Commerce.

H.R. 11437. A bill to cease exports of oil By Mr. AN ON Illinois (for

and oil products from the United States; to himself, PEPP and Mr. MEMORIALS

the Committee on Banking and Currency. THONE)

H.R. 11438. A bill, to cease all foreign aid H.R. 11451. ill to improve t conduct Under clause 4 of rule XXII, memo-

to those Middle East nations that reduced the and regulation of Federal election paign rials were presented and referred as fol-

export of oil and oil products to the United activities an o provide public fin ng for lows:

States as a punitive reaction to U.S. support such camp s; to the Committee on house

of Israel; to the Committe on Foreign Affairs. Administer ion. 326. The SPEAKER presented a memorial

By Mr. MOAKLEY (for himself and Mr. By . CAREY of New York: of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Mas-

HELSTOSKI) : .R. 1 52. A bill to correct an anomaly sachusetts, relative to observance of day-

H.R. 11439. A bill to amend title 3 of the the rat of duty applicable to crude feath light saving time year-round; to the Com-

United States Code to provide for the order and wns, and for other purposes; to the mittee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

of succession in the case of a vacancy both Co ittee an Ways and Means.

in the Office of President and Office of the By Mr. GOLDWATER:

Vice President, to provide for a special elec- .R. 11453. A bill to amend the Consumer ATE BILLS AND RESOUTIONS

tion procedure in the case of such vacancy, dit Protection Act to provide full dis- ATE BILLS AND RESOUTIONS

and for other purposes; to the Committee on sure of contents of report to consumers; Un clause 1 of rule XXII, private

the Judiciary. to the Committee on Banking and Currency. bis an resolutions were introduced and

By Mr. PATMAN: H.R. 11454. A bill to amend the "Freedom

H.R. 11440. A bill to provide for Feder of Information Act" to require consent of severally ferred as follows:

control over foreign banks and other forei subject individuals before disclosure of per- By M DELLENBACK:

persons establishing, acquiring, operatingor sonally identifiable information in certain H.R. 11457. bill for the relief of Il Kwon

controlling banking subsidiaries in the circumstances; to the Committee on Govern- Yang; to the C ilmitee on the Judiciary.

United States (including its possession ); to ment Operations. By Mr. M LIARD:

the Committee on Banking and Currqncy. H.R. 11455. A bill to protect the privacy of H.R. 11458 A bi for the relief of Arsenia

By Mr. PERKINS (for himself, Mr. statistical reporting or research system sub- Daitol Hingpit; to the Committee on the

Qnum, Mr. HAWKINS, Mr. rEIGER of jects; to the Committee on the Judiciary. Judiciary.

Wisconsin, Mr. BRADEMAS, Mr. BELL, By Mr. PRITCHARD:

and Mr. MEEDS) : H.R. 11456. A bill to extend daylight saving

H.R. 11441. A bill to postpone the imple- time to the entire calendar year for a 3-year

mentation of the Head Start fee schedule; period, and for other purposes; to the Com- PETITIONS, ETC.

to the Committee on Education and Labor. mittee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

By Mr. PEYSER: By Mr. SIKES: Under clause 1 of rule XXII, petitions

H.R. 11442. A bill to prohibit discrimination H.R. 11459. A bill making appropriations and papers were laid on the Clerk's desk

on account of sex or marital status against for military construction for the Department and referred as follows:

individuals seeking credit; to the Committee of Defense for the fiscal year ending June 30, 352. The SPEAKER presented a petition

on Banking and Currency. 1974, and for other purposes. 35. The Board of Commissioners Sara petition

By Mr. QUILLEN: By Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia: County, Fla., relative to its confidence in and

H.R. 11443. A bill to amend title 38, United H.J. Res. 822. Joint resolution to amend ,support of the President of the United

States Code, to provide veterans a 10-year title 5 of the United States Code to provide States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

delimiting period for completing educational for the designation of the 11th day of No- 353. Also, petition of Phillip B. Anderson,

programs; to the Committee on Veterans' Af- vember of each year as Veterans' Day; to the Pittsburgh, Pa., relative to redress of griev-

fairs, Committee on the Judiciary. ances; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

'ember 14 1973 CC




Mr. DONOHUE ubmitted the follow-

ing conference rep rt and statement on

the bill (H.R. 74 6) to establish the

Amerl an Revolut n Bicentennial Ad-

-mlnitration, and f r other purposes:

CoNrFzNCo REPOaT H. REPT. NO. 93-639)

The committee of inference on the dis-

agreeing votes of t two Houses on the

amendments of the nate to the bill (H.R.

7446) to establish th American Revolution

Bicentennial Admin ation, and for other

purposes, having after full and free

conference, have agr d to recommend and

do recommend to th respective Houses as


That the Senate r ede from its amend-

ment numbered 6.

That the House re de from its disagree-

ment to the amen ents of the Senate

numbered 1 and 4, d agree to the same.

-Amendment numbs ed 2: That the House

recede from its disa ment to the amend-

ment of the Senate numbered 2, and agree

to the same with an a endment, as follows:

In lieu of the mat proposed to be in-

serted by the Senate mendment insert the


"Sac. 7. (a) (1) Th e are hereby author-

ied to be appropria d annually to carry

out the provisions o this Act, except for

the program of gran in-aid established by

section 9(b) of this A t, not to exceed $10,-

000,000, of which no to exceed $1,375,000

shall be for grants-in id pursuant to sec-

tion 9(a) of this Act.

"(2) For the purpo of carrying out the

program of grants-in- d established by sec-

tion 9(b) of this Act, ere are hereby au-

thorised to be approp ated such sums, not

to exceed $20,000,000( may be necessary,

and any funds appr rated pursuant to

this paragraph shall r ain available until

expended, but no late than December 31,


And the Senate agree o the same.

Amendment number 3: That the House

recede from its disagree nent to the amend-

ment of the Senate n nbered 3, and agree

to the same with an ndment, as follows:

In lieu of the matter p posed to be inserted

by the Senate amendm t insert the follow-

"Sac. 9. (a) The Ad nistrator is author-

sed to carry out a pro am of grants-in-aid

In accordance with and furtherance of the

purposes of this Act. Th Administrator may,

subject to such regulat ns as he may pre-


"(1) make equal gr ts of appropriated

funds in each fiscal y r of not to exceed

85,000 to Bicentennial mmissions of each

Itate, territory, the D trict of Columbia,

and the Commonweal of Puerto Rico,

upon application there

"(2) make grants of n appropriated funds

to nonprofit entities, luding States, ter-

:itorles, the District of Columbia, and the

Commonwealth of Puer Rico (or subdivi-

sions thereof), to assist i developing or sup-

porting bicentennial pr grams or projects.

Such grants may be up 50 per centum of

the total cost of the pr ram or project to

be assisted."

And the Senate agree the same.

Amendment number 5: That the House

recede from its disagree nt to the amend-

aMAt of the Senate num red 5, and agree to

0e same with an amend ent, as follows: In

tU of the matter prop ed to be inserted

the Senate amendme insert the follow-

(b) For the purpose f further assisting

, f the several Stat s, the Territories,

.'Distrit of Columbia, and the Common-

a tl of Puerto Rico in developing and

.l tg bicentennial programs and proj-


ects, the Administrator

funds appropriated pun

(2) of this Act, to car

grants-in-aid in accord

section. Subject to sucl

be prescribed and app

the Administrator may

of the several States, Te

of Columbia, and the

Puerto Rico to assist th,

supporting bicentennia

ects. Each such recipier

not less than $200,000 u

In no event shall any

unless matched by the r

And the Senate agree



M. CAl

Managers on the




Managers on the

authorized, out of

uant to section 7(a)

out a program of

nce with this sub-

regulations as may

ved by the Board,

nake grants to each

itories, the District

Commonwealth of

m in developing and

programs and proj-

t shall be entitled to

oder this subsection.

such grant be made

recipient "

o the same.




Part of the House.




'art of the Senate.



The managers on tb part of the House

and the Senate at te conference on the

disagreeing votes of th two Houses on. the

amendments of the Se ate to the bill (H.R.

7446) to establish the ,rmerican Revolution

Bicentennial Administ nation, and for other

purposes, submit the Iollowing joint state-

ment to the House ar the Senate in ex-

planation of the effect of the action agreed

upon by the managers nd recommended in

the accompanying conf rence report:

The Conferees agree n to the language of

Senate Amendment N 1 amending Section

4 of H.R. 7446. This nguage is consistent

with the basic prince le of the legislation

in encouraging State a d local participation

in the Bicentennial o ervance. The Senate

language_ further impl mented this purpose

in providing that the inistrator is to co-

ordinate his activities to the extent prac-

ticable with those be g planned by State,

local and private grou s. He is further au-

thorized to appoint sp cial committees with

members from among those groups to plan

such activities as he de ms appropriate.

The Senate amende Section 7(a) (1) of

the House bill by pla g a ceiling of $10,-

000,000 annually for he expenses of the

Administration. Includ d in that amount was

an authorization of no more than $2,475.000

for annual grants of 5,000 to each State,

Territory, the District of Columbia and the

Commonwealth of Pue o Rico. The provision

for the $45,000 grant was contained in a

parallel amendment t Section 9 of the bill

which authorized the administrator to make

equal grants from app priated funds of not

more than $45,000 to ch of the recipients.

The Conferees agree to reduce the $45,000

figure to $25,000 per tity and the annual

authorization for t grant program to


Section 7(a)(2) as dded by the Senate

authorized an appro iation of not more

than $20,000,000 for grants-in-aid on a

matching basis to the $everal states to assist

them in developing a d supporting Bicen-

tennial programs and $rojects as provided in

the new Section 9(b) as added by the Sen-

ate, the amount to rmain available until

expended but no later than June 30, 1976.

The Conferees changed this date to De-

cember 31, 1976, because of the continuing

celebrations and conmemorations antici-

pated throughout the calendar year of 1976.

The language of Section 9(b) as contained

in the Conference Report is the revised lan-

guage agreed to by th$ Conferees. The Sen-

ate language provided that the amounts re-

ceived under Section 9 b) by any State could

not exceed $400,000 peS state on a matching

basis. In Conference, ij was agreed to change

this language so that each recipient would

be entitled to not less t1an $200,000 in grants

on a matching basis

In addition, the Dial

Territories and the Co

Rico were included as

Conferees recognized

would, therefore, be a

participate in this grn

amount of $200,000.

Subsection makes it c

are subject to regulate

proved by the Board.'

available for grants tc

considered obligated fi

aif not used, would lal

that the unused portico

mum earmarked for

be available for disti

jurisdiction or for ar

remaining funds und

thorization are auto

grants to any eligible

sent a program fount


The Conferees rett

meant No. 4. It is

amendment mad9 nec

bring changes in Si

tion 9.

The Senate Confers

ate Amendment No.

provided that the Adn

as Chairman of the Ar

centennial Board an

H 10009

nder the Subsection.

*ict of Columbia, the

ononwealth of Puerto

eligible recipients. The

hat each jurisdiction

aured of the right to

nt program up to the

e language of the

dear that these grants

ns prescribed and ap-

he $200,000 amount is

each jurisdiction and

ir that purpose, which,

use. It is not intended

n of the $200,000 min-

each jurisdiction will

ibutlon to any other

y other purpose. The

r the $20,000,000 au-

iatically available for

jurisdiction that pre-

acceptable to the Ad-

ined Senate Amend-

nerely a conforming

essary by the renum-

ibsection (a) of Sec-

es receded from Sen-

6 which would have

ilnistrator would serve

ierican Revolution Bi-

the Vice Chairman

shall be elected by embers of the Board

from members of th Board. The Conferees

agreed to retain the o iginal House language

providing that the Ch an and Vice Chair-

man shall be elect by members of the

Board from members the Board other than

the Administrator.

The Conferees inte that the regulations

provide a reasonable period for applications

for grants by eligible e titles.




Managers on th Part of the House.


Enw an M. KENNEDY,


Managers on the Part of the Senate.





Mr. McSPADDEN. Mr. Speaker, by

direction of the Committee on Rules I

call up House Resolution 701 and ask for

its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution as


H. REs 701

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this

resolution it shall be in order to move,

clause 6 of rule XXI to the contrary notwith-

standing, that the House resolve itself into

the Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union for the consideration of

the bill (H.R. 11459) making appropriations

for military construction for the Department

of Defense for the fiscal year ending June 30,

1974, and for other purposes and the pro-

visions of clause 2, rule XXI are hereby

waived with respect to any appropriation

contained in such bill.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from

Oklahoma is recognized for 1 hour.

Mr. McSPADDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield

the usual 30 minutes to the distinguished

gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LATTA) pend-

ing which, I yield myself such time as

I may consume.

(Mr. McSPADDEN asked and was

given permission to revise and extend his


H 10010


Mr. McSPADDEN. Mr. Speaker, House

Resolution 701 provides for a waiver of

the provisions of clause 6 of rule XXI of

the Rules of the House of Representa-

tives-the 3-day rule--in order that the

House may consider the bill H.R. 11459,

a bill making appropriations for military

construction for the Department of De-

fense for the fiscal year ending June 30,


House Resolution 701 also provides for

a waiver of the provisions of clause 2, rule

XXI of the rules of the House-prohibit-

ing unauthorized appropriations.

H.R. 11459 makes appropriations for

military construction and family housing

for the Department of Defense for the

fiscal year ending June 30, 1974. The bill

recommends new budget authority of

$2,609,090,000, an increase of $285,869,000

above the amount provided in fiscal year

1973 and $335,810,000 below the requests

of fiscal year 1974.

H.R. 11459 includes appropriations for

construction in support of the Trident

submarine and underwater-launched

ballistic-missile systems.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of

House Resolution 701 in order that we

may discuss and debate H.R. 11459.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the

'gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LATTA).

Mr. LAITA. Mr. Speaker, I agree with

the statements just made by the gentle-

man from Oklahoma.

House Resolution 701 provides for the

consideration of H.R. 11459, the military

construction appropriation bill, 1974.

This resolution waives the 3-day rule in

order that we may consider the bill this

week, and also waives points of order

with regard to clause 2, rule XXI.

The purpose of this legislation is to

make appropriations for military con-

struction and family housing for the De-

partment of Defense for fiscal year 1974.

The committee has recommended new

budget authority of $2,609,090,000, which

is an increase of $285,869,000 above the

appropriations for fiscal year 1973, and a

decrease of $335,810,000 in the request

for fiscal year 1974.

The increase is due to several large

programs. Most important is the con-

struction in support of the Trident sub-

marine and underwater-launched ballis-

tic missile systems. This construction, to

be initiated in fiscal year 1974, is a net

increase of $112,320,000 over fiscal year

1973. Additionally, the cost of operating

and maintaining military family hous-

ing has increased, therefore, there is an

increase of $94,131,000 to meet these

costs. Also, the Army has increased its

bachelor housing program.

The reduction of $335,810,000 is due

primarily to the announced and pending

base closure actions on the military con-

struction and family housing programs.

Also, because of these announced clo-

sures, there have been a number of proj-

ects canceled at these bases.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of

this rule.

(Mr. LATTA asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his re-


Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-

tleman yield?

Mr. LATTA. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. GROSS. This is a most unusual

procedure. Not 5 minutes ago the House

approved the conference report on the

authorization bill and 5 minutes later

we are called upon to take up a rule-

making in order for a bill that provides

funds for the authorization measure.

How the Committee on Appropriations

could know what the House would do

with the conference report is a mystery.

Mr. LATTA. Let me say to my good

friend from Iowa, this shows that this

body can act with expedition if it really

wants to.

Mr. GROSS. Yes; if it does not show

anything else, it does show that.

Mr. McSPADDEN. Mr. Speaker, I move

the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

The resolution was agreed to.

A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.

Mr. SIKES. Mr. Speaker, I move that

the House resolve itself into the Com-

mittee of the Whole House on the State

of the Union for the consideration of the

bill (H.R. 11459) making appropriations

for military construction for the De-

partment of Defense for the fiscal year

ending June 30, 1974, and for other pur-

poses; and pending that motion, Mr.

Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that

general debate on the bill be limited to

2 hours, one-half the time to be con-

trolled by myself and one-half by the

gentleman from California (Mr.


The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

the request of the gentleman from


There was no objection.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the

motion offered by the gentleman from


The motion was agreed to.


Accordingly the House resolved itself

into the Committee of the Whole House

on the State of the Union for the consid-

eration of the bill, H.R. 11459, with Mr.

ANNUNZIo in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

By unanimous consent, the first read-

ing of the bill was dispensed with.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-

nizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr.


Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself 20 minutes.

(Mr. SIKES asked and was given per-

mission to revise and extend his re-


Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, this bill

comes to you under a rule which waives

the 3-day requirement and waives the

necessity for completion of the author-

ization process. We in the committee

have no desire to circumvent the author-

ization process. The bill is brought to

you in this manner because of the pros-

pect for delays in the completion of the

authorization process. There is no non-

germane material in the bill.

It is the desire of the leadership that

we expedite all essential legislation in

every way that we can. This is one of

the last remaining appropriations bills

and it is deemed important to clear it

in the House so that this part of our leg-

islative program can be advanced as far

as possible prior to the Thanksgiving

recess and in that way help to avoid the

logjam of uncompleted legislation which

might build up early in December.

USE November 14, 1

First let me express my very

preciation to the members of them-

committee and to the staff. I have higl-

est commendation of this able group for

the dedicated and conscientious manner

in which they carried on the dtlcult

work of the Subcommittee on Military

Construction. It is an exacting task be-

cause hearings must be conducted day

after day and week after week as line

items are examined and witnesses are

questioned on the requirements for fund-

ing proposals which are submitted by

the various departments.

Understandably, theie is not full

agreement within the committee on

some items, but the net result is a sound

and workable package which I can

strongly recommend to the House.

Again, let me say that I" do so with

appreciation for the outstanding con-

tributions of my fellow Members and the

staff of the subcommittee.

The committee recommends that you

approve new budget authority in the

amount of $2,609,090,000 for military

construction for fiscal year 1974. The

/ original estimate submitted by the De-

partment of Defense was for $2.944.-

900,000. An additional $35,400,000 was

requested subsequently but was not ap-

proved by the authorizing committees

and could not be considered by this s-


Conferee agreement on the authoris-

ing bill was in the amount of $2,723.711,-

000, a cut of $221,189,000. Your commit-

tee has made further cuts of $114,621,-

000 below thb recommendations of the

Armed Services Committees of the House

and Senate. This is a total cut of $33,-


Broken down by services, we have the

following figures.

For the Department of the Army, the

total request was $740,800,000 The au-

thorization is for $684,394.000. Your

committee recommended $627,475,00.

For the Department of the Navy, the

total request was $705,700,000. The total

of the authorization is $661.049.000.

Your committee recommended $610,-


For the Department of the Air P=rce

the request was' for $321,900,000. The

committee authorized $294,096,000. We

recommend funding of $269,702,000.

For family housing, the request was for

$1,181,500,000 for 12,688 units. The com-

mitte is recommending $1,094,382,00

which will permit construction of 10x001

units, and which is approximately the

amount authorized.

For. your information, the funding for

family housing includes much more than

the construction of housing units. Costs

in addition to construction of new unte

include modernizing, relocating, operat-

ing, maintaining, and leasing military

family housing, as well as debt principal

and interest payments on military

family housing indebtedness. Also

covered are construction of trailer

spaces, minor construction, acquisition

of Wherry housing, planning, furniture

procurement, payments under the rental

guarantee and section 809 which is

armed services housing for essential

civilian employee housing programs,

payments to the Commodity Credit

Corporation for housing built with funds

obtained from the surplus comnmoaat

'XV ember 14, 1973


program, and servicemen's mortgage in-

astrance premiums. Still other costs

asuoclated with housing miitary families

a'e carried in the military personnel

appropriations. Housing allowances and

cost of transportation of personnel' and

of household goods are examples.

To some extent, savings resulting from

cancellation of prior-year projects as the

result of base closures or other changes

in requirements can be applied to

finance the fiscal year 1974 program.

Sufficient funds have been provided to

allow for the construction of adequate

units for those projects which remain

valid n the fiscal year 1972 and 1973

family housing programs.

For defense agencies the total request

was $19;100,000. The amount authorized

is $10,000,000. We find available revenues

are sufficient to finance this 'program

through fiscal year 1974 so no new ap-

propriation is approved.

This year's reduction in authorization

much higher than usual. However, your

Is much higher than usual. However,

your committee has recommended addi-

tional cuts as indicated. I can assure you

there is no justification for other cuts.

The Nation is moving into a peacetime

force status-the level-off period when

there are no longer requirements for par-

ticipation in the conflict in Southeast

Asia and begin with what we hope will

be a long period of relative stability for

our forces at strength levels based on

worldwide treaty commitments.

Most base closures and realignments

have now been finalized and are in

process of being carried out. That means

we are dealing primarily with permanent

bases. We also are seeking to achieve an

all-volunteer force. To do these things

successfully we must attract a high-level

type of personnel. Modern, sophisticated

equipment demands personnel who are

capable of manning and maintaining it.

This .also requires training facilities

which are modern and barracks and

homes which are livable. Providing these

is a slow process. Construction is now

very costly. Inflation continues to exact

a heavy toll and the military construc-

tion budget is never large in comparison

with other defense costs or domestic

budgets. So this can be accepted as a

modest program for an essential re-



You will note from the report that we

are embarking in a sizable way on the

Trident program. It is discussed in the

report before you on page 5. The Trident

Is a new, improved ballistic missile sub-

.marine which is larger and more sur-

vivable than any other submarine in the

world. It has new, long-range missiles.

As antisubmarine weapons are improved

and as. land-based missiles become more

fearsome, we must have a new trump

card which has a better prospect for

- survival in the years ahead. The Trident

Promises to give us such a weapon, one

* which the Soviets will know they cannot

,.*ipect to knock out with the first strike.

: The Trident will increase the possible

14 e\ldwlde patrol area of our submarine

'ilx-fold over that of current sub-

. That means they can wait and

ibl just about anywhere in the world.

iope to assure maximum time for the

submarines on station and minimum

time undergoing repair and overhaul.

Present plans call for the support facility

for 10 Tridents at Bangor, Wash., with

essential operational capability for the

system in the late calendar year 1978,

5 years hence. The Navy originally re-

quested $125,000,000 for military con-

struction for this program. The request

was revised to $112,000,000. We have cut

it by $6,000,000. We expect a total cost of

more than a half billion dollars for Tri-

dent construction. This is a new program

and a big one, but it is for America's



Your committee devoted much time to

the question of base realinements. Sub-

stantial base closures and realinements

were announced earlier this year. The

announcement came late. It has resulted

in significant delays in the preparation

of this bill and it is unfortunate we did

not have the announcement earlier. The

Department of Defense has identified

large savings associated with these re-

alinements and closures, but it must be

realized there will also be significant first

costs. This is the shakedown period dur-

ing which realinements are taking place

and closure proceedings are being ini-

tiated-274 specific actions to consoli-

date, reduce, realine, or close military in-

stallations in the United States and

Puerto Rico have been announced. This

is expected to save $3.5 billion over the

next 10 years and to result in the elimi-

nation of 42,800 military and. civilian


There is the possibility of a few addi-

tional closures or realinements, particu-

larly it appears in the Army. However,

the committee has taken into consider-

ation all of the announcements to date in

the preparation of this bill and we have

carefully sought to identify possible weak

bases which are likely to be found in any

remaining closure or realinement ac-

tions. We seek to avoid funding new

construction for bases which will not re-

main operational.

The committee also has consistently

urged that a strong effort be made to

utilize existing facilities during realine-

ments rather than to undertake the con-

struction of new facilities.


There is a subject of particular con-

cern to the committee. We did not feel

that the Department of Defense is pur-

suing a cutback of unnecessary functions

overseas and the reduction of closure of

excess overseas facilities with the same

determination that has been applied to

functions and installations in the United

States. The committee realizes that it

would be a grave mistake to be too hasty

in removing U.S. combat units overseas

thereby undermining the military and

political strength of the United States

and the allies. We know there must be

adequate facilities for the troops who

are stationed overseas. In most areaS

land is scarce and once a base is given up,

there is little likelihood of getting it back.

However, taking all the factors into ac-

count, it appears there is room for reduc-

tions in our base structure overseas and

wherever this could be accomplished, it

would save money. We just do not feel

the Department of Defense is giving ade-

quate consideration to base closures or

realinements overseas.


In the report the committee has gone

quite fully into the NATO infrastructure

program. It begins on page 13 of your

report. I recommend that you give It

careful thought. Infrastructre has pro-

vided a flexible and useable instrument.

It has made possible $3.4 billion worth of

installations in support of the common

defense of Europe. It represents a very

fine example of cooperation and realistic

cost sharing between the NATO allies.

We have from time to time noted dis-

appointing delays by our own represent-

atives and by our allies in taking full ad-

vantage of the opportunities provided by

the NATO infrastructure toward saving

money for the United States. Neverthe-

less, we are consistently gaining ground

in that the NATO allies are providing

year by year for an increasing share of

the cost of the facilities which are a

common requirement for the military

defense of Europe. As a matter of fact, in

1951 we were paying 43 percent of the

Joint cost of the program. Now we are

paying less than 20 percent.

This bill contains $40 million for our

contribution to the NATO infrastructure.

The figure of $95,650,000 which is carried

on page 55 of your report may appear

contradictory. That figure represents the

total NATO infrastructure program-

$20 million of this amount is in reim-

bursements from NATO allies and the

remainder is transferred from other ac-

counts such as Safeguard.

The committee is mindful of the un-

easiness expressed in some quarters

about the stability of the NATO alliance.

This results from incidents occurring

during the war in the Middle East. It is

not the business of this subcommittee to

analyze the future of NATO. Our job is

to fund the U.S. part of Its construction

requirements. However, it is my personal

opinion that the NATO alliance is a

strong and viable organization and that

when danger threatens within Western

Europe, it will function as planned and

anticipated. The war in the Middle East

brought questions about the supply of

oil which is essential to Europe and about

transfers of equipment which had been

prepositioned in Europe for the defense

of Europe. These questions would not

arise if Europe were threatened mili-




The committee is continuing its sup-

port for improved housing for bachelor

personnel and for military families. We

have departed from the old idea of open

bay barracks with their noise and lack

of privacy which was the standard for

so many years. It is the policy now to

provide uniform rooms with bath for not

more than three men per room for the

lower grades of enlisted personnel, up to

one man per room for the highest grades

of enlisted personnel.

The family housing has improved ac-

cordingly. Quarters are now on a par

with the average of those in private com-

munities although it is not possible under

present funding limitations to provide

H 10011


November 14, 197.

some desirable amenities such as garages

and additional recreational space. How-

ever, there has been a steady effort on

the part of the commtitee to insure the

availability of more of the things which

housewives very much want in their

homes and on which until recent years

they were not even consulted when mili-

tary housing was designed. The bachelor

housing program is proceeding in a very

satisfactory manner. Family housing in

this year's program has suffered a set-

back because of the limitations imposed

by the authorizing committees.

By the use of the turnkey program,

it has been possible to get more origin-

ality in the housing program and in

most instances to save money by en-

couraging the contractor to develop his

own designs and plans in competition

with other bidders.


The committee is continuing to sup-

port homeporting for the Navy. The pro-

gram is still somewhat small but it gives

to a limited number of Navy families an

opportunity to live where their men are

stationed. The Army and the Air Force

have long been able to accomplish this

by allowing dependents to live overseas.

Navy families could not enjoy the same

privilege and this has meant additional

family separations. One of the chief

problems for retention of skilled and de-

sirable personnel in the Navy is the sim-

ple fact that the family has been sep-

arated for such long periods from the

man in uniform. In a partial effort to

offset this, the Navy has transferred per-

sonnel so' frequently the transfer costs

have been excessively high.


It should be noted that the committee

has denied funding in a number of cases

for commissaries. This action should not

be construed as a policy decision. We

realize the commissary facilities are a

traditional part of military benefits. Our

action is intended to stimulate the mili-

tary toward devising other means of

providing such facilities without coming

to the Congress for public moneys. This

could be done through a surcharge with

which to establish a building fund for

commissaries. The Government is sub-

sidizing the commissary program at a

level of nearly $300 million a year.

They do not pal/ taxes. Their overhead

is low. They are important to the mili-

tary program but less so than in the days

when military pay scales were very low

and adequate shopping facilities were

limited near the average military base.

Now there are food stores and shopping

centers around nearly all bases.


The end of hostilities in Southeast

Asia left some unused funds which have

been appropriated in prior years. At the

beginning of the fiscal year there still

remained in Southeast Asia funds for

military construction $59.9 million. Of

that amount $29.2 million is programed

for use during fiscal years 1974 and 1975.

This is for facilities for South Vietnam,

Thailand, and other areas. Nothing is

planned for Laos and Cambodia. In the

main this is for roads and bridges and

there is some vertical construction.

The means $30.8 million of the re-

maining SEA funds is not programed for

expenditure at this time. Accordingly

the committee has recouped $15 million

of this amount and applied it td other

projects. The remainder is available in

case of unexpected emergencies.


I am very glad to report to the House

the continuing support and significant

progress in both air and water pollution

control programs. We are now well over

the hump in these two essential pro-

grams. The committee recognizes their.

importance and has given solid support

to them.


There are no construction funds re-

quested for the Safeguard program in

fiscal year 1974. However, some $35,650,-

000 has been reprogramed from the Safe-

guard reserve to meet requirements

which were generated in the NATO in-

frastructure account as the result of dol-

lar devaluation.

A summary of the present funding'

situation of the Safeguard program fol-


The total amount of appropriation

available to the Safeguard program was

$646.8 million.

Against this, the current total esti-

mated cost of the construction program

including claims is $597.1 million.

prior to the reprograming to NATO

infrastructure, the Safeguard reserve

was $59.7 million.

Transfer to NATO, $35.6 million.

Remaining Safeguard reserve is $14.1


Obligations as of September 30, 1973,

$568.8 million.

Expenditures as of September 30, 1973,

$485.3 million.


For a number of years this subcom-

mittee has pressed the military services

to decentralize some of the military pro-

grams away from Washington. Progress

has been slow and tedious and results are

minimal. It should be obvious the doncen-

tration of additional military activities

in and around our Nation's Capital

makes it a more inviting military target.

It also means that personnel are being

moved to one of the highest cost areas

in the land. It means further congestion

in an already congested area. Yet every-

one wants to be close to the throne.

Everybody wants to be in a position to

'influence the powers that be and impress

the admirals and generals. We have even

withheld appropriation but rental space

is available.

I have to confess that during the year

immediately preceding we have made

less progress than in prior years. Some

of this has been due to the large turn-

over of individuals in the Secretariat. It

has been hard in recent months to find

someone to talk to in these positions who.

was still there 3 or 6 months later. Never-

theless this committee wants it under-

stood that we are very displeased at the

comparative indifference to efforts to de-

centralize military programs away from

the Capital. This is one good way to

achieve revenue sharing. Certainly there

is no reason why more of the activities

and the funding which now come to

Washington should not be in various

States and cities throughout the country.

The committee has spent weeks and

months in a dedicated effort to bring to.

the Congress a bill in which unnecessary

projects are eliminated. In some cases,

we may have been over zealous but I can

assure you the committee is not prej-

udiced toward any project which may

have been deferred. If a stronger case

can be made in the Senate and the proj-

ect is retained there, we shall, give it a

fresh look and an unbiased one when we

go to conference. We feel that we have a

good program. One that will help to meet

the requirements for a strong defense

program in the years ahead and one

which will help to provide adequate liv-

ing quarters, training facilities, research

facilities and all the other things which

are essential to a modern defense. We be-

lieve you can safely place your confidence

in this bill.

Mr. BARRETI. Mr. Chairman, I make

the point of order that a quorum is not


The CHAIRMAN. Evidently a quorum

is not present.

The call will be taken by electronic


The call was taken by electronic de-

vice, and the following Members failed

to respond:

[Roll No. 584]

Abdnor Fascell Pike

Anderson, Il. Fraser Reid

Archer Goodllng Roberts

Baker Gubser Roney, N.Y.

Blackburn Hays Rooney, Pa.

Blatnik Hebert Rosenthal

Brasco Holifleld Rostenkowuls

Brown. Ohio Howard St Germain

Buchanan Jarman Schroeder

Burke, Calif. Earth Seiberling

Chisholm Kastenmeter Sisk

Clancy Keating Spence

Clark Klubynki Stuckey

Clawson, Del Lehman Teague, Tex.

Collins, Ill. Madden ldall

Davis. Wis. Martin, Nebr. Waggonner

Dellums Mills, Ark. Wyatt

Devine Mlnshall. Ohio Young, S.C.

Diggs Murphy, N.Y.

Edwards, Calif. O'Brien

Accordingly the Committee rose; and

the Speaker having resumed the chair,

Mr. ANNUNZIo, Chairman of the Com-

mittee of the Whole House on the State

of the Union, reported that that Com-

mittee, having had under consideration

the bill H.R. 11459, and finding itself

without a quorum, he had directed the

electronic device, whereupon 375 Mem-

bers recorded their presence, a quorum,

and he submitted herewith the names,

of the absentees to be spread upon the


The Committee resumed its sitting.

The CHAIRMAN. The chair recognizes

the gentleman from California (Mr.


Mr. TALCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to re-

iterate what the gentleman from Florida

(Mr. SncEs) has already told the House

but there are a few comments I think

would be pertinent.

First of all, our subcommittee was un-

animously in favor of this bill. We have

mixed feelings about the bill, of course.

We have some definite differences of

opinion about the bill, of course.

H 10012

ser 14, 1978 CON

T ees we were able to work out

s eiant. The committee has had to

l l:g and conscientiously over a

TOW dsltalt and tedious subject. There

s umaW installations involved.

hame are hundreds of special interests

involved. there are various priorities, and

thie are constant, continuing changes.

The Matire Defense Department is in -a

satoe of turbulence, with the changes we

have undergone, the winding down of

the war in Southeast Asia, as an ex-

ample. There has been a dramatic reduc-

tion in forces; there is considerable de-

velopment of. new weaponry. There are

the needs of the Volunteer Army, which

have to be considered.

There have been many base closures

and realinements. There is a shifting

from wartime -to peacetime activities,

which has required many changes in

many facilities.

Mr. Chairman, there is a new em-

phasis on responsible family men in the

service rather than bachelor draftees

and adventurers.

There is considerable construction

which had to be delayed during the

Vietnam war. There is a good deal of

maintenance and repair that was ne-


So we have tried to pare down to the

low-dollar figure, without jeopardizing

the morale or the readiness of our forces.

We have tried to develop those projects

which are essential to the moderniza-

tion of our defense forces. We have tried

to cut or deer those projects which have

not been justified or which might not fit

into the new programs of base reloca-


However, our cuts have been selective.

Because ofthe turbulence and indecision

of the Defense Department, our com-

mittee has spent more than 50 percent

more time last year in hearings.

There are three increases that amount

to $336 million which I think are impor-

tant. These are as follows: $112 million

for Trident; $94 million for family hous-

ing, the maintenance operation of fam-

ily housing; and $130 million for bachelor

houdsig. These figures amount to $336

million of increases.

Even so, this budget is below the budget

proposed by the President.

Mr. 'Chairman, we have made cuts in

various other areas, mainly in those

which affect the changes in base utiliza-


There are three items which I would

like to mention that have been neglected

in our mrjltary construction program.

One pertains to language teaching.

Language teaching has been neglected in

our military forces. It may be more im-

portant than missiles in the future Army

ard in our defense and peacekeeping ef-

fWtB. I believe w' need to pay more at-

ittion to language teaching.

SWe have neglected our maintenance

M Id epair of all our installations. Any

IUiAVte landlord or private operator

*allt spend a good deal more on main-

and repair than we have spent

ia beting our military facilities.

basarman, the hospital at West

nlr be one of the most outdated,

Medical facilities in the forces.

I that we deferred this hospital


because of the exorbitant price and some

concern over the plans that were pre-

sented by the Army.

I happen to believe that we need to

look into this matter quickly, review it

quickly, and present to the committee

and the Congress next year the plans and

the appropriation for the medical fa-

cility thdre.

The gentleman from New York (Mr.

GILMAN) has made a very persuasive

presentation concerning this. He is one

of the most knowledgeable Members of

the Congress on this subject, and he

urges us to do it. We deferred it, but I

hope that we can get to it next year.,

Mr. Chairman, I think the cut of $335

million reflects a degree of fiscal re-

straint which is responsible and appro-

priate at the present time. It is a prudent

and selective bill in terms of the in-

creases which are approved and those

which are denied.

I think we have approved those proj-

ects which are truly necessary for na-

tional security. An example is the $112

million which is allowed for Trident

construction to be initiated this year.

We need the Trident system to assure

our deterrence capability toward the end

of this decade, and if we are to have these

larger submarines and missiles, we must

start acquiring the facilities to support

them this year.

We have, hopefully, where it was pos-

sible, allowed additional amounts to

cover increased costs. An example of this

is in the family housing area where, of

the total increase of approximately $127

million allowed, $94 million is merely to

meet the increased cost of performing

adequate operation and maintenance.

Also, the allowed unit cost of new hous-

ing has increased by an average of $3,500

each from that allowed 2 years ago, and

this is not really sufficient to meet the

increases in construction costs which

have occurred and are projected. We

had to provide additional funds to meet

these costs.

A third and very important area in

which a significant increase of $130,084,-

000 has been provided is the Army bar-

racks construction and modernization

program. For years, testimony before our

subcommittee has indicated that enlisted

personnel were growing increasingly un-

happy with open bay bachelor housing.

