carried out. At least once each calendar year the Secretary shall inspect each underground mine which is subject to this Act, except mines located in States having in effect State plans approved under section 13 (b).

SEC. 5. For the purpose of making any inspection or investigation authorized by this Act, authorized representatives of the Secretary shall be entitled to admission to, and shall have the right of entry to, upon, or through, any mine which is subject to this Act.

SEC. 6. (a) The Secretary shall develop, and from time to time revise, after consultation with advisory committees appointed pursuant to section 7 of this Act, and promulgate health and safety standards for the purpose of the protection of life, the promotion of health and safety, and the prevention of accidents in mines which are subject to this Act.

(b) After consultation with an appropriate advisory committee established pursuant to section 7 of this Act, the Secretary, by a notice published in the Federal Register, shall designate as mandatory standards those standards promulgated pursuant to subsection (a) of this section which deal with conditions or practices which could cause death or serious physical harm, and the operators of mines to which such standards are applicable shall comply with such mandatory standards pursuant to the provisions of section 8 and section 9 of this Act.

(c) The provisions of section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C., sec. 1003) shall be applicable with respect to the promulgation of health and safety standards, and to the designation of any standard as a mandatory standard.

SEC. 7. (a) The Secretary is authorized to establish advisory committees to assist him in the development of health and safety standards for mines which are subject to this Act, and to advise him on other matters relating to health and safety in such mines. Each such advisory committee shall include among its members an equal number of persons qualified by experience and affiliation to present the viewpoint of operators of such mines, and of persons similarly qualified to present the viewpoint of workers in such mines, as well as one or more representatives of mine inspection or safety agencies of the States.

(b) Members appointed to such a committee from private life shall, while serving on business of the committee, be entitled to receive compensation at rates fixed by the Secretary, but not exceeding $100 per day, including travel time; and while so serving away from their homes or regular places of business, they may be paid travel expenses and per diem in lieu of subsistence at the rates authorized by section 5 of the Administrative Expenses Act of 1946 (5 U.S.C., sec. 73b-2).

SEC. 8. (a) If, upon any inspection or investigation of a mine which is subject to this Act, an authorized representative of the Secretary finds that conditions or practices in such mine are such that a danger exists which could cause death or serious physical harm immediately or before the imminence of such danger can be eliminated, such representative shall determine the extent of the area of such mine throughout which the danger exists, and thereupon issue an order requiring the operator of such mine to cause all persons, except those persons whose presence in such area is necessary to eliminate the danger described in such order, to be withdrawn from, and to be debarred from, entering such area.

(b) If, upon any such inspection or investigation, an authorized representative finds that there has been a failure to comply with a mandatory standard which is applicable to such mine, but that such failure to comply has not created a danger that could CXI-1439

cause death or serious physical harm in such mine immediately or before the imminence of such danger can be eliminated, he shall find what would be a reasonable period of time within which such violation should be totally abated and thereupon issue a notice fixing a reasonable time for the abatement of the violation. If, upon the expiration of such period of time as originally fixed or extended, the authorized representative finds that such violation has not been totally abated, and if he also finds that such period of time should not be further extended, he shall also find the extent of the area which is affected by such violation. Thereupon, he shall promptly make an order requiring the operator of such mine to cause all persons in such area, excepting such persons whose presence in such area is necessary to eliminate the danger described in the order, to be withdrawn from, and to be debarred from, entering such area.

(c) Findings and orders issued pursuant to this section shall contain a detailed description of the conditions or practices which cause and constitute a situation of imminent danger or a violation of a mandatory standard, and a description of the area of the mine throughout which persons must be withdrawn and debarred.

SEC. 9. (a) Each finding made and notice or order issued under section 8 of this Act shall be given promptly to the operator of the mine to which it pertains by the person making such finding or order, and all such findings, orders, and notices shall be in writing, and shall be signed by the person making them. A notice or order issued pursuant to section 8 of this Act may be annulled, canceled, or revised by an authorized representative of the Secretary.

