AUTHORIZING APPOPRIATIONS FOR AIRCRAFT , MISSLES , AND NAVAL VESSELS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 34
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 5, 2003
• Sequence Number: 6
• Publication Date: January 1, 1962
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
1962
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 4307
Mr. BROWN. It goes a little further
than that. I would suggest, if you check
the records, that while we authorize
many expenditures, the money is not al-
ways appropriated, and even if so, the
expenditures are not always made by
the President. But usually when the
word "authorized" is used in legislation,
the Chief Executive accepts it as more
or less expressing the desire and the will
of the Congress, and quite often he goes
along with that.
Mrs. ST. GEORGE. I thank the gen-
tleman for the explanation.
Mr. BROWN. Of course, that is one
of the things that makes life in our Na-
tion's Capital interesting-they do
change the use of the words and the
rules of the game now and- then to meet
changing circumstances.
Mr. VINSON. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BROWN. I yield to the distin-
guished gentleman from Georgia, the
chairman of the Committee on Armed
Services.
Mr. VINSON. In view of the state-
ment of the gentleman from Ohio and
the statement of the gentlewoman from
New York [Mrs. ST. GEORGE], I want to
say that the word "authorized" in this
particular instance means more than
ever before.
Mr. BROWN. As I pointed out, the
gentleman from Georgia, the distin-
guished chairman of the. Committee on
Armed Services, usually has his way in
the end.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BROWN. I yield to the gentleman
from Missouri [Mr. CANNON].
Mr. CANNON. The gentleman will
recognize, I am certain, as all Members
of the House understand, that the word
"authorized," as used in this connotation,
means "permitted"-and nothing more.
It does not direct; it does not commit
the House to affirmative action so far as
appropriations are concerned.'
Chairman Nelson Dingley, of Maine,
disposed of that question for all time
when he rendered an opinion on Janu-
ary 17, 1896, in which he said:
The House has the right to refuse to ap-
propriate for any object which it may deem
improper, although that object may be au-
thorized by law.
Mr. BROWN. Now we have had two
completely different opinions expressed
by two of the deans of this House, by
two of the most learned men in the
House of Representatives, both of whom
are chairmen of very, very important
committees of the House of Representa-
tives. So decide for yourselves, if you
please, just what the word "authorized"
means.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say in
conclusion, in connection with this bill,
of course, it is only an authorization
bill, that is true; but, yet, it is a very,
very necessary piece of legislation. All
of these items that are authorized in
this bill will have to be considered later
by the House Committee on Appropria-
tions.
But, I wish to go just a bit further,
if I. may, although I am not going to get
into this argument over the B-70's.
I have been around here for a long, purposes. The bill in part-and I quote
long time, some 24 years; but I am still from the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of that
very much of a junior to both the gentle- date, read:
man from. Georgia and the gentleman "Be it enacted, by the Senate and House
from Missouri. In the years I have been of Representatives in Congress assembled,
here, however, I have learned that there That the President of the United States is
has never been in the history of this hereby authorized and directed to undertake
country-and I mean exactly what I the construction of not to exceed 50,000
say-there has never been any individual tons of modern naval vessels in the fol-
in this country who had as great a grasp lowing categories:".
or knowledge of military matters and And the categories are subsequently
our military needs as the gentleman set forth. The House of Representatives
from Georgia [Mr. VINSON], chairman passed that bill. It went to the other
of the Armed Services Committee. I be- body. In the meantime the then Presi-
lieve this has been agreed to by a great dent, Mr. Truman, and his then Secre-
many qualified observers, all over this tary of the Navy, Mr. Matthews, became
country, as well as our greatest military concerned about the use of the word
experts, and others. He has been hon- "directed" in an authorization bill. Ap-
ored many, many times by'many patri- parently in conference the conferees on
otic organizations for the contributions the part of the House agreed to the dele-
he has made to our national defense. tion of the word "directed."
Like the gentleman from Mississippi, I When the conference report came back
have not always agreed with everything to the House on July 31, the gentleman
the gentleman from Georgia has said, or from Georgia [Mr. VINSON], when asked
done, yet I do recognize his great knowl- some questions by Mr. MARTIN of Massa-
edge and his great ability; and I believe chusetts, had the following to say:
that his judgment is as sound as that of Mr. Speaker, one Senate amendment strikes
anyone who may move from civilian life out the words "and directed."
into the swirl of governmental affairs _ _ The Senate did not like the word "di-
months, or a few years, have suddenly
become an expert.
I recall we had a witness from one of
the departments before a committee on
which I sat not long ago. I noted in the
paper that he had been confirmed by the
Senate a day or two before, but he was
appearing before the committee as an
expert because he was an Assistant Sec-
retary in that department. I asked him
when he took office. He said he had been
sworn in that morning before he came to
Capitol Hill. I mention that because
sometimes I think we had better base our
judgment upon knowledge and informa-
tion gained by men in this Congress who,
through long years of service, are often
in a far better position to know and to
judge the right thing to do than some of
those who may serve a much shorter
time in other capacities of Government.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BROWN. I yield.
Mr. FORD. May I say to the gentle-
man from Ohio that I join with him
wholeheartedly in the complimentary
-things he has said about the fine gentle-
man from Georgia. He is not only an
expert in all aspects of the military, but
also he is an exceedingly fine gentleman.
In the light of the previous discussion
here regarding the word "authorized"
and its definition, perhaps I can clarify
it somewhat-or maybe muddy the
waters.