We have worked with the military de-

partments to encourage them to upgrade

their standards for bachelor housing, and

they have done so. The Army's fiscal year

1974 request, which has been very largely

approved, reflects both the additional

cost of building adequate bachelor hous-

ing and the size of the construction pro-

gram which is needed to provide modern,

permanent, adequate barracks at the

Army's hardcore -installations.

When one considers just these 3

increases for Trident, $112 million;

family housing operation and mainte-

nance, $94 million; and bachelor housing

for the Army, $130 million; their total,

$336 million exceeds the amount of the

increase which is recommended over last

year, which is approximately -$286


Obviously, there have had to be com-

pensating savings and reductions else-

H 10013

where in the program. One factor which

has brought about these reductions is the

emphasis on base realinements which has

been apparent in the past year. The

administration has taken steps to reduce

unnecessary costs of maintaining more

military bases than are needed. As a

result, many projects for which funds

had been provided in prior years are no

longer needed. Also, in an environment

in which base utilization plans are chang-

ing, the requirements for construction

projects do not, in many cases, become

clear until force deployments have set-

tied down. As a result, many projects are

held in abeyance or deferred. In some

cases, the original decisions reflect in-

adequate planning and require further

study. The Army is currently engaged in

such a study of its smaller bases now,

and there will doubtless be further reduc-

tions in some of these bases in the future.

In this situation, it seems unwise to pro-

ceed with construction projects at many

of these bases.

One area in which I have become

particularly concerned about the ade-

quacy of the Army's planning is in lan-

guage training. They seem to regard this

very critical program as something which

can be moved around the country when-

ever a barracks building or two is vacated

at any location. Anyone familiar with

education in general and with language

training in particular should realize that

this is not the case, that the heart of

such training lies in its dedicated profes-

sionals and its academic traditions which

cannot be duplicated at just any place

where there happens to be space avail-


To some extent the budget request

this year is lower than it might have been

because expensive programs such as the

Safeguard antiballistic missile have been

dropped. One cannot but regret the large

amounts that have been spent and

largely wasted upon this program. One

can, however, be glad that, to some ex-

tent, our pushing ahead with this pro-

gram, with the considerable cost and

waste that that entailed, enabled the

strategic arms limitation agreements to

come about. As a result of that, enormous

costs in this and in other strategic weap-

ons programs can be kept within bounds,

provided the letter and the spirit of this

agreement is maintained. Funds appro-

priated for Safeguard in prior years

which are not required to cover claims

and necessary work have been reapplied

to other programs to reduce new budget

authority to the extent that the commit-

tee feels is prudent at this time.

In addition, many of the projects

which were requested, which were nice

to have, but not necessary, or which were

badly planned, have been eliminated

from the bill by both the authorizing ac-

tion and committee's recommendation.

There are so many examples of the for-

mer that I will not offend anyone by

simply pointing out a few projects. But,

most of the projects which can be de-

ferred, which should be restudied, or

which may be at weak installations have

been deleted.

One project which I feel I should men-

tion and which confronted the commit-

H 10014 CON

tee with a real dilemma was the request

for $25 million for a new hospital at the

U.S. Military Academy at West Point,

N.Y. I have seen the existing facility.

It is certainly a hospital that needs to

be replaced sometime in the near future.

It may be the most inadequate medical

facility in the Services. On the other

hand, the Army's plans for providing a

new hospital were so expensive as to be

shocking. The hospital, for instance, was

to be a 100-bed hospital at a cost of $25

million. We have built 400-bed hospitals

for considerably less in recent military

construction programs in other areas of

the country, of course. Furthermore, 100

beds seem to be too many for the actual

or projected workload for cadets at West

Point. Finally, moving the hospital away

from its present location, paradoxically,

may make it harder to provide for cadet's

medical needs without further large ex-

penditures. All of this is spelled out in

the committee's report and in our hear-

ings. I feel that we had to defer this

hospital at this time to force the Army

to really restudy their plans for this fa-

cility. I hope our review can be com-

pleted promptly, because a new hospital

is direly needed at West Point-and be-

fore the costs escalate even more.

The gentleman from New York (Mr.

GILMAN) has made a persuasive pres-

entation-he is the most knowledgable

member concerning this hospital need.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the

gentleman from New York (Mr. Mc-

EWEN), a member of the committee.

Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Chairman, I would

like to associate myself with the remarks

of the gentleman from California (Mr.

TALCOTT) concerning the hospital at the

U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

.Mr. Chairman, I had the opportunity

of visiting this hospital just this past

week, and I would confirm everything

that the gentleman from California has

said. This is an old, obsolete facility,

with a great deal of maintenance that

has been deferred, and deliberately de-

ferred, in anticipation of the construc-

tion of a new facility.

I do not suggest, Mr. Chairman, that

I know all of the answers on exactly the

size and location that the proposed new

facility should be, but from my own

viewing of the existing facility I know

it is obsolete and I know of the need for

a new facility.

I would like to say that the gentleman

from New York (Mr. GILMAN) has been

most industrious in bringing to the at-

tention of all of us on the subcommittee

the need for this hospital.

I was pleased at having the opportu-

nity to see it. Everything Mr. GILMAN

told us has been confirmed; namely, that

the existing hospital is obsolete and the

need for a replacement is great.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think

the gentleman from New York (Mr. Mc-

EWEN) for his thoughtful remarks con-

cerning the long-needed West Point hos-

pital proposal and appreciate the concern

of the Subcommittee's distinguished

chairman (Mr. SIKES) .

I am hopeful that the decision of funds

for this project from the committee bill

will only be temporary, and I am con-

fident the Army will respond in the days

ahead to the objections raised by the


subcommittee. The Army has demon-

strated its concern for the high costs of

this and other construction projects at

the Academy and has consistently and

conscientiously tried to keep costs as low

as possible.

Impressive documentation has been

presented supporting the need for this

new 100-bed hospital facility. The pres-

ent hospital, already more than 50 years

old, serves a large and growing com-

munity, both on the Academy grounds

and in the surrounding region. Its

archaic systems, extremely limited space

and poor location have all been cited as

major deficiencies. These obstacles have

hindered the delivery of first-rate medi-

cal service to the thousands of patients

who are served annually.

As these deficiencies become more

acute with the passage of time, the costs

of construction increase to even higher


The Army Corps of Engineers has

exhaustively examined alternative pro-

posals in an effort to find a way of pro-

viding the needed improvements in med-

ical service at the lowest possible cost.

All of the alternative proposals have

been found wanting. The construction of

a smaller facility or renovation of the

existing hospital would result in only a

nominal saving, if a saving at all, as

compared with an entirely new 100-bed

facility. But more important, the end

result would still be a marginal facility

that would not have the approval of the

Army Surgeon General or the Assistant

Secretary of Defense for Health and En-

vironment. Sacrificing efficiency and the

complete utilization of the lastest med-

ical technology would be false economy.

Twice in recent years, Congress has

authorized this project, including current

approvals by both the House and Senate

in connection with the military construc-

tion authorization bill. This clearly dem-

onstrates a legislative recognition of the

necessity for a new West Point hospital.

I know the Army will now approach

the committee's concerns with the same

thoroughness and diligence that it has

previously displayed in documenting the

need for this facility. I trust there will

yet be an opportunity to resolve these

concerns as the other body prepares to

consider the military construction


One of the finest military institutions

in the world is deserving of a first-rate


Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10

minutes to the distinguished resident

commissioner of Puerto Rico (Mr.


Mr. BENITEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise

once again, this time hopefully to help

rectify a deplorable situation which af-

fects the good name of the United States,

the good name of those of us who in

Puerto Rico defend the United States

and identify ourselves with its basic

values and perhaps more importantly to

defend the right of the people of a very

small island in Puerto Rico to live, work,

and go about without the constant

threat, danger and perturbation of


I refer to the issue of Culebra. This is

a very small Puerto Rican island on our

eastern shore which for a number of

ISE November 14,'q

years has been the subject of special dis-

cussion and debate here and throughout

the Hemisphere. A week ago, we thought

in Puerto Rico that the matter had

been adjudicated finally. We felt that

the action of the conferees of the House

and the Senate on the military construc-

tion authorization, fiscal year1974, the

report of which we approved just 30

minutes ago would forstall any addi-

tional delay. However, that report has

been completely ignored in the appro-

priations bill now before us for our con-


Members of the Appropriations Com-

mittee have been surprised to discover

that the military construction bill au-

thorizes according to the recommenda-

tion of the conferees the necessary funds

to settle the Clebra issue; but nonethe-

less no appropriation ensues in the bill

now under consideration. Why?

In the conference report which we re-

ceived half an hour ago it is stated spe-

cifically in section 204(a) :

SEC. 204. (a) In order to facilitate the refo-

cation of the ship-to-shore and other gun fire

and bombing operations of the United States

Navy from the island of Culebra, there is

hereby authorized to be appropriated the

sum of $12,000,000 for the construction and

equipage of substitute facilities irysupport of

such relocation.

This section continues, establishing a

number of conditions and requirements

to insure that the Navy will have full

occasion and opportunity toprotect the

vital national interests that might be in-

volved, making as a prerequisite to the

disbursement of any appropriations, a

mutually satisfactory agreement.

Under the circumstances which, I may

say, motivated and required the appear-

ance here on three separate occasions of

the Governor of Puerto Rico to give as-

surances at different moments before

Members of the other body, before the

chairman of the Committee on Armed

Services of the House, and afterward

before the House conferees on the mili-

tary construction' authorization fiscal

year 1974, full satisfaction was accorded

to the conferees on both our willingness

and even eagerness to meet all reason-

able conditions required and presented.

And then we, to our amazement, find

that your committee's appropriation bill

lacks any recommendation of funds for

these purposes.

I would like, Mr. Chairman, to point

out that three successive Secretaries of

Defense, Secretary Laird, Secretary

Richardson, and Secretary Schlesinger,

reported publicly in answer to the re-

quest of Governors of the people of

Puerto Rico, that the Navy operations at

Culebra would be terminated no later

than July 1, 1975.

I may say that this morning at break-

fast, I had the opportunity to talk to

Secretary Schlesinger and to express to

the Secretary my amazement, that the

Navy, having requested this course of ac-

.tion necessitating more funds apparently

had made no such funding request-

at least in a timely way-to the Com-

mittee on Appropriations. Mr. Schlesing-

er was, I am sure, surprised,at this, and

indicated to me that he would study the

matter and help to rectify *hat he

thought had been an oversight.

iveanmber. 14, 1973


I wish to add that this pledge was first

M ed to the former Governor of Puerto

Rico, Governor Ferr6, several times, and

was used as an electoral commitment.

Fager er irpledge was negated 6

weeks thereafter by Secretary Laird.

But former Secretary Richardson

prom sed to review the policy in his con-

rmation hearings after consulting sev-

eral voluminous studies prepared by the

Defense Department at the direction of

Congress. He conducted extensive dis-

ciusicns with Navy officials and obtained

personal assurances from the Govern-

ment that a transfer of the operations

from this small inhabited island of Cule-

bra would not be impeded in any way,

should it be made anywhere in the un-

inhabited Islands of Puerto Rico.

Mr. Richardson made the commitment

that was afterward echoed by Mr.


Here we stand after 3 years of com-

mitments concerning Culebra, with the

dignity and welfare of our people pro-

foundly Involved with a final approval

obtained from this House on the con-

ference committee recommendations Un

the authorization bill and now we are

to return home to be expected to say

allthis was in jest.

Mr. BADILLO. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. BENITEZ. I yield to the gentle-

mantoram New York.

Mr. BADIT~O. Mr. Chairman, I want

to commaend the distinguished Resident

Commissioner of Puerto Rico on the

statement. As he indicates, we have, been

talking about this issue for years. This is

not a case merely of failing to have an

appropriation. If there is no appropria-

tion to follow the authorization, we are

falling to keep a promise not only to

the people of Puerto Rico but a promise

that affects the credibility of the United

Stalesf America.

Mr. Chairman, I call upon the con-

ferees to see to it when they go to the

Senate that this matter is rectified and

lat appropriations are made for the re-

locatn of the facilities.

Mr. BENITEZ. I thank the gentleman

frm New York.

Mr. LEGGETT. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. BENITEZ. I yield to the gentle-

man from California.

Mr. LEOGETT. Mr. Chairman, I want

to commend my friend, the gentleman

from Puerto Rico, on the statement he

has made. Certainly we visited together

on the beach at Culebra and looked at

the installations there and talked to the


The CHAIRMAN. The time of the

mfteman has expired.

-:Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1

aditional minute to the gentleman from

PIo Rico.

S 3r;.M _TEZ. I thank the gentleman

I yield to the gentleman from Cali-

'Mr. LEGETT. Certainly this has been

Mlmatter where the gentleman has been

, ry aggressive to try to fulfill the

mitments of the three Secretaries

W t~rse that he mentioned, but we do

a problem where these funds were

a't reuested at the outset by the Navy.

We had inserted them in the Senate in

the authorization bill. We later had,

through the gentleman's aggressiveness,

I guess, the conference committee ap-

prove the item, so we have the matter

authorized. But still there is nothing be-

fore the Committee on Appropriations, I

guess, to date. I would certainly hope

that the Committee on Appropriations

would consider the matter and that this

has come about in an irregular way.

If the Senate chooses to act on this

matter and be a little more aggressive

than we have, I certainly hope that we

can favor the Secretary's recommenda-

tions in a positive way in conference.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct

the question to the chairman of the sub-


The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-

tleman has expired.

Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield my-

self 1 minute. I had not intended to en-

gage in this discussion at this time. The

fact is that the committee has had no

request for funds. The request for fund-

ing went to the Senate after we had

completed our work, and it has not yet

come to this committee.

There is another side to this case which

I expect to discuss in detail if an amend-

ment is offered. At the moment let me

say that if the matter is taken up and

considered favorably in the Senate, we

will look at it carefully with an open

mind. We are not prejudiced against the


Mr. LEGGETT. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1

additional minute to the gentleman from

Puerto Rico.

Mr. BENITEZ. I thank the gentleman.

I wish to say that I appreciate and

understand the explanations given by

the distinguished chairman of the sub-

committee and wish to say that I trust

the Members understand perfectly well

that our interest is not only the interest

of the people of Culebra, but this House's

common interest in making clear to

everyone in Puerto Rico and outside of

Puerto Rico that these commitments per-

taining to human beings will be observed.

I trust that this will be the case, and I

would continue to pledge my support to

the processes that will make it possible.

Mr. TALCO(OT. Mr. Chairman, we have

no further request for time.

Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5

minutes to the distinguished gentleman

from Maryland (Mr. LONG), a member

of the subcommittee.

Mr. LONG of Maryland. Mr. Chairman,

as a member of the committee I support

this bill.

The bill does represent a substantial

cut below the authorization. The author-

ization, it is fair to say, cut quite sub-

stantially below the budget request, with

the net result that we do have a very

substantial cut here below the budget

request. While this is a bigger bill than

last year, it is a bigger bill roughly by the

factor of inflation only.

I wish we could have cut more. I have

been one of those who have been fighting

for years to cut the military spending

particularly after the war in Vietnam.

But, let us face it, the cold war is heat-

ing up. I have not always been convinced

by the warnings of the hawks and I am

still not entirely, but it is better to be safe

than to be sorry.

The sums of money involved in what

we are doing are relatively small in rela-

tion to the tremendous dangers this

country faces in the perilous world in

which we live today.

There are some problems of military

construction I have felt some concern

about. I do think the military is often

asking us for new buildings or is often

leasing when it could be using old build-

ings which are perfectly serviceable

buildings. There is a.vacant base in my

district, Fort Holabird, on which the

Army has appraised as good buildings un-

til 1994. Although they are not beautiful

they are serviceable. It is a great mistake

to walk away and leave that money there.

In connection with some of the over-

seas bases I have had some concern but

we have found ourselves in something of

a dilemma. A great deal of our overseas

housing is in very bad shape, yet we are

not replacing it now because it is not

clear how long we are going to be at those


I think we should have taken more into

account the lack of combat readiness of

certain National Guard units. Some of

them are in a C-4 category. They are

just not ready and the buildings are not

going to make them ready. Combat read-

iness depends on other factors than


I have some concern about the con-

struction for Trident because we are

putting all our eggs in one basket at one

base in one place in Bangor, Wash. A

single bomb could knock out a very large

part of the Trident. Should we be put-

ting so much investment in one spot.

I have some concern about emergency

funds. But the sums are not great and

this is a matter on which reasonable

people can come to some sort of agree-


On the matter of Culebra I would like

to point out to the gentleman from

Puerto Rico that no one can commit the

Congress of the United States to move

a base from anywhere. Congress is not

at the beck and call of the Secretary of

Defense or any other administrative

agency that wants to tell some area that

we plan to move out.

I hope Congress and these other peo-

ple keep that in mind. There are other

things that bother me, but nevertheless,

I think this is a reasonably prudent bill.

I want to commend Congressman

SIKES, who has been a very distinguished

chairman. He is always tolerant and un-

derstanding and listens to the views of

everybody on the committee.

I think this is a reasonably prudent bill.

which is a reasonable compromise, and I

ask my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3

minutes to the distinguished gentleman

from Texas (Mr. PICKLE).

(Mr. PICKLE asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his re-


Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Chairman, I would

like to ask the chairman about one item

in the military construction bill provid-

ing for funds for the construction of one

facility in my particular district, a com-

missary at Bergstrom Air Force Base.

We have been waiting for the authoriza-

H 10015

H 10016 CO]

tion of this project for over 30 years.

Finally, after waiting this period of years,

it was authorized. I am advised that the

bill before us now does not provide the

funds in this instance. Is that correct?

Mr. SIKES. Yes. I will be glad to re-

spond to the distinguished gentleman. I

commend him for his interest in his own

district and the military installations


The facility which the gentleman re-

fers to, the commissary, is an authorized

item. It is one of several commissaries

deleted by the Appropriations Commit-

tee. The committee went rather fully

into this subject, and the .majority of the

members of the committee felt that the

Department of Defense should take a new

look at commissaries in general. It is

costing the Government nearly $300 mil-

lion a year in personnel costs to operate

the commissaries. They do not pay any

taxes. Their overhead is low. They obtain

land, and in many cases facilities, with-

out charge. A surcharge is added to the

commissary prices to pay for overhead

expenses. In many cases this has been

used to construct new commissaries or

to rehabilitate existing ones.

The.majority of the members of the

committee felt that this procedure might

be a rational way for the construction

of this and other commissaries to be


We are not prejudiced against com-

missaries. We accept the fact they are

important to the military programs. The

committee feels however, that the need

may not be as great as it was in prior

years when the military pay scale was

very low and when there were very few

good shopping facilities and food stores

in the vicinity of most bases. That pic-

ture has changed. The committee felt.

that the Department of Defense should

take a new look at the commissary

structure. That does not mean that we

are asking that the commissaries be

eliminated, but that consideration be

given to having commissaries carry

more of the costs which are now borne

by the taxpayers.

Mr. PICKLE. I believe the gentleman

would understand that this action

catches many Members by surprise, be-

cause we had assumed that once the au-

thorization was in this year and without

any notice of difficulty, that it would not

be taken out. Will this matter now go to


Mr. SIKES. This bill now goes to the

Senate and, of course, if the Senate re-

stores the commissaries, including that

of the distinguished gentleman, I assure

the gentleman that I as one member of

the subcommittee will view the matter

with an open mind. I am not prejudiced

against any of the commissaries.

Mr. PICKLE. I appreciate that very

much. It will be a harsh act to deprive

that base the funds we have been wait-

ing for during these 30 years.

Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, I have no

further requests for time.

Mr. TALCOTT. Mr. Chairman, with

respect to the Atlantic Fleet Weapons

Range and its activity on the property

owned and developed by the U.S. Navy

on the island of Culebra, the one cri-

terion by which this activity should be

judged-the one question that we should


put above all others: "Is this activity

essential to the defense requirements of

the United States?"

We cannot seek the answer to this

question from unqualified critics, self-

serving interests, inconsolable instiga-

tors, political opportunities, and kibitzers

from afar.

But seeking an honest answer to the

question: "Is this activity essential to

the defense of my country?" ought to

be the overriding consideration for every

patriotic American, whether he is wear-

ing the uniform of this country, whether

he has the honor and responsibility of

high public office, whether he is selling

newspapers in San Juan or real estate

from New York or beer to the white hats

in the little town of Dewey-Culebra.

Every American is expected to make

needful sacrifices for the security of his

country, certainly when it is a matter of

his convenience compared to the pre-

paredness of the forces first committed

to lay down their lives in a challenge

to our national interests.

The good citizens of Puerto Rico would

be deeply insulted-and rightly so-to

have it suggested that they would be less

willing than their fellow citizens of any

other part of these United States to bear

their share of the burden of eternal


Communities across the country daily

endure a much greater burden of annoy-

ance and inconvenience for the sake of

their military neighbors-without nearly

the perfect record of safety which Cule-

bra can claim.

So we go back to the basic question-

disregarding for the moment even the

arguments of the dollar cost to our tax-

payers or the convenience of the naval

services-"Is this activity essential to

the defense requirements of these

United States?"

And I refer you to the testimony of

Rear Adm. A. R. Marschall, CEC, USN,

Commander, Naval Facilities Engineer-

ing Command, on page 907 of the hear-

ings on this bill-and let only those

better qualified contradict him-"Is this

range on Culebra essential?"

Admiral Marschall's answer:

Most Essential, Sir.

Mr. RONCALIO of Wyoming. Mr.

Chairman, I would like to take this op-

portunity to express my thanks to Chair-

man ROBERT SIKES of the Subcommittee

on Military Construction Appropriations

and the other members of the subcom-

mittee for recommending favorable ac-

tion on the construction of a composite

medical facility at F. E. Warren Air

Force Base in Cheyenne, Wyo.

As noted in the hearing record on the

legislation, Warren's medical facilities

were built in 1887 and have outlived their

usefulness as a base hospital. I heartily

agree with the subcommittee that it is

time for newer facilities to meet the new

demands of modern medical science.

I might point out that as well as serv-

ing the more than 4,400 officers, enlisted

men, and civilians at the base, this fa-

cility will provide medical treatment to

the thousands of retired servicemen liv-

ing in the State of Wyoming. I thank

the subcommittee and its chairman for

not only the men serving at Warren but

for the people of Wyoming.

FSE November 14, 197$

The CHAIRMAN. There being no fur-

ther requests for time, the Clerk will


Mr. SIKES (during the reading). Mr.

Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that

the bill be considered as read and open

to amendment at any point.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to

the request of the gentleman from


There was no objection.


Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I offer

an amendment.

(The portion of the bill to which the

amendment refers is as follows:)


For acquisition, construction, installation,

and equipment of temporary or permanent

public works, naval installations, and facil-

ities for the Navy as currently authorized in

military public works or military consrtuc-

tion Acts, and in sections 2673 and 2675 of

ttile 10, United States Code, including per-

sonnel in the Naval Facilities Engineering

Command and other personal services neces-

sary for the purposes of this appropriation,

$587,641,000, to remain available until ex-


The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. BARRETT: Page

2, line 12, strike the figure "8587,641,000"

and insert In lieu thereof "$582,437,000".

Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, this is

an amendment to reduce the appropria-

tions of funds for Navy construction by

the sum of $5.204 million, for the con-

struction of a building at Albany, Ga.,

which is intended to house the adminis-

trative functions of the Marine Corps

supply activity now located in Philadel-

phia, Pa.

Mr. Chairman, many of us from Penn-

sylvania have had extensive discussions

with the military-the DOD, Navy, and

Marine Corps-concerning this proposal.

We are firmly convinced that it is ill-

conceived and totally unwarranted. Fur-

ther, it is a needless expenditure of


The Marine Corps supply activity

serves as the single inventory control

point for the corps in support of the

operating forces and the supporting

establishments. It is also the sole activity

providing provisioning to support the in-

troduction of all new or modified end

items of equipment and systems, cata-

loging of all items of supply including

the preparation of all Marine Corps stock

lists and central computation and valida-

tion of prepositioned war reserve require-

ments, including the forced issue in sup-

port of contingency withdrawal plans.

This proposal was first presented in

April of this year to the employees. It was

explained at that time, that the proposed

relocation would ultimately result in an

annual savings to the Federal Govern-

ment of $2.6 million-primarily through

the reduction of maintenance cost and

to a lesser degree through the reduction

of overall personnel cost. A critical

scrutiny of this proposal, and the ra-

tionale which supports it, refutes the

reliability oT these anticipated economies.

The fact sheet prepared by the Ma-

rine Corps states that there are no facili-

ties available at Albany, Ga., for this

function and the initial estimate of con-

struction is $5.2 million. It was noted

i1Moember 14, 1973


that the age of the Philadelphia build-

ings had resulted in increasing annual

maintenance costs and programmed re-

quirements of $4,924,000 were currently

identified. Thus it was argued, the con-

tinued maintenance cost and out-year

military requirements exceeded 50 per-

cent of the cost to construct a new ad-

ministrative building at Albany, Ga. In

fact, the total funds expended in fiscal

year 1972 for the maintenance and re-

pair of the present facility in Phila-

delphia was only $357,703.35. The pro-

gramed requirements of almost $5 mil-

lion are based almost exclusively on fis-

cal year 1968 estimate of the cost of com-

plete central air conditioning of the

Philadelphia complex. This plan was

never implemented since 40 percent of

the administrative areas of the com-

mand are effectively air conditioned by

individual air conditioning units. Actual

time lost in administrative shutdowns

due to excessive heat has been negligible.

Specifically a portion of the workforce

has lost a total of 5 hours over the last 6

years ending June of this year.

Mr. Chairman, the initial cost estimate

has been set at $5.2 million by the mili-

tary. We know what these initial esti-

mates have been in -the past. They have

amounted to the camel getting his nose

under the corner of the tent. These esti-

mates are already several years old and

we know that the costs of construction

have increased greatly in the past several

years. There is no doubt in my mind that

once they get started on this building

they will be back asking for additional


The Marine Corps has expressed con-

cern over the availability of family hous-

ing units for the marines in Philadelphia.

It should be pointed out however, That

less than 6 years ago over 800 marines

and their families were adequately

housed and there are currently less than

200 marines, eligible for housing, on-

board. I doubt that serious problems of

military housing now exist.

The Marine Corps fact sheet frequently

refers to the proposed relocation as a

"consolidation of functions." The fact is

that the proposed move does not in any

way involve a change to the current mis-

sion of the activity. There is no change

or modification planned for any func-

tions now performed in Philadelphia and

thus there is no planned major modifi-

cation to the number and type of occupa-

tional specialists who now accomplish

the assigned mission. This in itself is

significant. An inventory control point

is responsible to perform a variety of

duties in the management of equipment.

ost of these responsibilities require a

professional expertise greater than that

of a purely clerical nature. The Marine

Corps inventory control point is unique

In that it manages all commodity areas;

electronic, missile, automotive, engineer,

ordnance, general property and clothing.

Highly qualified technical people are re-

ejkred to analyze the design of a radar

8t m or truck or refrigerator or missile

to determine which repair parts should

,4 acquired and the proper quantities for

entinued support. Technical people are

to analyze engineering drawings

te repair parts in order to properly

them. These are but a few of the

functions performed by the center. The

opinion of those who have visited Albany,

Ga., on other business for the Marine

Corps, there is a warehouse located there,

is generally that the area will not provide

for a future labor market of the type

required. In fact, inquiry has disclosed

that there are currently considerable va-

cancies at Albany for technical positions

which they have not been able to fill from

the local labor market.

Mr. Chairman, technically capable peo-

ple are vital to the function of this mili-

tary facility. The Marine Corps itself

states that out of the present 1034 civil-

ian positions in Philadelphia only 184 are

to be abolished by the proposed move to

Georgia and these are fringe jobs not

related to the basic function of the in-

ventory control operation.

They propose to move 984 positions.

The Corps itself estimates that of this

number from 250 to 350 personnel are

expected to relocate. The employee group

indicates that this is an optimistically

high figure. The large minority comple-

ment in Philadelphia will probably not

relocate because of area and the higher

housing costs compared to their present


It has been admitted that the present

Albany, Ga., labor market is unable to

supply the needed personnel to 1fill tech-

nical positions presently vacant in the

area. The Marine Corps is unable to re-

spond to the question and problem which

would result if this move takes place--

namely, where would the technical per-

sonnel come from?

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I submit

that this proposal by the Marine Corps

is not a consolidation in any sense of

the word and will not save the taxpayers

any money. It is a relocation which may

well jeopardize the efficient operation

and functioning of this activity and will

surely cost the taxpayers of this country

additional dollars in taxes.

I urge my colleagues to support my


Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in

support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the Marine Corps plan

to move the supply activity now located

in Philadelphia to Albany is an ill-con-

ceived, poorly planned operation.

I believe the decision was made simply

to show some activity on the part of the

Marine Corps in response to public de-

mands for a reduction in military spend-

ing. It is also my opinion that the cost-

savings figures presented in support of

this plan do not represent the true cost

to the taxpayers of this project.

The Marine Corps states that it will

have to construct a completely new fa-

cility in Albany, Ga., for $5.2 million. It

justifies this expense by stating that the

annual maintenance and programed re-

quirements of the present facility in

Philadelphia are $4.9 "million.

However, the fact is that in the last

fiscal year the maintenance and repair

costs to the Philadelphia plant were only

$375,703. The remaining $4.55 million

would be for the proposed air-condition-

ing of the entire facility which was first

suggested in 1968. This plan was never

implemented and 40 percent of the areas

which should be air-conditioned are al-

ready serviced by individual air-condi-

tioning units and estimates for taking

care of the remaining areas are con-

siderably lower than the original $4.9


Additionally, Mr. Chairman, the Ma-

rine Corps has not figured into its cost

projections the effect of this move on

the economy of the city of Philadelphia

and the surrounding suburbs.

The loss in much needed revenue to

our public transportation system which

serves the Marine facility will eventually

have to be made up by other Federal

agencies along with the reduction in

payments to our school systems now

made through impacted aid grants.

As I said before, this is an ill-con-

ceived, poorly planned decision and I

urge my colleagues to support Congress-

man BARRETT'S amendment to strike

funds for this project from the military

appropriations bill.

Mr. GREEN of Pennsylvania. Mr.

Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. EILBERG. I yield to the gentle-

man from Pennsylvania.

(Mr. GREEN of Pennsylvania asked

and was given permission to revise and

extend his remarks.)

[Mr. GREEN of Pennsylvania ad-

dressed the Committee. His remarks will

appear hereafter in the Extensions of Re-

marks. ]

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I

move to strike the requisite number of

words, and I rise in support of the


(Mr. WILLIAMS asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his


Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, we

have heard something here today about

saving money, and I can tell the Mem-

bers that one of the best ways by which

we can save $5.2 million plus is to adopt

the amendment offered by the gentle-

man from Pennsylvania (Mr. BARRETT).

The Marine Corps supply activity is

located at Broad and Washington

Streets in Philadelphia. It is in no part

of my district. However, I visited there,

and they have substantial buildings,

with a very low maintenance cost. I

do not understand why they want to air-

condition parts of the building in which

only uniforms and things of that nature

will be stored. The fact of the matter is

that the building is now 40 percent air-


Now, as far as the Broad and Wash-

ington Street location is concerned, the

railroads run right into the Marine

Corps supply activity, the truck ter-

minals are right there, and 14 blocks

~way there is the Delaware River, one

of the biggest ports in the country. So

if the Marine Corps wants to ship any-

thing any place in the world, they can.

Mr. Chairman, the irony of this whole

thing is that just about 12 blocks away

from this spot there is the Tunn Tavern,

where it is reported the Marine Corps

was founded. And now, after spending

substantial sums of money on modern-

izing these buildings in Philadelphia,

they want to turn around and spend $5.2

million some place else for new buildings.

I can tell the Members that this $5.2

million figure was developed almost a

year ago, and since that time building

H 10017

H 10018 COu

expenses have increased by some 30 per-

cent. So if we want to save some money,

without taking anything away from any-

body, and keeping an installation in a

very strategic location where all forms

of transportation are readily available to

it, we should adopt the amendment

offered by the gentleman from Pennsyl-

vania (Mr. BARRETT) and keep the

Marine Corps supply activity in Phila-


Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, I move to

strike the requisite number of words,

and I rise in opposition to the amend-


Mr. Chairman, first let me state that

I rise reluctantly to oppose the amend-

ment of my distinguished friend, the

gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. BAR-

RETT is a distinguished and able Mem-

ber, a very kindly gentleman, and a

warm personal friend. I know that this

is a matter of great concern to him. I

applaud him for the zeal with which

he fights for the interests of his own


Now I must give to the House the

justification submitted by the Depart-

ment of the Navy in support of the pro-

posed transfer of supply activities from

Philadelphia to Albany, Ga. The subcom-

mittee went carefully and fully into the

proposal. It is the Navy's position that

by this move the Marine Corps will be

'able to effect significant personnel

strength reductions and cost savings.

By this move the Marine Corps will

reduce 184 civilian and 50 military per-

sonnel commencing in fiscal year 1976,

when the move will take place, the Gov-

ernment will experience $1.2 million in

savings because of these personnel cuts.

Thereafter the annual personnel savings

will amount to $2.6 million each year.

Mr. Chairman, the old Marine Corps

facility in Philadelphia consists of build-

ings which date back to 1908, which were

not designed for their present use and

needs. By this transfer we shall avoid $4.9

million in improvement costs which are

absolutely necessary to the Philadelphia


The committee supports the move for

these reasons:

Colocation of the inventory control

and data processing installations and the

materiel which is at Albany.

The naval air station at Albany is

closing at the end of this year. We can

use facilities and quarters there for the

incoming people. The individual marine

can live on post, not subsist out on the

Philadelphia community as he must now.

There is very large and relatively new

facility now in existence in Albany. This

is a proposal to consolidate a small fa-

cility with a larger one. Consolidation of

the two facilities is realistic. Albany can

accommodate the move. The Navy asks

for one administration building to be

constructed at Albany which costs $5.2


I urge the amendment of the gentle-

man from Pennsylvania be defeated.

'Mr. BARRETt. Will the gentleman


Mr. SIKES. I yield to the gentleman

from Pennsylvania (Mr. BARRETT).

Mr. BARRETI'. I would like to point

out to the gentleman that we have given

long study to this relocation with the De-


partment of Defense, the Navy, and the

MBarine Corps and have searched out

every possible facet as to its maintenance

and durability. The gentleman spoke

very kindly about the need of substantial

maintenance in another 2 years. I would

like to inform the gentleman that there

will be no need of substantial mainte-

nance to the Marine Corps building in

Philadelphia for the next 15 or 20 years.

It is a very fine structure; the exterior

and interior architecture are comparable

to that of any building. I just cannot see

why the Government wants to spend $5.2

million at this time when we are clamor-

ing for economy.

Mr. SIKES. If I may respond,, this

building was constructed in 1908 and

Navy witnesses said that substantial ren-

ovation will be required if it will con-

tinue to be used. I am giving you the in-

formation that was given to my commit-

tee in support of the move. They estimate

these costs would be more than $4 mil-

lion, which is very close to the cost of the

new facility at Albany. I am sure their

analysis of the cost was made carefully

and that they are considered accurate.

Mr. MATHIS of Georgia. Mr. Chair-

man, I rise in opposition to the amend-


Mr. Chairman, it also gives me a great

deal of pain to rise in opposition to the

amendment offered by my friend from

Philadelphia, who is an eloquent spokes-

man for his district and State, but the

facts outlined by the distinguished chair-

man of the subcommittee speak for


There will be substantial savings ef-

fected by this move from Philadelphia to

Albany, Ga. The chairman touched on

those very briefly and effectively, I think.

The chairman mentions and I think I

should emphasize that there are at the

present time 630 Capehart housing units

that are among the best available any-

where which will be available immedi-

ately for the military people being trans-

ferred to Albany, Ga.

Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield?

Mr. MATHIS of Georgia. I will be de-

lighted to yield to the gentleman from


Mr. BARRETt. Mr. Chairman, I would

state to the gentleman from Georgia

that we have made a very, very thorough

check on this, and our findings indicate

to us that they do not have the person-

nel involved who would be capable of

performing the services comparable to

what they have been doing here in Phil-

adelphia for the last close to 150 years.

Mr. MATHIS of Georgia. May I say to

the gentleman from Pennsylvania, with

all due respect, that I think if the gen-

tleman would check that he would cer-

tainly find personnel in Georgia who are

just as capable as personnel in Philadel-

phia, Pa.

I do not want to boil this down to a

fight between districts, because I have

too much respect for my friend, the gen-

tleman from Pennsylvania.

Let me also say to my friend that I am

losing a military installation in my dis-

trict in Albany, Ga., which is being im-

plemented, and I may say that this give:

me a great deal of pain to lose that fa.

cility because there are a number of mill-

JSE November 14,

tary personnel involved in it. But I sait.

say that the bulk of the actiities are

being transferred to Key West, and I

do not feel that it Is my responsibility

to raise an issue, or to try to block the

move of the Navy from Albany, Ga., to

Key West.

So, as I say, I do not want to break this

down as to an issue concerning the ca-

pabilities of the workers in Georgia aver--

sus the workers in Pennsylvania.

I simply think that the committee has

done its homework, the Marine Corpsa

has done its homework, and I would urge

the defeat of the amendment.

Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, io the

gentleman would yield further, I am sure

the gentleman from Georgia would cer-

tainly defend the relocation of an instal-

lation where there was going to be a sev-

ings to the taxpayers of $5.2 million. I

believe that the gentleman from Georgia

is a good Congressman, and I have great

respect for the gentleman, but where the

gentleman could save $5 million the gen-

tleman would do it. And I am quite sure

we can saye the taxpayers $5.2 nillin.

Mr. MATHIS of Georgia. I would say

to the distinguished gentleman from

Philadelphia that we have been told that

we are going to effect a savings of $2.6

million annually based solely on the per-

sonnel, and. it would not take very long

at annual savings of $2.6 million to make

up the $5.2 million of new constrctden


Again I urge defeat of .the amendment.