(b) An operator notified of an order may appeal to the Secretary for annulment or revision of such order, and the Secretary shall issue regulations providing for such appeals which shall include due notice and opportunity for a hearing.

(c) Any final order made by the Secretary on appeal shall be subject to judicial review on appeal shall be subject to judicial review by the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which the mine affected is located, upon the filing in such court of a notice of appeal by the operator aggrieved by such final order within twenty days from the date of the making of such final order.

(d) The appellant shall forthwith send a copy of such notice of appeal, by registered mail or by certified mail, to the Secretary. Upon receipt of such copy of a notice of Upon receipt of such copy of a notice of appeal the Secretary shall promptly certify and file in such court a complete transcript of the record upon which the order complained of was made. The costs of such transcript shall be paid by the appellant.

(e) The court shall hear such appeal on the record made before the Secretary, and shall permit argument, oral or written, or both, by both parties.

(f) Upon such conditions as may be required, and to the extent necessary to prevent irreparable injury, the United States court of appeals may, after due notice to and hearing of the parties to the appeal, issue all necessary and appropriate process to postpone the effective date of the final order of the Secretary, or to grant such other relief as may be appropriate pending final determination of the appeal.

(g) The United States court of appeals may affirm, annul, or revise the final order of the Secretary, or it may remand the proceedings to the Secretary for such further actions as it directs. The findings of the Secretary as to facts, if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, shall be conclusive.

SEC. 10. The Secretary shall require operators of mines which are subject to this Act to submit, at least annually and at such other times as he deems necessary, and in such form as he may prescribe, reports of acci

dents, injuries, and occupational diseases, and related data, and the Secretary shall compile, analyze, and publish, either in summary or detailed form, the information obtained; and all information, reports, orders or findings, obtained or issued under this Act may be published and released to the public, or any interested person, and shall be made available for public inspection.

SEC. 11. (a) Whenever any operator (1) violates or fails or refuses to comply with any order of withdrawal and debarment issued under section 8 or section 9 of this Act, or (2) interferes with, hinders, or delays the Secretary, or his duly authorized representative, in carrying out his duties under this Act, or (3) refuses to admit an authorized representative of the Secretary to any mine which is subject to this Act, or (4) refuses to permit the inspection or investigation of any mine which is subject to this Act, or of an accident, injury, or occupational disease occurring in or connected with such a mine or (5) being subject to the provisions of section 10 of this Act, refuses to furnish any information or report requested by the Secretary, a civil action for preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order, may be instituted by the Secretary in the district court of the United States for the district in which the mine in question is located or in which the mine operator has its principal office.

(b) Whoever violates or fails or refuses to comply with an order of withdrawal and debarment issued (1) under subsection (a) of section 8 or (2) under subsection (b) of section 8 if the failure to comply with an order of abatement has created a danger that could cause death or serious physical harm in such mine immediately or before the imminence of such danger can be eliminated, shall upon conviction thereof be punished for each such offense by a fine of not less than $100, or more than $3,000, or by imprisonment not to exceed sixty days, or both. In any instance in which such offense is committed by a corporation, the officer or authorized representative of such corporation who knowingly permits such offense to be committed shall, upon conviction, be subject to the same fine or imprisonment, or both.

SEC. 12. The Secretary shall develop expanded programs for the education and training of employers and employees in the recognition, avoidance, and prevention of accidents or unsafe or unhealthful working conditions in mines which are subject to this Act.

SEC. 13. (a) Any State which desires to assume responsibility for development and enforcement of health and safety standards in mines located in the State which are subject to this Act shall submit, through a State mine inspection or safety agency, a State plan for the development of such standards and their enforcement.

