committee wrote asking for comment on this bill. We usually getsometimes it takes 2 or 3 weeks, but we do get reports back. And those reports become a part of the record of the hearings. Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Chairman, was that original request followed up or not? The CHAIRMAN. Well, we didn't write them a second time because we just didn't keep after them. But we wrote them, as we do on all matters. Now, members of the committee, Mr. Blandford, will you read the substitute that I think is the proper approach to this question, which has every columnist and everybody in the country excited. Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, before you do that, I want to ask Mr. Pike a question. Mr. Pike, do you believe that the Congress has the inherent right to determine what shall constitute a Military Establishment? Secretary PIKE. Yes, sir, indeed I do. Mr. RIVERS. The Constitution says that the Congress shall provide an army and a navy and the President shall be the Commander in Chief. That is what it says. Secretary PIKE. That is my understanding. Mr. RIVERS. Therefore, when we set up in our wisdom a Military Establishment, and provide for its operation and what it shall constitute as a Military Establishment, I think it follows that we should also have the right to screen what you shall want to remove from that establishment as essential or not essential, in the interest of keeping an adequate military. Do you agree with that? Secretary PIKE. Mr. Congressman, I don't question that right at all. I very frankly am in no position to engage in a discussion on the legislative-executive situation that is inherent in this thing. Mr. RIVERS. I see. Secretary PIKE. The main point that I am trying to get over in this testimony is simply that I, as a member of the executive branch of the Government, under a policy that has been adopted by the Department of Defense, having been given the job of implementing it Mr. RIVERS. That is right, sir. Secretary PIKE. The essence of my testimony is that under a procedure whereby we have to submit each individual activity, where we in turn have taken from 6 to 9 months to find out from the individual military departments all of the essential information and then have to wait for another period of 90 days-in my opinion, that extends the burden of the administration and it prolongs our getting out of activities which in many cases are very small, involve a very small number of people and are activities which have practically no military connotation. Mr. RIVERS. Well The CHAIRMAN. Well Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, let me finish. This means an awful lot to me. I participated in this very actively. Now, I am not saying that 638 is perfect, but if the Congress in its wisdom decides to set up a modus operandi whereby we screen those things which in our judg ment are essential, you would have no complaint about that, would you? load. Secretary PIKE. Again, I am speaking just of the administrative Mr. RIVERS. Yes, sir. Secretary PIKE. Involved. Mr. RIVERS. Yes, sir. Secretary PIKE. I have no question about the power of the Congress to legislate laws. Mr. RIVERS. Therefore, if the Secretary of Defense says he can live with an act of Congress, you would have no complaint with that, would you? Mr. GAVIN. Well, at that point would you yield? [Laughter.] I would have to yield to you. Mr. GAVIN. Did you discuss this matter with the Secretary of Defense before he appeared before the committee to testify? Was he cognizant of what this whole situation is about, or do you think he was just talking off the cuff and had some slight knowledge of it, very thorough knowledge of how a great interest was manifested by the Congress in this section? Secretary PIKE. Well, I am sure that he was aware of the interest manifested by the Congress. The direct answer to your question is "No; I did not have an opportunity to discuss the point with the Secretary of Defense." Mr. RIVERS. I really haven't finished. The chairman wants to get on with the amendments, so I think-I just wanted to get some basic questions. At the insistence of the chairman, I will terminate my question. The CHAIRMAN. Wait 1 minute. I suggest the committee first read the provision in the appropriation bill, which was in there last year, and which is the same this year. Read that section. Mr. BLANDFORD. I believe it is the same language that was contained The CHAIRMAN. Read it. Mr. BLANDFORD (reading): No part of the funds appropriated in this act may be used for the disposal or transfer by contract or otherwise of work that has, for a period of 3 years or more, been performed by civilian personnel of the Department of Defense, unless justified to the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives at least 90 days in advance of such disposal or transfer, that its discontinuance is economically sound and the work is capable of performance by a contractor without danger to the national security. Provided, that no such disposal or transfers shall be made if disapproved by either committee within the 90-day period by written notice to the Secretary of Defense. The CHAIRMAN. Now, read wait 1 minute. Read President Eisenhower's comment on that section. You got it there in your papers that I had yesterday, Mr. Smart. Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman, may I make this observation? If you are going to put all of these arguments here so it would make those of us who favor this kind or some kind of a restriction look as though we are unpatriotic, I am just going to have to resist it. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Mr. HARDY. I don't think we can permit these kind of statements to go in there and stand without any contest. The CHAIRMAN. I am offering an approach to it that I think the gentleman from Virginia and every member of the committee and both Houses will adopt. Mr. RIVERS. And also along with that, when you put the President's comment in it, also make it known that the President signed that bill. The CHAIRMAN. Of course, he signed the bill. Mr. RIVERS. Let the record show it. The CHAIRMAN. Of course he did. Go ahead and read it. Mr. BLANDFORD. This is the proposed amendment which will be, in addition to section 27 of the point of order bill now before youMr. COLE. I would like to hear the President's comment. Mr. BLANDFORD. Well, Bob is getting it now. Mr. COLE. Oh. Mr. BLANDFORD. I will go ahead and read this first and then the President's comment on the section 638, which is now contained in law, as well as section 633 which is in the Appropriation Act which will be debated this afternoon. Now, section 27 of the point of order bill under consideration here this morning repeals section 638 of the present law and in addition would add this language: Prior to the transfer by contract of any commercial or industrial-type operation which has been performed by the Department of Defense for a period of 3 consecutive years or more and in which more than 15 civilian personnel are employed at the specific activity concerned, the Secretary of Defense shall file with the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House a report setting forth the details of the proposed transfer. Upon the expiration of 60 days of continuous session of the Congress following the filing of said report, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to proceed with the proposed transfer unless during such period either House shall adopt a resolution of disapproval, as hereinafter provided in this section, of the proposed transfer described in said report. For the purposes of this section, continuity of session shall be considered as broken only by adjournment of the Congress sine die; but in the computation of the 60-day period there shall be excluded the days on which either House is not in session because of an adjournment of more than 3 days to a day certain. (b) The provisions of this section are enacted by the Congress: (1) As an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such they shall be considered as part of the rules of each House, respectively, but applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed in such House in the case of resolutions (as defined in subsec. (c)); and such rules shall supersede other rules only to the extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and (2) With full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change such rules (so far as relating to the procedure in such House) at any time, in the same manner and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of such House. (c) As used in this section, the term "resolution" means only a resolution of either of the two Houses of Congress, the matter after the resolving clause of which is as follows: this will be in the nature of a resolution: "That the House or Senate does not favor disposal of or transfer of"— and then you would name the activity "as recommended by the Secretary of Defense, that has been for a period of 3 consecutive years or more performed by more than 15 civilian personnel of the Department of Defense," the blanks therein being filled with the name of the resolving House and the operation proposed to be transferred. Mr. RIVERS. Right there, does that mean either House could veto it? Mr. BLANDFORD. Either House could veto it. Mr. BRAY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question there? Has there been any instance since that law was in effect, you know from last year, where the Defense Department has asked to transfer anything to private industry and Congress has turned it down? Mr. BLANDFORD. The Congress does not turn it down, Mr. Bray. because under section 638 it is up to the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. BRAY. Has the Appropriations turned any down? Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir, it has. The CHAIRMAN. Nine times. Mr. BRAY. How many times? The CHAIRMAN. Nine times, and we are taking it out of the Appropriations Committee and putting it in Congress, so everybody will have an equal shot. Mr. BRAY. All right. The CHAIRMAN. It is the same principle and almost the same language as provided for the disposal of the synthetic rubber plants. Mr. BRAY. I think that is good. I don't want Congress to be entirely out of the picture. The CHAIRMAN. It is the same thing we applied in the rubber disposal situation. Identical language is used all through it. Mr. BRAY. What your amendment does, in substitution, is places it in Congress instead of the Appropriations Committee? The CHAIRMAN. That is right. Let him finish it. Mr. ARENDS. Let him finish reading it. Mr. RIVERS. In that connection, Mr. Chairman Mr. ARENDS. Let him finish. Mr. RIVERS. Wait a minute, Mr. Chairman. In that connection, last year I sought to get an amendment to that provision on the floor last year, to put it in this committee. The CHAIRMAN. We are not doing that. Mr. RIVERS. And was unsuccessful. The