Mr. PEYSER. Mr. Chairman, .I move

to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield?

Mr. PEYSER. I yeld to the gentleman

from Pennsylvania.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I

would like to call to the attention of the

chairman of the subcommittee that the

gentleman has been furnished erroneous

information by the Navy. In a similar

move we were told it would cost $28 mil-

lion, and when we informed them they

left out $6 million, they promptly re-

duced the cost to $20.1 million. Anpone

knows that one cannot build a building

for $5.2 million and at the same time

save $2.6 million on personnel.

It is quite true that this building was

built in 1908, but the Members should

see the construction of that building, the

all masonry construction. It was built

to last for at least 100 years, and substan-

tial sums have already been spent in the

renovation of this building in Philadel-


As far as savings are concerned, they

are entirely fictitious, because they are

not going to save $2.6 million in salaries

over this period of time. In fact, with the

enlisted personnel that we have there it

would not permit anywhere near a sav-

ings of $2.6 million.

The gentleman has give us he Navy

case. I must say to my distinguished col-

league, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.

SnCES) that we questioned the Navy, and

they have not been able to substantiate

their figures. And in the other anmilar

move which I previously mentioned, they

came down $8 million when they should

s have been going up $8 million.

So, all that I can say is that if we want

to save money and use what we have a1-

ember 14, 1973 CO

now in the facility, that is being

'ted very, very efficiently, then do not

waste the money on building new build-

tngs some place else, even if you want to

bulfd them in my own district in Penn-

sylvania, which is not Philadelphia.

Let us use what we have now and let

us stop throwing our money away on

military programs where it can be used

more helpfully in other ways by the mili-

tary or by other agencies.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance

of my time.

Mr. TALCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise

in opposition to the amendment.

(Mr. TALCOTIT asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his re-


Mr. TALCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I share

the respect that the chairman of the

committee indicated for the gentleman

from Philadelphia and those who are

interested in the Philadelphia installa-

tion. I should just like to say that the

reason our subcommittee and our full

committee made this proposal was to

save money, to consolidate facilities, to

improve working and living conditions,

and to permit better management of the

Marine Supply Services. We were trying

to consolidate facilities wherever we

could and to do it in the most efficient

manner. We were told that the renova-

tion and modernization at Philadelphia

was simply not economical or practical.

At least, that was the information given

to us. We were told that this inventory

control function would be more effective

and less costly at Albany. There are exist-

t ing data processing and other supporting

functions there that are necessary to the

materiel and supply functions and which

will allow considerable reductions in

overhead costs.

We were only trying to save money

and improve the services.

Mr. GROSS.-Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. TALCOTT. I yield to the gentle-

man from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. As a compromise, why

not move the "installation out to Iowa?

We do not have any military installa-

tions and we will not feed them grits

and fat pork.

Mr. TALCOTT. I think the gentleman

from Iowa may have a good idea:

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield?

Mr. TALCOTT. I yield to the gentle-

man from -Pennsylvania.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I thank the gentle-

man for yielding.

In answer to. the question that was

asked about the necessary personnel,

when the new Clinton Industries Ship-

yards were being built in Mississippi or

Louisiana-whichever they were-where

do the Members think they were recruit-

ing their personnel? At the Philadelphia

4daal Shipyard, at the Sun Shipbuild-

ing Co., and in the areas around Phila-

delphia. We have those highly skilled

personnel there right now. Let us keep

them there, and let us save at least $8

Million by adopting this amendment.

w The CHAIRMAN. The question is on

the amendment offered by the gentle-

1an from Pennsylvania (Mr. BARRETT).


The question was taken; and on a divi-

sion (demanded by Mr. BARRETT) there

were-ayes 21, noes 54.

Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I de-

mand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my request

for a recorded vote and I make the point

of order that a quorum is not present.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will


One hundred eight Members are pres-

ent, a quorum.

Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, surely

I can make a request for a recorded vote


Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded


A recorded vote was refused.

So the amendment was rejected.

(Mr. GROSS asked and was given per-

mission to revise and extend his re-


Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to

strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask the chair-

man of the subcommittee a question or

two concerning this bill. On the face of

It, it appears to call for $2,609,000,000

which is an increase of approximately

$286 million over expenditures for mili-

tary construction in 1973, the last fiscal

year. What precisely causes this increase

over last year, this increase of $286


Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentleman

from Florida.

Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, a great deal

of the additional cost of this bill is the

result of increased family housing operat-

ing and maintenance costs and addi-

tional costs of construction. Inflation has

entered very strongly into all the con-

struction programs. Then there are

several new programs such as Trident for

which the just construction funds are

provided. The amount of $112 million

and an increase of $130 million for

Army bachelor quarters which amount

for the rest of the increase. We feel that

the increase over last year is a modest


I think what is of the greatest signifi-

cance is that this bill as a result of the

action of the authorizing committees and

the House Appropriation Committees is

cut $335 million below the total request

of $2,944 million. That is a very signifi-

cant reduction and I believe it is all that

can be cut.

Mr. GROSS. Can the gentleman give

us a figure as to the added cost of this

bill in terms of the devaluation of the


Mr. SIKES. I think the gentleman can

figure that as well as I can but it has

had its effect and of course it means

everything is costing more.

Mr. GROSS. I understand that but I

just wondered how 'much more was added

to this bill by virtue of devaluation.

Mr. SIKES. No funds were added to

the bill by the committee as a result of


Mr. GROSS. It is mentioned in the

report on the bill that devaluation has

added to the cost.

Mr. SIKES. Devaluation has.

JSE H 10019

Mr. GROSS. But there is no figure


Mr. SIKES. Devaluation has added to

the cost but no money was added because

of that.

Mr. BURKE of Massachusetts. Mr.

Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentleman

from Massachusetts.

Mr. BURKE of Massachusetts. I might

point out to the gentle man from Iowa

he should ask where are the savings that

were made as a result of all those clos-

ings in Massachusetts and Rhode Is-

land? They were cited as saving hun-

dreds of millions of dollars in their

claims, but in looking over the budget

for the next year I see they are coming

in and asking for millions of dollars more

for housing down in Norfolk that they

have to build to provide housing for per-

sonnel. Every time they close an instal-

lation the cost goes up.

Mr. GROSS. The gentleman has raised

an excellent question. I fail to see any-

where any result by way of savings from

the closings of bases and other installa-


Mr. SIKES. If the gentleman will yield

further, I will again call to his attention

figures which were used In my discussion

earlier, in which I did discuss the base

closure picture and the amount of sav-

ings which the Government anticipates

will result. It Is anticipated that the sav-

ings will be $3.5 bililon over the next 10

years. These actions would result in the

elimination of 42,800 military and civil-

ian positions.

Obviously, there is not going to be a

great deal of savings In the first year.

This is the first year. It may even cost

more in the first year because of the re-

location of personnel and the cost of

closing bases. But, in the next 10 years

the Department will save $3.5 billion.

Mr. GROSS. Apparently inflation is

feeding on itself, as evidenced by this

bill. If inflation continues I would hesi-

tate to predict whether there would be

any savings on the closing of these bases

in the next 10 years.

Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, I move that

the Committee do now rise and report

the bill back to the House, with the rec-

ommendation that the bill do pass.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly, the Committee rose; and

the Speaker having resumed the chair,

Mr. ANNUNZIO, chairman of the Commit-

tee of the Whole House on the State of

the Union, reported that that Commit-

tee, having had under consideration the

bill (H.R. 11459) making appropriations

for military construction for the Depart-

ment of Defense for the fiscal year end-

ing June 30, 1974, and for other purposes,

had directed him to report the bill back

to the House, with the recommendation

that the bill do pass.

The SPEAKER. Without objection, the

previous question is ordered.

There was no objection.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the

engrossment and third reading of the


The bill was ordered to be engrossed

and read a third time, and was read the

third time.

H 10020

The SPEAKER. The question is on the

passage of the bill.

The question was taken; and the

Speaker announced that the ayes ap-

peared to have it.

Mr. SCHERLE. Mr. Speaker, I object

to the vote on the ground that a quorum

is not present and make the point of

order that a quorum is not present.

The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is

not present.

The Sergeant at Arms will notify ab-

sent Members.

The vote was taken by electronic de-

vice, and there were--yeas 366, nays 29,

not voting 38, as follows:

[Roll No. 585]








Andrews, N.C.


N. Dak.






























Brown, Calif.

Brown, Mich.

Broyhill, N.C.

Broyhill, Va.


Burke, Fla

Burke, Mass.

Burleson, Tex.

Burlison, Mo.





Carey, N.Y.

Carney, Ohio


Casey, Tex.





Don H.

Clawson, Del





Collins, Tex.










Daniel, Dan

Daniel, Robei

W., Jr.


Dominick N


Davis. Ga.

Davis. S.C.

de la Garza















du Pont


Edwards, a.




Evans. Colo.

Evins, Tenn.









Ford, Gerald R.


William D.




















Green, Oreg.














Hansen. Idaho

Hansen, Wash.





rt Hibert



r. Henderson
















Johnson, Calif.

Johnson, Colo.

Johnson, Pa

Jones, Ala.

Jones, N.C.

Jones. Okla.

Jones. Tenn.
















Long, La.

Long, Md.





















Martin, Nebr.

Martin, N.C.

Mathias, Cailf.

Mathis Ga.













Minshall, Ohio

Mitchell, N.Y.





November 14, 1973,

The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.

A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.

Moorhead, Rogers Tay lor, M.

Calif. Roncallo, Wyo. Talor, N.C.

Moorhead, Pa. Roncallo. N.Y. Teague, Calif.

Morgan Rooney. Pa. Thomson, Wis

Mosher Rose Thone

Moss Roush Thornton

Murphy, Ill. Rousselot ToweU, Nev.

Myers Roy Treen

Natcher Roybal Ullman

Nedzi Runnels Van Deerlin

Nelsen Ruppe Vander Jagt

Nichols Ruth Vanik

Obey Ryan Veysey

O'Hara Sandman Vigorito

O'Neill Sarasin Walsh

Owens Sarbanes Wampler

Parris Satterfield Ware

Passman Scherle Whalen

Patten Schneebeli White

Pepper Seiberling Whitehurst

Perkins Shipley Whitten

Pettis Shoup Widnall

Peyser Shriver Wiggins

Pickle Shuster Williams

Pike sikes Wilson, Bob

Poage Sisk Wilson.

Podell Slack Charles H.,

Powell, Ohio Smith, Iowa Calif.

Preyer Smith, N.Y. Wilson,

Price, Ill. Snyder Charles, Tex.

Price, Tex. Staggers Wlnn

Pritchard Stanton, Wolff

Quie J. William Wright

Quillen Stanton, Wyatt

Railsback James V. Wydler

Randall Steed Wylie

Rarick Steele Wyman

Rees Steelman Yates

Regula Steiger, Ariz. Yatron

Reuses Steiger, Wis. Young, Alaska

Rhodes Stephens Young, Fla

Riegle Stokes Young, Ill.

Rinaldo Stratton Young. Tex.

Robinson., Va. Stubblefield Zablocki

Robison, N.Y. Sullivan . Zion

Rodino Symington

Roe Talcott


Badillo Gross Sebelius

Barrett Harrington Skubitz

Bingham Hechler, W. Vs. Stark

Chisholm Heckler, Mass. Studds

Clay Holtzman Bymns

Conyers Kastenmeier Thompson, N.J.

Drinan Mitchell, Md. Waldie

Edwards, Calif. Moakley Young, Ga,

Eilberg Nix Zwach

Green, Pa. Rangel


Abzug Dlngell Rooney, N.Y.

Anderson, ll. Fraser Rosenthal

Blackburn Harvey Rostenkowaki

Blatnik Hunt St Germain

Brasco Keating Schroeder

Brown, Ohio Kluczynski Spence

Buchanan Latta Stuckey

Burke, Calif. Mills, Ark. Teague, Tex.

Chamberlain Murphy, N.Y. Tiernan

Clancy O'Brien Udall

Collins, Ill. Patman Waggonner

Davis, Wis. Reid Young, S.C.

Dellums Roberts

So the bill was passed.

The Clerk announced the following


Mr. Rooney of New York with Mr. Stuckey.

Mr. Brasco with Mr. Young of South Caro-


Mr. Blatnik with Mr. Anderson of Illinois.

Mr. Kluczynski with Mr. Davis of Wis-


Mr. St Germain with Mr. Brown of Ohio.

Mr. Rostenkowski with Mr. Blackburn.

Mr. Mills of Arkansas with Mr. O'Brien.

Mrs. Burke of California with Mr. Reid.

Mr. Dellums with Ms. Absug.

Mrs. Collins of Illinois with Mr. Rosen-


Mr. Dingell with Mr. Patman.

Mrs. Schroeder with Mr. Fraser.

Mr. Hunt with Mr. Chamberlain.

Mr. Spence with Mr. Clancy.

Mr. Waggonner with Mr. Buchanan.

Mr. Murphy of New York with Mr. Harvey.

Mr. Teague of Texas with Mr. Keating.

Mr. Tiernan with Mr. Letta.

Mr. Roberts with Mr. Udall.


Mr. SIKES. Mr. Spe e

mous consent that all

5 legislative days in w c

extend their remarks



the request of the e


There was no obj



permission to address

minute, to revise and

and include extraneous


September 26, togeth v

gushed gentleman

PEPPER) introduced H. .

extend the nutrition r

Elderly Act for 3 year

Evidence of the ov

tisan support enjoyed

Mr. Speaker, is that s

Members of the House.

the aisle, have join

from Florida and me

this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the n

for the elderly began

program under the Old r

of 1965, and last year i

ongoing service when

whelmingly approved

gram for the Elderly

title of the Older Amer

Because of several

of Labor-HEW app

which included funds

program, the act is

to be implemented.

But the program, Mr.

partisan issue. For Con

strated its support for

gram by appropriating.

the President, as well,

backing by requesting

implement nutrition

the land.

Mr. Speaker, when

fully implemented, 'n

will be able to provide

meal a day, 5 days a we

of Americans aged 60


And the meals can b

in community centers,

and churches, but als

homes of elderly shut-'

Mr. Speaker,\ the

which Mr. PEPPER and I

would authorize $150

and $175 million and $20

tively, for 1976 and197

Surely, Mr. Speaker

these modest increases

which is, even now, ass

poor, who, living on

now the victims of the

a generation.

Mr. Speaker, just 2 d

tleman from Florida


r, I ask unani-

nbers may have

h to revise and

i the bill just

re objection to

ntleman 'from


and was given

He House for 1

nd his remarks


SSpeaker, on

ith the distin-

Florida (Mr.

10551 . a bill to

ogram for the

he g bipar-

y this program,

a that date 137

n both sides -of

the gentleman

n oospensoring

rition program


SAmericans Act

evolved into ag

Congress over-

Snutrition pro-

t as a separate

ens Act.

sidential vetoes

iriations bill,

r the nutttion

now beginning

peaker, is not a

'ess has demon-

nutrition pro-

unds for it, and

is evidenced his

$100 million to

programs across

his program is

trition centers

e hot. nutritious

, for thousands

Id over in every

served not only

such as schools

directly in the


1, H.R. 10551,

aave introduced,

million for 1975,

million, respec-

we can afford

this program

ting the elderly

d incomes, are

orst inflation in

s after the gen-

Id Introduced

november 19, 1978


(b) No funds made available under any

Act may be used f the purchase, hire, or

operation and maintance of any passenger

motor vehicle for the\ transportation of any

Government officer or ~pployee between his

dwelling and his place o employment, except

in cases of medical offiars on outpatient

medical service and except 4n cases of officers

and employees engaged in fledwork in remote

areas, the character of whoSe duties make

such transportation necessa and only

when such exceptions are appl ed by the

head of the department concern .

(c) Bubsections (a) and (b) \hall not

apply with respect to the purch e, hire,

operation, and maintenance of ( ) pas-

senger motor vehicles for use by the esl-

dent; and one each by the Chief J tice,

members of the President's Cabinet, and\the

elected leaders of the Congress; or (2) of

passenger motor vehicles operated to provide

regularly scheduled service on fixed routes.


CoNCEsser-The President shall report to

the Congress every sixty days, beginning De-

cember 1, 1978, on the administration of this

Act and the Emergency Petroleum Alloca-

tion Act of 1978, and each report shall in-

clude specific information, nationally and

by region and State, concerning staffing and

other administrative arrangements taken to

carry out programs under these Acts, to-

gether with specific budget estimates for

such programs.

Sac. 605. Uss Os CARPooLs.--(a) The Sec-

retary of Transportation shall encourage the

creation and expansion of the use of car-

pools as a viable component of our nation-

wide transportation system. It is the in-

tent of this subsection to maximize the level

of carpool participation in America.

(b) The Secretary of the United States

Department of Transportation is directed to

establish within the Department of Trans-

portation an "Office of Car Pool Promotion"

whose purpose and responsibilities will in-


(1) responding to any and all requests

for information and technical assistance on

carpooling and carpooling systems from

units of State and local governments and

private groups and employees;

(2) promoting greater participation in

carpooling through public information and

the preparation of such materials for use

by State and local governments;

(8) encouraging and promoting private

organizations to organize and operate car-

pool systems for employees;

(4) promoting the cooperation and shar-

ing of responsibilities between separate, yet

proximately close, unite of government in

coordinating the operations of carpool sye'

teams; and

(5) other such measures that the Secre-

tory determines appropriate to achieve the

oal of this subsection.

(o)' The Secretary of Transportatfon shall

encourage and promote the use ofAincentives

Such as special parking privileges, special

.roadway lanes, toll reductionsAnd other in-

centives as may be found beneficial to the

furtherance of carpool ride ip.

(d) The Secretary of Tr nsportation is di-

rected to allocate the tnds appropriated

pursuant to this subse on according to the

following distributio between the Federal

and State or local ufts of government:

(1) The initial /planning process-up to

100 percent Federal.

(2) The systems design process-up to

100 percent Federal.

(8) The initial start-up and operation of

a iven system-60o percent Federal and 40

:flt State or local with the Federal por-

' hot to exceed one year.

i "~() Within twelve months of enactment

- this le0gation the Secretary shall make a

> to Congress of all its activities and

I ittre pursuant to this subsection.

This shall include any recommendation as

to future legislation concerning carpooling.

(f) The sum of $25,000,000 is authorized

to be appropriated for the conduct of pro-

grams designed to achieve the goals of this

subsection, such authorization to remain

available for two years.


ERAL PRODUCTION.-The President is author-

ized to allocate residual fuel oil and refined

petroleum products in such amounts and in

such manner as may be necessary for the

maintenance of exploration for, and produc-

tion or extraction and processing of, min-

erals, and for required transportation related



ERs.-(a) As used in this section-

(1) "Distributor" means an oil company

engaged in the sale, consignment, or distri-

bution of petroleum products to wholesale or

retail outlets whether or not it owns, leases,

or in any way controls such outlets.

(2) "Franchise" means any agreement or

contract between a refiner or a distributor

and a retailer or between a refiner and a

distibutor, under which such retailer or

distributor is granted authority to use a

trader4ark, trade name, service mark, or

other identifying symbol or name owned by

such refijer or distributor, or any agreement

or contract between such parties under

which such retailer or distributor is granted

authority to' occupy premises owned, leased,

or in any way controlled by a party to such

agreement or contract, for the purpose of

engaging in the distribution or sale of petrol-

eum products for purposes other than resale.

(3) "Notice of tptent" means a written

statement of the alleged facts which, if true,

constitute a violation of subsection (b) of

this section.

(4) "Petroleum pribduct" means any

liquid refined from oilh nd useable as a


(5) "Refiner" means an ' il company en-

gaged in the refining or importing of petro-

leum products.

(6) "Retailer" means an oil . ompany en-

gaged in the sale of any petroleum product

for purposes other than resale thin any

State, either under a franchise or inde-

pendent of any franchise, or who was so en-

gaged at any time after the start of the

base period.

(b) (1) A refiner or distributor shall not

cancel, fail to renew, or otherwise terminate

a franchise unless he furnishes prior notifi-

cation pursuant to this paragraph to each

distributor or retailer affected thereby. Such

notification shall be in writing and sent to

such distributor or retailerby certified mail

not less than ninety days prior to the date

on which such franchise will be canceled,

not renewed, or otherwise terminated. Such

notification shall contain a statement of in-

tention to cancel, not renew, or to terminate

together with the reasons therefor, the date

on which such action shall take effect, and

a statement of the remedy or remedies avail-

able to such distributor or retailer under this

section together with a summary of the ap-

plicable provisions of this section.

(2) A refiner or distributor shall not can-

cel, fail to renew, or otherwise terminate a

franchise unless the retailer or distributor

whose franchise is terminated failed to com-

ply substantially with any essential and

reasonable requirement of such franchise or

failed to act in good faith in carrying out the

terms of such franchise, or unless such re-

finer or distributor withdraws entirely from

the sale of petroleum products in commerce

for sale other than resale in the United


(c) (1) If a refiner or distributor engages

in conduct prohibited under subsection (b)

of this section, a retailer or a distributor

may maintain a suit against such refiner or

distributor. A retailer may maintain such-

suit against a distributor or a refiner whose

actions affect commerce and whose products

with respect to conduct prohibited under

paragraphs (1) or (2) of subsection (b) of

this section, he sells or has sold, directly or

indirectly, under a franchise. A distributor

may maintain such suit against a refiner

whose actions affect commerce and whose

products he purchases or has purchased or

whose products he distributes or has dis-

tributed to retailers.

(2) The court shall grant such equitable

relief as is necessary to remedy the effects

of conduct prohibited under subsection (b)

of this section which it finds to exist, includ-

ing declaratory judgment and mandatory or

prohibitive injunctive relief. The court may

grant interim equitable relief, and punitive

damages where indicated, in suits under this

section, and may, unless such suit is frivo-

lous,' direct that costs, including reasonable

attorney and expert witness fees, be paid by

the defendant. The court may also grant an

award for actual damages resulting from the

cancellation, failure to renew, or termina-

tion of a franchise.

(3) A suit under this section may be

brought in the district court of the United

States for any judicial district in which the

distributor or the refiner against whom such

suit is maintained resides, is found, or is

doing business, without regard to the

amount in controversy. No such suit shall

be maintained unless commenced within

three years after the cancellation, failure to

renew, or termination of such franchise or

the modification thereof.

The title was amended so as to read:

"A bill to declare by congressional action

a nationwide energy emergency; to authorize

the President to immediately undertake spe-

cific actions to conserve scarce fuels and

increase supply; to invite the development of

local, State. National, and international con-

tingency plans; to assure the continuation

of vital public services; and for other pur-


Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, I move

that the vote by which the bill was.

passed be reconsidered.

Mr.. FANNIN. Mr. President, I move

to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was

agreed to.

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the Secretary

of the Senate be authorized, in the en-

ossment of the bill, to make certain

nical and clerical corrections.


DIc) . Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mi, MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I

simply, wish to take this opportunity to

extend'- ny gratitude and the gratitude

of the entire Senate to the Senator from

Washington (Mr. JACKSON). His able

handling o, this emergency energy pro-

posal reflects well upon each and every

Member of this body. With the passage

of this proposal goes the clear message

that the Senate of the United States

has initiated action to meet the Nation's

energy crisis while the executive branch

and its so-called experts have failed to

provide any measures to offset our cur-

rent difficulties. I congratulate Senator

JACKSON. I congratulate the Senate.

Mr. FANNIN. Mr. President, let me

take this opportunity to compliment my

many colleagues who worked so dili-

gently on this bill, S. 2589. Particularly

let me commend the chairman of the

Interior Committee, Senator JACKSON,

for his fair and impartial handling of

S, 20773

S 20774 co]

this most important legislation. Also, I

want to recognize the hard work of the

Senator front Wyoming (Mr. HANSEN)

for his untiring efforts to fashion a bill

that will acdomplish the many essen-

tials necessary to meet this energy crisis.

Mr. President, I thank also Mr. Harri-

son Loesch, Itterior Committee minority

counsel; Mr. avid Stang, deputy coun-

sel for the minority on energy and fuels;

and Mr. Fred Craft, deputy minority

counsel for the Interior Committee, for

their long hours and expertise on this

bill, which saw 17 rollcall votes today. Let

me thank als4 Mr. Bill Van Ness, major-

ity counsel, apd Mr. Mike Harvey, spe-

cial counsel, ;for their many contribu-


Mr. President, with further regard to

our distinquidhed chairman, I commend

him again his leadership as floor

manager of tis bill. The President called

for early acti n on his emergency energy

legislation, a d Senator JACKSON indeed

responded a ith early hearings and

prompt com ittee action on this bill.

Although the general spirit of coopera-

tion on this )ill was basically nonpar-

tisan through ut, I was somewhat disap-

pointed that e ch of the amendments the

administratio requested on this bill-

specifically amendments Nos. 690,

691, 692, 693, nd 671, and Senator HAN-

sEN's amend ent No. 682-were opposed

by the manage r of the bill and, as a re-

sult of his op Dition, defeated.

Mr. Preside t, this bill entailed a tre-

mendous am unt of work. I am very

pleased that e have had the full co-

operation of t e people I have mentioned.



keep the regul

stance, I ask

there now be

of morning bu

3 minutes at



objection, it is ;


IELD. Mr. President, to

Ir procedure in its correct

unanimous consent that

a period for the conduct

aness with a time limit of

ached thereto for each


o ordered.


A message i

dent of the Un

cated to the E

of his secretary

L writing from the Presi-

ted States was communi-

mate by Mr. Marks, one


As in exec ive session, the Presid-

ing Officer ( 4r. HELMS) laid before

the Senate a njssage from the President

of the United ates submitting the nom-

ination of R ymond C. Anderson, of

Michigan, to e Federal Cochairman of

the Upper Gr at Lakes Regional Com-

mission, which was referred to the Com-

mittee on Pub Works.



The PRESIrENT pro tempore laid be-

fore the Senaite the following letters,

which were referred as indicated:



A letter from

transmitting, p

report on the

United States

ended June 30,

report). Referr



A letter fro

for Treaty Affa

transmitting, p

ternational agr

entered into w


mittee on Fore


A letter from

Conference of

ting a draft of

large the trial

magistrates to

demeanors (wit

ferred to the


A letter front

Defense for Le

for the info

showing the en

partment of

papers). Ordere

In the REC

in the third c


partments," t



A letter front

Defense, report

of property, su

vided by the

the German Off

July 1, 1973 thr

ferred to the C

The referee

Armed Service

reference is to


Petitions we

and referred a

By the PT

A resolution


lie on the table:



he Secretary of the Treasury

irsuant to law, the annual

tate of the finances of the

,vernment for the fiscal year

.972 (with an accompanying

i to the Committee on Fi-



the Assistant Legal Adviser

of the Department of State

rsuant to law, copies of in-

ements other than treaties

hin the past 60 days (with

epers). Referred to the Com-

n Relations.



the Director of the Judicial

he United States transmit-

proposed legislation to en-

urisdiction of United States

encompass additional mis-

accompanying papers). Re-

ommittee on the Judiciary.



the Assistant Secretary of

slative Affairs transmitting,

lon of the Senate, material

rgy consumption of the De-

,fense (with accompanying

Sto lie on the table.


RD of November 15, 1973,

lumn, page 520408 under

ns From Executive De-

e following appears:



the Assistant Secretary of

g, pursuant to law, the value

lies, and comomdities pro-

rlin Magistrate, and under

t Agreement for the quarter

ugh September 30, 1973. Re-

mmittee on Armed Services

e to the Committee on

is in error. The correct

the Committee on Appro-


e laid before the Senate


ESIDENT pro tempore:

opted by the Senate of the

f Massachusetts. Ordered to

"Memorializing ithe Congress of the United

States to enact legislation permitting year-

round dayligl4t saving time

"Whereas, Daylight saving time, in effect

for only half of the year in many states of

the United States, including Massachusetts,

s greeted with' enthusiasm as a means of

lengthening daylight hours; and

"Whereas, In these critical days of fuel

shortages and energy crises, especially In

New England, longer daylight hours would

help alleviate the necessity for increased fuel

consumption; and

"Whereas, Oil, heat and fuel have become

an open instrument of Arab and Soviet Mili-

tary and foreign policy; the conservation of

United States oall resources through the ex-

tension of daylight saving time will help

relieve international

blackmail cartel; and

"Whereas, Addition

provide several other

izene of the Commo

traffic accidents, less

the opportunity for i

activities; now, the

"Resolved, That th

memorializes the C

States to enact leg

present daylight savi

able the Commonwi

and other states to ad

saving time; and be

"Resolved, That co

be sent forthwith bi

Parliamentarian to

each branch of the

States and to each m


"Senate, adopted, 1N

pressures of the oil

daylight hours would

advantages to the cit-

twealth, such as fewer

incidence of crime and

Sreased outdoor leisure

fore, be it

Massachusetts Senate

ngress of 'the United

elation amending the

ng time statute to en-

alth of Massachusetts

pt year-round daylight

it further

pies of these resolutions

the Senate Clerk and

he presiding officer of

congress of the United

ember thereof from the

ovember 6, 1973."

- I


The following reports of committees

were submitted:

By Mr. MANSFIELD, from the Committee

on Appropriations, with amendments:

H.R. 11459. An act making appropria-

tions for military construction for the De-

partment of Defense for the fiscal year end-

ing June 30, 1974, and for other purposes

(Rept. No. 93-548).

- -"' ^ 1--- ' ' -e-

Rules and Administ

S. Res. 204. An oril

a gratuity to Emiko ]







finall resolution to pay









TEE-(S. REPT. NO. 93-549)


mittee on the Ten

tional Emergency,

to Senate Resolutio:

session, a report

Powers Statutes: I

Law Now in Effec

Executive Extraor

Time of National Er

ordered to be print



As in executive s

favorable reports



the Judiciary:

Robert J. Roth, of

torney for the district

The above nom

with the recommen

ination be confirm

nominee's commit

quests to appear an

duly constituted




The following bil

tions were introduce

,m the Special Com-

ination of the Na-

mubmitted, pursuant

19, 93d Congress, 1st

ntitled "Emergency

provisions of Federal

Delegating to the

inary Authority in

iergency," which was




sson, the following

Nominations were

om the Committee on

ansas, to be U.S. st-

of Kansas.

tion was reported

action that the nom-

d, subject to the

nt to respond to re-

testify before any

ommittee of the



a and joint resolu-

, read the first time

November 19, 19


&ember 20, 1973 CO:

'lere being no objection, the material

w#s ordered to be printed in the RECORD,

as follows:


Prom testimony before a House Govern-

ment Operations subcommittee by Patrick

J, Head, vice president of Marcor, Inc., on

Oct. 10:

There is far more self- olicng in business

today than there was 80 ears ago. By im-

proving the quality of its p ducts, by better

training of its personnel, management

policies insisting that the c omer be sat-

isfied, business is becoming in easingly re-

sponsive to consumer demands.

Yet there is no doubt that consO er skep-

ticism toward business persists. OI reason,

as I have suggested, is the someties im-

personal nature of selling, credit arrange-

ments, and customer service, which is a by-

product of computerization and of modern

urban life itself. Another Is the all-pervasive

presence of advertising, some of it exact

gerated, or inadequately informative. \

A third reason, more relevant here, is the

great number of government decisions in

which business and consumers each have a

stake, but in which consumers feel they have

an inadequate voice. In truth, as members

of this committee know, each of the federal

regulatory agencies has as a prime responsi-

bility the protection of the general public's

interests, and most have counsel whose prin-

cipal job is to speak for that public. Yet

the problem, is not simply one of what is,

but what appears to be. And it often ap-

pears to consumers that no one is looking

after their particular interest in decisions

wherein other interests are well represented.

It seemed to Marcor that the presence of

a consumer advocate in government deci-

sion-making processes might reduce this

cause of consumer skepticism. We recog-

nised that many businesses felt sufficiently

challenged and investigated today to require

no further intervention by government-

sponsored parties in their affairs. We knew

that a Consumer Protection Administration,

if created by loosely drafted legislation could

become, not just an advocate, but a possi-

ble source of harassment to legitimate busi-

ness which outweighed 'its service to con-


Yet we supported the creation of the

CPA and, ie-affrm that position today, be-

cause we believe .that consumers who don't

feel so suspicious of business and govern-

ment-who don't feel shut out and unrep-

resented in government proceedings which

ftet the pocketbooks, their well-being and

the quality of their lives-will be better cus-

tomers of ours and of other businesses which

are in fact trying to serve them well. ,


(By Edward S. Donnell)

As we entered the late sixties, e suddenly

found people's expectations wre exceeding

our performance capability., The consumer

bill of rights-=to be inforrXed-to be safe-

to choose and to be hear became a reality.

Most of us became lly aware that our

bushes can only be good as the environ-

meant in which we o rate, and I mean total

tMvLronment-eco mic, social, and political

, well as physic and ecological.

With regard consumerism and the ex-

n of gove ent legislation, regulation,

tgatio and litigation that has hit us

dtate, if ast is prologue, we're In trouble

at of-the 70's.

past is prologue and we are in

Fltable for the rest of the 70's. However, the

igantity anti quality of that trouble, and

egree to which we can covert trouble

ortunity will be largely up to us.

April issue of Fortune indicates the

of the problem in an article entitled

"l Legal Explosion Has Left Business


Shell-Shocked." This article covers the geo-

metrically exploding, often conflicting, state,

county and municipal regulations we all

must comply with. It also covers the result-

ing rapid rise in litigation that has driven

legal expenses and exposures right through

the ceiling.

In the Securities regulation field, law-

suits filed in the past 6 years in Federal dis-

trict courts have increased 400%, reaching

2,000 in 1972 alone. During the 70's we may

expect that security regulation standards

will be more demanding and that legal ex-

penses for compliance, and damages and

other penalties for non-compliance will be

more costly.

Lawsuits on environmental issues have

doubled in the recent past to 268 cases in

1972. In our industry the International Coun-

cil of Shopping Centers recently called a

special session to discuss possible effects of

pollution controls on future expansions.

Lawsuits on Fair Employment practices

have begun to mushroom-over 1.000 in

S1972 alone. Settlements with the Equal

Opportunity Commission in cases charging

discrimination against women and minorities

has important implications for retailing in

the 70's. It is a fact that labor intensive re-

talli)g has historically been one of the better

providers of job opportunities, training and

advancement for minorities and other dis-

advantaged persons. Despite this I can offer

no more Useful advice to anyone tonight

than to mke certain that our own houses

are completely in order. Equal emploment

opportunity fqr all Americans is sp vitally

important to o] achieving a cohesive society

that we must g e this matter the highest


Truth in Lending legislation and regula-

tions put us all on one fair and reasonable

standard in keeping our customers accurately

informed as to the term ,of consumer credit.

I can only hope t those few states

which have imposed ered rate ceilings be-

low the roughly break-evet monthly service

charge rate of 1 /2.o will soon realize that to

drive credit rate to an uneconomic level

makes it very 'difficult to extend credit to

those who need it most. In addition, it often

forces retailers to raise the caslq price of

some merchandise to help absoxb credit

costs, an increase which hurts all citizens on

those $ates. We expect consumer credit is-

sues will continue with us on the FBleral

and State level the remainder of the 70'&,

- Product safety is now covered in a new

Federal law and the new commission and

staff are a reality. Thus, greater effective em-.

phasis will be put on product safety for the

rest of the 70's.

Advertising substantiation has become a

major focus of. consumerism in the recent

past and will be receiving even greater atten-

tion during the rest of the decade. Growing

emphasis on warranties-guarantees indicates

this activity also is likely to be the subject

of required, fuller, more uniform disclosure

in the near future.

If we can take a leaf from Europe's recent

experience, perhaps the most important

change we will see during the next 8 years

will be the extent to which government tries

to impose rising standards of clear informa-

tion disclosure on product performance,

product life and even product content.

How, the nature, extent and fairness to all

concerned of these rising standards of con-

sumer service is in significant part up to us.

Past is prologue in this realm, too. We have

learned that where we simply oppose in toto

a new consumer bill or regulation our im-

pact on its final content, its degree of rea-

sonableness for all concerned, its degree of

practicality, is usually very limited.

For business to always oppose whatever

consumers or their representatives propose,

strains the credibility of our public state-

ments that for us the consumer always comes

S 20913

first. Selective, well reasoned support for cer-

tain consumer legislation proposals, even if

not ideal, will do much to enhance our pros-

pects for fair and reasonable government reg-

ulations during the rest of the 70's, as well as

the prospects for eliminating altogether the

need for further regulations in certain areas.

All of us here tonight have been and can

increasingly become consumer advocates. For

32 years in retailing I've regarded the cus-

tomer as my real "boss," and I know you

feel you have the same boss. Or, here in

Washington, we might say the same constit-


We are a highly competitive industry. All

of us have been observing and evaluating

the same trends, the same forces, in the same

marketplace. Consequently, I know we agree

that in this fast-moving industry, the re-

tailer who is not a sincere practitioner of

consumerism simply is not going to survive.

We are the most knowledgeable and demand-

ing customers in history. In fact all of. us

here tonight have had a great deal to do

with educating them and raising their ex-

pectations over the years.

If you will forgive one note of American

History close to home, it was, I believe, the

need for consumer protection that prompted

Aaron Montgomery Ward, a century ago, to

break the back of "Caveat Emptor"-"Buyer

Beware"-with his new promise to America's

consumers-"Satisfaction Guaranteed or

Your Money Back." Today, you can see con-

sumer advocacy in action as American re-

tailers and our suppliers expend billions of

dollars in market research, product develop-

ment, quality control, product safety, pro-

tective packaging, informative labeling and

computerized merchandising distribution

systems. We are providing the American Pub-

lic with the most efficient, responsible and

protective marketing system in the world.