(b) The Secretary shall approve the plan submitted by a State under subsection (a), or any modification thereof, if, in the judgment of the Secretary, such plan

(1) designates the State agency submitting such plan as the sole agency responsible for administering the plan throughout the State,

(2) provides for the development and enforcement of health and safety standards for the purpose of the protection of life, the promotion of health and safety, and the prevention of accidents in mines in the State which are subject to this Act, which are or will be substantially as effective for such purposes as the mandatory standards designated under section 6(b) and which provide for inspection at least annually of all such mines, other than quarries and sand and gravel pits,

(3) contains assurances that such agency has, or will have, the legal authority and

qualified personnel necessary for the enforcement of such standards,

(4) gives assurances that such State will devote adequate funds to the administration and enforcement of such standards,

(5) contains reasonable safeguards against loss of life or property arising from mines which are closed or abandoned after the effective date of this Act.

(6) provides that the State agency will make such reports to the Secretary, in such form and continuing such information, as the Secretary shall from time to time require. (c) The Secretary shall, on the basis of reports submitted by the State agency and his own inspection of mines, make a continuing evaluation of the manner in which each State having a plan approved under this section is carrying out such plan. Whenever the Secretary finds, after affording due notice and opportunity for a hearing, that in the administration of the State plan there is a failure to comply substantially with any provision of the State plan (on any assurance contained therein), he shall notify the State agency of his withdrawal of approval of such plan and upon receipt of such notice such plan shall cease to be in effect.

(d) The provisions of sections 8, 9, and 11 of this Act shall not be applicable in any State in which there is in effect a State plan approved under subsection (b).

SEC. 14. The Secretary shall provide that the major responsibility for administering the provisions of this Act shall be vested in the agency of the Department of the Interior which has the major responsibility for carrying out the Federal Coal Mine Safety

or."

On page 10, line 21, after "which" insert ", at any time,”.

On page 11, line 4, strike out the comma at the end of the line, and in line 5, strike out "In the judgment of the Secretary,”.

On page 12, after line 17, insert the following: "(d) (1) If any State is dissatisfied with the Secretary's final action with respect to the approval of its State plan submitted under subsection (a) or with his final action under the second sentence of subsection (c), such State may, within sixty days after notice of such action, file with the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which such State is located a petition for review of that action. A copy of the petition shall be forthwith transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Secretary. The Secretary thereupon shall file in the court the record of the proceedings on which he based his action, as provided in section 2112 of title 28, United States Code.

"(2) The findings of fact by the Secretary, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive; but the court, for good cause shown, may remand the case to the Secretary to take further evidence, and the Secretary may thereupon make new or modified find

making of any finding, order, or notice pursuant to this Act, or to any proceeding for the annulment or revision of any such finding, order, or notice.

SEC. 16. There are authorized to be appropriated out of any moneys in the Treasury, not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions

of this Act.

SEC. 17. This Act shall become effective on the date of its enactment, except that sections 8, 9, and 11 shall become effective one year after such date.

Mr. O'HARA of Michigan (interrupting 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 Michigan?

There was no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will report the first committee amendment. The Clerk read as follows:

Page 12, line 18, strike out "8, 9, and 11" and insert in lieu thereof "8 and 9, and of subsection (b) and paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of section 11".

The committee amendment was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the next committee amendment. The Clerk read as follows:

Page 13, line 11, strike out "8, 9, and 11" and insert in lieu thereof "8 and 9, and subsection (b) and paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of section 11".

action, and shall certify to the court the record of the further proceedings. Such new or modified findings of fact shall likewise be conclusive if supported by substantial evidence.

"(3) The court shall have jurisdiction to affirm the action of the Secretary or to set it aside, in whole or in part. The judgment of the court shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon certiorari or certification as provided in section 1254 of title 28, United States Code."

On page 13, strike out lines 12, 13, 14, and 15, and insert in lieu thereof the following: "SEC. 17. This Act shall become effective on the date of its enactment, except that sections 8 and 9, and subsection (b) and paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of section 11 shall become effective one year after the date of publication of notice in the Federal

Register of the designation of mandatory standards as provided for in section 6(b) of this Act; Provided, however, sections 8 and 9, and subsection (b) and paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of section 11 shall not become effective with respect to any State sooner than ninety days following adjournment of the next regular session of the legislature of such State convening after the date of publication of notice in the Federal Register of the designation of mandatory standards as provided for in section 6(b) of this Act."

