CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE

July 29, 1964

Page 17392

EXCERPTS FROM DEBATE ON NAVAL SHIPYARD CLOSING

Mr. RUSSELL. To show that I am not singling out one amendment rather than another, I wish to read a rule of the Appropriations Committee which apparently has been overlooked over the past several years. On Friday, December 18, 1931, the following rule was submitted by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and unanimously adopted:

Any member or ex officio member of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate who has in charge an appropriation bill is hereby authorized and directed to make points of order against any amendment offered in violation of the Senate rules on the floor of the Senate to such appropriation bill.

That rule has not been observed rigidly in the past several years. When I first became a Member of this body, every Senator in charge of an appropriation bill on the floor of the Senate considered himself bound by that rule of the committee to make a point of order against any language offered to an appropriation bill in violation of rule XVI.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. JAVITS. I yield to the Senator from Maine.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from New York. I am a cosponsor of his amendment and consider it a privilege to join him for reasons that he has already stated very well and which have been stated by other Senators on the floor of the Senate this afternoon. I shall not undertake to repeat the arguments that have been made, but I believe it is important to emphasize an argument which I believe is implicit in what has been said, but which ought to be stated explicitly and clearly.

The reason why the Senate and the House should share in any decision closing these naval shipyards is that the Congress may very well disagree with the Department of Defense -- with the Executive -- on the policy considerations which motivate the decision of the Executive. We are all concerned with the impact of such closings upon the communities which are involved. Of course, a naval shipyard which is named for a city in New Hampshire but which is physically located in Maine is of importance to me for that reason. But we are also concerned with the policy considerations which may motivate the decision.

All afternoon we heard testimony about the cost consciousness of the Secretary of Defense and those with whom he has surrounded himself in making those decisions. Cost consciousness obviously will be an important consideration as the Secretary considers the problem of whether or not to close any of the naval shipyards.

But there is another consideration which is of concern to us in areas of the country which have been historically associated with naval shipyards. The naval shipyard has a value because of what it is, and not merely because of the cost factors which may be involved. The case along these lines has best been made in a document which I think is already a part of the record of the Senate, which was written by Comdr. John D. Alden, of the U.S. Navy, who is now Quality Assurance Officer at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.

He made his case best in one sentence or two, if I may read it. He said that one of the important reasons for continuing the naval shipyards was "the readiness of the naval shipyard to undertake work under any and all conditions."

Then he said:

The overriding advantage to the fleet is simply this: The customer is also the boss.

When we consider the problems which the Navy confronts at the times it needs quick and speedy shipyard action in one respect or another, it is necessary that the customer be boss in some of the construction and repair yards of the country. In private yards the boss is the profit motive. In Navy shipyards the boss is service to the fleet. As a result of this concept the Navy shipyard provides two advantages which Commander Alden also cites. I should like to read briefly again, and I shall not take more than another minute or two. He says:

A naval shipyard offers complete facilities to support forces afloat. It has in being the capability of fabricating, installing and maintaining every part of a ship and its equipage. In addition to the mundane ship keeping services available at any shipyard, the naval shipyard can service the new and complex equipment becoming ever more common in the fleet -- radar, sonar, weapons control, and the computers of the Naval Tactical Data System in the electronics category; propulsion machinery of the most advanced design; weapons systems and nuclear reactors of a secret as well as a complex nature.

Commander Alden goes on expand on that point. The second he emphasizes is:

The naval shipyard can provide fast action, often completing a job in less time than needed for the preliminary legal work necessary to arrive at a contract with a private shipyard. Indeed, there have been many occasions when private yards have been unwilling to undertake naval work under any circumstances.

I close by saying again that the Congress ought to have an opportunity -- the last chance -- before a decision is made and announced, to consider any decision relating to the closing of naval shipyards, because of the important policy considerations in which the Congress is entitled to share. Congress is entitled to share in them because in the history of this country Congress has indicated its support of these policy considerations, and should not be forced to abandon them until it has an opportunity to consider them in the light of particular shipyard decisions.

I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. JAVITS. I am grateful for the comments of the Senator from Maine.

I yield now to my colleague from New York [Mr. KEATING].

[INTERVENING DEBATE OMITTED]

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I shall take only a few minutes to talk about Tongue Point.

It has been a fascinating discussion to which I have listened. I recall a yea-and-nay vote not so long ago in which only 10 Senators joined with me in doing justice to the people in an area of my State where an installation called Tongue Point was closed, and I did not ask to have it continued as a naval installation serving an obsolete purpose. At the time Tongue Point, along with 71 or 72 other military installations, was closed because their then use had become obsolete to the needs of the Defense Department. I looked at the facts and was satisfied that for the then use and needs of the Navy, the then operation of Tongue Point was obsolete, and I took the position that it should be closed for that use.

I pleaded then, as I have pleaded for 2 years since, that an attempt be made to try to find some other Federal use for this fine facility, permanent in nature. We found one, and 10 Senators supported me. The new use was not to be a military use, but a civilian use; namely a special school, vocational in nature, for a special group of Indian boys and girls of high school age. It was recommended by the late President Kennedy, and recommended by President Johnson, and recommended also by the Department of the Interior and the Indian Bureau.