Yet, we believe it can be further improved.

Because of this belief we have supported

such consumer legislation, as the Consumer

Protection Agency Bill, truth-in-lending,

Warranty/Guarantee, and, of course, The

Uniform Consumer Credit Code which we all


But far more important than this is re-

tailing's overall commitment to the protec-

tion of the rights of the consumer to be in-

formed, to be safe, to choose and to be heard

through our industry's support of the Presi-

dent's National Business Council for Con-

sumer Affairs.

The Council, chaired and co-chaired by

Robert E. Brooker, Chairman of Montgomery

Ward's Executive Committee and Don Perkins

of Jewel Companies has been the work of

over 100 Chief Executive officers of the na-

tion's leading companies. Their unstinting

dedication has produced council guidelines

covering these key areas-Packaging and

Labeling, Product Safety, Advertising and

Promotion, Guarantees and Warranties, Tire

Inflation and the Consumer, Credit and Re-

lated Terms of Sale, and Consumer Com-

plaints and Remedies.

The guidelines are tough, but we all can

and should live by them because they en-

compass the specific consumer protection

principles to which we all subscribe.

However, because voluntary guidelines can

be, and sometimes are, ignored by a few

companies to the detriment of all the others,

there is a move afoot to recommend that the

Federal Trade Commission hold public hear-

ings on those parts of the guidelines which

are suitable as substantive rules. This would

be a prelude to their adoption-after all the

responsible inputs have been received-as

official FTC standards. Such standards will

be more comprehensive, effective, and fair

and reasonable to all concerned, than many

government regulations currently in effect

or under consideration.

Moreover, they will give the force of law to

the voluntary product of thoughtful and

S 20914

committed business,

sumer leaders at a i

badly needs to develc

for the benefit of all o

support this move.




there further morn


pore. Is there furth

If not, morning bu




pore. Under the previous order, the Chair

lays before the Senate the unfinished

business, Calendar No. 522, H.R. 11459,

which the clerk will state.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 11459) making appropriations

for military construction for the Department

of Defense for the fiscal year ending June 30,

1974, and for other purposes, reported with



pore. Is there objection to the present

consideration of the bill?

There being no objection, the Senate

proceeded to consider the bill, which had

been reported from the Committee on

Appropriations with amendments.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I pre-

sent today for the consideration of the

Senate-and, incidentally, there will be

a rollcall vote on final passage-H.R.

11459, together with the report from the

Appropriations Committee, No. 93-548,

making appropriations for military con-

struction for the Department of Defense

for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974,

and for other purposes.

The Military Construction Subcommit-

tee of the Appropriations Committee held

joint hearings again this year with the

Military Construction Subcommittee of

the Armed Services Committee, chaired

by the able Senator from Missouri (Mr.

SYMINGTON). These joint hearings were

most productive in saving time for Sena-

tors and the witnesses from the Depart-

ment of Defense. Additional hearings by

the Appropriations Subcommittee were

held to hear testimony on items in the

bill which were from previous years' au-

thorizations and other important mat-


It is not my intention in presenting the

bill to give detailed figures concerning

each line item. The line item breakdown

and explanation are contained in the re-

port which has been placed on each Sen-

ator's desk.

Before going into the recommenda-

tions of the Appropriations Committee, I

would briefly like to summarize the per-

tinent facts pertaining to the bill.

The fiscal year 1974 budget estimates

as submitted to the Congress for military

construction last January were $2,944,-

090,000 broken down as follows: Army,

$664,900,000; Navy, $685,400,000: Air

Force, $291,900,000; Defense agencies,

$19,100,000; Army National Guard, $35,-

200,000; Naval Reserve, $20,300,000; Air

National Guard, $20,000,000; Air Reserve,

;overnment and con-

me when our nation

a positive consensus

r people. We therefore



. Mr. President, is

ng business?

ESIDENT pro, tem-

r morning business?

ness is concluded.


$10,000,000; Army Reserve, $40,700,000;

family housing, $1,150,400,000; and

homeowners' assistance fund, $7,000,000.

The total of the military construction

appropriations bill as reported by the

Committee on Appropriations is $2,670,-

972,000. This is an increase of $61,882,000

over the $2,609,090,000 provided by the

House. The total bill as reported to the

Senate is $273,928,000 under the budget

estimate or $2,944,900,000, or somewhere

between 9 or 10 percent below the re-

quest of the administration.


The major thrust of the Army portion

of this bill is in support of soldier-ori-

ented facilities. Bachelor housing, pri-

mary medical facilities, and community

support facilities total about $456.2 mil-

lion. This continues the emphasis begun

in last year's bill and the committee sup-

ports this effort.

The bill includes construction of 23,425

new barracks spaces and 185 new bache-

lor officer spaces, mostly at permanent

installations in the United States. Of the

total, 380 enlisted spaces are for isolated

locations overseas. Additionally, the com-

mittee allowed funds to modernize 45,188

enlisted spaces and 528 officer spaces to

bring these existing facilities up to pres-

ent-day standards. The Army continues

their program to eliminate the old World

War II woodframe mobilization struc-

tures built in the early forties and now

long beyond their economical life. Con-

currently, maximum effort is being made

to modernize and extend the useful life

of existing permanent housing facilities.

The committee allowed $39.6 million

for medical facilities. The major facili-

ties are a 100-bed hospital at the U.S.

Military Academy and an addition to the

hospital at Fort Lee, Va. A significant

item, although not actually for a medical

facility, is the approval of $10.8 million

for the underground parking facility at

Walter Reed Army Medical Center in the

District of Columbia. This parking struc-

ture is an integral part of the 1,280-bed

hospital and was authorized in Public

Law 92-145, fiscal year 1972. As part of

the sequential development of the new

hospital center, construction of the park-

ing structure is scheduled to begin this


'The particular medical facilities plus

additional planning and design funds in

this bill mark the beginning of a multi-

year defense program to improve service

medical facilities.

The committee has approved all pol-

lution abatement projects requested by

the Army and authorized by Congress.

This includes $7.3 million for air pollu-

tion abatement projects and $7.1 million

for water pollution abatement control.

The Army program is smaller than in re-

cent years but significant increases are

anticipated in future requests to meet the

requirements of the Federal Water Pol-

lution Control Act Amendments of 1972.

The committee continues to be a strong

supporter of the U.S. Military Academy

expansion plan and is pleased that the

Army is following a viable and realistic

program. Three projects totaling ap-

proximately $25.1 million were approved,

the major item being the new hospital

LTE November 0, 19W7

previously mentioned. The committee

recognizes the need for and strongly

endorses early construction of this new

medical facility. Despite commendable

Army efforts to reduce cost, the com-

mittee feels there is potential room for

further reduction. Therefore, the Army

request of $25 million for the hospital

was reduced by $5 million. The commit-

tee will expect the Army to construct the

hospital within the $20 million approved.

The committee approved $20 million in

new obligational authority for NATO

infrastructure support. This is a reduc-

tion of $20 million from the service re-

quest and the amount approved by the

House. The committee concurred with

the House in approving the transfer of

$35.65 million in unobligated prior year

Safeguard funds to NATO Infrastructure

toward meeting unbudgeted costs stem-

ming from recent dollar devaluations.

Approval has been given to the Army

for $56 million for general authorization

which includes: $39 million for planning

and design; $15 million for urgent minor

construction; and, $2 million for access


Included in this bill are $40.7 million

for the Army Reserve facilities and $35.2

million for the Army National Guard.

This is consistent with the Army's con-

tinuing recognition of the need to provide

adequate facilities for the effective

training and improved readiness of its

Reserve components. The committee

agrees with this approach.


The portion of the military construc-

tion budget proposed for the active

forces of the Department of the Navy

was $685,400,000. The committee ap-

proved for the Navy $608,467,000, which

is $20,826,000 greater than the amount

allowed by the House and a decrease of

$76,533,000 from the budget estimate of


I will discuss in the following broad

categories since that is how the Navy

presented its program this year. These

are: strategic forces, all-volunteer forces,

major weapons systems, pollution abate-

ment, new technology-research, devel-

opment test and evaluation--and train-

ing facilities.

Under "Strategic forces," the com-

mittee approved $112 million for the

initiation of construction of a Trident

submarine refit complex and facilities

for flight testing the Trident missile

The facilities approved are essential this

year for meeting the initial operational

capability date of late calendar year

1978 for this weapons system.

Projects that will assist the Navy in

achieving and maintaining the all-

volunteer force are for bachelor hous-

ing, community support, medical, and

cold iron facilities. Cold iron facilities

are shore utilities which enable a ship

in port to shut down its boiler plant and

electrical generation equipment Proj-

ects approved for the all-volunteer force

are approximately one-fourth of the


This year X66 million was approved for

bachelor housing and messing facilities.

This Is a reduction from last year's

appropriations for bachelor housing, but

November 20, 1973

rill a sitbstantial program with bachelor

4glng ca stituting about 11 percent of

this yefr's appropriations.

The committee approved $13 million

for community support facilities which

have received a minimum of funding the

last several years.

' The medical program approved in the

amount of $38 million is a slight reduc-

tion from the program for which funds

were appropriated last year.

The cold iron program is directed

toward reducing watch standing require-

ments when a ship is in port in order to

increase the amount of time ships' per-

sonnel may spend with their families.

The availability of utilities from the

shore also provides benefits in shipboard

equipment maintenance and fleet

readiness and conserves scarce petroleum

resources. This year $26 million was

appropriated for cold iron facilities.

Ten million dollars has been provided

for major weapons systems, excluding

Trident. This year's appropriation for

major weapons systems is slightly less

than the $11 million appropriated last


The Navy is concerned with the pre-

vention of environmental pollution and

actively seeks to: First, control and

abate emissions of pollutants from Navy

sources; second, design and construct

facilities to meet recent environmental

quality standards; and third, cooperate

With local, State, and Federal agencies.

The present energy crisis, which may

result in the temporary lowering of

pollution standards, does not reduce the

need for the Navy air pollution abate-

ment facilities.

The total pollution abatement program

approved for the Navy is $82.7 million.

Four percent of the appropriation is

for projects in support of research, de-

velopment, and test and evaluation as-

sociated with underwater acoustic sur-

veillance, communications, manned un-

derwater systems and coastal region war-


The Navy is taking several concurrent

actions to strengthen, modernize and

vitalise its training programs. 6ne action

was the recent establishment of the Chief

of Naval Training Office with the respon-

sibility of overseeing and managing all

Navy academic, applied, shipboard, air-

craft, and submarine training. The com.

ittee supports this endeavor and has

provided $62 million for training facili-

ties. Appropriations of $12 million were

added 'for this category to match the

amount authorized for the relocation of

the Atlantic Fleet Weapons Range from


Funding in the amount of $51 million

was approved for the Marine Corps

Jcilities. .As in last year's program,

ajJor emphasis was placed on personnel

Support facilities, which comprise 54 per-

at of the Marine Corps program. The

Yion of adequate bachelor housing

High priority requirement. The com-

Uittee fully supported the bachelor hous-

big program of the Marine Corps.

*The committee allowed $20,300,000 for

tvRal Reserve facilities, the amount of

Navy request.

The committee placed the Navy re-


quest under especially careful scrutiny.

The major new considerations posed by

the base realinements announced by the

Secretary of Defense in April of this year,

the effects of inflation on construction

costs, the beginning of shore support

facilities for the new Trident submarine

system, and the first year of implementa-

tion of the All-Volunteer Force-all these

impacted heavily on committee discus-

sion and decisions.


The Air Force portion of the bill pro-

vides $291,198,000 which includes $249,-

452,000 for projects in fiscal year 1974

and $41,746,000 for planning and design,

minor construction, and projects author-

ized but unfunded in fiscal year 1973.

There has also been a reduction of $1,-

800,000 to compensate for the fact that

this amount is available in Air Force

prior year appropriations for Southeast

Asia that can be applied against fiscal

year 1974 requirements elsewhere. The

committee's total reduction from the

original request of $321,900,000 is $30,-


The bill covers essential facility proj-

ects for the Air Force and a few others

where national policy, such as in the case

of pollution abatement, other strong cases

of economy, and projects with a potential

for energy conservation.

A case of the latter point is the air-

craft engine component research facility

at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,

Ohio. The prime purpose of this item is

to test and provide data and knowledge

to prevent compressor "instability" in

aircraft gas turbine engines especially

under transient conditions. Presently,

this test capability does not exist in the

military or civilian aircraft community.

This facility will process data 3,000 to

6,000 times faster than existing facilities

by utilizing computer control of the test

article, the test facility and the data

acquisition system. By locating the fa-

cility at Wright-Patterson Air Force

Base, Ohio, it is possible to utilize

a complete precision controlled 30,000

horsepower drive unit already in place

and thereby save from $12 to $15 mil-

lion that would be required to locate the

facility elsewhere. Finally, by determin-

ing transient effects to be avoided dur-

ing engine operation as much as a 15-

to 20-percent improvement in fuel econ-

omy can be realized and the knowledge

gained can be made available to the en-

tire aircraft industry. The avoidance of

just one engine compressor development

problem would result in savings that

would amortize the cost of this facility


The largest portion of Air Force funds

is for urgent operational facilities. They

consist of airfield pavements, aircraft

fueling and support facilities, flight op-

erations buildings, communications fa-

cilities and navigational aids. They total

$52.4 million or 18 percent of the recom-

mended amount. Important items ap-

proved by the committee are: $11 mil-

lion for a second increment of the tech-

nical intelligence operations facility at

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, $13.5

million for special aircraft support fa-

cilities at Andrews Air Force Base, and

S 20915

$4.5 million for a station composite sup-

port facility at Cape Newenham Air

Force Station, Alaska.

The second largest portion of the bill

provides for bachelor housing. This

category totals $40 million and is viewed

as a priority objective by the Air Force.

This is 13.7 percent of the amount rec-

ommended by the committee and will

provide for the construction of 3,524 new

dormitory spaces at a cost of $25.7 mil-

lion, and 60 new officers' quarters at a

cost of $1.2 million. The Air Force will

also modernize 4,757 existing dormitory

spaces for $11.3 million. Included in the

program are a student housing com-

posite building at Keesler Air Force Base,

Miss., and a composite recruit training

and housing facility at Lackland Air

Force Base, Tex. Buildings of these types.

provided in earlier programs have prov-

en to be very effective.

The third largest portion of the bill,

$31 million, is for maintenance facilities,

predominantly for aircraft maintenance.

Included are 10 projects comprising an-

other increment for modernization of

the Air Force Logistics Command's depot

overhaul facilities. This category also

provides various maintenance and stor-

age facilities for short-range attack mis-

siles at two locations for $1 million.

Another large portion of the recom-

mended amount is directed toward ex-

pansion, alteration and replacement of

medical facilities to provide proper

clinical and dental care within a region-

alized framework. Projects of this type

have been supported by the committee

in recent fiscal year programs and as far

back as fiscal year 1965. In the current

bill, the committee is supporting 12

health care facility projects. Two of the

projects involve total replacement of the

aged, professionally obsolete, composite

medical facilities at F. E. Warren Air

Force Base, Wyo., and Laughlin Air Force

Base, Tex. These facilities have been in

use for 86 years and 18 years, respectively.

For the other items approved by the com-

mittee, work involves additions and

alterations principally addressing the

problem of inadequate space for out-

patients in the clinics, pharmacies, lab-

oratories, X-ray departments, and other

areas servicing these patients.

The construction proposed by the Air

Force to support the Air Force R. & D.

program is $10 million, of which $4.9 mil-

lion failed to survive the authorization

reviews. However, that which remains is

essential to a vigorous R. & D. effort as an

investment in our future security. Earlier

the committee discussed at some length

an aircraft engine component research

facility at Wright-Patterson Air Force

Base, Ohio. Other R. & D. projects are:

expansion of a human impact laboratory,

a weapons guidance test facility, and

alteration of a rocket propulsion research


Other significant amounts are recom-

mended for facilities in support of train-

ing, supply, administration, community

and support facilities. In this latter cate-

gory, the committee is providing $35 mil-

lion, of which $18 million is for the design

of facilities in this and future programs,

$15 million to fund minor construction


November 20, 1971

projects that are to be individually deter-

mined to be urgent by the Secretary of

Defense or the service Secretaries, and

$2 million is provided for access roads.

Approval is also recommended for $20

million for the Air National Guard and

$10 million for the Air Force Reserve by

the committee.


For the Department of Defense agen-

cies, the committee recommends an ap-

propriation of $12,000,000. This is $7,-

100,000 below the budget estimate of

$19,100,000 and is $12,000,000 above the

House allowance. IL is $24,704,000 below

the appropriation for fiscal year 1973.

The program breakdown is as follows:

Defense Nuclear Agency, $574,000; De-

fense Supply Agency, $8,370,000; Na-

tional Security Agency, $8,156,000; gen-

eral support programs, $2,000,000.

A wide range of project is encompassed

in the approved program. The Defense

Nuclear Agency has received approval for

two projects at Kirtland Air Force Base,

N. Mex., and at the Atomic Energy Com-

mission Nevada Test Site. The Defense

Supply Agency has received approval for

15 projects at 9 installations. The Na-

tional Security Agency has received ap-

proval for four projects at Fort Meade,


The Department of Defense indicated

a program, or anticipated requirement, in

the amount of $30,000,000 for projects

which would qualify for funding under

DOD emergency construction authority.

The Department further indicated that

no additional funds were required for

this purpose on the basis that unobli-

gated prior year funds were considered

adequate to finance fiscal year 1974 re-

quirements. The unobligated balance in

the Secretary's emergency fund totaled

$54,429,500 as of June 30, 1973.

The program approved by the commit-

tee, as tabulated above, provides for es-

sential facilities of the agencies listed.

The committee's allowance of $12,000,-

000 is the maximum possible in view of

action by the House and Senate Armed

Services Committee: which gave their

approval for the full program requested

for the agencies, but made a general re-

duction of $7,100,000 in the authorization

for appropriation. This action has the

effect of applying additional prior year

unobligated emergency construction

funds to partially finance the fiscal year

1974 program.

The House has recommended a further

reduction of $12,000,000, which deletes

funding in the amount of $3,529,000 for

a logistic support facility at Fort George

G. Meade, Md., and provides that the

balance of the program be financed en-

tirely from unobligated prior year funds.

The committee does not agree with the

House action, and recommends approval

of the Defense agencies program as sub-

mitted, subject only to funding con-

straints resulting from the Armed Serv-

ices Committee's actions.


The committee has approved $1,188,-

539,000 in new appropriated funds for

the fiscal year 1974 military family hous-

ing program. This amount comprises ap-

proximately 44 percent of the entire

funds appropriated in this bill and is

$93,128,000 lower than the revised de-

fense budget request for family housing.

To provide maintenance and operation

funds for defense housing, approval has

been given in the authorized amount of

$622,913,000 to maintain and operate an

estimated 380,006 housing Units during

fiscal year 1974. In addition, the commit-

tee has approved $44,703,000 for leasing

of 10,000 domestic and 7,262 foreign

family housing units for assignment as

public quarters.

The committee has recommended a

$381,603,000 family housing construction

program. The approved program will

provide for the construction of 10,541

new permanent units, which is 1,147

units less than requested. New construc-

tion approved includes 5,369 units at 12

Army installations, 3,460 units at 11 Navy

and Marine Corps bases, 1,700 units at 8

Air Force bases and 12 units for the De-

fense Intelligence Agency. The commit-

tee did not approve the 150-unit Navy

project authorized for construction at

Iceland because of questions remaining

in the need for the project. A total of

$309,733,000 is required for the ap-

proved new construction program. Other

construction approved by the committee

includes $5,700,000 for mobile home fa-

cilities; $240,000 for acquisition and con-

nection of a utility system serving

Wherry housing, $62,510,000 for im-

provements to family quarters, $2,720,-

000 for minor construction and $700,-

000 for planning. The committee recom-

mends that $361,746,000 in new appro-

priations be provided for this construc-

tion program and that the balance of

the program amounting to $19,857,000

be financed from savings. Savings are

available in funds appropriated in prior

years but not needed because of project

cancellations due to base closures, re-

alinements or other changes in require-

ments. Sufficient funds remain to pro-

vide adequate construction for the valid

fiscal year 1972 and 1973 housing


The funding allowed by the committee

for debt payment is the budget estimate

of $159,177,000. This includes $100,167,-

000 for the payment of debt principal

amount owed on Capehart, Wherry, and

Commodity Credit-financed housing. In

addition, $53,024,000 is approved for the

payment of interest on mortgage indebt-

edness on Capehart and Wherry housing

and for other expenses relating to the

construction and acquisition of these

houses in prior years. The committee ap-

proved $5,986,000 for payment to the

Federal Housing Administration, for pre-

miums on Capehart and Wherry housing

mortgage insurance and for the payment

of premiums on insurance provided by

the FHA for mortgages assumed by ac-

tive military personnel for houses pur-

chased by them.

With respect to the inadequate quar-

ters legislations, section 508 of Public

Law 92-545, which authorized the desig-

nation as inadequate of not more than

20,000 family housing units, in addition

to inadequate units already in the inven-

tory,: Defense reported that the services

and the Defense Supply Agency had des-

ignated 19,282 units as inadequate as of

July 1, 1973, and had placed them on a

rental basis at fair rental values, not to'

exceed 75 percent of the occupant's basic

allowance for quarters.


The base realinements announced

April 17, 1973, are of such magnitude

that resources in the homeowners assist-

ance fund will be insufficient to take care

of the requirements of the homeowners

assistance program in fiscal year 1974.

Accordingly, Defense requested an addi-

tional $7 million in appropriations for

the program. This amount will also pro- .

vide a modest expansion of the progm

to cover certain personnel not now cov-

ered by the program because of statutory

technicalities, but who suffer the same

losses in disposing of their homes as the

personnel covered by the program at the

same installation.

The committee has approved the re-

vised request for funds in the amount of

$7 million. Spending of agency delft re-

ceipts, authorized in permanent legisla-

tion, will provide an additional $17,443,-


Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-

sent that the committee amendments to

the pending bill be considered and agreed

to en bloc, and that the bill as thus

amended be regarded for the purpose of .

amendment as original text, provided

that no point or order shall be consid-

ered to have been waived by reason of

agreement to the order.


pore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The committee amendments, agreed

to en bloc, are as follows:

The amendments agreed to en bloc are"

as follows:

On page 2, at the beginning of line 4,

strike out "$551,575,000" and insert "$567r-


On page 2, line 14, after the word appro-

priation, strike out "$587,641,000" and in-

sert "$608,467,000".

On page 2, at the beginning of line 22,

strike out "$239,702,000" and insert "$261,-


On page 3, at the beginning of line 8,

insert "$12,000,000"; and, in the same line,

after the word "expended", insert "and in


On page 4, at the beginning of line 17,

strike out "$22,900,000" and insert "$20,300,-


On page 5, line 8, after the word "law",

strike out "$1,194,539,000" and insert "$1,-


On page 5, line 15, after the word "'on-

struotion", strike out "$106,947,000" and in-

sert "$97,947,000".

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Piesidelit, I

ask unanimous consent to have printed

in the REcORD a comparative statement

of the appropriations for fiscal year 1973

and the estimates and amounts recom-

mended in the bill for fiscal 1974.

There being no objection, the state-

ment was ordered to be printed in the

RECORD, as follows:

S 20916

November 2O, 1973



[In dollars]

Senate committee bill compared with--

New budget

Budget esti- (obligational) Budget esti-

New budget mates of new authority, Amount New budget mates of new

(obligational) (obligational) recommended recommended (obligational) (obligational)

authority, authority, in the House by Senate authority, autbority, House

tem fiscal year 1973 fiscal year 1974 bill committee fiscal year 1973 fiscal year 1974 allowance

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

MIltary estection, Army.........----...---.......---..---------------.............. 413, 955, 000 1664, 900, 000 551, 575, 000 567, 735, 000 +153,780,000 -97,165, 000 +16, 160, 000

uuagemonestrutimon,N ....................................... 517, 830, 000 685, 400, 000 587, 641, 000 608, 467, 000 +90, 637, 000 -76, 933, 000 +20, 826, 000

Miaeos l, orc.................................----------------------------... 265, 552, 000 291, 900, 000 239, 702, 000 261,198, 000 -4, 354,000 -30,702,000 +21, 496, 000

Military conuuction, Defense agencies------------------------............................. 36, 704, 000 19,100, 000 0 12, 000, 000 -24, 704, 000 -7, 100,000 +12, 000, 000

Transfer nt ott xceed-.. --..-.-...................... . (20000,000) (20, 000,000) (20, 00,000) (20,000,000).......---------------- ----- ---------...........

MItay onsaruoton, Army National Guard .......------ 40,000, 000 35,200,000 35, 200, 000 35 200000 -4,00, 000 - .-........................

Mita untruction, Air National Guard...............------ - 16,100,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 +3,900,000 ..

.Militaryaoiatrsnoton, Army Reserve ---------------...... ---38, 200, 000 40, 00 40, 700,000 40, 700, 000 40,700,000 +2, 500, 000 ......... .-------....

Military construction, Naval Reserve-------------...... 20, 500,000 20,300,000 22,900, 000 20, 300,000 -200,000 .-- - -2,600,000

Military construction, Air Force Reserve-..............------------ 7,000, 000 10, 000, 000 10, 000, 000 10,000,000 +3,000,000 ............. ........

Totalmeilitay construction .___-_.-.. ...-........... - 1, 355,841,000 1, 787, 500, 000 1,507,718,000 1, 575, 600, 000 +219,759,000 -211,900,000 +67,882, 000

Family housing defense............---... ........... ... 1, 064,046,000 21,250, 567,000 1,194,539,000 1,188,539,000 24,493,0+124, 493, 00 -62,028,000 -6,000,000

Portionapplied to debt reduction.. --96,666,000 -100, 167, 000 -100, 167,000 -100, 67,000 -3, 501,000 ....................

SUbtotal, family housing ........... 967, 380,000 1,150, 400, 000 1,094,372,000 1,088, 372,000 +120,992,000 -62,028,000 -6,000,000

Homeowners assistance fund, Defense ---------------~..-------- a 7, 000, 000 7,000,000 7,000, 000 +7, 000, 000 ...---------------

Grand total, new budget (obligational) authority... -

2,323,221,000 2,944,900,000 2,609,090,000 2,670,972,000 +347,751,000 -273,928,000 +61, 882,000

1auetolack of authorization does not include additional $4,300,000 requested in H. Doc. 93-155. a Includes $7,000,000 requested in H. Deoc. 93-155.

sDoe to lack of authorization, does not include additional $31,100,000 requested in H. Doc.


Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I

want to say that I am indebted to the

distinguished Senator from Pennsyl-

vania (Mr. SCHWEIKER) for his coopera-

tion, for his understanding, for his dedi-

-cation to duty, and for the tremendous

assistance e has rendered the subcom-

mittee and the whole committee in the

hearings under this legislation, and in

being responsible in large part for such a

tremendous reduction.

I have an idea that the bill may well

signify the deepest cut of any, so far as

appropriation measures are concerned,

as related to any of the other appropria-

tion measures which have come before

Congress to this date.

Mr. President, again I want to say how

much I am indebted to the distinguished

Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.

Scwmea) for his cooperation and


Mr. President, now I yield to the dis-

tnguished Senator from Pennsylvania,

the ranking Republican member of the


Mr. SCHWEIKER. Mr. President, I

should like to add my remarks to the

statement of the distinguished majority

sler concerning the Military Construc-

tion bill for fiscal year 1974.

Although this bill is $61.8 million

greater than the House bill, it is sig-

nitcantly below the budget estimate of


In thls daj f budgetary and monetary

acS. it is important, as the majority

ltder Aust underscored, that the com-

Iittee was able to stick well below the

budget estimate. I commend the ma-

Jaity leader for his work and leadership

in this area.

Ar. President, the bill provides more

is for the respective Services than

'was provided in the fiscal year 1973 pro-

wiea. In some cases, this increase re-

*lk tbe actof inflation. In other cases,

* edeots new facilities provided to sup-

1rt jstMied requirements. A portion of

*%1 dtieonal requirements and recom-

'tnded appropriations support the re-

spective Services attempt to attract suf-

ficient volunteers to satisfy manpower

goals without the draft. These require-

ments involve new barracks for men and

women, family housing, and work facili-


I commend the Defense Department

in its efforts to implement all-volunteer

Armed Force.

Mr. President, contained in this ap-

propriations for military construction is

$5.2 million for the construction of ad-

ministrative facilities to accommodate

the transfer of the Marine Corps Supply

Activity, Philadelphia, Pa. to Albany, Ga.

I oppose this specific appropriation on

the basis that adequate justification for

the transfer of this facility was not pro-

vided to the committee.

Although the record of the two hear-

ings on this item, both of which I

chaired, contain some questions regard-

ing the correctness of an appropriation

of $5.2 million to meet the cost of con-

struction for a facility at Albany, Ga.,

the basis of the computation using the

standard Department of Defense space

and construction criteria seem to pro-

vide a realistic cost estimate.

However, whether the cost estimates

regarding the savings to be realized as

a result of this transfer are accurate or

realistic is for me the central issue. It

was suggested to the committee during

the hearing's that it's concern with the

relocation of the supply activity should

relate primarily to the question of

whether or not the relocation will result

in a savings of Federal dollars, and

whether or not such a move will improve

the efficiency of the Marine Corps supply


Mr. President, the primary savings to

be realized from the transfer according

to the Department of Defense is the cost

avoidance of approximately $4.6 million

programed for installation of air condi-

tioning at the Philadelphia facility over

the next 4 fiscal years.

In my judgment that is not a credible

justification. It seems questionable that

$4.6 million for air conditioning could be

legitimately claimed as a cost avoidance

since this item has never been incor-

porated into the military construction

budget for the Marine Corps Supply

Activity, Philadelphia.

In fact, the Commandant of the Ma-

rine Corps in a letter dated August 3,

1972, published his "Guidance for Facil-

ity Planning and Programing," in which

he stated he was providing a 6-year dol-

lar control for each facility and com-

mand with a single year limitation. His

letter stated:

It should be noted that, for purposes of

flexibility, the total of these controls is in

excess of the amount that can be antici-

pated for the next 6 years. Therefore, to as-

sure that limited construction dollars are

expended on the most urgent requirements,

the controls should not be exceeded.

For the Marine Corps Supply Activity,

Philadelphia, the 6-year dollar control-

fiscal year 1974 through 1979-was $2

million. No funds were projected for fis-

cal year 1974.

Nevertheless, the Department of De-.

fense cites a cost avoidance of $4.9 mil-

lion as a justification for this transfer. I

seriously question how bona fide is this

claimed cost avoidance.

Mr. President, the Defense Depart-

ment has indicated that the transfer will

permit a functional consolidation in the

personnel administration procurement,

comptrollership, civilian and military

personnel administration procurement

and personnel services. The annual sav-

ings claimed by Defense Department in

operating costs is projected at $2.6 mil-

lion. However, in order to do this, DOD

plans to reduce its civilian manpower in

Philadelphia by 184 positions and its

military personnel by 50. This is in ad-

dition to a total reduction of 205 mili-

tary and 2,894 civilian positions in Phila-


The Philadelphia area impact from

these base closings is approximately a

loss of 8,000 jobs. Most of these are civil-

S 20917


November 20, 19f

ian jobs and most are being transferred

to other areas. The immediate impact

will be on those whose jobs are abolished

and on those who cannot or choose not

to transfer.

The indirect impact from those who

are transferred, is the loss of payroll.

This, of course, impacts on the entire

Philadelphia area economy, and if one

estimates an average annual salary per

position of $8,000 or $10,000, the an-

nual payroll loss may come to $60 or $80


In outlining this personnel cost having

the Department of Defense failed to ade-

quately take into account the costs to

the Government of the retirement ex-

penditures to these affected employees.

In fact, the $2.6 million savings does not

include the increased costs of early re-

tirements. Thus the $2.6 million should

be reduced by the retirement costs of the

people no longer on the payroll. In addi-

tion, $708,000 in the cost of severance pay

should also be deducted. The Defense

Department stated that by 1978 the sav-

ing would be $2.6 million since by then

"these other factors of changeover have

been taken up or assumed in this period,

have been amortized." Mr. President,

that strikes me as awfully vague.

In October, 1970, a study was pre-

pared by the Marine Corps as an internal

study within the Supply Department,

Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, to

analyze a conceptual plan for the relo-

cation of the Marine Corps Supply Ac-

tivity, Philadelphia, to Albany, Ga. Al-

though the Marine Corps claims the

study was never approved by the Quar-

termaster General, it concluded, in part,

"within the parameters addressed by the

study panel, the benefits to be poten-

tially derived do not warrant incurring

the risks involved." Also, the study


Some benefits will accrue from the in-

creased computer utilization and a more effi-

cient working environment, but no beneficial

factors concerning operational performance

will be realized which will overcome the re-

tardation of progress towards attainment of

a fully operationally effective Material Man-

agement System.

The panel report was dated November

10, 1970, and recommended "that the re-

location of the Inventory Control Point

from Philadelphia to Albany not be initi-

ated at this time."

Mr. President, if the Marine Corps dis-

avows this study it seems to me it was in-

cumbent on the Marine Corps to make

available to the committee the study used

as the basis for its decision to move the

supply activity from Philadelphia to

Albany, Ga.

Mr. President, I do not feel the De-

partment of Defense has adequately

made. its case and I am opposed to this

transfer. Overlooked in the planned

transfer is the affect it will have on the

people involved, the employees of the fa-

cility. Spokesmen for the employees tes-

tified at the hearing conducted by the

Appropriations Subcommittee on Mili-

tary Construction and I ask that the

statements submitted by Royal L. Sims,

national vice president, and Forrest

Sellers, president, Local 89, American

Federation of Government Employees, be

inserted at this point in the RECORD. Also,

Mr. President, I ask that a letter from

my distinguished colleague from Penn-

sylvania, HUGH SCOTT, be inserted in the


There being no objection, the material

was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,

as follows:








I am Royal L. Sims, National Vice Presi-

dent, Third District, American Federation of

Government Employees; I am accompanied

this morning by Mr. Forrest Sellers, the Pres-

ident of American Federation of Government

Employees Local 89, which directly speaks

for the civilian Federal employees directly

affected by the issue you are deliberating


We are most grateful to the Subcommittee

for the opportunity to appear before you in

opposition to the proposed transfer of the

Marine Corps Supply Activity, Philadelphia,

to the Marine Corps Supply Center, Albany,

Georgia. In presenting our opposition, we are

speaking, in the first instance, on behalf of

the civilian employees of the Philadelphia

Marine Corps Supply Activity, whom we rep-

resent both through our American Federation

of Government Employees Local 89 and

through our AFGE Third National District.

Additionally, -we are speaking as taxpayers

who are concerned about the expenditure of

Federal tax revenues for a transfer which is

both unwarranted and unjustifiable. Finally,

we speak for those residents of Philadelphia

and its suburbs, who will suffer serious eco-

nomic and social consequences as a result

of this unnecessary and imprudent action

by the Marine Corps.

The principal argument proferred by the

Marine Corps for this questionable under-

taking is budgetary. Among the arguments

which have been developed in support of this

action, it is alleged that by 1978, that is,

five years from now, the cumulative savings

resulting from this action will overtake the

additional costs of transferring this fa-

cility. In other words, the Marine Corps con-

cedes that for the next five budgetary years,

the U.S. government will have to spend more

for these services by the transfer to Albany,

Georgia, than maintaining the facility at


What are the other risks of undertaking

this transfer? In a letter to Mr. Forrest W.

Sellers, July 19, 1973, Assistant Secretary of

the Navy (Installations and Logistics) Jack

L. Bowers conceded that there are serious

risks to the national security involved. He


"It has always been recognized that in ac-

complishing this consolidation a risk of tem-

porary degradation of supply support to the

Fleet Marine Forces could be encountered.

During the Southeast Asia conflict, this risk

was unacceptable. Now, with the culmination

of the conflict and the drastic realignment of

operating forces, it is mandatory that the

costs to maintain the Marine Corps support

establishment be reduced."

I believe anyone reading the papers to-

day must realize that the world situation is

potentially just as explosive now as it has

been in the past several years during the

Southeast Asia conflict. Our nation is al-

ready concerned about the oil fuels short-

age we are already threatened with ration-

ing of heating oils and gasoline. The conflict

in the Middle East has already resulted in

major naval forces realignment and alerts. It

is an imprudent and irresponsible act, there-

fore, to experiment with transferring such an

essential and efficient facility as the Marine

Corps Supply Activity on the hypothesis that

fives years later there may be, perhaps, some

savings in budgetary costs.

Assistant Secretary Bowers concedes fur-

ther difficulties which have not been prop-

erl reflected in the planning estimates--

costs of recruiting employees. He wrote as

follows to Mr. Sellers:

"The Marine Corps realizes that it may not

be an easy task to recruit and train people

to replace those current employees who

choose pot to exercise their right to transfer

with their functions to the consolidated ac-

tivity at Albany. However, it is believed that

this difficulty will be minimized by the long

lead time allowed for recruiting and train-

ing; i.e., from the present to January 1976

and the availability of required skills through

the Department of Defense Priority Place-

ment Program. In this regard, the Marine

Corps is currently developing a time-phased

plan for the consolidation of the Marine

Corps Supply Activity at Albany. Require-

ments for recruiting and training will be an

integral part of this plan."

But Assistant Secretary Bowers makes no

provision for such contingencies as the cur-

rent conflict in the Middle East. The avail-

ability of civilian employees is much, much

greater in such a large community as Phila-

delphia, a major international seaport and

airport as well as a major industrial and

commercial center, than in Albany, Georgia.