On page 12, line 18, strike out "(d)" and insert "(e)".

On page 13, line 2, after the period insert the following: "The Secretary acting through this agency, shall have authority to appoint, subject to the civil service laws, such officers and employees as he may deem requisite for the administration of this Act; and to prescribe powers, duties and responsibilities of all officers and employees engaged in the

AMENDMENTS OFFERED BY MR. O'HARA OF MICHIGAN

Mr. O'HARA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have a number of amendments

ever, That, to the maximum extent feasible in the selection of persons for appointment as mine inspectors, no person shall be so selected unless he has the basic qualification of at least five years practical mining experience and in assigning mine inspectors

to the inspection and investigation of individual mines, due consideration shall be given to their previous practical experience in the State, district, or region, where such inspections are to be made."

Mr. O'HARA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, these amendments, I believe, are for the most part self-explanatory. The major amendment provides for a system of judicial review of the Secretary's decision denying the approval of a State plan or withdrawing approval of a State plan. In addition, the qualifications that we desire for inspectors under this act are spelled out and the effective date is changed to make sure that a State legislature will have an opportunity to consider any changes that need to be made in its State safety law and adopt those changes before the Federal law will become effective in that State.

Mr. QUIE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. O'HARA of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. QUIE. In one of the amendments considered en bloc, on page 11, line 5, you delete the words "in the judgment of the Secretary." Somebody has to make the decision whether the State plans comply with the six factors involved here. I wish the gentleman would address himself as to how the decision is made in the first place before the judicial review proceedings.

Mr. O'HARA of Michigan. tleman is correct, of course.

read:

The genAs it will

The Secretary shall approve the plan submitted by a State under subsection (a), or any modification thereof, if such plan meets the following tests.

Of course, the Secretary would make that decision based upon those tests. Then the decision would be reviewable in the Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. QUIE. I thank the gentleman. I think this clarifies the effect of the language change.

Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?.

Mr. O'HARA of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Maine.

Mr. HATHAWAY. On that point, is my understanding correct, that pending the appeal as proposed by the amendment the status quo would be maintained unless undue hardship or irreparable injury would result, in the opinion of the circuit court?

Mr. O'HARA of Michigan. The ordinary provisions of the Judicial Code would apply. I believe they require that the status quo be retained, unless there is a particularly impelling reason why it should not be, pending decision on appeal.

Mr. HATHAWAY. I thank the gentleman.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the gentleman from Michigan.

The amendments were agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.

Accordingly, the committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. MONAGAN, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee,

having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 8989) to promote health and safety in metal and nonmetallic mineral industries, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 525, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.

The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.

Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.

The amendments were agreed to. The SPEAKER. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.

ment. The Bureau of the Budget recommended Government-wide coordination as early as 1959. In a series of about 100 audit reports to Congress and the agencies, the General Accounting Office has pointed to the great waste incurred as a result of present disjointed agency-byagency approach to automatic data processing management. The contents of these 100 reports have clearly demonstrated the need for providing Government-wide coordination in the management of these resources.

In the hearings on this bill, the former Comptroller General, the Honorable Joseph Campbell, conservatively estimated that enactment of this legislation would result in savings of at least $200 million a year.

The bill was passed.

ple of good management that has been successfully applied to the Government

GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND Mr. O'HARA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to extend their remarks on the bill just passed.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?

There was no objection.

AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I 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. 4845) to provide for the economic and efficient purchase, lease, maintenance, operation, and utilization of automatic data processing equipment by Federal departments and agencies.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas.

The motion was agreed to.

IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill H.R. 4845, with Mr. MONAGAN in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. By unanimous consent, the first reading of the bill was dispensed with.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

H.R. 4845 provides for the economic and efficient purchase, lease, maintenance, operation, and utilization of automatic data processing equipment by Federal departments and agencies.