CHAIRMAN. We are putting it in Congress. Mr. WINSTEAD. May I ask this? Do we have the nine projects that have been disapproved? Mr. BLANDFORD. We have the nine projects that have been disapproved; yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. We have that. Mr. BLANDFORD (reading): (d) A resolution with respect to a transfer shall be referred to a committee (and all such resolutions shall be referred to the same committee) by the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as the case may be. (e) (1) If the committee to which has been referred a resolution with respect to a transfer has not reported it before the expiration of 10 calendar days after its introduction, it shall then (but not before) be in order to move either to discharge the committee from further consideration of any other resolution with respect to such transfer which has been referred to the committee. (2) Such motion may be made only by a person favoring the resolution, shall be highly privileged (except that it may not be made after the committee has reported the resolution with respect to the same transfer), and debate thereon shall be limited to not to exceed 1 hour, to be equally divided between those favoring and those opposing the resolution. No amendment to such motion shall be in order, and it shall not be in order to move to reconsider the vote by which such motion is agreed to or disagreed to. (3) If the motion to discharge is agreed to or disagreed to, such motion may not be renewed, nor may another motion to discharge the committee be made with respect to any other resolution with respect to the same transfer. (f) (1) Where the committee has reported, or has been discharged from further consideration of, a resolution with respect to a transfer, it shall at any time thereafter be in order (even though a previous motion to the same effect has been disagreed to) to move to proceed to the consideration of such resolution. Such motion shall be highly privileged and shall not be debatable. No amendment to such motion shall be in order and it shall not be in order to move to reconsider the vote by which such motion is agreed to or disagreed to. (2) Debate on the resolution shall be limited to not to exceed 2 hours, which shall be equally divided between those favoring and those opposing the resolution. A motion further to limit debate shall not be debatable. No amendment to, or motion to recommit, the resolution shall be in order, and it shall not be in order to move to reconsider the vote by which the resolution is agreed to or disagreed to. (g) (1) All motions to postpone, made with respect to the discharge from committee, or the consideration of, a resolution with respect to a transfer, and all motions to proceed to the consideration of other business, shall be decided without debate. (2) All appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating to the application of the rules of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be, to the procedure relating to a resolution with respect to a transfer shall be decided without debate. The language is almost identical with the language contained in the Rubber Disposal Act. It simply states in substance that whenever a resolution of disapproval of a transfer is introduced, it will be referred to the appropriate committee. That committee has 10 days in which to act. If the committee has not acted within 10 days, the resolution can be brought up immediately, as a privileged resolution. The committee that has jurisdiction must therefore report the resolution approved or disapproved during that 10-day period. It then is debated on a 2-hour debate in the House. If either the House or the Senate should disapprove the proposed transfer, that is the end of it. (Mr. Kilday, aside.) The CHAIRMAN. It is the same principle. The Speaker put in, as you will recall, an amendment taking it away from the Public Works Committee and made it a report to the House. Mr. KILDAY. Essentially, it is the same thing? The CHAIRMAN. This protects everybody's interest. Nobody is shortchanged in the slightest degree here. For instance, suppose the Secretary concludes, as he did in nine instances, that certain activities should be closed, he makes that report to the Speaker and to the Vice President. Then, the Speaker refers that to this committee or to whatever committee has jurisdiction. And in most cases it will be to this committee. A member of this committee or any Member of the House says, "I disagree with that conclusion, so I introduce a resolution." This committee must accord that Member a right to be heard within 10 days. He comes in this committee and he presents his case. Then, this committee must make a report back to the Congress. Then, the Congress follows the same principle of the consideration we have given with reference to rubber disposal and, as a matter of fact, the same consideration we give to reorganization matters. It gets it out of the category of a committee having the right to veto a branch of the executive government, but it leaves it entirely in the Congress, which makes it clearly constitutional. Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. ARENDS. Is this going to be offered as a substitute or how are you going to do it? The CHAIRMAN. I would offer it this afternoon on the floor if my voice was not so mixed up. If I am in good shape- Mr. ARENDS. You will be in good shape tomorrow. The CHAIRMAN. If I am in good shape tomorrow, I will certainly offer it. |