But what would happen if the Marine Corps

Supply Activity would have to expand rapid-

ly, as it was required to do so during the

height of the Southeast Asia conflict. In

brief, we believe that Philadelphia can af-

ford a much better employee environment

both during periods of rapid expansion and

during periods of de-employment than a

small community such as Albany, Georgia.

The foregoing considerations apply to the

basic problem, seen from the standpoint of

the national interest. As taxpayers and citi-

zens we are concerned with that issue. We

are also concerned with the issue of the im-

pact of this action on the human beings di-

rectly affected--residents .and citizens of

Philadelphia and its environs.

According to the Marine Corps, on Decem-

ber 4, 1972, there were 1,132 employees of

the installation. It is claimed that, after

transfer to Albany, Georgia, and consolida-

tion, there will be a need for only 948 of

these employees, with 184 positions being

reduced. Let us take these figures at face

value, even though there are many reasons

to believe they are inaccurate and overstate

the reductions in force that will take place

solely because of the geographical transfer

of the activity.

Taken at face value, 948 employees are

confronted today with serious problems of

livelihood, uprooting, and expenses incidental

to transfer. To what end? Supposedly, be-

cause five years from now the transfer al-

legedly will begin to save the United States


Moreover, the greater part of these savings

comes from the alleged reduction in person-

nel costs arising from the firing of 184 em-

ployees. These are hypothetical savings, re-

flecting only alleged presumptive payroll

costs. They leave out of account the costs

of recruiting of new personnel; their train-

ing; travel and per diem for training and

orientation; problems arising if the facility

suddenly has to expand to meet a national

emergency; and the host of other contingent

costs, both in dollars and in human welfare,

following such a transfer.

The transfer of this facility can be de-

fended only if one takes a short-sighted aid

narrow view of costs. Even then, it can be

scarcely justified, except by taking the fur-

ther risk of assuming that the Supply Ac-

tivity will be faced only with a dltnliahing

S, 20918

,' kbember 2O, 1973 CO

program, based on demobilizing the Ameri-

n military forces. It can be defended only

if one takes a naive attitude that we have

the end of all'crises in the world and from

now on the future is only one of coasting


Who is to pay the price for this attitude.

First, the American people and taxpayer.

Secondly, immediately and personally, the

184 employees who will be reduced in force

and the 948 other employees who will be

faced with problems just as great, perhaps

greater, than those who were fired. These 948

employees must face the fact of being up-

rooted, dislocated, removed from the com-

munity where they now live and integrated

into a community much smaller and less

able to provide them with housing, schools,

and other facilities available in Philadelphia.

In short, it is not 184 employees who are

being reduced in force. There are 948 other

employees who will have the order and

rhythm of their homes and families dis-

rupted, solely to carry out the alleged, un-

proven saving of money five years from to-

day. The social costs are alienation, poor

education, family disruption, reduced effi-

ciency of the work force. In short, the costs

are much greater to the United States than

any potential savings, five years hence, which

the Marine Corps can allege,

For these reasons, we earnestly ask your

Committee to deny the Marine Corps the

fnds, which were generated out of the taxes

of the American people, including the taxes

of these employees, to carry out this im-

prudent and unwise experiment in budget-

ary planning. The American people can use

those $8.2 million to better advantage. Put

them into schools; put them into social secu-

rity benefits for the aged; put them into

urban renewal; put them in cleaning up

our air and water. Do not waste them on an

unnecessary transfer of any activity which

may not save any money in the future de-

spite allegations of economy and will divert

funds today from an efficient, proven facility.

Our nation must preserve its human, nat-

ural and fiscal resources. We cannot afford

to squander any of these as we have done in

the past. For this reason, we urge that the

Marine Corps Supply Activity remain In

Philadelphia, both in the national interest

and in the interest of the community which

has supplied its personnel for many years

and which has built up a viable resource

around it for our nation.


I am Forrest W. Sellers, President, Local 89,

American Federation of Government Em-

ployees, which represents the civilian em-

ployees of the Marine Corps Supply Activity

under the provisions of E.O. 11491. On be-

half of these employees I should like to sub-

mit to you testimony which analyzes the al-

16id savings the Marine Corps claims will

arise from this transfer. As you will recog-

L pse.from this analysis, these savings are il-

11"Co and are predicated on assumptions

Which are invalid.

RMr. Sims has already indicated to you some

0f the considerations, including national se-

.1ity, why this transfer should not be au-

rd Besides challenging the costs fig-

b. I shall concentrate my summary on the

-this transfer will have on human



The 4.9 milUlion dollar "cost avoidance" fig-

0 fi includes the following:

1t. $191,000 for a standby generator for

Processing equipment.

081.000 for a sprinkler system.

14. million dollars for air conditioning


appears questionable that 4.9 million

could be legitimately claimed as a cost


avoidance when 4.6 million for air condi-

tioning has never been incorporated into the

military construction budget. Only funds for

a sprinkler system and a standby generator

are incorporated into the budget. One won-

ders if the air conditioning would ever have

been assigned high enough priority to be in-

corporated in the military construction

budget if the cost avoidance factor would not

have been conducive to the proposed reloca-

tion. The Department of the Navy stated

MCSA is old and in need of a modernization

program. In 1965 MCSA said the Philadelphia

building is structurally sound and sufficient.

The aforementioned statement was made in

a letter written by General Butcher, Com-

manding General of the MCA and is con-

tained in the Congressional Record, in 1965.

Secondly, extensive modernization has been

made to MCSA since that time. The moderni-

zation included but is not limited to: instal-

lation of new elevators, new lighting, tile

flooring, new roofing, and new windows;

painting and pointing of various buildings,

relocation and renovation of bathrooms, and

other modernization. Thirdly, Inspectors of

the Northern Division, Naval Facilities En-

gineering Command, and Headquarters, Ma-

rine Corps make periodic inspection of the

buildings at MCSA. I am advised that the

1972 report of NFEC listed only two princi-

pal items: the installation of the standby

generator for data processing equipment and

installation of a sprinkler system. As stated

in the above paragraph, the projected cost

to install these two items is only 258,000


It is noted that Marine Corps Headquarters

used as a justification for not effecting the

program request for air conditioning the fact

that there were higher Marine Corps priori-

ties stemming from operational requirements

and personnel facility requirements associ-

ated with Zero Draft/Prgject Volunteer. It

should be noted of course that to attempt to

justify the expenditure of more than 5.2 mil-

lion dollars for construction in Albany, Geor-

gia, the Department of the Navy uses this as

cost avoidance.

The Acting Assistant Secretary of the Navy

has stated that activities are curtailed or

completely closed down during the summer

months because of the lack of air condi-

tioning in most areas. It should be noted

that the times it has been necessary for em-

ployees to go home because of humidity/heat

were relatively few, and at no time is the

activity completely closed down due to lack

of air conditioning in the building. How-

ever, I am advised that the conditions in

Albany, Ga., in the nontemperature con-

trolled warehouses and in the non-office

space in the repair division, make it neces-

sary that the employees be allowed to go

home at various times because the tempera-

ture/humidity reaches a high proportion.

It has also been stated by the Acting As-

sistant Secretary of the Navy that the ef-

ficiency of the employees drops during

periods of high heat and humidity because

of the lack of air conditioning. It is note-

worthy that MCSA was given an award for

efficient operation by Headquarters Unit

from the Secretary of the Navy for exception-

al meritorious achievement; this in itself

shows the efficiency of the employees has re-

mained high.



Based on our research, the figure of 5.2

million dollars to construct a building in

Albany, Georgia is exceedingly low. If the

building is constructed in 1974 or 1975, we

project that figure could go as high as 8 mil-

lion dollars.


In reference to overall costs of operations

in Philadelphia, there has already been a

sizeable drop in cost as a result of the reduc-

S 20919

tion in workload because of the cessation of

hostilities in the Southeast Asia area.

Twenty-six civilian billets have already been

eliminated at a cost of 10.5 thousand dol-

lars each and this will amount to more than

260,000 dollars. We anticipate there will be

additional billets in the Philadelphia em-

ployment as a result of new program changes

that will be eliminated and this will increase

this figure to over 1/2 million dollars.


Mr. Chairman, we would be remiss if we

did not bring up the most important project

in running,this operation and that is the

people. Here we have some 1100 employees

well trained, well equipped to meet all of the

operational needs. Some have worked in this

one building for more than 30 years. The tre-

mendous impact which will occur on the lives

of these people by relocating this activity un-

necessarily to Albany, Georgia should not be

expected by those who have contributed ded-

Icated, unselfish service to the United States

Government in carrying out Its mission.

Sufficient employees will not be able to be

secured in Albany to carry on this function

and even if they could secure employees, it

will take a considerable number of months

to train them to work efficiently.


The average grade of the civilian employee

at MCSA is 7.94 and as such they could not

afford a three bedroom house in Albany as

such house in the spring of 1973 was selling

between $29,000 and $35,000. It is noted that

70% of MCSA employees are GS-9 and be-

low and couldn't afford to purchase such a

house. In fact, Mr. Chairman, there is in-

sufficient low income housing to meet the

needs. Although the average earnings are

$10,000, I would like to bring to your atten-

tion some statistics in terms of lower grade


Grade, Number of people: Salary

GS-2, 25------------------------- $5, 432

GS-3, 68------------------------- 6,128

GS-4, 97---------------------- 6.882

GS-5, 107------------------------ 7,694

GS-6, 38------------------------- 8,572

GS-7, 112------------------------ 9,520

GS-8, 3----------------------- 10,528

GS-9, 242------------------------ 11,046

It appears as a result of conditions that

will exist there so far as living some 800 of

the 1118 employees on the rolls will not be

able to transfer. Therefore it will cost the

U.S. Government multiple hundreds of thou-

sands of dollars in severance pay: when we

add to that early retirement, the cost will run

in the millions. None of this shows up in the

budget project submitted by the Marine

Corp, even though these are real cost which

the American taxpayer will have to bear.






I am Forrest Sellers, President, Local 89,

American Federation of Government Employ-

ees, which represents the civilian employees

of the Marine Corps Supply Activity, Phila-

delphia, Pennsylvania, under the provisions

of Executive Order 11491.

I am most grateful to the Subcommittee

for the opportunity of appearing before you

on October 9, 1973 to express my opposition

to the proposed transfer of the Marine Corps

Supply Activity to the Marine Corps Supply

Center, Albany, Georgia. I submit the follow-

ing statement to you primarily to provide

(1) written responses to questions regard-

ing my statement of October 9th, (2) addi-

tions to comment upon data made available

to me at and after the hearing of October

9th and (3) amplification of several of my re-

S 20920

marks. Secondly, for purposes of simplicity

and convenience, I have incorporated into

this statement the substance of my previous

statement. My sentiments, therefore, can be

soured solely by reviewing this statement. I

respectfully request that this statement

be inserted into the record of these hearings.

On behalf of the employees at the Marine

Corps Supply Activity I should like to sub-

mit to you testimony which analyzes the al-

leged cost and the alleged savings the De-

partment of the Defense (DoD) claims will

arise from the proposed relocation. As you

will recognize from this analysis (1) the al-

leged savings have decreased significantly,

(2) the alleged costs have increased signif-

icantly and (3) several assertions of DoD are

in error.


The Fact Sheet Which DoD distributed to

interested Congressmen/individuals lists un-

der "Funding Impact" cost of 5.2 million dol-

lars in military construction (MILCON)

funds required to relocate the Marine Corps

Supply Activity. The Hon. Jack L. Bowers,

Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installa-

tion and Logistics, in an enclosure to a letter

written on 29 June 1973 to Mr. Royal L. Sims,

National Vice-President of the American Fed-

eration of Government Employees, listed

costs of 9,748,000 dollars to relocate the Ma-

rine Corps Supply Activity. The total esti-

mated cost consisted of 5,204,000 dollars in

MILCON funds and 4,544,000 dollars in Op-

erations and Maintenance, Mafine Corps

(O&M, MC) funds. A preliminary report of a

Marine Corps Task Group dated 22 June 1973

listed under Section IV total O&M, MC costs

of 5,719,000 dollars-41,175,000 more than

listed in Assistant Secretary Bowers' letter of

June 29th. The Hon. John W. Warner, Secre-

tary of the Navy, in his letter of October 2,

1973 to Senator Richard S. Schweiker listed

total estimated cost to relocate the Marine

Corps Supply Activity as 11.0 million dollars.

The cost consisted of 5.2 million dollars in

MILCON funds and 5.8 million dollars in

O&M, MC funds. The report of the Marine

Corps Task Group and Secretary Warner's

letter show, therefore, that (1) cost as listed

by DoD officials in the Fact Sheet has in-

creased 5,719,000 dollars and (2) cost as list-

ed by DoD officials in Assistant Secretary

Bowers' letter of 29 June has increased

1,175,000 dollars.


Notwithstanding the fact that DoD esti-

mates of total cost have increased a minimum

of 1,175,000 dollars, it appears that several

indirect costs to the Federal government and

to the taxpayers have been excluded from the

cost estimates. Where in the estimates are

the costs to the Federal government resulting

from the early retirement of employees who

would not transfer if the relocation is con-

summated? Where in the estimates are the

costs to the Federal government for economic

adjustment assistance rendered to the ad-

versely affected community by the President's

Inter-Agency Economic Adjustment Commit-

tee? Where in the estimates are the costs to

the Federal government for displaced em-

ployees who would be eligible for unemploy-

ment benefits? Where in the estimates are

costs to the Federal government to retrain

employees who will be placed in new occupa-

tions in other agencies in the government?



The Marine Corps estimates that the cost

to construct the proposed building at Albany

will be 5,204,000 dollars. Several knowledge-

able persons have advised me that the esti-

mate is exceedingly low. First of all, I have

been advised that labor and material in the

construction industry are increasing a

minimum of eight to ten percent per year.

Assuming that the Marine Corps' estimate of

5,204,000 dollars is accurate, the cost to


construct the proposed building In 1974 con-

sidering labor and material increases would

be between $5,620,320 and $5,724,400. If the

proposed building was constructed in 1975,

the cost would be between $6,036,640 and


Secondly, I have been advised that it

appears the cost estimate does not contain

any allowances for probable cost over-runs,

modifications and other contingencies. I was

advised, further, that considering cost over-

runs, modifications and contingencies, the

cost of the building might go as high as

8,000,000 dollars.



Why was not the total estimated cost of

11.0 million dollars contained in Secretary

Warner's letter not contained in the Fact

Sheet which was initially distributed to inter-

ested congressmen and individuals? Why have

several indirect costs to the Federal govern-

ment been excluded from the cost estimates?

DoD has increased the cost estimates by a

minimum of 1,175,000 dollars. Will DoD in-

crease the cost estimates again? What is the

true cost of the proposed relocation?


DoD officials have stated in a number of

letters and documents that the proposed relo-

cation would result in estimated annual

savings of 2,610,000 dollars.

The Installation 'Facility Data, attached as

an enclosure to Assistant Secretary Bowers'

letter of June 29th, shows that 804,000 dollars

of the alleged savings would result from a

reduction in military pay, and the remaining

1,806,000 dollars of the alleged savings would

result from a reduction in civilian pay/other

O&M, MC areas. Secretary Warner shows in

the aforementioned letter that the alleged

savings would result solely from reductions

in personnel. Sources of the alleged savings as

depicted in the two preceding references are

not in agreement. One wonders, therefore,

how reliable are the estimates of alleged sav-

ings. Secondly, the civilian and military bil-

lets alleged to be eliminated have not been

identified by DoD officials. I have been ad-

vised, moreover, that the Table of Organiza-

tion (T/O), which would reflect reductions

'resulting from the proposed relocation has

not been completed to date.

Thirdly, the Fact Sheet cites that the

alleged personnel savings are predicated upon

the following reductions in the T/O in ef-

fect on December 4, 1972: civilian billets be

ing reduced from 1132 to 948 and military

billets being reduced from 431 to 381. Four-

teen civiliAn and six military billets have

been eliminated already. This reduction-re-

sulting in estimated savings of 210,000 dol-

lars-is documented in the Civilian-Military

Complement Record of the Marine Corps

Supply Activity. An additional twenty mili-

tary billets are scheduled to be eliminated in

the Data Processing Division of the Marine

Corps Supply Activity during the next two

years. These reductions of 40 billets would

result in total estimated savings of 420,000

dollars. It is to be emphasized that this sav-

ings of 420,000 dollars would occur before the

time of the proposed relocation and is not

related in any way to the proposed relocation.

These savings would reduce the alleged sav-

ings resulting from the proposed relocation.

Fourthly, a preliminary report of an on-

site manpower survey team from Headquar-

ters, Marine Corps recommended several

months ago that thirty-one civilian and mil-

itary billets in addition to the forty civilian

and military billets cited in the above para-

graph be eliminated. If the latter mentioned

thirty-one billets are eliminated, DoD alleged

savings of 2,610,000 dollars resulting from the

proposed relocation would be reduced by

745,500 dollars.

Finally, it s anticipated that there will

be additional personnel reductions at the

November 20, 1$

the proposed relocation because of rsfdptloe

in workload due to the cessation of hoetl

ties in the Southeast Asia area.



DoD Officials stated in a number of letters

and documents that military construction at

the Marine Corps Supply Activity totaling

4,924,000 dollars could be avoided if the pro-

posed relocation is accomplished. The 4.9

million dollar "cost avoidance" figure in-

cludes the following items:

a. 191,000 dollars for a standby generator

for data processing equipment.

b. 176,000 dollars for a sprinkler system.

The original estimated cost of this project

was 67,000 dollars.

c: 4.6 million dollars for air conditioning

various buildings.

Mr. Witt stated in his letter of June 12,

1973 to Senator Schweiker that air condi-

tioning of the Marine Corps Supply Activity

"has not been effected up to now because of

higher Marine Corps priorities stemming

'from operational requirements and person-

nel facility requirements associated with

Zero Draft/Project Volunteer".

It is questionable that 4.9 million dollars

could be legitimately claimed as a cost avod-

ance when 4.6 million dollars for air condi-

tioning has never been incorporated into the

military construction budget. Only funds

for a sprinkler system nad a standby genera-

tor have ever been incorporated Into the

budget. One wonders if the air conditioning

would ever have been assigned high enough

priority to be incorporated in the military

construction budget if the cost avoidance

factor would not have been conducive to the

proposed relocation.

Secondly, enclosure (2) to the Command-

ant of the Marine Corps letter of August 8,

1972 (Sub: Guidance for Facility Planning

and Programming) stated that the six-year

dollar limitation for military construction

at the Marine Corps Supply Activity for PFs-

cal Years 1974 through 1979 would be $2.0

million. The aforementioned limitation ren-

ders it impossible to install air conditioning

at the Marine Corps Supply Activity during

the six-year period. The Director of MCSA

Office of Supporting Services letter of 18 Sep-

tember 1972 to MCS. Chief of Staff collabo-

rated the situation.

The Hqn. Edward J. Sheridan, Deputy As-

sistant Secretary of Defense, stated in his

letter of 14 June 1973 to Senator Richard S.

Schweiker that the Marine Corps Supply

Activity is old and desperately in need of a

major modernization program.

Marine Corps Major General J. O. Butcher,

Commanding General of the Marine Corps

Supply Activity in 1965, stated in a letter

that "the present permanent buildings at

1100 South Broad Street (Marine Corps Sup-

ply Activity) are structurally sound and are

sufficient for orderly satisfaction of all aq-

ticipated requirements with remaining space

still available for possible additional expan-


The opinion expressed by General Butcher

was subsequently incorporated into the Con-

gressional Record.

Secondly, extensive modernization las been

made to MCSA since that time. The mod-

ernization included but is not limited to:

installation of new elevators, new lighting,

tile flooring, new roofing, and new windows;

painting and pointing of various buildings,

relocation and renovation of bathrooms, and

other modernization:

Thirdly, Inspectors of the Northern Divi-

sion, Naval Facilities Engineering Command,

and Headquarters, Marine Corps make pe-

riodic inspection of the buildings at MCSA.

I am advised that the 1972 report of NFEC

listed only two principal items: the installa-

tion of the standby generator for data proc-

F' ember 20, 1973 CON

gling equipment and installation of a

Sprinkler system. As stated in the above para-

graph, the projected cost to install these

two items is only 8687,000 dollars.

.Fourthly, if General Butcher's statements

were accurate, it must be concluded that the

buildings at MCSA are structurally sound

and sufficient today because the buildings are

in better condition today than they were

in 1968.



Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense

Sheridan in his aforementioned letter stated

also that many of the supply operations at

the Marine Corps Supply Activity are cur-

tailed or completely closed down during the

summer months because of the lack of air

conditioning in most of the Office spaces.

It should be noted that the times it has

been necessary for employees to be released

early because of the heat/humidity have

been relatively few and at no time has the

Activity been completely closed down due

to lack of air conditioning in the buildings.

Approximately 40 percent of the office/con-

ference room spaces at the Marine Corps Sup-

ply Activity are air conditioned. Air condi-

tioned spaces include the following offices:

The Commading General, the Chief of Staff,

the Deputy Chief of Staff, all division direc-

tors, and various other offices in each di-

vision. Persons in air conditioned spaces are

not released early due to heat/humidity-

only persons in non-air conditioned space

are released. Thus, at no time is the entire

Activity completely closed down due to


Secondly, when management deems it

prudent to release employees in non-air

conditioned spaces, divisions normally re-

tain one or more key employees in each

branch-including persons in non-air con-

ditioned space-to process emergency/

priority work.


Former Acting Assistant Secretary of the

Navy Hugh Witt stated in his letter of 12

June 1973 ta Senator Schweiker that the ef-

ficieney of the employees drops during peri-

ods of high heat and humidity because of

the lack of air conditioning. It is noteworthy

that the Marine Corps Supply Activity was

awarded a unit citation from the Secretary

of the Navy on June 15, 1968 for "Excep-

tionally meritorious achievement in the per-

formance-of outstanding service in carry-

ing out assigned duties ...". The award sub-

stsntlates that the efficiency of the em-

ployees at the Marine Corps Supply Ac-

tivity is high.



Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Ed-

waIw J. Sheridan in his letter of 14 June to

Senator Richard S. Schweiker stated the

possible loss of specific talents possessed by

employees who cannot relocate was recog-

nieed as a major problem in the relocation.

Assistant Secretary of the Navy Bowers

stated in his letter of 19 July 1973 to me:

The Marine Corps realizes that it may not

be an easy task to recruit and train peo-

ple to replace those current employees who

chose not to exercise their right to transfer

with their function ...

A Marine Corps Task Group in a prelimi-

nary report of June 22, 1972.

"Certain critical functions most seriously

2lrected by the non-relocation of key civil-

an personel require augmentation by mill-

tary personnel in order to ensure a reason-

WBle degree of continuity."

.Why is the military augmentation re-

d if there are sufficiently trained per-

I Albany?

the event that the proposed relocation

sL summated, who will staff the positions


if it becomes necessary to pull out the mill-

tary personnel in an emergency?

Is it not true also that a number of pre-

vious Marine Corps studies---including the

Dillard Study of 1970-71-recommended

against the proposed relocation because of

the lack of sufficiently trained personnel?



Former Acting Assistant Secretary of the

Navy Witt stated also in his letter of

June 12th, that the cost of three bedroom

homes in Albany in the Spring of 1973

ranged between $29,000 and $35,000. As

shown below, more than 70 percent of. the

employees at the Marine Corps Supply Ac-

tivity are GS-9 (or equivalent) and below:

Grade, number of people,'

GS-2 ---------------------

GS-3 ------------------....

GS-4 ---------------------

GS-5 ----------------------

GS-6 ----------------------


GS-8 -- -----------------

Wage-9 grade-----......__..

Wage grade---------------




7, 198






I Employees on board as of 30 May 1973.

These 771 employees normally would not

secure or support a $29,000 to $35,000 mort-

gage based upon their income. Mr. Witt

stated also that the cost of four bedroom

homes in Albany in the Spring of 1973

ranged between $35,000 and $42,000. Four

bedroom homes would, therefore, be limited

to the select group of employees equivalent

to GS-12 and above. Most of MCSA em-

ployees who lack sufficient income to pur-

chase a $29,000 to $42,000 home in Albany

now live in decent adequate row/semi-

detached homes in Philadelphia and vicinity

ranging between $12,000 and $22,000.


Mr. Chairman, we would be remiss if we

did not bring up the most important project

in running this operation, and that is the

people. Here we have some 1100 employees

well trained, well equipped to meet all of

the operational needs. Some have worked in

this one building for more than 30 years.

The tremendous impact which will occur on

the lives of these people by relocating this

activity unnecessarily to Albany, Georgia

should not be expected by those who have

contributed dedicated, unselifish service to

the United States Government in carrying

out its mission.

In closing, I wish to reiterate that it is

apparent that the rationale advanced by

DoD officials to support the proposed reloca-

tion contains a number of defects. The major

defect is that alleged savings of 2,610,000

dollars have decreased significantly, while

total estimated cost has increased signifi-

cantly. Another major defect is that several

costs have been excluded from the estimates.

A third major defect is that there are official

documents to prove that the alleged cost

avoidance of 4,924,000 dollars is invalid be-

cause Headquarters, Marine Corps was not

going to allocate MCSA sufficient funds dur-

ing Fiscal Years 1974 thru 1979 to air con-

dition the buildings. A fourth major defect

is that it is questionable that adequately

trained civilian personnel are available to

staff the proposed transferred positions.

I wish to emphasize that the above-

mentioned statements are not made to be

critical of any individual or agency, and

identification of individuals and/or various

agencies was for purpose of required docu-

mentation. I served as a Budget Analyst and

a Budget/Accounting Analyst for the Fed-

eral government for eight years, and I know

the difficulty in compiling meaningful es-

timates three years in advance. In my opin-

ion, however, it would not be prudent or

in the best interest of the Federal govern-

ment, the taxpayers or MCSA employees to

S 20921

recommend appropriation of the 5.2 million

dollars based upon data presented by DoD

to date. I respectfully request, therefore, that

you, the members of the Military Construc-

tion Subcommittee, recommend disapproval

of the proposed appropriation.


Washington, D.C., November 1, 1973.


Ranking Minority Member, Senate Appro-

priations Committee on Military Con-

struction, Dirksen Senate Office Build-

ing, Washington, D.C.

DEAR DICK: I am writing to let you know

of my concern for the proposed appropria-

tion of $5.2 million to relocate the Marine

Corps supply activity from Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania to Albany, Georgia.

As you know, the $5.2 million is needed to

construct administrative facilities to ade-

quately house Marine Corps supply activity

personnel to be moved to Albany, Georgia.

Reliable witnesses have appeared before your

Committee to refute the overall estimates of

cost and savings attributed to the move as

presented to your Committee by the De-

partment of Navy. This testimony shows the

overall cost to the government, maintenance,

construction, relocation, etc., will be less if

the facility remains in Philadelphia.

Specifically, the $5.2 million cost of the

needed renovation at Albany, Georgia, could

go as high as $8 million when the construc-

tion is completed in 1974-75. Also, the De-

partment of the Navy does estimate it will

save $4.9 million in "cost avoidance" by mov-

ing the supply operation. $4.6 million of this

estimate is for air conditioning--a cost never

incorporated into the military construction


Therefore, in view of the above, and other

questions raised in the testimony, I respect-

fully request that the $5.2 million not be

appropriated until it is clearly shown to be

in the best interest of the Government.

With kind regard,



U.S. Senator.

Mr. SCHWEIKER. Mr. President, I

am not satisfied that the Department of

Defense has properly evaluated this pro-

posal and I regret that funds are pro-

vided in this bill which will begin the

transfer. As the ranking Republican on

the Appropriations Subcommittee on

Military Construction I conducted hear-

ings on this important subject. Also, I

was able to have this specific appropria-

tion item deferred to the full Appro-

priation Committee for consideration. I

felt that the full committee should have

the opportunity to evaluate and consider

the necessity for the transfer and thus

the need for $5.2 million to begin con-

struction of a facility in Albany, Ga.

During the Appropriations Committee

deliberations on this bill, I presented the

various issues involved including the

points of view of the employees, the con-

tent of the Dillard study I mentioned

earlier, and the testimony presented at

the hearings which I chaired. I requested

a vote on this specific item and was dis-

appointed that the committee by a vote

of 10 to 6 failed to adopt my recom-

mendation that the funds be deleted

from the bill.

Mr. President, I repeat, this appro-

priation item is unnecessary, unjustified

and will result in severe hardships for

the city of Philadelphia and particularly

for the many employees whose loyal

service to the Federal Government is

being overlooked for no good reason.

S 20922

Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, will

the distinguished majority leader yield?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes, indeed.

Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, it

has been my pleasure and privilege to

serve on the Board of Visitors of the

Military Academy, which we call West

Point. I want to express my appreciation

to the committee for having included $20

million to commence the building of a

new hospital. This is very badly needed.

The present hospital has been there

since 1923. It has been enlarged sort of

piecemeal from time to time, and I know

that this is not a satisfactory way to

produce the proper kind of hospital.

I speak with some experience in this

matter, because I have been a member of

the board of three hospitals in this coun-

try.I know the per-square-foot cost to be

very high in their construction. I know

that at West Point the per-square-foot

cost to build anything is ridiculously

high, because we have never been able to

acquire the proper construction facilities,

unions, and so forth, in the close proxim-

ity of the academy.

Mr. President, while $20 million will

not exactly finish this hospital, it will get

it started. I am very gratified, and I know

that I speak the gratification of the en-

tire Board of Visitors and the staff of

West Point when I express thanks to the

committee for this fine job.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I

wish to express the thanks of the com-

mittee, to the distinguished Senator from

Arizona, who has been leading the fight

for this item for more months than,

frankly, I care to remember. I think he

and the Academy have achieved success.

We have been assured by the Army that

this will be sufficient to take care of its

needs. They are very much pleased with

the proposal, and we hope that the House

will agree in conference.

May I say that the Senate figure, de-

spite its almost 10 percent cut from the

administration's request, is $61 million

above that of the House. But of that $61

million, more than half is the result Of

new items-the $20 million for the hos-

pital at the Military Academy at West

Point and $12 million for Culebra, off

Puerto Rico, by means of which a pledge

given by three Secretaries of Defense

is being honored. This matter, we hope,

now is on the way to a final solution.

Other islands, uninhabited, have been

found to carry out the gunnery practice

and the like which the Navy considers

desirable. It is our hope that the House

will agree with what the Senate will do

in the case of Culebra, that a commit-

ment will be honored, and that this dif-

ficult situation finally will be brought to

a head.

It was interesting to note that the

chairman of the House Appropriations

Subcommittee, Representative ROBERT L.

F. SnKEs, of Florida, stated that he would

give the matter all consideration and

keep an open mind if it was put into

the Senate bill. He explained that he

could not do anything because he had

received no communication from the

Navy. We did. Tihs committee did re-

ceive a communication from the Navy.

This request now has been honored and

is in the bill. There, again, I want to say


that a great deal of credit goes to the

distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania

(Mr. ScHWEnER), who, along with me. is

managing the bill at this time on the


Mr. SCHWEIKER. Mr. President, will

the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield.

Mr. SCHWEIKER. I certainly agree

with the distinguished majority leader's

point on Culebra. I had the opportunity

during World War II to serve on an air-

craft carrier operating off Culebra, and

we were using the island for bombing


I also had the misfortune to see a very

serious accident occur during World

War II, when pilots from our carrier, by

mistake, in bad weather conditions,

bombed the observation tower, killing a

number of men on the island of Culebra.

This event did not receive wide pub-

licity at the time because of war condi-

tions. It did receive a Navy board of in-


It seems to me that this is good,

graphic proof of what can happen when

somebody makes a mistake and you are

near a population area. Fortunately, this

did not affect civilians; but the fact

that we bombed our own observation

post, killing a number of officers and en-

listed men at the time, shows how a

bombing incident near civilians endang-

ers civilian population.

I can well understand that the people

who live there are concerned about it.

So I am glad that we have bitten the

bullet, and that we have, in fact, set a

target date for phasing out the bombing

operation there.

I hope, as the distinguished majority

leader has said, that the House will lis-

ten to our point and will agree that this

is a better way to proceed. I think it is

only fair to the people of Culebra; and it

is also a very good index of what we

ought to be doing.


pore. The bill is open to amendment. If

there be no further amendment to be

proposed, the question is on the engross-

ment of the amendments and the third

reading of the bill.

The amendments were ordered to be

engrossed and the bill to be read a third


The bill was read the third time.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I sug-

gest the absence of a quorum, because

there will be a yea-and-nay vote. The

bill is of sizable proportions. I think we

ought to help some of our Members to

be recorded.


pore. The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call

the roll.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the brder for

the quorum call be rescinded.


pore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask

for the yeas and nays on the passage of

the bill.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, be-

cause of the fact that certain committees

are holding important hearings this

ATE November 20, i

morning, I ask unanimous consent tbat

the vote on the military constueation

appropriation bill occur at 12:15 par,



pore. Does the majority leader ask that

the provisions of rule XII be waived?



pore. Without objection, the appropriate

section of rule XII will be waived.

Without objection, the vote will oc-

cur at 12:15 p.m. today.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President; the

pending bill, which would provide $2,-

670,972,000 in appropriations for the

fiscal year 1974 -military construction

program, deserves favorable considera-

tion by the Senate.

This bill represents an increase of ap-

proximately $61 million over that ap-

proved by the House Appropriations

Committee earlier this month but is

nearly $300 million under the budget


It was pleasing to me that the Senate

Committee approved a $1.3 million proj-

ect at the Naval Station in Charleston.

S.C., for a communication facility badly

needed by naval forces there.

This facility would provide fleet broad-

cast communications and improve har-

bor control. The present transmitter

buildings are overcrowded and in poor


Mr. President, unfortunately the Sen-

ate committee did not approve about

$6 million for enlisted and bachelor offi-

cer housing in Iceland. This request was

taken out because the United States is

presently negotiating for an agreement

to insure retention of our forces there.

While this money could be used only if

suitable agreements are reached, it

nevertheless would appear wise to pro-

vide the funds in the event ,a suitable

agreement is reached.

Iceland is a very isolated area and our

personnel there remain indoors moot of

the time. The present facilities are to-

tally inadequate and if this funding is

not restored and an agreement is reached,

our servicemen will have to wait an ex-

tra year to receive suitable housing.

Mr. President, overall the committee

has done an outstanding job on this bill.

However, I hope the conferees will give

serious consideration to the House posi-

tion of leaving the Iceland projects in

the bill, on the proviso that a suitable

agreement might be reached.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I wish to

commend the chairmen and members of

the Senate Armed Services and- Appro-

priations Committees for providing $12

million in the military construction ap-

propriations bill, presently pending be-

fore the Senate, to effect the transfer of

the Atlantic Fleet Weapons Range from

the inhabited island of Culebra to the

two uninhabited islands of Desecheo and


This transfer was ordered by the Sec-

retary of Defense on May 24, 1973, and

it represents the fruition of efforts by

many to end the Navy's use of this tiny

island east of Puerto Rico as a target

for naval weapons. For years, the Navy

claimed that Culebra was essential to the

national security as a target for ship-to-

oqember 0o, 1973


shore and aerial bombardment until

1972, when two studies conducted by

DOD concluded that there were other

islands in the general vicinity that were

untnhabited and that would serve the

same purpose. Thus, Senator HUMPHREY

and I introduced legislation, cosponsored

by 38 Members of this body, to force the

Navy to move elsewhere for their target

practice; and I was very pleased to see

Elliot Richardson, in his last action as

Secretary of Defense, order the Navy to

complete such a transfer by July 1, 1975.

The questions of how to effect the

transfer and how to protect Culebra's

unique environment from uncontrolled

development remain to be answered.

However, I am confident that the De-

partment of the Interior, the Navy, and

the Government of the Commonwealth

of Puerto Rico can work out these details

in the near future and that the transfer

can be brought about as quickly and

smoothly as possible.

The funds in the military construc-

tions appropriation bill are essential to

this purpose and I wish to thank once

again the Senate Appropriations Com-

mittee for following through on this im-

portant matter.

. -





November 19, 19'

the performance

Senator from Ala

the session of the

Hon. Howard H.

the Army made

tour of Fort Mc

tion's great mil

niston, Ala., as

being made by

to determine the

McClellan and

throughout the c

gressman BILL

Congressional Di

c mpanied Secr

inspection trip

of such assistant

the Secretary in

that would make

Port McClellan

would best serve

.I regset that

from the;Senate

miss the further

ate on thir energy

that werd aken.

1inal passage[

I might state

Helms ,amendm

prevented the f

children and the

Purpose, I am a

ment and had I

ate when the a

""ad the motion

S.utd have vote

table in order

'loved on to votv





President, yesterday,

3, it was necessary in

of my duties as U.S.

ama to be absent from

Senate. On that date,

allaway, Secretary of

an official inspection

lellan, one of the Na-

ary bases, near An-

rt of a survey that is

e Defense Department

future mission of Fort

other military bases

untry. Along with Con-

ICHOLs of the Third

trict of Alabama, I ac-

ry Callaway on his

Fort McClellan to be

as I could in assisting

arriving at a decision

he best possible use of

nd its facilities and

he national interest.

y necessary absence

esterday caused me to

deliberations of the Sen-

bill as well as the votes

in amendments and on

specifically as to the

at, which would have

rced busing of school-

use of gasoline for that

)sponsor of the amend-

en present in the Sen-

mdment was called up

to table was made I

against the motion to

it we might have then

g in favor of the Helms


Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I suggest

p absence of a quorum.


pore. The clerk w

The legislative

the roll.


unanimous consei

the quorum call


ALLEN). Without





unanimous cons

printed as it pass


objection, it is


suggest the abse


will call the roll.