The Federal Government is the largest user of automatic data processing in the world. Expenditures now exceed $3 billion annually, or more than 3 percent of the total Federal budget. These expenditures are expected to increase indefinitely.

Presently there is no comprehensive management program of the Government's automatic data processing equip

interagency motor pool, and the defense supply agency. This amendment to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act sets up a Government-wide coordinated management program through which the Government can keep track of its automatic data processing investment and more wisely predict and control its future expenditures. Legislation is needed because the experience of the past 10 years shows that a statutory definition of responsibilities is essential, and because optimum efficiency requires an automatic data processing revolving fund which cannot be provided administratively.

The bill provides for three fundamental improvements in automatic data processing management which the Government must have if these savings are to be realized.

First. Up-to-date management information would be provided Federal managers. Through the use of an automatic data processing inventory and accompanying fiscal information from the revolving fund, responsible legislative and executive officials could make more informed decisions.

Second. The legislation would improve the possibility of the Government achieving optimum utilization of its automatic data processing. Hundreds of thousands of hours of available automatic data processing capacity go unused each year. Government-wide coordination along with the up-to-date inventory will permit more extensive sharing of equipment capacity and facilitate the establishment of data processing service centers.

Third. Improvement which this legislation would make is in the procurement of automatic data processing equipment. Through consolidating the acquisition of these expensive computers, the Government's bargaining position will be markedly improved, resulting in more competitive pricing and volume discounts.

The Committee on Government Operations approved similar legislation unanimously in the 88th Congress. That legislation passed the House by a decisive margin on July 18, 1963. Motion to recommit: 96 yeas, 258 nays. The Senate

failed to act on the legislation in the last Congress. The bill we are considering today is the same legislation with two additional provisions:

One, a subsection has been added to the bill expressly delegating responsibility to the Secretary of Commerce for scientific and technological matters relating to automatic data processing, particularly in the area of standardization and compatibility. Under this legislation, the National Bureau of Standards would undertake automatic data processing research and provide advisory services to the agencies and the Administrator of GSA.

The second new subsection contains express language guaranteeing agencies and other users that the Administrator of GSA will not interfere in either the selection or use of automatic data processing. Under this legislation, the agencies and the contractors will continue to select exactly the equipment they require just as they do now. As I have previously indicated, if a user determines that an IBM 360 is needed to meet his requirements, that is what he will get. This entire program is expressly placed under the direction of the President in order to avoid any possibility that one agency could interfere with the proper functioning of another agency.

This legislation must necessarily be drafted in broad general terms. The purpose of the bill is to provide a perimeter of organizational responsibility and authority. It is neither necessary nor possible to provide in legislative form detailed statutory instructions to all officials of government involved in automatic data processing management. Traditionally, Congress has approached problems of this kind through general delegations providing that the agencies involved shall issue appropriate regulations which can be altered from time to time as changes in circumstances and new problems or opportunities for more efficient operations arise.

H.R. 4845 is aimed at general purpose, commercially available, mass produced automatic data processing systems and components. Elements of space and defense systems, such as the automatic data processing components in missiles and aircraft guidance systems, would not come within the confines of this legislation. The procurement and application of components of this kind would remain the complete responsibility of the Defense Department and other agencies having use for them.

Nor would this system be concerned with specially designed digital and analog components which have no general purpose potential. As in the case of space and military components, these specialized items would remain the full responsibility of the departments and agencies requiring them.

In summary, our concern is for the general purpose, mass-produced, commercially available automatic data processing systems and components which make up approximately 90 percent of the automatic data processing in use in government.

H.R. 4845 further provides that the Administrator of GSA might delegate

any of the coordinating or acquisition authority extended to him in this legislation with regard to any individual automatic data processing system for reasons of national security and defense or for purposes of economy and efficiency. Thus, at any time it can be shown that national security and defense or economy and efficiency require that general purpose automatic data processing systems or components be acquired directly by an agency outside the scope of this program, or be exempt from any of the coordination efforts delegated the GSA, that the Administrator could delegate authority to the appropriate agency to achieve this desired result.