Let us face the issue. There will be some great disjointures which we will have to live through as we move from a defense economy into a civilian economy -- which we hope we will be able to do in the years immediately ahead.

In the arguments made in this debate on the pending issue, it seems to me, two implications are implicit. One argument made during the last hour in the Chamber, I completely disassociate myself from -- namely, that a military installation should be kept going for the political advantage of any Member of Congress or any other politician in this country. No politician has any right to have an installation kept going because that might keep him in office. Better that he be put out of office -- I care not who he is.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Oregon yield?

Mr. MORSE. I should like to finish my argument first.

I believe that the implication that some politician may be politically hurt because an installation which it is found to be, on the facts, no longer worth operating for its then purpose is an argument that should have no standing in the Senate.

Mr. President (Mr. EDMONDSON in the chair), let us also take a look at the fact that we cannot justify this kind of make-work program either. The make-work implication is the second argument I totally reject unless the make-work program is creative and wealth producing. If we wish to keep people employed on a make-work basis then let us have a make-work program that is going to be constructive and will not keep them employed at something which the Military Establishment believes has become obsolete to the needs of the military. That is a question of fact. We should go into the facts in each of these cases. But we are going to have to convert in connection with installation after installation from a military operation of those installations to some other kind of operation which may be constructive and productive so far as the civilian economy is concerned.

Any time we need to keep a military installation going for the security of this country, the Senate will get my vote.

Any time any group in Congress -- or anywhere else in American politics -- wishes my vote or support to keep a military installation going as a make-work program without contributing to the creation of productive wealth the Senate will not get my vote.

I wished to make these comments because I believe the points I have raised are involved in this

issue.

I do not know what the facts are -- I have not studied the shipyard situation; I do not know what the facts are -- but I assume that the committee has come to the conclusion that the Navy has made its case on the merits. The burden of proof is upon those who argue to the contrary. I have not heard them sustain it.

I thought the Senator from Georgia [Mr. RUSSELL) made it perfectly clear from the letters to which he has referred that the Armed Services Committee is doing a remarkable watchdog job for all of us in protecting the public interest. He has made clear that the committee does not intend to let the executive branch of the Government create unfairness when the facts do not support the course of action which the Navy wishes to follow.

I believe that is a point that should not be overlooked. I do not wish to see any installation closed which would jeopardize in any way or diminish in any way the security of my country. But all Senators know that in the years immediately ahead we shall have to close many military installations and we are to find other jobs for the workers and other uses to which the installations can be put, in order to replace the obsolete use to which they may now be put.

That is the point of view I have. I thought it was particularly fitting that I invite the attention of the Senate to this matter because that is the course of action which I have been following in the case of Tongue Point.

I have been trying to get that permanent installation used for some good wealth-creating purpose which would help to strengthen the economy of the certain area of the country. No one can deny on the basis of the facts that it is a deeply depressed area due to the closing of the Tongue Point installation without putting it to some beneficial use. It is interesting to note that some of those who are now complaining about a similar situation developing in their areas showed little interest in the constructive plan President Kennedy recommended for converting Tongue Point into a wealth-producing installation sorely needed by the Department of Interior. I shall support such a conversion program whenever and wherever other closed military installations can be used in that way. However, I shall not support keeping a military installation operating for obsolete purposes as a form of a Federal dole.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Senator from Oregon has described those of us who have discussed the Javits amendment as having two implications in mind, with which I should like to disassociate myself. He suggests, first, that we were seeking political advantage; and second, that we were seeking to make work.

Neither of these motivations is the basis of my petition, or my remarks, or my argument, as the RECORD will indicate. I found no such implications in the statement of any other Senator who stood on the floor of the Senate to support the Javits amendment.

I had the experience of trying to work out the problem of a base which was being closed in my State. I did not protest the decision. I was convinced that it was sound to close it. I went to work with the members of the community to help convert it into a peacetime economy -- and we succeeded.

I know that this is a job which will face the country one day. I know that this is a job which will face many communities and many States in the country. I am willing to accept it.

The Javits amendment seeks only one thing -- namely, that before these naval shipyards are closed, Congress be given an opportunity to give consideration to the policy questions involved and undertake to influence the decision on that basis, and that basis alone.

There is nothing in the language of the Javits amendment to suggest that anyone is seeking political advantage and seeking to make work.

I believe that the Senator from Oregon, to the extent that he did not intend his implications to apply to the rest of us, should so indicate.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, if there is anything I said by way of a shoe that fits the foot of the Senator from Maine, he is perfectly welcome to put on the shoe. I stand on the record of what I have said. The Senator from Maine can read whatever implications into my remarks he cares to but his words can never be mine.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, whatever may be the judgment of the Senate, I wish the Senator from Oregon to know that I love him and respect him.

There is nothing in my amendment which does anything but give the Congress an opportunity to consider vital defense decisions and provide for a fair hearing for which he himself pleaded at the end of his remarks.

I am sorry the Senator f rom Oregon was not in the Chamber when I first began to lay my case before the Senate, but the very first thing I said was that is all we seek is a day in court and that if a decision is in the interest of national security or justified in the interest of the economy, then we must cheerfully abide by that decision.

All we ask for is an opportunity to present our case. That is the whole purpose and intent of this amendment.

So, with all respect, I believe that is the case for everyone who sponsored the amendments.