The legislative

the roll.


unanimous conse

the quorum call be


objection, it is so o


unanimous cons(

stand in recess u



objection, it is so

Thereupon, at i

the Senate took a

whereupon, the Se

called to order b;

pro tempore (Mr.:






unanimous counsel

on Government O

to file its report o

midnight, Noveml


pore. Without obj

RESIDENT pro tem-

11 call the roll.

:lerk proceeded to call

3. Mr. President, I ask

it that the order for

le rescinded.


objection, it is so

.TING OF S. 2589, AS


3. Mr. President, I ask

at that S. 2589 be

d the Senate.

3 OFFICER. Without


,D. Mr. President, I

:e of a quorum.

1 OFFICER. The clerk

lerk proceeded to call

3. Mr. President, I ask

.t that the order for


G OFFICER. Without



P. Mr. President, I ask

it that the Senate

til the hour of 12:10

G OFFICER. Without


he hour of 11:50 a.m.,

recess until 12:10 p.m.,

late reassembled when

the Acting President





SVEMBER 28, 1973

Qr. President, I ask

t that the Committee

operations be permitted

S. 1541 no later than

er 28, 1973.

'RESIDENT pro tem-

ction, it is so ordered.


Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I

suggest the absen e of a quorum.


will call the roll.

The second assistant legislative clerk

proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order for

the quorum call be rescinded.


objection, it is so ordered.



The Senate continued with the consid-

eration of the bill (H.R. 11459) making

appropriations for military construction

for the Department of Defense for the

fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, and for

other purposes.


previous order, the Senate will now pro-

ceed to vote on H.R. 11459.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, this

is the appropriation bill for military con-



ator is correct.

The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk called

the roll.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce

that the Senator from Idaho (Mr.

CHURCH), the Senator from Colorado

(Mr. HASKELL), the Senator from Minne-

sota (Mr. MONDALE), the Senator from

New Mexico (Mr. MONTOYA), the Sena-

tor from Wisconsin (Mr. NELSON), and

the Senator from Mississippi (Mr.

STENNIS) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and

voting, the Senator from Mississippi (Mr.

STENNIS) would vote "yea."

Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the

Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Cmarrs) is

absent by leave of the Senate on official


The Senator from New Hampshire

(Mr. COTTON) is absent because of ill-

ness in his family.

The Senator from Idaho (Mr. Mc-

CLURE) is absent on offcial business.

The Senator from Utah (Mr. BEN-

NETT), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.

BROCK), and the Senator from Hawaii

(Mr. FONG) are necessarily absent.

If present and voting, the Senator from

Nebraska (Mr. CURTIs), and the Sena-

tor from Hawaii (Mr. FONG) would each

vote "yea."

The result was announced-yeas 88,

nays 0, as follows:
















Harry F., Jr.

Byrd, Robert C.


















[No. 510 Leg.]















































Scott, Hugh


William L.















Curtis Mondale

Fong Montoya

Haskell Nelson

McClure Stennis

So the bill (H.R. 11459) was passed.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I

move to reconsider the vote by which the

bill (H.R. 11459) was passed.


BYRD moved to lay the motion on the


S 20923

b__ -

S 20924 col

The motion to lay on the table was

agreed to.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I

move that the Senate insist on its amend-

ments and requests a conference with the

House of Representatives thereon, and

that the Chair be authorized to appoint

conferees on the part of the Senate.

The motion was agreed to; and the

Presiding Officer appointed Mr. MANS-





Mr. TOWER conferees on the part of the




Mr. ROTH. Mr.

imous consent that

my name be deletedI

1541, the Federal Act

tures and Establish


objection, it is so ord



the absence of a quor


will call the roll.


NSOR OF S. 1541

resident, I ask unan-

t its next printing

as a cosponsor of S.

to Control Expendi-


OFFICER. Without



President, I suggest


FFICER. The clerk

The second assistnt legislative clerk

proceeded to call the toll.

Mr. MANSFIELD. tr. President, I ask

unanimous consent t at the order for the

quorum call be rescinded.


objection, it is so ord red.



Mr. MANSFIELD. Ir. President, I ask

unanimous consent t at the Senate turn

to the consideration f calendar No. 388,

8. 1868.


will be stated by title.

The assistant legislative clerk read as


A bill (8S. 1868) to aaend the United Na-

tions Participation Act of 1945 to halt the

importation of Rhode an chrome and to

restore the United Stal s to its position as

a law-abiding member kf the international


There being no ob ction, the Senate

proceeded to consider the bill.

Mr. HUMPHREY obtained the floor.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will

the Senater yield to me briefly, without

losing his right to the floor?

"Mr. HUMPHREY. Iiyield.


Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President,

whether or not there,will be any more

votes this afternoon, I cannot say at this

time. It is possible that there may be,

so I would urge Senators to stay very

close to the Chamber. There will be some

matters taken up relative to the execu-

tive calendar, on which we are awaiting

further information.

As the Senate knows, the two treaties

which were reported by the Foreign Re-


lations Committee una mously will be

voted on Monday. Again, we are await-

ing word as to what tie that vote will


On the basis of the eport made by

the distinguished chair an of the Com-

mittee on Rules and A inistration to-

day concerning the nomination of

GERALD FORD to be Vice esident of the

United States--and that omination was

reported unanimously, nd debate on

that nomination will be in immediately

after the disposition of he two treaties

on Monday next-the v te on the con-

firmation will not occ r on Monday.

Hopefully it will occur some time on

Tuesday. The debate ill not be too


It is the present intent on of the lead-

ership, following the disp al of the nom-

ination of GERALD FORD t be Vice Presi-

dent of the United Stat s, to call up S.

2673, the so-called Saxb pay bill.

That is the situation, as I see it, at

the present time. As of ow it does not

look as if there will be y votes tomor-

row. There will be a sessi n, though.

I would hope that we ould clean the

calendar a little more day. I would

hope it would be possible dispose of the

executive calendar. How ver, as I have

indicated, that is a ma ter of waiting

on events, and if an agreement is

reached, announcement will be made as

expeditiously thereafter is possible.




Mr. MANSFIELD. In v w of the cir-

cumstances I ask unanimo s consent that

as the need arises-and the agreement

will not be treated cavaliely-it be pos-

sible to lay aside temporarily the pend-

ing business at any time.

Mr. HUMPHREY. We u erstand that.


objection, it is so ordered.



The Senate continued 'ith the con-

sideration of the bill (S. 1868) to amend

the United Nations Participation Act of

1945 to halt the importation of Rhodesian

chrome and to restore the Jnited States

to its position as a law-abiding member

of the international community.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. P resident, I ask

unanimous consent that DQn Henderson,

of the Foreign Relations staff, Mr. Spiegel

and Miss Albertson of my stiff be allowed

the privilege of the floor during the con-

sideration of S. 1868.


objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. *esident, the

pending business relating to the restora-

tion of the United States sanctions

against Rhodesia as one of the impor-

tant items of international policy, par-

ticularly at this critical time when we

need to look towards the Gontinents of

Asia and Africa for not olly their co-

operation but also, may I say, in terms

of many of their resources.

Mr. President, U.S. violation of inter-

national sanctions against Rhodesia has

ATE Nove ber 20, 197*

seriously undermined ome of our most

fundamental foreign licy goals:

The United States committedto the

rule of law througho the world and to

upholding internatio a treaty obliga-

tions. At a time wh we are seeking

binding internation agreements in

many areas-from in rnational mone-

tary reform to strat gic arms limita-

tions-we must do eve ything possible to

make our own co itment to treaty

obligations credible d to strengthen

the international legal system.

Yet in violating actions we are

breaking a treaty oblig tion to the United

Nations and refusing comply with in-

ternational law. Artic e 25 of the U.N.

Charter states that 1 member states

are legally bound to mply with sanc-

tions. The United St tes is a member

state, and in fact we were the leading

force in bringing abo the United Na-

tions and in securing t e adoption of the

charter. Section 5(a) f the United Na-

tions Participation Ac of 1945 gave the

President express auth ity to implement

sanctions when impos d by the United


The United States s rongly supported

the imposition of s ctions against

Rhodesia in the Secur y Council-both

in 1966 when the Sec ity Council voted

unanimously to impos partial manda-

tory sanctions and in 1 68 when it voted

unanimously to impos full mandatory


So there it is, Mr. esident, the law

of the land. And a tr y is regarded as

the supreme law of th land, just as is

our Constitution. We a the only nation

in the world to first pport sanctions

then pass a law requi lng that we vio-

late them.

This action can only eaken the inter-

national legal framewo.

It should be clearly understood that

the United States has ore at stake in

complying with intern tional law than

almost any other coun in -the world.

For us to violate the 1 w and abrogate

international law in efiance of our

treaty obligations is to i vite internation-

al disorder and catastro he.

Mr. WILLIAM L. S OTT. Will the

Senator yield?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I w uld like to make

my statement first. A erward, I shall

yield for a question.

Mr. WILLIAM L. SC TT. Mr. Presi-

dent, if the Senator rom Minnesota

would yield very briefly, my only inquiry

is whether the Senator rom Minnesota

intends to ask for a vot on this bill to-


Mr. HUMPHREY. No, do not.

Mr. WILLIAM L. SC TT. Mr. Presi-

dent, I thank the Sen tor from Min-

nesota very much.

Mr. HUMPHREY. r. President, I

thank the Senator fro Virginia.

We have the power to eto any United

Nations resolution. Wh we refuse to

comply with U.N. polic we are setting

a bad example for nation which do not

even have a vote in the curity Council.

Our violation of inte tional law has

not gone unnoticed in e United Na-

tions. The General Assembly has passed

four resolutions calling 'on the United

States not to implement the legislation

ber 4, 1973


t to flue Latin American countries, review our policy toward Latin America

Chile, although section 4 of the in general and Chile in particular, with a

Military Sales Act, as amended, view toward building a positive reputa-

4ac sstricti on the sale of "sophis- tion in the eyes of the people of Latin

ties weapons systems, such as-jet America.

aircraft' to these countries. So as to For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I urge

make sucla sale, section 4 requires the this House to register in a concrete way

President ake a determination that its dissatisfaction with the current un-

the of such a sale is "im- democratic regime in Chile, by acting to

portant to the tional security of the suspend military assistance to this re-

United states " the President is re- gime until basic human rights are rees-

quired to report a determination to tablished. I believe that we owe this

the Congress with 30 days. The Presi- much to both the people of Chile and to

dent has made such a etermination, and our own future interests.

has also requested a w ver of section 33 Mr. Speaker, I intend on Friday, when

of the Foreign Military ales Act, so as the House considers the foreign aid ap-

to increase the regional Meiling on ag- propriations bill, to offer an amendment

gregate military sales to L in America that could have the effect to terminating

from $100 million to $150.mil on. In ad- all forms of military assistance to the

edition, it is my understanding that Chile present government of Chile. I hope at

hes been the recipient of a $1mpillion that time that my colleagues will join me

program of military training assistance. in taking this positive step toward

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that there human rights, democracy, and an en-

are sound reasons-some conce g lightened American foreign policy.

principle and morality, others concern Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Speaker, I am

with pragmatism and self-interest---tha distressed by the inclusion in thigh bill

military assistance to the current Gov- ,of section 114 which provides that-

ernment of Chile should be discontinued. "None of the funds made available to carry

I believe that the United States has o this part shah be used to pay for the

cont lbuted, slowly and methodically, per mane of abortions as a method of

to eroding the strength and durability famt planning or to motivate or coerce any

of what had been the oldest democracy pe to practice abortions,

in Latin America. Through our leverage This ovision is unnecessary because

with the Inter-American Development title X, s tion 291 of the present law

Bank, the World Bank, private sources says:

of credit and financing, and our own (a) It is th,. sense of the Congress that,

Import-Export Bank, the United States while every natigp is and should be free to

made it impossible for President Allende determine its owh policies and procedures

to maintain a workable economy. Conse- with respect to problems of population

to mintin worble ecpinion tomy. Conse- growth and family p nning within its own

lquently, t is my opinion that the pres- boundaries, neverthel s, voluntary family

ent military junta's ban on political par- planning programs to pr ide individual cou-

ties, forceable "recess" of the Chilean ples with the Xnowledge d medical facili-

Congress; take-over of communications ties to plan heir family se in accordance

media, invasion of universities, and sup- with their own moral cony tons and the

pressaon of dissent, are, in some measure, latest medical information, ca make a sub.

the responsibilities of the United States. stantial contribution to improve health.

not turn back the clock, family ability, greater individu opportu-

Congress can not turn back the clock, nity, economic development, a suiiency of

but we can decline aid to the forces di- food, and a higher standard of living,

rectly involved in the crippling of de- is, it seems to me, states ve well

mocracy in Chile. Ts, It seems to me, states verwell

Practically speaking, I believe the day the intent of our aid, and does not tits-

will soon come when our country will pass upon the right of nations to decide

pay heavily for subordinating the long- :their own policies. \

term interests of our foreign policy to, Abortion is one legitimate form of

the sholtterm interests of Americt family planning and in some countries,

corporations abroad. / the only available form. It is in fact legal

Nearly 50 percent of the people of for 58 percent of the world's population.

Latin America are 15 years of age or It has always been our policy in providing

younger. As this generation grows to ma- aid to other countries to avoid dictating

turity, they will surely reco e that the precise form of its use; why do we

most of the regimes support by the now seek to place our own imprimature

United States are not dedic d to ful- upon this bill-and carrying, at that, the

filling their aspirations and When views of only a vocal minority?

this generation eventual comes to The emotional prohibition of abortion

power-by democratic el tions, if pos- is a misuse of the legislative process and

sible, by force if the United of the aid program. It is providing a

States may well find its tied to military channel for the frustrations of those who

and private interests alined against object to the Supreme Court's decision,

broader national in ests, thus dooming but it is not the purpose of legislation to

tself to repeat lessons of Vietnam, provide such a channel. I fear that this

Closer to hreat sons m, constant outcry is really a manifestation

Now is the timfor the Congress of the of patriarchal chauvinism.

United States tnove the foreign policy Inherent also in this provision is a

of our Gover ent in the direction of blatant form of discrimination against

cultivating relations with the peo- women. It appears that we are attempt-

of La America. Congressional def- ing to deny the women abroad the free-

tohe corporate orientation of dom of choice in family planning that

Administration could be a our own Supreme Court has recently

example of lack of foresight. We recently granted to women in this coun-

L- instead begin to investigate and try. No other class or group, so far as I

H 10553

can recall, has been so singled out; we

do not attempt to deny freedom of choice

to construction workers, children under

12, people over 60--only to women.

I regret that the section does seem

to place us in the questionable position

of imposing on women abroad a restric-

tion recently overturned by our Supreme

Court and constiutes serious interference

with the internal affairs of other coun-


Title X, section 291, subsection (c),


In caatying out programs authorized in

this title, the President shall establish rea-

sonable procedures to insure, whenever fam-

fly-planning assistance from the United

States is involved, that no individual will

be coerced to practice methods of family

planning inconsistent with his or her moral,

philosophical, or religious beliefs.

It seems to me that this is quite suffi-


Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I shall

vote "present" on the conference report

because I favor it in principle, but do

not agree with the actions of the con-

ferees with respect to congressional pol-

icy on expropriations of American com-

panies and properties.

When the bill was before the House

earlier this year, I offered an amend-

ment that would cut off aid to countries

that had expropriated American firms or

properties, if the recipient country had

failed to compensate the firm or investor,

or entered into negotiations leading to-

ward compensation or submitted the

matter to arbitration before the Interna-

tional Center for the Settlement of In-

vestment Disputes. This amendment

was adopted overwhelmingly by the

House, but the conference report carries

a substitute that is totally different and

wholly inadequate.

My amendment would have extended

to bilateral assistance the same policy,

adopted overwhelmingly by the Congress,

that now applies to multilateral lend-

ing institutions. It would have provided

a uniform U.S. policy on expropriation.

It is a policy that works, and a policy that

has been effective in encouraging the

,systematic settlement of disputes arising

Irom expropriations. Such a policy is im-

p active, and ought to be uniformly ap-

pli to all forms of foreign assistance.

The action of the conferees in no way

reflectthe will of the House on this, ex-

pressed 19 four separate votes, nor does it

support tle clear policy of Congress, car-

ried in threelaws.

If the conferees had reported an ade-

quate provisioo'on expropriation, I would

have voted "aye". on the report. I regret

that the conferees failed to uphold the

clear position of the House and the Con-

gress on this issue, anad hope that when

we next consider foreign assistance we

will see a sound expropriation policy en-

acted. I intend to work toward that end.

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no

further requests for time.

Mr. Speaker, I move the previous ques-

tion on the conference report.

The previous question was ordered.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the

conference report.

The question was taken, and the

H 10554

Speaker announced thai

peared to have it.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Spea

the vote on the ground t

not present and make th

that a quorum is not preset

The SPEAKER. Eviden

not present.

The Sergeant at Arms

sent Members.

The vote was taken b

vice, and there were-ye

answered "present" 1, n


[Roll No. 62


Abzug Giaimo

Addabbo Gilman

Alexander Grasso

Anderson, Gray

Calif. Green, Pa.

Anderson, Ill. Griffiths

Annunzio Gude

Arends Guyer

Armstrong Hamilton

Ashley Hanley

Aspin Hansen, Idaho

Badillo Harrington

Barrett Harvey

Bell Heckler, Mass.

Blagg Heinz

Blester Helstoski

Bingham Hillis

Batnik Hogan

Boggs Holifleld

Boland Holtzman

Bolling Horton

Brademas Hosmer

Brasco Howard

Breckinridge Johnson, Calif.

Brooks Johnson, Pa.

Broomfleld Jones. Ala.

Brotzman Karth

Brown, Calif. Keating

Brown, Mich. Kemp

Buchanan Kluczynski

Burke. Mass. Koch

Button Kyros

Carey, N.Y. Leggett

Carney, Ohio Lehman

Cederberg Lent

Chamberlain Long, Md.

Clark Mcclory

Clay McCloskey

Cohen McDade

Collins, I. McEwen

Conable McFall

Conte McKay

Corman McKinney

Cotter Madigan

Coughlin Mahon

Cronin Mailliard

Culver Mallary

Daniels, Mann

Dominick V. Mathias, Calif.

Danielson Matsunaga

Davis, S.C. Mayne

Delaney Meeds

Dellenback Metcalfe

Derwinski Mezvinsky

Dingell Minish

Donohue Mink

Drinan Mitchell, Md.

du Pont Mitchell, N.Y.

Eckhardt Moakley

Eilberg Mollohan

Erlenborn Moorhead, Pa.

Each Morgan

Fascell Mosher

Findley Moss

Fish Murphy, Ill.

Flood Murphy, N.Y.

Foley Natcher

Ford, Nedzi

William D. Nix

Forsythe O'Brien

Fraser .O'Hara

Frelinghuysen O'Neill

Frenzel Patman


Abdnor Bauman

Adams Beard

Andrews, N.. Bennett

Andrews, Bevill

N. Dak. Bowen

Archer Bray

Ashbrook Breaux

Bafalis Brinkley

Baker Brown, Ohio


the ayes ap-

er, I object to

t a quorum is

point of order


ly a quorum is

will notify ab-

electronic de-

210, nays 193,

voting 29, as






Price, Ill.












Robison, N.Y.



Roncalio, Wyo.

Roncallo, N.Y.

Rooney, Pa.






St Germain







Smith, Iowa

Smith, N.Y.


J. William



Steiger, Wis.




Thompson, N.J.




Vander Jagt







ilson, Bob


Charles H.,



Charles, Tex.







Young, Il.

Young. Tex.


royhill, N.C.

royhill, Va.


urke, Fla.

urleson, Tex.

urlison, Mo.




Carter Hender

Casey, Tex. Hicks

Chappell Hinshaw

Chisholm Holt

Clancy Huber

Clausen. Hudnut

Don H. Hungate

Cleveland Hunt

Cochran Hutchin r

Collier Ichord

Collins, Tex. Jarman

Conlan Johnson, 4

ConyerS Jones, N. .

Crane Jones, O

Daniel, Dan Jones, Te

Daniel, Robert K tenm e

W., Jr. Kazen

Davis, Ga. Ketchum

Davis, Wis. King

de la Garza Landgre

Dellums Landrum

Denholm Latta

Dennis Litton

Dent Long, La.

Devine Lott

Dickinson Lujan

Dorn McCollis

Dulski McCorma

Duncan Marasiti

Edwards, Ala. Martin, N 1

Eshleman Martin, N

Evans, Colo. Mathis, G

Evins, Tenn. Mazzoli

Fisher Melcher

Flowers Milford

Flynt Miller

Fountain Minshall,

Frey Mizell

Froeblich Montgom

Fulton Moorhead

Fuqua Calif.

Gaydos Myers

Gettys Nelsen

Gibbons Nichols

Ginn Obey

Goldwater Owens

Goodling Parris

Green, Oreg. Passman

Gross Perkins

Grover Pettis

Haley Pickle

Hammer- Pike

schmidt Poage

Hanrahan Powell, O

Harsha Price, Tex.

Hastings Quillen

Hays Randall

Hechler, W. Va. Rarick




Bergland Hanna

Blackburn Hansen, W

Burke, Calif. Hawkins

Clawson, Del H6bert

Diggs Jordan

Downing Kuykendal

Edwards, Calif. McSpadden

Ford, Gerald R. Macdonald

Gubser Madden

Gunter Michel

So the conference re


The Clerk announce


On this vote:

Mr. Gubser for, with M

Mr. Walsh for, with


Mr. Kuykendall for,


Until further notice:

Robinson, Va.






















James V.



Steiger, Ariz.







Taylor, Mo.

Taylor, N.C.

Teague, Calif.

Teague, Tex.

Thomson, Wis.



Towell, Nev.












Young, Alaska

Young, Fla.

Young, S.C.





Mills, Ark.

sh. Reid

Rooney, N.Y.



Van Deerlin



Young, Ga.

port was agreed

d the following

, Michel against.

Mr. Del Clawson

with Mr. Spence

Mr. Rooney of New Yorl with Mr. Madden.

Mr. Reid with Mr. Gunt r.

Mrs. Hansen of Wal ington with Mr.

Young of Georgia.

Mr. Downing with Mr. H die.

Mr. H6bert with Mr. H kins.

Mr. Mills of Arkansas w ih Mr. Blackburn.

Mr. Van Deerlin with . Stokes.

Mr. Edwards of Califo |a with Miss Jor-


Mr. Diggs with Mr. Hanqa.

Mrs. Burke of Californha with Mr. Berg-


Mr. McSpadden with Mr. Macdonald.

December 4, 19'7

The result of

as above recorded.

A motion to r

the table.



unanimous conse

may have 5 legisla

revise and extend

conference report


the request of the g


There was no obj

vote was announce

onsider was 16d#


Mr. Speaker, I ask

t that all Members

dive days in which to

their remarks on the

agreed to.

there objection to

ntleman from Penn-







Mr. SIKES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani-

mous consent that the managers on the

part of the House may have until mid-

night tonight to file a conference report

on H.R. 11459, making appropriations'

for military construction for the Depart-

ment of Defense for the fiscal year end-

ing June 30, 1974, and for other purposes.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

the request of the gentleman from


There was no objection.


The committee of conference on the dis-

agreeing votes of the two Houses on the

amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R.

11459) "making appropriations for military

construction for the Department of Defense

for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, and

for other purposes," having met, after full

and free conference, have agreed to recom-

mend and do recommend to their respective

Houses as follows:

That the Senate recede from its amend-

ments numbered 4, 5, and 6.

That the House recede from its disagree-

ment to the amendments of the Senate num-

bered 7 and 8, and agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 3: That the House

recede from its disagreement to the amend-

ment of the Senate numbered 3, and agree to

the same with an amendment, as follows:

In lieu of the sum proposed by said amend-

ment insert "$247,277,000"; and the Senate

agree to the same.

, The committee of conference report in

disagreement amendments numbered 1 and










Managers on the Part of the House.









Mn.ToN R. YouNG,




Managers on the Pert of the Senate.

ber 4, 1978 CO



. managers on the part of the House

ad the Senate at the conference on the dis-

agming votes of the two Houses on the

amendments of the Senate to the bill (HR.

11459) making appropriations for military

construction for the Department of Defense

for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, and

for other purposes, submit the following joint

statement to the House and the Senate in

explanation of the effect of the action agreed

upon by the managers and recommended in

the accompanying conference report:

Amendment No. 1, military construction,

Army: Reported in technical disagreement.

The managers on the part of the House will

offer a motion to recede and concur in the

amendment of the Senate with an amend-

ment to appropriate $578,120,000 instead of

$861,575,000 as proposed by the House and

$567,785.000 as proposed by the Senate. The

managers on the part of the Senate will move

to concur ,in the amendment of the House

to the amendment of the Senate.

This would provide the following changes

to the amounts and line items as proposed

by the House:

Fort Polk, La.: Commissary--- +$1, 977, 000

,Tobyhanna Army Depot, Pa.:

Medical equipment mainte-

name facillty-------------- +411,000

U.S. Military Academy, West

Point, N.Y.: Hospital------- +20, 000, 000

U.S. Army Cold Regions Re-

search and Engineering Lab-

oratory, New Hampshire:

Logistics and storage facil-

ity ---------------.................--------- +597, 000

Military Ocean Terminal, Ba-

yonne, NJ.:

Administrative facilities- ..--- +1, 800, 000

Electric substation---------......... +400, 000

Pueblo Army Depot, Colo.:

Stack emission controls--... +395, 000

Access roads----------------- +2, 000, 000

Fort McClellan, Ala.: Housing

and training facility/WAC

Band --------------------- --1,035, 000

After prolonged discussion, the House con-

ferees aged to appropriate $20,000,000 for

medical facilities at the Military Academy,

West Point, New York. The Senate conferees

insisted on providing this appropriation in

the fiscal year 1974.- They felt that having

the funds available would allow the Army to

proceed as quickly as possible with hospital

construction so as to avoid increased costs

due to inflation in the construction industry

In thls area.

The conferees are in agreement that the

Army's original plan to build a 100-bed re-

gional hospital at West Point at a cost of

$25,000,000 was unrealistic, is in excess of the

medical workload experienced and projected

for West Point, and is overly expensive. The

coantrees of both Houses are in agreement

that hospital facilities at West Point in no

event shall exceed the $20,000,000 appro-

priated end that the hospital shall be a 65-

bed hospital. It is strongly suggested that

the Army provide a sufficient contingency

fa1tar in its estimates in order to. avoid

contract cancellation should the cost exceed

$20,000,000. The conferees are in agreement

that the function to which the hospital

should be specifically designed is to provide

excellent medical care to cadets and to active

duty military personnel stationed at the Mil-

itary Academy. They further agree that the

Army should restudy the location, config-

uratin.,scope, utilization, and cost of the

proposed hospital facility so as to provide

-Tl the above-cited functions in the opti-

14I1 and least costly manner. The conferees

the Army to report back to the Com-

ag- Appropriations of the Senate and

W lpreentatives when it has coma-

S~tndie and planes far medical fa-


cilities at West Point. No funds will be ob-

ligated for construction and no construction

contract advertised or awarded for medical

facilities at the Military Academy until ap-

proval of the Army's plans and specific au-

thority to proceed with construction have

been provided in writing from the Commit-

tees on Appropriations of the Senate and

House of Representatives.

The House conferees were not satisfied that

the Army's plans for the construction of the

hospital at the proposed location near Wash-

ington Gateapproximately 1.6 miles from

the cadet area, would provide adequately for

cadet medical care without some further pro-

vision for dispensary "sick call" or light bed

care facilities for the cadets. The House con-

ferees would be extremely concerned with

any plan which would make cadet care more

inconvenient or less adequate than that pro-

vided by the present hospital. The House

conferees expect the Army to thoroughly

examine this problem as a part of its studies

and planning for the provision of medical

facilities. The House conferees will not ap-

prove a hospital plan which does not take

adequate account of these needs. Further-

more, the Army should program any required

cadet dispensary facilities or other facilities

required to provide medical care to cadets

within the $20,000,000 allowance provided in

this bill.

For the NATO infrastructure program the

conferees restored $20,000,000 as proposed by

the House. The conferees feel that, commenc-

ing with the next five-year (1975-1979)

NATO common infrastructure program

(Slices XXVI-XXX), the effective United

States contribution to the NATO common

infrastructure should be at a maximum 20 %.

This goal could be obtained by either a 20%

share of a normal NATO infrastructure pro-

gram or by a combination of a normal NATO

infrastructure program and a new European

defense improvement program financed en-

tirely by European nations. The conferees

further give notice that in the future they

will look unfavorably upon requests which

would fund a United States payment to the

program at an effective rate above 20% for

Slice XXVI and subsequent slices.

Amendment No. 2, military construction,

,Navy: Reported in technical disagreement.

The managers on the part of the House will

offer a motion to recede and concur in the

amendment of the Senate with an amend-

ment to appropriate $609,292,000 instead of

$587,641,000 as proposed by the House and

$608,467,000 as proposed by the Senate. The

managers on the part of the Senate will move

to concur in the amendment of the House to

the amendment of the Senate.

This would provide the following changes

to the amounts and line items as proposed

by the House:

Naval Underwater Systems Cen-

ter, New London Laboratory,

New London, Conn.: Engi-

neering building----------- +$3,600, 000

Military Ocean Terminal, Bay-

onne, N.J.: Military Sealift

Command, Atlantic reloca-

tion ---------------------. +1,806, 000

Naval Academy, Annapolis,

Md.: Maury Hall rehabilita-

tion ---------------------- +300, 000

Naval Supply Corps School,

Athens, Ga.: Restoration of

commissary store----------- +120,000

Naval Station, Pearl Harbor,

Hawaii: Enlisted men's din-

ing facility----------------- +1,345,000

Atlantic Fleet Weapons Range.

Puerto Rico (Sec. 204) .... +12,000,000

Naval Complex, Guam: Naval

Station theater------------ +1,480,000

Access roads.----------------- +1, 000, 000

The conferees have not allowed additional

appropriations for $3,400,000 authorized to

H 10555

cover the cost of acquisition of leasehold in-

terests situated on land acquired by the

Navy under authority provided in fiscal year

1972 at Naval Station, Norfolk, Virginia. Un-

der the provisions of the fiscal 1972 legisla-

tion, authority exists and monies are avail-

able to take seven leaseholds which the

Navy claims are required in the near future

for Navy military construction projects at

this installation. Additionally, nonappropri-

ated funds can be made available to take a

leasehold required to allow the construction

of an Exchange warehouse at this location.

The conferees feel that the acquisition of

these leaseholds in this manner represents a

prudent approach and that additional fund-

ing is not required at this time.

The conferees deferred without prejudice a

communications facility at the Naval Sta-

tion, Charleston, South Carolina, pending a

restudy by the Navy of the manner in which

this improvement in communications

should be accomplished.

An agreement has been reached by the

Joint committee of conference that $12,000,-

000 will be added to finance the movement of

the ship-to-shore and other gun fire and

bombing operations of the United States

Navy from the island of Culebra.

The relocation of such operations from the

northwest peninsula of the island of Culebra

is expressly conditioned upon the conclusion

of a satisfactory agreement to be negotiated

by the Secretary of the Navy, or his designee,

with the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Sub-

sequent to the conclusion of such agreement,

the Secretary of Defense shall report the

terms of the agreement to the Committees

on Appropriations of the Senate and the

House of Representatives.

Prior to the obligation of any of the funds

appropriated in this Act for the construction

and equipage of substitute facilities in sup-

port of the relocations of the above-men-

tioned activities from Culebra, the Secre-

tary of Defense shall request, in writing, the

approval of the Committees on Appropria-

tions of the Senate and the House of Repre-

sentatives. The conferees are in agreement

that within 30 days of the receipt of both the

information and the request referred to in

the two preceding sentences of this report

their respective Committees will approve or

disapprove the Secretary's request. The agree-

ment shall provide, among other things, that

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico shall in-

sure that (1) Commonwealth lands suitable

for carrying out operations of the type re-

ferred to above will be made available for

the continued use of the Atlantic Fleet Weap-

ons Range and Fleet Marine Forces training

areas by the Navy, including, but not limited

to, present areas and facilities on the island

of Viegues, and (2) any proposed facility

of activity which would interfere with the

Navy training mission will not be under-

taken, including the proposed deep water

super-port on the island of Mona, in the

event that such agreement includes the use

by the Navy of such island or the area ad-

jacent to such island.

The present bombardment area on the

island of Culebra shall not be utilized for

any purpose that would require decontamina-

tion at the expense of the United States.

Any lands sold, transferred, or otherwise dis-

posed of by the United States as a result of

the relocation of the operations referred to

above may be sold, transferred, or otherwise

disposed of only for public park or public

recreational purposes.

At the Naval Station, Keflavik, Iceland, two

projects; namely, the bachelor officers quar-

ters, $3,258,000, and the bachelor enlisted

quarters, $2,834,000, have been restored to the

Navy program. The joint conference agrees,

however, that these funds may not be ob-

ligated until an agreement has been signed by

the United States Government and the Ice-


December 4, 197

landic Government setting forth the condi-

tions under which the Navy may continue to

use Iceland as an operating base.

The conferees have granted authority to

proceed with the projects requested for Naval

Detachment, Souda Bay, Crete, Greece and

for Naval Air Facility, Sigonella, Sicily, Italy.

The funding for the following projects, how-

ver, is reduced by the amounts shown below

encourage greater use of direct program-

ming through NATO infrastructure slices as

explained in the House report:

Naval Detachment, Souda Bay,

Crete, Greece:

Aircraft parking apron ....... $2,666, 000

Air passenger/cargo terminal._ 277, 000

General warehouse ----------- 265, 000

Naval Air Facility, Sigonella, Si-

cily, Italy:

Photographic building----- .....--- 164, 000

The conferees have provided $4,000,000 over

the amount budgeted for the Navy's planning

and design account. This will not increase

new budget authority, however, as these

funds are provided by reprogramming from

savings or cancellation of other projects

which are not needed.

Amendment No. 3, military construction,

Air Force: Appropriates $247,277,000 instead

of $239,702,000 as proposed by the House and

$261,198,000 as proposed by the Senate. The

conferees have agreed to the following addi-

tions and deletions to the amounts and line

items as proposed by the House:

Wright-Patterson Air Force

Base, Ohio: Alter aircraft en-

gine component research fa-

cility -------------------- +$1, 887,000

Satellite Control Facility, Ko-

diak, Alaska: Automotive

maintenance facility...------- +462,000

Malmstrom Air Force Base,

Mont.: Dormitory facilities-- +213, 000

Bergstrom Air Force Base, Tex.:

Commissary ............_ +2, 273, 000

Nellis Air Force Base, Nev.:

Base personnel office-------........ +1,933, 000

United States Air Forces in

Europe, Germany: Deficiency

authorization funding....... +307, 000

Access roads------.---------- +2,000,000

Grissom Air Force Base, Ind.:

Alter airmen dormitories.... -1,500,000

The conferees have deferred the request

for $13,500,000 for special aircraft support

facilities at Andrews Air Force Base, Mary-

land. Further development of the concept

for the use of these Boeing 747 National

Emergency Airborne Command Post aircraft

is required, as is satisfactory development of

the command-control communications pack-

age for these aircraft and electromagnetic

pulse testing of the aircraft and communica-

tions systems.

Approval has been given for the funding of

three Air Force projects at the Naval Sta-

tion, Keflavik, Iceland; namely, an aircraft

maintenance shop, $222,000; a weapons re-

lease systems shop, $594,000; and a parachute

and dinghy shop, $539,000. The committee of

conference states that these projects may not

be placed under contract until a Status of

Forces Agreement has been reached between

the United States and the Icelandic Govern-


The conferees have restored a portion of

the House cut which was applied to the

funding of a deficiency authorization for

projects In Germany for United States Air

Forces in Europe. The conferees agree to re-

store $307,000 for additional costs of con-

structing an aircraft maintenance complex at

Ramstein Air Base, while approving au-

thority but not additional funding for an

air freight terminal at the same location.

This is consistent with action on the fiscal

year 1973 appropriation which allowed au-

thority but no funding for this project to

encourage the programming of such projects

through NATO infrastructure slices.

Amendments No. 4 and 5, military con-

struction, Defense Agencies: Provide no ap-

propriation as proposed by the House in-

stead of appropriating $12,000,000 as pro-

posed by the Senate.

The conferees agreed to provide no new

budget authority for military construction,

Defense Agencies as provided in the House

bill; however, the conferees restored author-

ity to construct a logistics support facility

for the National Security Agency (NSA) at

Fort Meade, Maryland, which is to cost


The House receded from its action delet-

ing this project as the result of changes of

plans by NSA which would increase its utili-

zation and of better information on cost

savings. This project, along with other proj-

ects approved for the Defense Agencies, is

to be funded by the transfer of unobligated

balances contained in the Defense contin-

gency fund, which is also carried under this


Amendment No. 6, military construction,

Naval Reserve: Appropriates $22,900,000 as

proposed by the House instead of $20,300,-

000 as proposed by the Senate.

The committee of conference approves the

$2,600,000 requested by the Navy for reha-

bilitation of facilities to accommodate the

move of Naval Reserve Headquarters units

from Omaha, Nebraska and Glenview, Illinois

to New Orleans, Louisiana. However, the con-

ferees are concerned about the escalation of

the cost of this project from $1,500,000,

which included approximately $400,000 in op-

eration and maintenance costs, to the re-

quested $2,600,000 for military construction.

The Navy is directed to provide a detailed

explanation of this cost increase to both

Committees on Appropriations.

Amendment No. 7, family housing, De-

fense: Appropriates $1,188,539,000 as proposed

by the Senate instead of $1,194,539,000 as

proposed by the House.

Amendment No. 8, family housing, De-

fense: Authorizes not to exceed $97,947,000

for the construction of Navy family housing

as proposed by the Senate instead of $103,-

947,000 as proposed by the House.