Lastly, the bill, as indicated above, does not permit any blanket exemption of any agency or broad variety of equipment. Some agencies have strongly recommended that they be exempt from provisions of this bill, or that the agency head be given the authority, in his discretion, to remove his agency from this coordinating program. The committee strongly supports the Comptroller General in his view that any such authority would negate the purposes of this legislation, as I have outlined.

In summary, therefore, the bill covers only general purpose, mass-produced, commercially available automatic data processing components, 90 percent of Government automatic data processing, and the GSA Administrator is authorized, subject to policy review of the Bureau of the Budget and as the President may direct, to exempt from this coordinated management program any general purpose automatic data processing systems and components when such action is necessary for national defense or for economy and efficiency.

The Government Operations Committee has thoroughly investigated Government data processing management for over 3 years. In addition to our own investigations, we have the benefit of two comprehensive Bureau of the Budget management studies one in 1959, another in 1965-as well as the benefit of 100 General Accounting Office audit reports.

Based upon this massive collection of studies and investigations which have taken place over a period of 7 years, the time has come for Congress to take reasonable but effective action to assure the establishment of efficient automatic data processing management in Government.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BROOKS. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. HALL. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Will the gentleman assure the House there has been adequate, or as adequate as there can be, protection of security from electronics, and the data processing machines, if they are to be owned outright and/or controlled by the Government?

Mr. BROOKS. I really do not know. There are five or six major producers. We have not gone into this on the basis of the individual manufacturers. To be candid about it, 70 percent or more is produced by one major manufacturer. Mr. HALL. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Administrator of General Services, subject to overall direction by the President and fiscal and policy control by the Bureau of the Budget, for the economic and efficient purchase, lease, and utilization of automatic data processing equipment necessary to meet the requirements of the Federal Government. The proposed

Mr. BROOKS. I yield to the gentle

man.

Mr. FARNUM. As I understand the bill, it would only provide coordination in the purchase and lease and establishment of pools for the use of automatic data processing; is this right? Mr. BROOKS. The establishment of pools would be allowed under this bill.

Mr. FARNUM. I would like to refer to the bill on page 5, line 21 to line 23, where it limits the authority of the Administrator.

How are we going to bring about efficiency unless we have really true coordination of equipment purchased or leased by the Government?

Mr. BROOKS. The primary objective of the bill is to coordinate the use of this equipment. But you would have to give each agency full authority to select that equipment that will meet its own need. Then after that equipment is provided, if there is extra time on it, it will be available to other agencies and you would not thereby interfere with the management of the various departments and agencies of the Government.

Mr. REID of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, the bill, H.R. 4845, provides for the economic and efficient purchase, lease, maintenance, operation, and utilization of automatic data processing equipment by Federal departments and agencies.

Current expenditures by the Federal Government are estimated by the Bureau of the Budget to be running at a rate of $3 billion annually.

The automatic data processing inventory as of June 30, 1965, according to the General Services Administration, stands at 2,188 computer configurations. Of these, 1,497 or 68 percent are in the Department of Defense. NASA and the AEC have 434 or 21 percent while the remaining 257 computers or 11 percent are distributed amongst the remainder of the Government agencies.

Since the initial Bureau of the Budget 1959 automatic data processing study followed by a series of BOB circulars, the latest being A-7 of March 6, 1965, the Comptroller General has issued approximately 100 audit reports sharply critical of Government automatic data processing management and of uneconomic procurement costing the taxpayer millions of dollars.