The joint conference has agreed that the

150 units of housing at Naval Station, Ke-

flavik, Iceland, will not be funded in the

amount of $6,000,000. A further agreement

has been made that the Navy may fund these

houses through a reprogramming action after

a Status of Forces Agreement has been nego-

tiated between the United States and the

Icelandic Government if they are still re-



The committee of conference has allowed

two of the four commissary facilities which

were in disagreement between the two

Houses. Commissary facilities were approved

at Fort Polk, Louisiana and Bergstrom Air

Force Base, Texas because of the particular

need shown at these installations. The con-

ferees are in agreement that the Department

of Defense should take measures to increase

the' use of commissary surcharge monies or

other nonappropriated funds for the con-

struction of commissary facilities or recom-

mend to Congress such changes in legisla-

tion as are necessary to effect this. Further-

more, the conferees agree that the Chairmen

of the two Committees will write to the

Secretary of Defense recommending that he

study the use of surcharge funds or other

nonappropriated funds to cover the cost of

construction of all commissary facilities ex-

cept those overseas or in isolated locations.

As noted in the House report, commissary

operations are funded substantially from ap-

propriated funds. They enjoy numerous ad-

vantages which allow them to further reduce

their costs below those of commercial coun-

terparts. It is for these reasons that the con-

ferees feel that the use of appropriated funds

for commissary construction can be reduced.


The total new budget (obligational) au-

thority for the fiscal year 1974 recommended

by the committee of conference, with com-

parisons to the fiscal year 1973 total, the 1974

budget estimate total, and the House and

Senate bills follows:

New budget (obligational)

authority, fiscal year

1973 ------------------- $2, 323, 221, 000

Budget estimates of new

(obligational) authority,

fiscal year 1974-.......... 12, 944, 900, 000

House bill, fiscal year 1974_. 2, 609, 090, 000

Senate bill, fiscal year 1974.. 2, 670, 972, 000

Conference agreement--...... 2, 658, 861, 000

New budget (obligational)

authority, fiscal year

1973 ------------------ +335, 640,000

Budget estimates of new

obligationall) authority,

fiscal year 1974..----... -286,039,000

House bill, fiscal year

1974 ------------------ +49,771,000

Senate bill, fiscal year

1974 -----------------........ -12,111,000

'Includes H. Doec. 93-155 request for

$7,000,000 for Homeowners assistance fund,

Defense; excludes H. Doc. 93-155 requests for

an additional $4,300,000 for Military con-

struction, Army and an additional $81,100,000

for Family housing, Defense, which were not

considered due to lack of authorization.









Managers on the Part of the House.













Managers on the Part of the Senate.







unanimous conse

tee on Approprial

midnight tonight

port on the For

related programs

fiscal year 1974.


order on the bill.


the request of the i


There was no obh




suspend the rules a

8529) to implemer.

agreement with Br

The Clerk read





AR 1974

Mr. Speaker, I ask

t that the Commit-

ions may have until

3 file a privileged re-

lign Assistance and

ppropriation bill for

eserved all points of

Is there objection to

entleman from Loui-



)F 1973

.Speaker, I move to

d pass the bill (H.R.

the shrimp fishing

as amended.


H 10556

member 7, 9783 CO



3" siPRElsD OFFICER (Mr.

~LaE ). The C air lays before the

,rate te the unfini hed business, which

will be stated by tit

The legislative erk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1868) to amend the United

Nations Participati Act of 1945 to halt the

importation of Rh esian chrome and to re-

store the United S t e to Its position as a

law-abiding mem ; of the international





Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I

submit a report of the committee of con-

ference on H.R. 11459, and ask for its

immediate consideration.


BARTLETT). The report will be stated by


The legislative clerk read as follows:

The committee of conference on the dis-

agreeing votes of the two Houses on the

amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R.

11459) making appropriations for military

construction for the Department of Defense

for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, and

for other purposes, having met, after full

and free conference, have agreed to recom-

mend and do recommend to their respective

Houses this report, signed by all the con-




objection to the consideration of the

conference report?

There being no objection, the Senate

proceeded to consider the report.

(The conference report is printed in

the House proceedings of the CONGRES-

SIONAL RECORD of Dec. 4, 1973, at page


Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask

for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, the

conference committee agreed on an over-

all figure of $2,658,861,000 for military

construction for fiscal year 1974. This is

an amount of $49,771,000 over the

amount approved by the House, $12,000,-

000 under the amount approved by the

Senate, and $286,039,000 under the bud-

get estimate of $2,944,900,000. The con-

ferees agreed on the following amounts

for the military services and the Depart-

ment of Defense:

Army, $578,120,000;

Navy, $609,292,000;

Air Force, $247,277,000;

Army Reserve, $40,700,000;

Naval Reserve, $22,900,000;

Air Force Reserve, $10,000,000;

Army National Guard, $35,200,000;

Air National Guard, $20,000,000;

Family housing, Department of De-

fense, $1,188,539,000; and

Homeowners %ssistance fund, $7,000,-


S 22253

Mr. President, I wish to emphasize that

the military construction bill this year is,

indeed, an austere bill. The percentage of

reduction from the budget estimate

amounts to approximately 10 percent.

However, I wish to point out that this bill

provides for all the essential operating

facilities needed by the military serv-

ices and I wish to state categorically that

there are no moneys in this bill for plush

accommodations for the military serv-


I do not intend to make a long and in-

volved statement of the actions taken by

the committee of conference. The con-

ference report explains in a most succinct

manner the complete actions.

Mr. President, this completes my state-

ment. I believe that the conference com-

mittee has presented for the Senate's

consideration a military construction bill

that fits the stringent financial condi-

tions in which this Government finds it-

self. I will be glad to answer any ques-

tions which individual Senators may

have regarding construction projects in

their States.

I ask unanimous consent that, at the

conclusion of my remarks on this bill, a

tabulation comprising a summary of the

conference action on the military con-

struction appropriation bill for fiscal

year 1974 be included in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material

was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,

as follows:


Conference action compared with-

Budget Budget

estimates New budget estimates

New budget of new New budget New budget (obligational) New budget of new New budget New budget

(obligational) (obligational) (obligational) (obligational) authority (obligational) (obligational) (obligational) obligationall)

authority, authority, authority authority recommended authority, authority, authority authority

fiscal year fiscal year recommended recommended by conference fiscal year fiscal year recommended recommended

Item 1973 1974 in House bill in Senate bill action 1973 1974 in House bill in Senate bill

Military construction, Army .....-... .-. . 413, 955, 000 1 664,900,000 551, 575, 000 567, 735, 000 578, 120, 000

Military construction, Navy.-...... 517, 830,000 685, 400, 000 587, 641,000 608, 467, 000 609, 292,000

Military construction, A irEorce............ 265, 552,000 291, 900, 000 239, 702. 000 261, 198, 000 247, 277, 000

Military construction. Defense Agencies.... 36, 704, 000 19. 100, 000 0 12, 000, 000 0

Transfer, not taoexeed_. -- . (20, 000, 000) (20, 000, 000) (20,000. 000) (20. 000, 000) (20, 000.000)

Military construction, Army National Guard 40, 000, 000 35, 200, 000 35, 200, 000 35, 200, 000 35, 200, 000

Military constuetiom, Air National Guard... 16,100, 000 20, 000, 000 20, 000, 000 20, 000,000 20, 000, 000

Military construction. Army Reserve....... 38, 200, 000 40, 700, 700. 000 40, 700, 000 40, 700, 000

Military construction, Naval Reserve -..--....-........................ 20, 500, 000 20, 300, 000 22, 900, 000

Military construction, Air Force Reserve ... 7,000,000 10, 000, 000 10. 000, 000 10, 000, 000 10,000. 000

Total, military constructio.-........ 1, 355, 841, 000 1,787,500,000 1, 507, 718, 000 1, 575,600,000 1, 563, 489,000

Family housing, defense.............. 1, 064, 046, 000 2 1, 250, 567, 000 1, 194, 539,000 1,188, 539, 000 1, 188, 539.000

Portion applied to debt eductio..... -96,666.000 -100, 167,000 -100,167,000 -100, 167, 000 -100,167,000

Subtotal, family housing---......... 967, 380, 000 1,150, 400, 000 1, 094,372,000 1, 088,372, 000 1, 088,372,000

tlseaowoers assistaocafund, defense ... a 7,000.000 7,000,000 7,000,000 7,000,000

+$164,165, 000 -$86, 780, 000 +$26, 545, 000 +$10,385,000

+91, 462, 000 -76, 108, 000 +21,651,000 +825, 000

-18, 275, 000 -44.623,000 +7,575,000 -13,921,000

-36, 704, 000 -19, 100, 000 ............. -12, 000, 000

-4, 800, 000 ...

+ 3, 900000 .............. ... ... ... .. ... ... ... ..

+2, 500, 000 ..

+2,400,000 +2, 600, 000 -- -----"--. + :0; bb00

+3,000,000 0......... ..............

+207,648.000 -224.001,000 +55,771.000 -12,111,000

+ 124, 493, 000 -62,028,000 -6, 000, 000 .. ........

- 3, 501,000 ........ .... ...... ..... .. ... ..... ..

+120, 992, 000 -62,028,000 -6, 000, 000 ...

+ 7,000,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- -- --

rand total, new budget (obliga-

tisal) authority-------------.. 2.323,221, 000 2, 944. 900, 000 2,609.090,000 2,670,972,000 2,658,861,000 +335,640,000 -286,039,000 +49,771,000 -12,111,000

'Due to lack of authorization, does not include additional 54,300,000 requested in House Docu- 3 Includes $7,000,000 requested in House Document 93-155.


a Age lack of authleization, does net include additional $31,100,000 requested in House Docu-

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, the Senate

S fortunate in having the distinguished

majority leader as chairman of the

Subcommittee on Military Construction.

J think all the essential needs of the

i.ltary were taken care of under the

and with a minimum amount of

oakey and at a cost savings.

17r. President. I hope the conference

iapldt will be agreed to by the Senate.

. CHWEIKER. Mr. President, I

kti the distinguished ranking minority

ailember of the committee in his remarks

and I wish to say that as the ranking

minority member of the subcommittee I

concur strongly with the distinguished

majority leader as well as the ranking

minority member of my committee in

saying this is a good bill, passed with a

lot of give and take on both the House

and the Senate positions. I strongly sup-

port it.

, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from


Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I wish to

emphasize that this bill reflects the em-

phasis of Congress on personnel support

assistance for the armed services. At a

time when we are trying to attract an

all-volunteer armed force in this coun-

try, it is incumbent upon us to do all we

can to make living conditions as pleasant

and safe as possible for our men and

women in uniform.

I wish to point out that a large per-

centage of the money contained in the

appropriation is for barracks, medical

facilities, commissaries, and other things

S 22254 COG

designed to make service life more com-

fortable and attractive.


Mr. YOUNG. Mr4 President, I wish to

ask the schedule f r the remainder of

the day.

Mr. MANSFIELD. . President, after

this we will take up three unobjected-to

items on the calendj and then go back

to the unfinished b 'ness, the so-called

Rhodesian chrome b' 1, at which time a

motion for cloture wi be laid before the

Senate which will ndake the measure

eligible to be consider d Tuesday 1 hour

after the Senate conve es.

This will be the last te today.



Mr. MANSFIELD. Mrs President, I ask

unanimous consent that when the Sen-

ate completes its business today it stand

in adjournment until 12 'clock meridian

on Monday next.


objection, it is so ordered.


Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, on

Monday it is expected thag we will take

up S. 2176, the bill to provide for a na-

tional fuels and energy! conservation

policy, and S. 2686, legal s rvices for the

Office of Economic Opport nity.

On Tuesday the Senates will consider

S. 2767, the rail service bill, and H.R.

8449, the national flood i insurance pro-

gram. The vote on cloture will occur on


On Wednesday we will consider the

measure relating to the independent

Special Prosecutor, unless there is some

chance we can get it up: on Monday,

which we are endeavoringito do at this

time. If the Senate will allow the leader-

ship a little flexibility, wd will do our

best in that regard and give Senators

the picture.

We hope that the Committee on Ap-

propriations will be able tp report the

defense appropriations bill ground Tues-

day and with the consent of the Senate

we could take that up on Thursday and

Friday. It will consume 2 days.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, will the

Senator yield?

Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield.

-Mr. YOUNG. I cannot speak for the

chairman of the committee, but I think

the supplemental will be ready ahead of

the defense appropriatio}1 bill.

Mr. MANSFIELD. We will take them

in order. I hope the Senate will not hold

the leadership to the 3-day rule. We

are trying to get out 2 weeks from today

or tomorrow, at the latest.

As the Senator has indicated the sup-

plemental bill will be reported this week.

The defense appropriation bill will be

reported this week. The foreign aid au-

thorization should be reported this week,

followed by the foreign aid appropria-


tion bill. I do no know what is going to

happen to the trit of Columbia home

rule or confere ce bill, which was agreed

to some days Cgo but has to be consid-

ered in the Hoe

That is as fr as I can go at this time.




The Senate resumed the consideration

of the report of the committee of con-

ference on H.R. 11459, making appropri-

ations for military construction for the

Department of Defense for the fiscal year

ending June 30, 1974, and for other pur-



yields time?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I

yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. SCHWEIKER. I yield back the re-

mainder of my time.


is yielded back. The question is on agree-

ing to the adoption of the conference

report. The yeas and nays have been or-

dered, and the clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce

that the Senator from Texas (Mr. BENT-

sEN), the Senator from North Carolina

(Mr. ERVIN), the Senator from Arkansas

(Mr. FULBRIGHT), the Senator from In-

diana (Mr. HARTKE), the Senator from

Utah (Mr. Moss), the Senator from

Georgia (Mr. NUNN), the Senator from

Mississippi (Mr. EASTLAND), and the

Senator from Montana (Mr. METCALF)

are necessarily absent.

I further announce that the Senator

from Louisiana (Mr. JOHNSTON), and the

Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. PELL)

are absent on official business.

I also announce that the Senator from

Missouri (Mr. SYMINGTON) is absent be-

cause of illness.

I further announce that, if present and

voting, the Senator from Louisiana (Mr.

JOHNSTON), the Senator from Georgia

(Mr. NUNN), the Senator from Missouri

(Mr. SYMINGTON), and the Senator from

Rhode Island (Mr. PELL) would each vote


Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the

Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BELLMON),

the Senator from Utah (Mr. BENNETT),

the Senator from Florida (Mr. GURNEY),

the Senator from Oregon (Mr. HAT-

FIELD), -and the Senator from Ohio (Mr.

SAXBE) are necessarily absent.

The Senator from Arizona (Mr. GOLD-

WATER) is absent by leave of the Senate

on official business.

The Senator from Kentucky (Mr.

COOK) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr.

PACKWOOD) are absent on official busi-


The Senator from New Hampshire (Mr.

COTTON) is absent because of illness in

his family.

If present and voting, the Senator

from Oregon (Mr. HATFIELD) would vote


The result was announced-yeas 80,

nays 0, as follows:

December 7,)

[No. 565 Leg.]


Abourezk Fong

Aiken Gravel

Allen Griffin

Baker Hansen

Bartlett Hart

Bayh Haskell

Beall Hathaway

Bible Helms

Biden RHolings

Brock Hruska

Brooke Huddleston

Buckley Hughes

Burdick Humphrey

Byrd Inouye

Harry F., Jr. Jackson

Byrd; Robert C. Javits

Cannon Kennedy

Case Long

Chiles Magnuson

Church Mansfield

Clark Mathias

Cranston McClellan

Curtis McClure

Dole McGee

Domenici McGovern

Dominick McIntyre

Eagleton Mondale

Fannin Montoya



















Scott, Hugh -


William L.















Fulbright Moss

Goldwater Nunn-

Gurney Packwood

Hartke PeUl

Hatfield -- Saxbe

Johnston Symington


So the report was agreed to.


BARTLETT). The clerk will state the

amendments in disagreement.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

Resolved, That the House recede from its

disagreement to the amendment of the Sen-

ate numbered 1 to the aforesaid bill, and

concur therein with an amendment as fol-


In lieu of the sum proposed by said

amendment, insert "$578,120,000".

Resolved, That the House recede from its

disagreement to the amendment of the Sen-

ate numbered 2 to the aforesaid bill, and

concur therein with an amendment as fol-a


In lieu of the sum proposed by said

amendment, insert "$609,292,000"-

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I

move that the Senate concur in the

amendments of the House to Senate

amendments Nos. 1 and 2.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, Mr. Presi-

dent, Mr. President.


ator from New York is recognized.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I intend

to vote against concurrence in the

amendments. I would like to ask the

manager of the conference report some


Mr. President, one of the items in dis-

agreement is amendment No. 1. Members

can see this on page 3 of the explanatory

statement of the conferees: It shows a

figure in the House amendment which

relates to the military ocean terminal at

Bayonne, N.J. The amount involved will

be noted as something in the neighbor-

hood of $2.2 million.

This facility is located at Brooklyn,

N.Y., at the present time. There has been

a constant running back between the two

Houses as well as the military authorities

tber 7, 1973 CO

,ha the state and the city relating to the

iaovegi nt of this facility in the sense of

subdtantiation as to why it should be

moved and why money should be pro-

vided to move it.

It has been stalemated for a consider-

able period of time. My colleague, the

Jmior Senator from New York (Mr.

Bucmacz) and I are strongly opposed to

the proposition on the ground that no

adequate showing has been made of the

need or desirability.

This was fought for very strongly in

the conference by Representative Roo-

NIY of New York, and obviously without

success notwithstanding his strong feel-

ing on the matter and the fact that he is

an important member of the Appropria-

tions Committee in the other body.

Mr. President, another thing is im-

portant in this matter. I understand, and

I have no reason to doubt the statement

that has been made to me, that the

money which involves a certain amount

of loss of employment. I understand that

this particular area has also lost a very

considerable amount of money. In the

Brooklyn Navy Yard an enormous

amount of labor has been lost, as well as

important credit to try to substitute some

employment for the thousands of jobs

lost when the navy yard was shut down.

Here again quite a fair number of jobs

are involved, I understand something in

the area of hundreds, without hopes as

far as I can see that we can get approval

of this amendment that is in technical

disagreement, without any provision as

to how this transition is to be made with

some decent accommodation to the place

where it is now and the loss to that place.

I would like to ask the manager of the

conference report if he would tell us

exactly what dictated this policy which

is reflected by this particular appropria-

tion and what consideration, if any, has

been given to the need of this local area

for some transition in respect of the fa-

cility which is in question here.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, in re-

sponse to the question raised by the dis-

tinguished senior Senator from New

York, might I say that this is a matter

which has been before the committee for

the last 4 years and that during that

period of time despite the fact that the

Brooklyn Army Terminal has been closed,

there was a certain amount of tran-

aigency in the process.

This project is required to provide ad-

ministrative space for relocation of

Headquarters, Eastern Area, Military

'Transportation Management and Termi-

nal Service from Military Ocean Termi-

1al, Brooklyn, N.Y. Brooklyn is excess to

DOD requirements and is only partially

utilized by DOD activities for adminis-

trative functions. The current annual

coat bf operation and maintenance of

facilities under the present austere basis

edeeds $1.8 million. If the DOD activi-

ties remain at Brooklyn, major rehabili-

t~*n of the utilities systems must be

a.cmmplished. Numerous power outages

and waterline breaks have disrupted op-

erations repeatedly. Consolidation of the

V vlties in existing facilities at Bayonne

permit givings by reduction in civil-

iai and military manpower spaces,


equipment rental costs, and maintenance

costs for unoccupied facilities.

This project--electric substation-is

related to request for administrative fa-

cilities for Bayonne MOT, also requested

in the fiscal year 1974 progam. The proj-

ect provides a new 3,000 KVA substation

to provide additional electrical capacity

at Bayonne MOT. The work Is neces-

sary to improve the reliability of the

present system to meet the additional

load generated by new tenants, that is,

the Headquarters Eastern Area, Mili-

tary Transportation Management and

Terminal Service. This organization is

scheduled to relocate to Bayonne from

Brooklyn MOT and will occupy the re-

quested administrative facilities.

It is my further understanding, sub-

ject to correction, that some of the em-

ployees from Brooklyn have been trans-

ferred to Bayonne, N.J.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, would the

Senator be able to inform us whether

the amount of savings contemplated are

equal to or exceed the expense, which

is not inconsiderable? There is $2.2 mil-

lion appropriated here alone for that


Mr. MANSFIELD. The answer is in the


Mr. JAVITS. May I also ask the Sen-

ator what assurance he can give us, as

the city of New York is doing its best

to fill up the gap-our experience is that

not many employees, though I am sure

some, transfer to another location--can

the Senator give us any assurance that

we will get some help from the commit-

tee or the department, so that a decent

opportunity is provided to enable the

transition to be made and enable the city

of New York to find some other way to

deal with the gap in employment which

will be created?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes; to a degree. I

understand the Post Office Department

has taken over half of the facility, and

that some of the people from the Army

terminal have gone into the postal fa-

cility, plus the fact that additional em-

ployees are needed. So I think that

Brooklyn will be more than compensated

as far as employment is concerned, on

the basis of the post office moving in.

Mr. JAVITS. And could we have some

assurance that if additional time is need-

ed, we will have sympathetic considera-

tion, at least from the committee which

is sponsoring this measure, to help us to

get it if we have a good case for it?

Mr. MANSFIELD. The committee will

give most sympathetic consideration to

any request of the two Senators from

New York.

Mr. JAVITS. I thank my colleague.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will

the majority leader yield to me briefly?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Is it on the bill?

Mr. HUMPHREY. No, it is not.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, if the

Senator is not asking the majority leader

to yield on this measure, I, too, have

small matter which we wanted to take



question is on agreeing to the motion to

concur in the House amendments to the

Senate amendments.

S 22255

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I

yield first to the Senator from New York

and then to the Senator from Minnesota.


Mr. JAVITS. Mrl President, Senator

CRANSroN, Senator MlONDL3, and I were

not in the Chambef because we were all

engaged in a conference on manpower

when the .program was discussed, and

one of the bills which the majority

leader said he would put on for Monday

was S. 2686, legal services.

We were not, because of our necessary

preoccupation, privileged to participate

in that discussion and we would greatly

appreciate it-I think I speak for my

colleagues as wqll as myself-if the

majority leader could, so that we might

understand the situation, state whatever

he informed the senate about that par-

ticular bill, so tha$ we might have our in-

put into that si tion.

Mr. MANS . Mr. President, let

me repeat what said to the Senate in

response to a c*estion raised by the

distinguished senor Senator from North

Dakota (Mr. YotNG) as to what the

program would bb for the remainder of

the day, next wepk, and insofar as the

rest bf the session is concerned.

Tentatively-a d. some flexibility has

to be allowed--o Monday the program

will be S. 2176, national emergency pol-

icy, and S. 2688, 1 gal services, OEO.

Tuesday, S. 27 7, rail services; H.R.

8449, national fl od insurance; and a

vote on a cloture otion which I shall file


On Wednesday~ there is the Special

Prosecutor's measure.

Thursday and Friday, supplemental

and Defense appropriation bills, and in

the meantime we should have an au-

thorization bill, or rather during the next

week or shortly thereafter, on foreign

aid out of the Foreign Relations Com-

mittee; and a foreign aid appropriation

bill which is awaiting the disposition of

the authorization proposal.

Then it is my understanding that some

days ago agreement, was reached on the

D.C. home rule bill. What action will be

I do not know, but action will be taken

in the House of Representatives first.

What the leadership is endeavoring to

do is to bring about an adjournment ei-

ther 2 weeks from today or 2 weeks from

tomorrow if at all pqsqible.

That may well me n late sessions next

week. I think we oght to conclude our

work as soon as posible. Then we shall

take a well-deserved rest, but on the basis

of being subject to tall at any time for

emergencies with respect to energy, the

Middle East, and so forth.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr President, will the

Senator further yield?

Mr. MANSFIELD, I yield.

Mr. JAVITS. This bill-the legal serv-

ices bill, to which I refer-has been very

much debated and Very deeply consid-

ered, and has finally resulted in an un-

derstanding with t*e White House-a

very unusual way. -The understanding

was in the form of a letter that, so far as

the Senate bill was Concerned, no effort

S 22256


would be made to frustrate it, but that

the Senate bill would then be enabled

to go to conference with some degree of

celerity. I the conference, of course, the

administration reserved every right to do

what it could to get a bill. With that, we

had a clear track ahead.

With the number of associations very

strongly in back '( the bill with which

we were presented, we had hoped to get

action. But I think' we have made it

clear, and wish to make it clear again,

that if any effort is made to filibuster

the matter, we are perfectly willing to

face the issue of cloture at, a very early

time. This is not one of thoS bills as to

which people need to be educated, partic-

ularly. This bill has been gonb through

from end to end and has been most thor-

oughly considered by all kinds of ex-


So I would appeal to the majority

leader that this matter, at the very least,

be put on a second track on Monday, and

we will do our part by assuring the'

majority leader that we are ready to

face the issue at any moment that he or

the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.

RoBERT C. BYRD) feels it is appropriate

to consider the matter. I can assure the

Senator that the bill can well be in con-

ference, on a second track basis, at the

end of next week.

Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, I

thank the distinguished Senator from

New York. We have been working, to-

gether with the Senator from Minne-

sota (Mr. MONDALE), for a long time,

first to work out a bill that was accept-

able to the administration, a bill that

would not be vetoed, and then to get it

before the Senate. I think it is very im-

portant to get it there soon.

I am delighted that the majority

leader has agreed to do everything he

can to bring it before this body on


Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I should

like to have an understanding of what

the Senator from New York was saying.

As I understand, it was his judgment,

however sincere he may have been--al-

though I do not agree with him-that

this matter should be given short shrift.

Mr. JAVITS. Not at all.

Mr. HELMS. At what point would the

Senator apply cloture?

Mr. JAVITS. We cannot apply cloture

without a vote of two-thirds of the Sen-


Mr. HELMS. I understand.

Mr. JAVITS. But it is our contention

that this particular bill, this broad plan

for a legal services corporation, has been

so thoroughly debated and considered

here, in committee, and by experts out-

side the Senate that we believe that

within a matter of days, giving secono-

track attention to this matter, keeping

in mind that we shall probably be sitting

until late hours next week, that whenever

the leadership calls up the bill, we could,

in good faith, seek cloture.

Mr. HELMS. I will simply say to my

good friend, whom I admire and respect,

that I personally think this matter de-

serves a great deal of discussion, not-

withstanding those who think a bill ap-

proaching perfection has been agreed

upon. I would hope that nothing sum-

December 7, 1-

mary would be done to shut off debate United States. Capitol, will re-create the

on this matter, because there are those evolution of American history, based on a

of us who do feel very strongly about it. foundation of thorough historical research,

Mr. JAVITS. I will, myself, be the first subject to the following conditions:

(1) Such study and all expenditures ear-

to assess the good faith of those who op- nected therewith will be borne by the Unit.t

pose the bill. But we will have to, just states Capitol laborical Society.

as the Senator from North Carolina will (2) upon completion of such stu4y, the

have to, if the Senator is going to decide United states Capitol Hstorical society,

that he wants to debate it and Senators its expense, will furnish the Architect of

in opposition will want to debate it-we Capitol a report detailing the results of h

will have to decide when to test the Sen- study, installations, and programs propo

ate as to whether the Senate thinks the and estimates of cost required to mple

such project without expense to the U ited

bill has been debated long enough. If we states, including maintenance and o sting

are wrong, we will be penalized and will expenses.

lose. We have just as much risk as does (3) The project may not be noted,

the Senator from North Carolina. beyond the report stage, except as rovided-

Mr. HELMS. I appreciate the Sen- in section 2 hereof.

ator's remarks. I just did not want to SEc. 2. The Architect of the pitol shall

labor under a misapprehension that a review such report and submit t samewith

warning was being sounded to those of his recommendations, to the aker and ma-

us warning was being sounded to that cloture was forth- jority and minority leaders the House of

us who disagree that cloture was forth- representatives and to t United States

coming immediately because I do feel Senate Commission on and Antiquities.

that this measure deserves great con- If the project, as pres ted, with or with-

sideration and debate, out modifications, me with the approval

Mr. JAVITS. Senator HELMS, we are of such House and Se te officials, the Archi-

'too adult and we have too much respect tect of the Capito , notwithstanding any

for this body and our colleagues to make other provision oflaw, is authorized after

any threats or to issue any warnings su(1) To accpc the nme of the Uited

around here. States from tI United States Capitol Bis-

Mr. NHELMS. I thank the Senator from torical Society, as a gift, such sum or sums

New York, as may be required to further implement

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I such- project, and such sum or sums whin

yield to the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. received, shall be credited as an addition to

yield to the S ator from innesota (Mr. the apriation account "Capitol Build-

HUMPHREY). ings. A$hitect of the Capitol".

Mr. McGEE. Mr. President---- (2) ubct to section S hereof, to expend

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. such sum or sums for all items. p equip-

BARTLETT). The Chair lays before the melt and other facilities required for the

Senate the unfinished. business which sound and light performance, and for any

Shee he ise. theirr Items in connection therewith.

the clerk will state. SEc. 3. The Architect of the Capitol, under

the direction of the House and Senate officials

designated in section 2 hereof, is authorsel

THE CALIENDAR" to enter into contracts and to incur such

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Pr e eIiot, I other obligations and make such expendl-

first ask unanimous consent tlt the tures as may be necessary to carry out the

Senate proceed to the consideratia of provisions of said section 2.

enate proceed to the considerati of EC. 4. Sums received under this Joint

Calendar Nos. 579, 580, and 581. L resolution, when credited as an addition tie

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With t the appropriation account "Capitol Build-

objection, it is so ordered,. wings, Architect of the Capitol", shall be avail-

\ able for expenditure and shall remain avail-

able until expended. Following completion of

U.S. CAPITOL HISTORICAL SOCIETY 'te installation, such sums may thereafter be

STDYusd by the Architect of the Capital, in whe

or rt', to defray any expenses which he

The Senate proceeded to consider the may for maintenance. and operation.

joint resolution (.J. Res. 169), to pro- Mr.*ANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask

vide for a feasibility study and to accept unanimous consent that the Public

a gift from the U.S. Capitol Historical Works ttee be discharged from

Society, which has been reported from further psderation of House Joint

the Committee on Interior and Insular Resolution 6, and that the Senate pr

Affairs with an amendment on page 2, in ceed to its im ediate consideration.

line 20, after "Represenattives" strike The PRESIDNG OFFICER. Without

out "and to the majority and minority objection, itis ordered.

leaders of the Senate" and insert in lieu The joint resolleon will be stated by

thereof and to the United States Senate title.

Commission on Art and Antiquities," so The assistant legi ve clerk read ay

as to make the joint resolution read: follows:

Resolved by the Senate and House of A joint resolution (H.J. 736), to pro-

Representatives of the United States of Amer- vide for a feasibility study d to accept a

a in Congress assembled, That, notwith- gift from the e united study tol cept a

standing any other provision of law, the cal Society.

United States Capitol Historical Society is

authorized, under direction of the Architect Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. nt I

of the Capitol, to prepare a feasibility study move to strike all after the ving

to determine the desirability of installing clause and Insert the text of Senate t

within the United States Capitol Grounds, Resolution 169 as reported with am

at the east front of the United States Capitol, meits.

all items of equipment and other facilities

required for a sound and light performance, The motion was agreed to.

consisting of an interplay of light, music, The PRESIDIN OFFICER. The ques-

narrative, and sound effects (without the use tion is on the engrossm ent of the amend-

of live actors), which, when projected onto meant and third reading of the joint res-

the imposing facade of the east front of the solution.

TeScember , 1973 cc

ice of Att ey General are those

which were in effect on January 1, 1969."

A motion reconsider was laid on

the table.


(Mr. FISH ked and was given per-

mission to ad ess the House for 1 min-

ute, to revise d extend his remarks and

include extr ous matter.)

Mr. FISH. . Speaker, reports indi-

cate that the oviet Government is con-

tinuing to t and imprison its citi-

zens on trum ed-up charges. Of particu-

lar concern the imprisonment of 43

Jewish " ners of conscience" who

have been c pletely cut off from their

families and e outside world.

The Sovie Government and the Red

Crescent, the viets' counterpart to the

Red Cross, h ve not responded to pleas

made by th American National Red

Cross and th International Committee

of the Red Css at Geneva urging hu-

manitarian tr atment for these prison-


A different esult might be forthcom-

ing If Membe of Congress voice their

concern and j n in the effort to persuade

the Soviet U on to permit the flow of

clothing and ood and mail to Jewish

prisoners in 1 bor camps. We have seen

in the past t the force of world pub-

lic opinion ca have an effect on the in-

ternal policies of the Soviet Union.

On Tuesday I joined with Congress-

man PEYsER h circulating a "Dear Col-

league" letter king all Members of the

House to wri to officials of the Red

Crescent and the International Red

Cross in Gene , urging relaxation of

Soviet restrictio on incoming packages

to Jewish pris ers during the Han-

nukah-Christm season. We seek infor-

mation on the p isoners and assurances

that mail and pr er books and other re-

ligious articles be allowed to reach

the prisoners. Th is a modest request,

but powerful, if I comes from Members

of Congress.

A strong congr sional initiative can

make a difference and will result in Im-

proved conditions or these prisoners.




Mr. SIKES. Mr. Speaker, I call up the

conference report on the bill (H.R.

11459) making appropriations for mill-

tary construction for the Department of

Defense for the fiscal year ending June

30, 1974, and for other purposes, and

ask unanimolis consent that the state-

blent of the managers be read in lieu

of the report.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

the request of the gentleman from


, There was no objection.

The Clerk read the statement.

(For conference report and statement,

see proceedings of the House of Decem-

Ur 4, 1973.)

(Mr. SIKES asked and was given per-


mission to revise and extend his re-


Mr. SIKES. Mr. Speaker, the confer-

ence action on the military construction

appropriations bill which is before us

represents both a prudent and an eco-

nomical resolution of the many items un-

Sder consideration in the military con-

struction request for fiscal year 1974. The

amount of the conference agreement,

$2,658,861,000 in new budget authority,

represents a reduction of $286,039,000

from the budget request which the Ap-

propriations Committees considered for

fiscal year 1974. This is a reduction of

nearly 10 percent, and few appropria-

tions bills will come to the House with

comparable reductions or with any

meaningful reduction. The conference

agreement represents by far the great-

est percentage reduction in any appro-

priations bill thus far passed by the

House or approved by Congress for the

fiscal year 1974.

The military construction appropria-

tions bill is small, both with regard to

other Defense appropriations and in re-

lation to the objectives which it should

accomplish. This bill provides for con-

struction of facilities for the Army, Navy,

Air Force, the Defense agencies, and the

Reserve forces. The total provided for

these essential programs is $1,563,489,000.

The estimated deficit for these programs

is $23.2 billion if all needed work were to

be performed. The conference agreement

carries $1,088,372,000 in new budget au-

thority to provide the total cost for the

construction, operation, and mainte-

nance of military family housing both in

the United States and overseas. There

are 10,541 new units provided, whereas

the estimated backlog of needed housing

units is on the order of 212,000. Finally,

the bill funds the homeowners assistance

program which guards against excessive

losses to Defense employees as a result

of decreased values of their homes af-

fected by base closures and reductions.

In other words, the program recom-

mended in this bill is a modest program.

Yet I hope that we have provided in

this conference agreement an amount

which balances our immediate needs in

this area against the need to make sav-

ings which are possible.

The major increases over the amounts

allowed by the House are $20,000,000 for

a hospital at the U.S. Military Academy,

West Point, N.Y., which had been deleted

by the House and $12 million to provide

for the relocation of portions of the At-

lantic Fleet Weapons Range from the

island of Culebra in the Commonwealth

of Puerto Rico. The latter item was not

considered by the House. A Defense De-

partment request went to the Senate

after the House had concluded its hear-


In both of these cases, funds have been

approved for fiscal year 1974 along with

firm directions to the Department of

Defense to plan for these activities in a

manner which will insure that they effec-

tively carry out their mission and avoid

excessive expenditures by the Treasury.

There have been a long series of disap-

pointments with the construction pro-

gram at the Military Academy. It has

been difficult to ascertain the factors

JSE H 10877

which keep the construction costs high

at that location and cause them to in-

crease so rapidly. I do not feel that this

is a situation for which the Army is re-

sponsible or can control. In any case, a

replacement for the current antiquated

hospital at West Point is overdue.

When this bill passed the House, it

contained none of the $25 million in

funding which the Army had requested

for this hospital in fiscal year 1974. It

was felt that the facility proposed by

the Army was too large and too expen-

sive. Since then the Senate has reduced

the scope and the cost to $20 million. We

feel that, with the language contained in

our conference report and the apparent

willingness of the Army to do a thorough

restudy of this project so as to reduce

its scope and cost, we will be able to ob-

tain a facility which will do the job re-

quired but not be goldplated. Further-

more, by providing the funds in this bill

we will be able to avoid further delays

which will escalate the cost of medical

facilities which are constructed.

There was no request to the House for

funding of the Atlantic Fleet Weapons

Range relocation. This was brought out

in the discussion of this project between

the Delegate from Puerto Rico (Mr.

BENTEz) and myself at the time this bill

passed the House. The Senate added $12

million at the Navy's request to fund

this first portion of the relocation cost.

We have included these funds at the

urgent request by the Secretary of De-

fense with the understanding that the

Committees on Appropriations will re-

view the agreement between the Navy

and the Government of Puerto Rico to

insure that adequate range facilities will

continue to be provided for our naval

forces, that the land to be released will

be used only for park purposes, and that

decontamination costs will not be borne

by the American taxpayer.

These two items account for $32 mil-

lion of the $49,771,000 increase allowed

over the House bill by the conference. In

addition, there were other significant in-

creases in other areas which account for

the remaining $17,771,000 increase. They

include $5 million for access roads;

$4,250,000 for two commissaries, one at

Fort Polk, La., and one at Bergstrom Air

Force Base, Tex., which appear to have

sufficient need to justify funding at this

time; $4,006,000 for facilities at and re-

location of the Military Sealift Com-

mand, Atlantic to the Military Ocean

Terminal, Bayonne, N.J., which the serv-

ices have strongly recommended for

years; and $3,600,000 for an engineering

building at the Naval Underwater Sys-

tems Center, New London Laboratory,

Conn., for important studies in subma-

rine warfare.

I strongly urge the adoption of the

conference report and the proposed

amendments to the two items which

were brought back in technical disagree-


History has taught again and again

that military forces depend on many fac-

tors other than numbers of personnel

and quantity of materiel. Morale and

leadership are essential to military effec-

tiveness. In the dangerous world in

H 10878


which we live today, we need a fully

effective Military Establishment. It has

long been recognized that a fully effec-

tive Military Establishment includes an

adequate base structure with proper

housing, proper training facilities, proper

research facilities, and proper storage

facilities. We need a base establishment

which is compatible with the surround-

ings and which accepts the responsibili-

ties for maintenance of a wholesome

atmospherb with clean air and clean wa-

ter. All of these we contribute to in this

bill. The price is modest in comparison

TSE December 7, a

with the results which we believe .wi

be achieved.

.A table showing the comparative st$te-

ment of new budget--obligational-

thority for 1973 and budget estimtt

and amounts recommended in the bill for

fiscal year 1974:-.


Conference action compared with-

Budget Budget

estimates New budget estimates

New budget of new New budget New budget

(obligational) (obligational) (obligational) .(obligational) authority (obligational) obligationall) obligationall) obligationall)

authority, authority, authority authority recommended authority, authority, authority authority

' fiscal year fiscal year recommended recommended by conference fiscal year fiscal year recommended recommended

Item 1973 1974 in House bill in Senate bill action 1973 1974 in House bill in Senate bill

Military construction, Army ..-------------. 413, 955, 000

Military construction, Navy............... 517,830,000

Military construction, Air Force... ........ 265, 552, 000

Military construction, Defense Agencies.. . 36, 704, 000

Transfer, not to exceed .----------- (20, 000, 000)

Military construction, Army National Guard. 40, 000

Military construction, Air National Guard. . 16, 100, 000

Military construction, Army Reserve ..._ 38, 200, 000

Military construction, Naval Reserve ...... 20, 500,000

Military construction, Air Force Reserve ... , 7,000,000

Total, military construction- ....... 1, 355, 841, 000

Family housing, defense -.............. 1, 064, 046, 000

Portion applied to debt reduction ......... -96,666, 000

Subtotal, family housing. ---------- 967, 380, 000

Homeowners assistance fund, defense ........ .....

1664,900, 000


291, 900, 000

19,100, 000

(20, 000, 000)




20, 300, 000


551, 575, 000

587, 641, 000

239,702, 000






22, 900, 000

10, 000, 000

1,787,500, 000 1,507, 718, 000

2 1,250, 567, 000

-100,167, 000

1,150, 400, 000


1, 194, 539, 000

-100,167, 000

1, 094, 372, 000


567, 735, 000 $578,120,000 +$164,165,000 -$86,780,000 +$26, 545, 000 +$10,385,000

608,467,000 609, 292, 000 +91,462, 000 -76,108, 000 +21,651,000 4825, 000

261, 198, 000 247, 277, 000 -18,275, 000 -44,623,000 +7,575,000 --1,921,000

12,000, 000 0 -36,704,000 -19,100,000 _-. - ....... --12,000000

(20,000,000) (20, 000, 000)..........................

35, 200, 000 35, 200, 000 -4, 800, 000 ............... -

20, 000, 000 20,000,000 +3,900,000 ................. .

40, 40,, 000 4 0,000 +2,500,000 ........... ................_ _

20, 300, 000 22, 900, 000 +2, 400, 000 +2, 600, 000 ........... - +2,600, 000

10,000,000 10, 000, 000 +3,000, 000 .......... .........

1, 575, 600, 000 1, 563, 489,000 +207,648,000 -224,001,000 +55,771,000 -12, ~lf 000

1, 188, 539, 000 1, 188, 539, 000 +124, 493,000 -62,028,000 -6, 000, 000 ..........

-100, 167,000 -100, 167,000 -3,501, 000 ................. -

1,088, 372, 000 1, 088, 372, 000 +120,992,000 -62,028,000 -6, 000, 000 .............

7,000,000 7,000, 000 + 7,000,000 .... . . . . . . . . . . . .

Grand total, new budget (obliga-

tional) authority ...... ..------ - 2, 323, 221,000 2,944,900, 000 2, 609, 090, 000 2,670,972,000 2,658, 861, 000 +335,640, 000 -286,039,000 +49,771, 000 -12,111,000

' Due to lack of authorization, does not include additional $4,300,000 requested in H. Doc. 93-155. 3 Includes $7,000,000 requested in H. Doc. 93-155.

SDue to lack of authorization, does not include additional $31,100,000 requested in H. D. 93-155.

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker,

will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SIKES. I yield to the gentleman

from Wisconsin.

(Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin asked and

was given permission to revise and extend

his remarks.)

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin, Mr. Speaker,

I did not sign this conference report.

While I expect this report to be approved,

I do consider that an explanation of my

failure to sign it is in order. I do not

expect and I did not expect that one in-

dividual's point of view can be determ-

inative of a conference report; but I do

believe that when a concept has been

strongly endorsed in the committee, in

the full committee and in the House by

the passage of a bill without amendment,

that principle should not be easily con-

ceded in a conference report on a per-

sonal note or on a political basis.

Specifically, I refer to the House com-

mittee's position and the House position

with respect to tax-funded commissary

construction in the contiguous 48 States.

We have one commissary in Georgia

that had been destroyed and, of course,

funds were provided to replace that. That

presented no problem to me.

We had one in Adak, Alaska. Of

course, the isolation of that place made

the tax-funded construction of that

project no problem for me; but there

were four in the continental United

States, one in Georgia, one in Arizona,

one in Texas, and one in Louisiana. I

do not question that there is a need for

these commissaries; but the needs are

not new. They have been sort of a cumu-

lative thing. Perhaps the same position

could be urged in our other continental

U.S. installations as well; but it was a

concept adopted in our committee and

by the House that in these areas we need

to make it plain that construction in the

future should be other than on a tax-

funded basis.

I have the feeling that thesenew com-

missaries, and the others that will be

coming down the line, are being con-

structed not just to serve our people in

uniform, but on the basis of a dollar

business volume, for a large number of

people not in the armed services who

are permitted under law to trade at these

commissaries at cost prices about two-

thirds the comparable commercial prices

in the communities in which they are

located; so our concept was abandoned

in the conference, not on a defensible

basis, but on other bases.

So that two of the commissai'ies were

accepted for public funding and the other

two went by the boards.

There is one other provision in the con-

ference report that bothers me, and that

is the explanation of why two of these

amendments have been brought back in

disagreement. The total funds provided

for Army and Navy military construction

exceed the amounts that were provided in

either the House bill or in the Senate bill.

I think this is a bad habit for us to get

into, and this was the second part of the

conference report that was unacceptable

to me.

There were some problems that were

resolved much to my satisfaction, and so

this explanation of why I expect this con-

ference report to be approved. For in-

stance, No. 1, we had a problem with re-

spect to the new hospital up at West


The House had provided no funds; the

Senate had put in $20 million. The $20

million is in there, but if the Members

will note the statement on the part of the

managers, it does require some very defi-

nite revisions from the concept that had

been submitted to our committee of a

$25 million, 100-bed hospital designed to

serve a great many other people and not

primarily to serve the cadets and the

permanent military force stationed at the

West Point community.

We did provide military construction

funds for certain installations in Iceland.

The Senate committee deleted all of

those funds. I think the nature of our

tenure there, the negotiations that are

now in progress, justified the inclusion of

those funds in the conference report, but

again with some very definitive language

that limits the obligation of those funds

until certain very practical considera-

tions have been dealt with.

We had a briefing in our subcommit-

tee with respect to our giving up the use

of the island of Culebra off Puerto Rico.

but we were not requested to provide

funds. By the time the bill reached the

Senate, that request had been made. We

concurred in the necessity for providing

those funds, but again because of some

circumstances there that caused us con-

cern, the statement of the managers con-

tained some very definitive language

with respect to these proposed funds.

The Senate committee had taken a

$20 million swipe at our NATO infra-

structure funds. There was no delineated

explanation of this other than the feel-

ing that we were perhaps doing too much

in the way of prefluancing, I think we

can all sympathize with their feelings

in that regard, but we also need to keep

in mind that there are some critical

areas where, unless we do prefiancing

and then go back at a later time for re-

imbursement from the NATO infra-

structure program, some of the opera-

tional facilities for the U.S. forces are

not going to be timely built

I think, generally speaking, that while

~~~ ~~_ ~~_ ~ ~~~ ___ ~_~

ber 7, 1973 CC

-tb onference report does contain a

rather sizable reduction from the budget,

a p the requests that were made, that

we must give credit to the authorizing

committee for the major share of the

reductions-credit or otherwise, depend-

ing upon an individual point of view.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that this

Conference report, as submitted to the

Members, does contain very few reduc-

tions in the amount that was authorized

by the legislative committees.

So, Mr. Speaker, while I recognize that

many significant problems have been

very properly dealt with in their resolu-

tions, for the two reasons which I have

cited, I could not sign this conference


Mr. SIKES. Mr. Speaker, I find that

the distinguished gentleman from Wis-

consin (Mr. DAVIs), has made some use-

ful comments on the conference report

as a whole, and I want to thank him

for his contributions and for his help in

the preparation of the bill, just as I wish

to thank other committee members and

the staff.

It has been a great privilege to work

with the members of this subcommittee

and the staff in the preparation of the

bill. While we have not agreed upon

everything, we feel that a workable and

a sound bill has been presented.

On the matter of commissaries, the

only disagreement was in accepting two

of the four within the United States that

were in controversy. The Senate con-

ferees and a substantial majority of the

House conferees felt that we were on

safer ground in including the two. But we

are all in agreement that additional

steps should be taken to reduce some of

the dependence/upon the taxpayers of

the United States in the construction

and operation of commissaries for serv-

ice personnel. That is spelled out care-

fully on page 8 of the report which is

before you.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. SIKES. Mr. Speaker, I wish to

yield first to the distinguished gentle-

man from Maryland, Mr. LONG, a mem-

1ber of the subcommittee, and then I

shall yield to the gentleman from Iowa,

Mr. Goss.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he

may consume to the gentleman from

Maryland (Mr. LONG).

Mr. LONG of Maryland. Mr. Speaker,

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As with Mr. DAVIS I did not sign the

conference report, and I want to asso-

ciate myself with the remarks of the gen-

tleman from Wisconsin citing some of

the same reasons.

I also felt strongly about the com-

missaries, because commissaries are

heavily subsidized, to the extent of nearly

$300 million a year in appropriated funds

which go to pay the salaries of the

4aployees who work in them.

2 The armed service has a proposal to

allow the prices to go up 1 percent to

pa- for any new construction. Com-

missaries are already allowing a 30 per-

cent cut in price below what stores in

the neighborhood are charging.

No appropriated funds are needed to

build any more commissaries.


In fact, the existing commissaries can

be used for a while longer. I thought it

was a great mistake on our part to yield

in conference to give appropriated funds

for commissaries. This goes against the

principle of our legislation and, in any

case, the commissaries could have soon

been constructed by raising the sur-

charge a bit.

I also feel strongly that we should not

give the Army $20 million for the West

Point Hospital until sound plans are

forthcoming. Instead, we are giving $20

million for a project for which there has

been no valid economic analysis.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out an-

other item which was deleted in the com-

mittee bill for $3.5 million, but restored in

conference, for a structure at the Nation-

a: Security Agency at Fort Meade to

house a unit that was taken out of nearby

Fort Holabird. This was also a great


Fort Holabird is standing there empty,

and many, or most, of the buildings have

been appraised by the Army as useful

until 1994. And yet the Army proposes--

because these buildings are not new and

shiny and quite what they would like to

have-to move to other areas where they

can get the Congress to approve much

newer and pleasanter buildings near

Washington, D.C. and be closer to the


We deleted that structure in the bill

then only to find it put back in in confer-

ence-again a project without a sound

economic analysis.

One of the things that has bothered

me about this committee-and I am very

proud to be associated with my distin-

guished friend, the gentleman from Flor-

ida, and glad to be a member of the

committee--is that we do an awful lot

of hard work for nothing.

I probably have never put so much

hard work into any committee in my en-

tire time in Congress as I have this year.

We study each item line by line. We

mark up a sound bill. Then we go to the

conference and let the Senators put most

of the projects back in. For years I have

noticed that the conference figure is very

much closer to the Senate figure than to

the House figure, although it is pretty

clear that the Senators are only there to

get particular items for their States.

They are not doing the work we are, and

yet we yield to them. It is wrong in prin-

ciple, and wrong in practice to develop a

bill in committee, but really make the

law in the conference. That is why I

strongly protest this conference report,

and the way it came out; and also why I

did not sign it.

I hope in the future we will have the

fortitude to stand on our own and come

out with a bill that we can stand by in

the conference with the Senate.

I thank the gentleman very much for

yielding me this time.

Mr. SIKES. I now yield to the gentle-

man from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. I wish the gentleman

would yield some time to me so I might

ask the gentleman from Wisconsin a


Mr. SIKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5

minutes to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. Do I understand the gen-

H 10879

tleman's contention is that the commis-

saries ought to be self-supporting or at

least far more so than they are pres-


Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. That was

the position which our entire subcom-

mittee took. It boiled down to the ques-

tion as to whether we could more effec-

tively bring this about by leaving out all

of the commissaries in the continental

United States or whether, as was finally

done here, to put the money for two of

them in and then put some strong langu-

age into the report.

My view was that we put strong langu-

age into committee reports around here

many, many times, and I was just as

confident as I was sitting in that room

that we will have before us in the 1975

military construction bill requests for

some more tax-funded commissaries.

That is the reason why I took the posi-

tion that I took.

Mr. SIKES. Will the gentleman from

Iowa yield to me?

Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SIKES. I think you will find, if you

will look at the report language on page

8, it is quite strongly stated and it is

straightforward. It is quite clear that we

expect realistic action and consideration

of the committee's position. This is

shared by the Senate and House com-


Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Will the gen-

tleman yield?

Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I just wish

to make a comment on that. I do not

differ basically with the gentleman from

Florida, who is a great chairman, except

to say that he has been on both this sub-

committee and on the Defense Appro-

priation Subcommittee for a long time.

I think he will agree with me that we

have put some very strong language in

both of those reports from time to time

only to see those comments ignored by

noncompliance. So the only difference

that the chairman and I have is I felt

the language is not going to do as much

good as the chairman seems to have con-

fidence it will.

Mr. GROSS. I fully agree with the

gentleman from Wisconsin that except

under the most exceptional situations

these commissaries ought to be far more

self-supporting if not totally so. I com-

mend him for raising the issue here and

for his statement.

I yield back whatever time I may have.

Mr. SIKES. Mr. Speaker, I now yield

such time as he may require to the dis-

tinguished chairman of the Committee

on Appropriations, the gentleman from

Texas (Mr. MAHON).

(Mr. MAHON asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his

remarks. )

Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I do not

wish to speak at length in connection

with this conference report. It was a

compromise, as conference reports al-

ways are. We did the best that could be

done under the circumstances. I com-

mend the gentleman from Florida (Mr.

SInES) for his able leadership and the

entire subcommittee for the long weeks

of effort to achieve the best bill possible,

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, the inclu-


December 7,-19

sion of $20 million for the proposed new

hospital at the U.S. Military Academy at

West Point in this conference report is

especially gratifying.

As a freshman Member of Congress

and a Member of the Academy's board of

visitors, the culmination of the necessary

legislative approvals for this long over-

due project is a most rewarding experi-


I commend the members of the Mili-

tary Construction Subcommittees on

Appropriations in both Houses whose

concerns I share in making it possible

for this project to finally become a re-

ality after years of arduous planning and

numerous frustrations.

To be sure, rapidly increasing construc-

tion costs in recent years is the most

prominent of the frustrations. For this,

however, the Academy is not singularly

unique. That the Appropriations Com-

mittees in both Houess meticulously

screened and pared the new hospital

proposal attests to their concern of the

taxpayers' interests.

Having visited the existing hospital

and having carefully scrutinized the

voluminous documentation of the Army

pursuant to the proposed hospital, I am

convinced of the increasingly urgent

need for a modern medical facility of

which this military institution, one of

.the finest in the world, is justifiably


The existing hospital, after serving the

West Point community for more than 50

years, is ready to be retired for other less

demanding, but nonetheless essential,

uses in the Academy's on-going expan-

sion program. This Congress has the op-

portunity of assuring that a first-rate

medical facility will, within the forsee-

able future, be available to meet the

medical and health care needs of the ex-

panding Cadet Corps and the commu-

nity it serves in the years to come.

I urge my colleagues to support the

conference report in full recognition that

while we might delay the benefits of a

modern medical facility by failing to

commence construction of a new hospi-

tal at the earliest possible date, we could

not postpone further increased costs.

Mr. CAREY of New York. Mr. Speaker,

the House will shortly vote on the Mili-

tary Construction Appropriations Con-

ference Report. This report on H.R.

11459 contains several items that I con-

sider fiscally irresponsible, and wasteful,

not only of Federal tax dollars, but

wasteful of badly needed energy and


Originally, the House, on recommen-

dation of the Appropriations Committee,

declined to provide the over $4 million

permitting construction of administra-

tive facilities for the Military Ocean

Terminal, and Military Sealift Com-

mand, plus an electric substation, which

alone will cost over $400,000.

However, the House receded in con-

ference with the Senate. It is my under-

standing that the House agreed to recede

from their position of deleting construc-

tion in Bayonne, on the basis of figures

supplied by the Army, outlining the fuel

costs for servicing the facilities now op-

erating in Brooklyn. These figures sup-

plied to my office by the House Appro-

priations Committee, state that the fa-

cilities now in Brooklyn total 65,800,000

cubic feet, of which a total of 36,600,000

must be heated. This costs $256,000 per

year in fuel. Unfortunately, costs of

heating and servicing the largely empty

Bayonne facilities now in existence, and

those planned for the future are not


But clearly, Mr. Speaker, based on the

above figures, it is even clearer that the

Bayonne facilities should not be built

at this time. The facilities presently used

by these military transportation agen-

cies are perfectly sufficient to their ad-

ministrative needs. The facilities now

used are more efficient-they burn only

12,000 gallons of oil daily, as opposed to

the over 20,000 burnt daily by facilities

already operating in Bayonne, N.J.-the

site proposed for the relocation of these

agencies. The facilities in Brooklyn are

also sufficient in size to accommodate the

total administrative and supply opera-

tions presently in Bayonne, at an obvious

saving of 8,000 gallons of oil per day.

Also included in this energy and fuel

savings are the power,- heat, and light

that will be needed to service these newly

constructed facilities. Also included

should be the fuel and energy expended

in building and finishing these new fa-

cilities, plus the additional fuel and costs

involved in having thousands of workers

drive daily from Brookly to Bayonne, in

order to keep their jobs.

Mr. Speaker, this Nation is now facing

an energy crisis and a fuel crisis, the

proportions of which are still yet un-

known. Projections have been made of a

total fuel shortfall of between 16 and

30 percent, depending on the degree of

the Arab oil embargo, weather conditions

during the duration of the winter, and

the success of conservation efforts

throughout the Nation.

This Nation is also facing, because of

administration economic mismanage-

ment and administration-fostered infla-

tion and shortage, a budget deficit in this

fiscal year, of $1 to $3 billion. The budget

deficit for next fiscal year should top $5

billion, and could go as high as $10 bil-

lion. And, parenthetically, I might men-

tion here that because of the 7 and 8

percent inflation we have been experi-

encing over the past 21/2 years, the Gov-

ernment is providing less and less serv-

ice, at an increasing cost in continually

inflated dollars.

In other words, administration-infla-

tion, while seeming to increase Federal

revenues, actually accrues no actual in-

crease in purchasing power, and it fur-

ther tempts the administration to try to

balance the budget at a horrible human

and social cost to the American people.

Just a quick look at what the adminis-

tration is trying to do to health, educa-

tion, and welfare programs makes my

point with a lamentable vengeance.

Mr. Speaker, we have discussed our

Nation's critical condition in energy and

finance. Energy arguments have been

used by the Army in this case. Well, I

think they should cut both ways. Energy

arguments were used, somewhat mys-

teriously, in arguing for the shutdown of

a facility employing about 2,000 in

Brooklyn. Well, these same arguments

should be applied across the mnlitai'

construction board. An immediate spe-'

cific moratorium should be placed on

the planned Brooklyn-Bayonne move

until the GAO has completed a oomre-

hensive, energy-impact study.

It is for these reasons, Mr. Speaker,

that I am 'preparing legislation which

will mandate a moratorium on military

construction, during the remainder of

the energy crisis and the fiscal deficit

period we have been experiencing. I will

be circulating a dear colleague letter and

a draft of the bill in the early part of-

next week.

I think that the time for shortsighted

thinking is past and urge my colleagues

to make clear to the American people that

everyone is going to have to tighten their

energy belts, including the military.

I am aware of the fact that the Pen-

tagon has ordered reductions in fuel

used for training, and in selected opera-

tions. A few limousines have been moth-.

balled, and the President has slowed Air

Force One to under 500 miles per hour.

But, Mr. Speaker, when you realize jobs

are going to be sacrificed; homes go un-

heated; cars, buses, trucks, and the en-

tire economy slowed and sacrificing, then

I think we should take a little closer look

at the sector of our energy-consuming

economy that is presently siphoning

about 10 million barrels a month from

oil that should be going to serve our

domestic and civilian needs.

The Military Establishment should

take far more seriously the magnitude of

this crisis and should voluntarily order a

moratorium on all but that construction

most clearly allied-to the direct security

interests of hte United States. This mor-

atorium should serve until the passage

of legislation such as I propose.

Not only would we realize savings, of

several billions of dollars a year, thus

erasing the projected deficit for this year,

but we should, in the next year or so,

be able to see just how well the military

has been able to bear its fair share of

the sacrifice demanded of each and every

American. We will also see how well it

has been able to make do with the facili-

ties that have been in use serving the

military so well in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I hav-recently been hon-

ored by appointment to the Ways and

Means Committees Task Force on

Energy. I have, thus, a special responsi-

sibility to help devise ways in which the

Nation can move forward in meeting

these crises in fuel, energy, and power.

Part of this solution will be to encour-

age oil-consuming nations to join to-

gether in presenting common positions

of solidarity to the oil-producing pow-

ers. Certainly a willingness on the part

of the U.S. military, and its civilian lead-

ership; to make significant sacrifices,

during the remainder- of these crises,

would serve as one of the best bona fides

we could take to expected world energy


Today, I call for just this kind of sac-

rifice by the military-a sacrifice in di-

rect consumption of fuels needed to heat -

homes and preserve jobs, and further, in

a moratorium in constructing new facil-

ities that will take further energy

H 10880

S ber 7, 197J CO:

,~e to build aid serve with heat,

ar d.power.

Jr. Speaker, we are not asking the

sii ry to do anything that the Amer-

ican people have not been asked to do.

Mr. SIKES. Mr. Speaker, by way of

summation, let me point out that the re-

sult of the Congress' action on the au-

thorization was to cut below the budget

request by $221 million.

Then in addition to that, in the ap-

propriation bill, the House initially cut

$114 million. The conference action re-

sulted in a cut of' $65 million in appro-

priations for a total reduction below the

budget of $286 million.

As I stated earlier the two principal

items contributing significant increase to

this agreement over the amount ap-

proved by the House were the $20 mil-.

lion for the hospital at West Point, and

$12 million for relocation of bombing-

activities from the Island of Culebra,

both of which were very strongly sup-

ported by the Department of Defense

and by the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I move the previous ques-

tion on the conference report.

The previous question was ordered.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the

conference report.

The question was taken; and the

Speake announced that the ayes ap-

peared to have it.

Mr. DELENBACK. Mr. Speaker, I ob-

ject to the vote on the ground that a

quorum is not present and make the

point of order that a quorum is not


The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is

not present.

The Sergeant at Arms will notify ab-

sent Members.

The vote was taken by electronic de-

vice, and there were-yeas 329, nays 40,

not voting 43, as follows: .

[Roll No. 635]


Burllson, Mo. Duncan

Burton du Pont

Butler Eckhardt

Byron Edwards, Ala.

Carney, Ohio Erlenborn

Carter ' Eshleman

Casey, Tex. Evans, Colo.

Cederberg Evins, Tenn.

Chamberlain Fascell

Chappell Flndley

Clancy Fish

1ca6 Flood

Cleveland Flowers

Cohen Flynt

Collier Foley

Collins, Tex. Ford,

Conable William D.

Conte Forsythe

Otter Fountain

.Coughlin Fraser

Cronln Frelinghuysen

Culver . Frey

Daniel, Dan Froehlich

Danel, Robert Fulton

W., Jr. Fuqua

Daniels, Gaydos

Dominick V. Gettys

Danielson Giaimo

Davis, Ga. Gibbons

Davis, B.C. Gilman

de la Gara Oinn

DellUenba Goldwater

Deanims Gonzalez

Dent Goodling

Derwlnski Green, Oreg.

Dickinson Grover

Dlngell Oude

Donobue Gunter

Dol Guyer

Downing Haley

Dulaki Hamilton


Hammer- Melcher

schmidt Mezvinsky

Hanley Michel

Hanna Milford

Hanrahan Miner

Hansen, Idaho Mills, Ark.

Hansen, Wash. Minish

Harsh Mink

Harvey Minshall, Ohio

Hastings Mitchell, N.Y.

H6bert Mizell

Heinz Mollohan

Henderson Montgomery

Hicks Moorhead,

Hinshaw Calif.

Hogan Moorhead, Pa.

Holifield Morgan

Holt Mosher

Horton Moss

Hosmer Murphy, Ill.

Howard Murphy, N.Y.

Huber Myers

Hudnut Natcher

Hungate Nelsen

Hunt Obey

Hutchinson O'Brien

Ichord O'Hara

Jarman Owens

Johnson, Calif. Parris

Johnson, Colo. Passman

Johnson, Pa. Patman

Jones, Ala. Patten

Jones, N.C. Pepper

Jones, Okla. Perkins

Jones, Tenn. Pettis

Karth Peyser

Kazen Pickle

Kemp Pike

Ketchum Poage

King Powell, Ohio

Kluczynski Preyer

Koch Price, Ill.

Kyros Pritchard

Landgrebe Railsback

Landrum Randall

Latta Rarick

Leggett Rees

Lent Regula

Litton Rhodes

Lott Riegle

Lujan Rinaldo

McClory Robinson, Va.

McCloskey Robison, N.Y.

McCollister Rodlno

McCormack Roe

McDade Rogers

McFall Roncallo, Wyo.

McKinney Roncallo, N.Y.

Madden Rooney, Pa.

Madlgan Rose

Mahon Rostenkowski

Mailliard Roush

Mallary Roy

Mann Ruppe

Maraziti Ruth

Martin, Nebr. Ryan

Martin, N.C. St Germain

Mathias, Calif. Sarasin

Mathis, Ga. Sarbanes

Matsunaga Satterfield

Mayne Scherle

Mazzoli Schneebeli

Meeds Schroeder


Abzug Eilberg

Archer Frenzel

Ashbrook Green, Pa.

Ashley Gross

Aspin Hawkins

Barrett Hechler, W. Va.

Carey, N.Y. Heckler, Mass.

Chisholm Helstoski

Collins, Ill. Holtzman

Davis, Wis. Kastenmeier

Dellums Long, Md.

Devine Metcalfe

Drinan Moakley

Edwards. Calif. Nix










Burke, Calif.



Don IL


Clawson, Del





















Smith, Iowa

Smith, N.Y.





J. William


James V.




Steiger, Ariz.

Steiger, Wis.







Taylor, Mo.

Taylor, N.C.

Teague, Calif.

Teague, Tex.

Thompson, N.J.

Thomson, Wis.




Towell, Nev.



Vander Jagt












Wilson, Bob


Charles H.,



Charles, Tex.









Young, Alaska

Young, Fla,

Young, Ill.

Young, S.C.

Young, Tex.













Young, Ga.











Long, La.





Mitchell, Md.





Price, Tex.





Rooney, N.Y.







H 10881



Van Deerlin




So the conference report was agreed


The Clerk announced the following


On this vote:

Mr. Rooney of New York for, with Mr.

Harrington against.

Mr. Addabbo for, with Mr. Conyers against.

Mr. O'Neill for, with Mr. Badllo against.

Mr. Brasco for, with Mr. Mitchell of Mary-

land against.

Until further notice:

Mr. Bergland with Mrs. Burke of California.

Mrs. Grasso with Mr. Gray.

Mr. Hays with Mrs. Griffiths.

Mr. Podell with Mr. Price of Texas.

Mr. Roberts with Mr. Qule.

Mr. Runnels with Mr. Crane.

Mr. Shipley with Mr. McEwen.

Mr. Mcepadden with Mr. Each.

Mr. Macdonald with Mr. Camp.

Mr. Lehman with Mr. Kuykendall.

Mr. Diggs with Mr. Van Deerlin.

Mr. Blatnik with Mr. Hills.

Mr. Clark with Mr. Blackburn.

Mr. Corman with Mr. Del Clawson.

Mr. Delaney with Mr. Conlan.

Mr. Nichols with Mr. Beard.

Mr. Denholm with Mr. Gubser.

Mr. McKay with Mr. Don H. Clausen.

Mr. Nedzi with Mr. Abdnor.

Mr. Ullman with Mr. Cochran.

Mr. Stokes with Mr. Reid.

Mr. Brinkley with Mr. Quillen.

Mr. Fisher with Mr. Rousselot.

Miss Jordan with Mr. Sandman.

Mr. Long of Louisiana with Mr. Symms.

Mr. Stephens with Mr. Walsh.

Mr. Williams with Mr. Wiggins.

The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.


The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report

the first amendment in disagreement.

The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 1: Page 2, line 3,

strike out "$551,575,000" and insert in lieu

thereof "$567,735,000"-


Mr. SIKES. Mr. Speaker, I offer a mo-


The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. SIKES moves that the House recede

from its disagreement to the amendment of

the Senate numbered 1 and concur therein

with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of

the sum proposed by said amendment insert


The motion was agreed to.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report

the last amendment in disagreement.

The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 2: On page 2, line

13, strike out "$587,641,000" and insert in lieu

thereof "$608,467,000"-


Mr. SIKES. Mr. Speaker, I offer a


The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. SIKES moves that the House recede

from its disagreement to the amendment of

the Senate numbered 2 and concur therein

with an amendment, as follows In lieu of

the sum proposed by said amendment insert






Anderson. l.

Andrews, N.C.


N. Dak.
















Broyhill, N.C.

Broyhill, Va.


> mTes.



December 7, 194

The motion was agreed to.

A motion to reconsider the votes by

which action was taken on the confer-

ence report and the several motions was

laid on the table.


Mr. SIKES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan-

imous consent that all Members may

have 5 legislative cays in which to ex-

tend their remarks on the matter dis-

cussed in connectioi with the conference

report on the military construction bill

and to include statistical facts and tab-

ular material.

The SPEAKER. s there objection to

the request of te gentleman from


There was no obj etion.





Mr. DULSKI su mitted the following

conference report nd statement on the

bill (H.R. 9256) to increase the contri-

bution of the Govel ment to the cost of

health benefits fo Federal employees,

and for other purp es:


The committee of ;onference on the dis-

agreeing votes of th two Houses on the

amendments of the Snate to the bill (H.R.

9256) to increase the contribution of the

Government to the c sts of health benefits

for Federal employees, and for other pur-

poses, having met, after full and free con-

ference, have agreed to recommend and do

recommend to their respective Houses as


That the Senate rejede from its amend-

ments numbered 6 an4 7.

That the House recdde from its disagree-

ment to the amendments of the Senate num-

bered 1, 5, and 8 and agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 2: That the House

recede from its disagreement to the

amendment of the Senate numbered 2 and

agree to the same with an amendment as

follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to

be inserted in the House engrossed bill by

Senate amendment numbered 2 insert the

following: "in 1974".

And the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 3: That the House

recede from its disagreement to the amend-

ment of the Senate numbered 3 and agree

to the same with an amendment as follows:

In the matter proposed to be inserted in the

House engrossed bill by Senate amendment

numbered 3 strike out "55" and insert in

lieu thereof "60".

And the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 4: That the House

recede from its disagreement to the amend-

ment of the Senate numbered 4 and agree

to the same with an amendment as follows:

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted

in the House engrossed bill by Senate amend-

ment numbered 4 insert the following: "in

1975 and in each year thereafter."

And the Senate agree to the same.





Managers on the Part of the House.






Managers on the Part of the Senate.



The managers on the part of the House and

the Senate at the conference on the dis-

agreeing votes of the two Houses on the

amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R.

9256) to increase the contribution of the

Government to the costs of health benefits

for Federal employees, and for other pur-

poses, submit the following joint statement

to the House and the Senate in explanation

of the effect of the action agreed upon by

the managers and recommended in the ac-

companying conference report:


Amendments numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5:

House bill

The first section of the House bill amended

section 8906 of title 5, United States Code,

to increase the Government's contribution

for Federal employees' health benefits plans

from 40 to 55 percent beginning in 1973, with

an additional 5 percent increase in each sub-

sequent year until 1977, when the Govern-

ment's contribution would reach 75 percent

for 1977 and each year thereafter. Under sec-

tion 4 of the House bill, the initial increase

from 40 to 55 percent would become effective

at the beginning of the first applicable pay

period which begins on or after the 30th

day following the date of enactment. Each

additional 5 percent increase would become

effective in January of each subsequent year.

Senate amendments

Senate amendments numbered 1, 2, 3,

4, and 5 amended the above-discussed pro-

visions of the House bill so as to provide,

in aggregate effect, that the Government's

contribution for Federal employees' health

benefits plans shall be increased from 40 to

50 percent beginning in 1974 and from 50 to

55 percent beginning in 1975 and applicable

In each year thereafter.

Conference agreement

Under section 8906 of title 5, United States

Code, as modified by the conference agree-

ment, the Government's contribution for

Federal employees' health benefits plans is

increased from 40 to 50 percent beginning

in 1974 and from 50 to 60 percent beginning

in 1975 and in each year thereafter. The latter

increase of 50 to 60 percent was not con-

tained in the House bill as proposed to be

modified by Senate amendments numbered

1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and is considerably less than

the increases proposed by the House bill in

the form in which it passed the House.


Amendment numbered 6:

House bill

The House bill, in the form in which it

passed the House, contained no provisions

relating to student children.

Senate amendment

Senate amendment numbered 6 proposed

the insertion of a new section 4 in the House

bill which amended section 8901(5) of title

5, United States Code, to extend health bene-

fits coverage to an unmarried child, regard-

less of age, who is dependent upon the en-

rolled parent for more than half of his sup-

port and who is in regular full-time attend-

ance at a high school, trade school, techni-

cal or vocational institute, junior college, col-

lege, university, or comparable recognized

educational institution.

Conference agreement

The conference agreement does not con-

tain the student children provisions of sec-

tion 4 as proposed by Senate amendment

numbered 6.


Amendment numbered 7:

Amendment numbered 7 is a purely tech-

nical amendment which renumbers section

4 of the House blll (in the form in which

it passed the House) as section 5. This

amendment is not necessary because of the

omission by the conference agreement of

the new section 4, relating to student chil-

dren, as proposed by Senate amendment

numbered 6. The Senate recedes.



Amendment numbered 8:

House bill

Section 4 of the House bill, relating to the

beginning date of the series of increases

proposed in Government health benefits con-

tributions, provided that the first section

shall become effective on the first day of

the first applicable pay period which begins

on or after the thirtieth day after the date

of enactment.

Senate amendment

Senate amendment numbered 8 provided

that such first section shall become effective

on the first day of the first applicable pay

period which begins on or after January 1,


Conference agreement

Under the measure proposed by the con-

ference agreement, the effective date of the

first section, which provides the increases in

Government health benefits contributions, is

that proposed by Senate amendment num-

bered 8. This date is necessary to reflect the

change from 1973 to 1974 made by the con-

ference agreement in the calendar year in

which the series of such increases is to com-

mence. The House recedes.

T. J. DuLsSKI,




Managers on the Part of the House.






Managers on the Part of the Senate.




Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of

the Committee on Rules, I call up House

Resolution 673 and ask for its immediate


The Clerk read the resolution as


H. RES. 673

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this

resolution it shall be in order to move that

the House resolve itself into the Committee

of the Whole House on the State of the

Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.

9107) to provide increases in certain an-

nuities payable under chapter 83 of title 6,

United States Code, and for other purposes.

After general debate, which shall be con-

fined to the bill and shall continue not to

exceed one hour, to be equally divided and

controlled by the chairman and ranking

minority member of the Cozsimittee on Post

Office and Civil Service, the 1111 shall be read

for amendment under the flie-minute rule.

At the conclusion of the conservation of the

bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise

and report the bill to the House with such

amendments as may have been adopted, and

the previous question shall be considered as

ordered on the bill and amendments thereto

to final passage without intervening motion

except one motion to recommit.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from

California is recognized for 1 hour.

Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30

minutes to the gentleman from Ohio

H 10882