Mr. HALL. Would the gentleman further have any information about the percentage of one company manufacturing and/or control, or leasing to the Government of these machines?

legislation, as amended, H.R. 5171, was approved July 18, 1963.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4845 would add section 111 to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (63 Stat. 377), extending responsibility to the

sections. Subsections (a) and (b) provide the basic authority to be exercised by the Administrator of GSA. Subsection (c) authorizes the establishment of a revolving fund to finance the activities undertaken by the Administrator in pursuance of this authority. Subsection (d) provides for the administration of this fund, and subsection (e) prescribes that other provisions of law which are inconsistent with the provisions of this section shall not be applicable in the administration of this section. Subsection (f) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to undertake necessary research and to provide scientific and technological advisory services relating to the use of automatic data processing in the Government. Subsection (g) provides that the authority conferred by this section shall be exercised subject to direction by the President and by the Bureau of the Budget.

The Acting Comptroller General of the United States, Frank H. Weitzel, believes in spite of some reservations that H.R. 4845 is, and I quote, "a good bill, a big step in the right direction." The latest report issued by the Comptroller General in August 1965, "Management of Automatic Data Processing Facilities in the Federal Government," underscores the need for action in this regard.

Mr. Charles L. Schultze, a Director of the Bureau of the Budget, supports H.R. 4845 and he has stated and I quote, "We think on balance, it is a good bill."

Mr. Schultze estimates that it will effect substantial savings on the order of $50 million to $100 million annually. The Government Activities Subcommittee estimates a somewhat higher saving, possibly up to $200 million annually if this legislation is rigorously and effectively implemented with good management procedures, better utilization of excess or unused automatic data processing capacity and greater emphasis on the most economic procurement including a revolving fund concept to effect sound savings.

Furthermore, H.R. 4845 as amended requires an annual report to the Bureau of the Budget and to the Congress of equipment inventory, utilization, and acquisitions, together with an account of receipts, disbursements, and transfers to miscellaneous receipts.

I believe that is a salutary and needed report to the Congress.

As Members know, we are now entering the third generation of computers, in which central computers of a high capacity will supply the needs of many users. Already automatic data processing procurement costs represent 3 percent of the Federal budget. It is high time that legislation of this general character be passed, so that the advantages of central procurement with volume discounts will accrue to the taxpayers. It is in

creasingly essential that the executive make savings through the establishment of equipment pools, data processing service centers, and above all, through effective management and utilization and through economic procurement. I compliment the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, JACK BROOKS, on his initiative and strongly urge passage of H.R. 4845 by the House.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Utah [Mr. KING].

Mr. KING of Utah. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. MONAGAN] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Utah?

There was no objection.

Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. Chairman I support H.R. 4845 and I want to compliment the gentleman from Texas [Mr. BROOKS] for his efforts in bringing this bill to the floor for consideration.

This bill constitutes a further important attempt to bring efficiency and progress to the operations of our Government.

There has been a vast increase in the use of automatic data processing equipment in recent years and this type of equipment has become a vital force in carrying on the mechanical activities of government.

One gets the impression that the Government can better account for its 5cent lead pencils than it can its $500,000 cent lead pencils than it can its $500,000 pieces of automatic data processing equipment. It is paradoxical that in view of the fact that the purpose of automatic data processing equipment is to bring order out of chaos, the management and programing of automatic data processing purchases and use should be so chaotic. "Physician, heal thyself." It is to be hoped that the General Services Administration will be able to secure the use of a piece of automatic data processing equipment to help it keep track of the other 2,000 pieces of equiptrack of the other 2,000 pieces of equipment. This bill will enable it to do so. ment. This bill will enable it to do so. I urge the enactment of H.R. 4845. Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count. After counting, 49 Members are present, not a quorum.

The Clerk will call the roll.

The Clerk called the roll, and the following Members failed to answer to their

Ashbrook Aspinall Bandstra Baring Bates Bolling

Brock Broomfield

The bill we are considering will make it possible to end the unorganized use of this vital modern equipment and will provide a pool of such items to aid administrators where necessary but at the same time avoid backing up groups of Callan idle equipment.

Once again, Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Government Operations has lived up to its mandate and has brought forth constructive legislation which will contribute to the greater efficiency of operation of our Nation's business.

I hope that all Members will support this bill.

Mr. KING of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4845. I congratulate the gentleman from Texas [Mr. BROOKS] for successfully bringing this bill to the floor of the House, after much effort, and long hearings. The matter of Government acquisition of automatic data processing equipment is so complex that very few men can claim to fully comprehend it. But like so many other complex matters, it is governed by a few simple principles, easily understood by all, and which principles are embodied

in H.R. 4845.

The Government now acquires, directly or indirectly, some $3 billion worth of automatic data processing equipment per year. This equipment is thus probably the most costly single item currently purchased for Government inventory. Moreover, the figure will probably increase, rather than decrease, as the years advance. In view of this fact it is almost beyond comprehension that the Government is not able to indicate, at this time, just how many units of automatic data processing equipment are presently in use. But such is the fact.

Cameron Celler

Clancy

Clawson, Del

Collier
Conable
Corman

Derwinski
Devine
Diggs

Dwyer

Michel

Evins, Tenn.

Miller

Fino Fraser

Minshall

Moeller

Frelinghuysen Morgan Fulton, Tenn. Morse Gilligan

Griffin

Griffiths

Mosher

Murray

Nedzi Nix

Roncalio
Roosevelt
Rumsfeld
Ryan

St Germain
Saylor
Schisler
Shipley
Sikes

Smith, Iowa
Smith, N.Y.
Steed

Stephens
Sullivan
Thomas
Thompson, N.J.
Toll
Tupper
Ullman

Utt

Vanik

Walker, Miss.

Watkins

Whitten

Widnall

Willis Wilson, Charles H. Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. MONAGAN, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill, H.R. 4845, and finding itself without a quorum, he had directed the roll to be called, when 314 Members responded to their names, a quorum, and he submitted herewith the names of the absentees to be spread upon the Journal.

The Committee resumed its sitting. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. FARNUM].

Mr. FARNUM. Mr. Chairman, Chairman, I wholeheartedly support this legislation. It is my understanding that for more than 3 years, the Government Operations Committee has objectively evaluated evaluated

automatic data processing management in Government. The committee has considered the contents of 100 General Accounting Office audit reports. The contents of two Bureau of the Budget management studies have been taken into consideration. One study dates back to 1959. Another, which more or less reiterates to a large degree the recommendations of the first, was made only a few months ago. In addition, the committee has heard the testimony of all agencies of Government desiring to testify and has submitted to the House a comprehensive, but concise, report outlining what is to be done and, most important, providing the ways by which the improvements which must be made can be brought about. This legislation is very limited in scope, but fundamental in approach. Essentially, it is an inventory bill which, in addition, provides for coordinating those aspects of management which cannot economically be considered within any one particular agency. The bill contains no provisions which do not reflect proven management concepts which in other applications have brought efficiency and economy to the operations of Government and business alike.

The bill must necessarily be stated in broad general terms because to do otherwise would create more problems than we would solve. The bill essentially establishes the authority and responsibility for automatic data processing management and then provides the means by which those who have this authority and responsibility can do a better job than they can today. This legislation is necessary. The very fact that automatic data processing management constitutes a matter of concern after the problem was first recognized almost 10 years ago, indicates the need that some more effective approach by Congress is necessary. In addition, the revolving fund, which simply provides for the consolidated accounting of Government automatic data processing under a modern, effective accrual system, is essential to every aspect of the bill. If utilization of this fund is limited in any way, the effectiveness of this legislation would be limited and the potential savings in tax funds would be correspondingly reduced.

Gentlemen of this body, I have spent 10 years in my State before coming to the Congress of the United States dealing with just exactly the problem we are talking about today and serving on the committee on economy and efficiency in our government for almost 10 years and in being responsible for 4 years for the approval of the methods and systems used by government not only in our State but in county and local government and in the more efficient use of the taxpayer's dollar. I in particular had to be concerned with the use of this kind of equipment and its full utility to bring about the best uses that could be made of equipment at the least cost. One of the things that concerns me—and if you just want to look at it, it is on page 10 of this report, where it lists the equipment we already have in the Federal