Mr. BROWN. I am very happy to have
the gentleman's- contribution. I want
to call the gentleman's attention to the
fact that the gentleman from Ohio held
a very flexible position regarding what
again from the RECORD :
The words "authorization" and "author-
ize" and "direct" are practically the same
thing.
I do not know whether the dictionary
will agree with that interpretation or
not, but we do have some legislative his-
tory on the meaning of the words "au-
thorization," "authorized," and. "di-
rected." Personally I firmly believe that
there is a distinct difference between the
words "authorize" and "direct." I
respectfully say they are not "practically
the same thing" and any dictionary will
agree with my observation.
The gentleman from Michigan has in-
dicated that the gentleman from Georgia
is still of the same mind as he was back
in 1950. The gentleman from Ohio is
completely aware of the fact that we
have authorized various Presidents, of
all types, stripes, and breeds, to do
many things that they have failed or re-
fused to do. Of course I know of no par-
ticular method or means the Congress of
the United States, as the legislative
branch, has to compel or to force any
President to expend any funds which
may be authorized and appropriated.
That situation has existed many times
in the past, and nothing was ever done
about it.
I presume that first of all, in connec-
tion with this bill, under the gentle direc-
tion of the gentleman from Missouri,
[Mr. CANNON], chairman of the Com-
mittee on Appropriations, that commit-
tee will scan this measure very carefully
and decide, in its own innate wisdom,
what particular changes should be made
tort' in this body in reference to the carried in this bill.
meaning of this word. Back on May Finally, the other body will take a
27, 1950, the distinguished 'gentleman look at this legislation and probably add
from Georgia brought a proposal to the some more to it in the way of appropri-
floor of the House. It was H.R. 7764, ations and authorizations. Then finally
a bill to authorize the construction of it will all go down to the White House
modern naval vessels, and for other and be signed into law, both this authori-
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R00010.0100006-8
 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
4308 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --HOUSE
zation bill and the appropriation bill.
In the end usually the President, the
bureaucrats, and the other officials who
serve under him, will do what they
please about it anyway. So perhaps this
has all been more or less a tempest in a
teapot.
Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I move
the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. SEL-
DEN). The question is on the resolu-
tion.
The resolution was
motion to reconsider
table.
agreed to and a
was laid on the
CALL OF THE HOUSE
Mr. PRICE. Mr. Speaker, I make the
point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evi-
dently a quorum is not present.
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I move a
call of the House. .
A call of the House was ordered.
The Clerk called the roll, and the fol-
lowing Members failed to answer to their
names :
[Roll No. 421
Andrews
Derwinski
Moulder
Ashley
Diggs
Passman
Ayres
Fogarty
Pfost
Baring
Gary
Powell
Battin
Grant
Rains
Blatnik
Griffiths
Rivers, S.C.
Butch
Harrison, Va.
Roberts, Ala.
Boykin
Hoffman, Mich. St. Germain
Buckley
Jones, Ala.
Sheppard
Collier
King, Calif.
Spence
Cooley
McMillan
Whitten
Dawson
Mason
Widnali
The SPEAKER. On this rollcall, 397
Members have answered to their names,
a quorum.
By unanimous consent further pro-
ceedings finder the call were dispensed
RIZING APPROPRIATIONS
FOR AIRCRAFT, MISSILES, AND
NAVAL VESSELS
Mr. VINSON. 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. 9751) to authorize ap-
propriations during fiscal year 1963 for
aircraft, missiles, and naval vessels for
the Armed Forces, and for other
purposes.
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 con-
sideration of the bill H.R. 9751, with Mr.
KARSTEN in the char.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent the first read-
ing of the bill was dispensed with.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. VINSON]
will be recognized for 2 hours and the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. ARENDS]
for 2 hours.
The gentleman
recognized.
from Georgia is
Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will
Approved
Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, this
bill authorizes appropriations for the
procurement of missiles, aircraft, and
naval vessels.
The committee's authority to legislate
in this area is based upon section 412(b)
of Public Law 86-149.
Pursuant to the authority granted by
that law, the committee recommends a
bill authorizing appropriations in the
following amounts: Missiles, $4,052,182,-
000; aircraft, $6,034,390,000; and naval
vessels, $2,979,200,000.
This is a' grand total of $13,065,772,-
000.
The committee began its hearings on
January 24 and concluded them on
March 1.
The committee had before it every
conceivable detail with respect to the
programs. We looked at the inventory
of each individual aircraft, missile, and
ship-we compared the inventory to the
requirements of the department-and
we then studied each individual item of
the 1963 program to see how it fitted
into the whole picture.
With respect to each item, we know
how many the department has-the in-
dividual cost of each item-we know who
the manufacturers are-the capabilities
of the particular missile, airplane, or
ship-and every other thing of any im-
portance whatsoever.
Of course, much-perhaps most-of
the information is classified and l[ regret
that it cannot be spread on the record.
AMENDMENTS
The committee made a total of six
amendments to the bill. I will speak
briefly about each of these at this time
and refer to them again when dealing
with the individual programs later in
my remarks.
The first amendment added $55,290,-
000 for Army aircraft. For the most
part, this amendment represents au-
thority for more airplanes of the same
kind which were in the program last
year and which are in the program this
year.
The other Army amendment adds
$31,182,000 for missiles. The story here
is virtually identical to that with re-
Peet to airplanes. It is more of the
same-trying to get the Army a little
bit closer to its actual requirements.
In the case of the Navy, the commit-
tee made only one amendment. It re-
duced the Navy shipbuilding authoriza-
tion by $2.8 million.
MILITARY STARTS
The larger and more important
amendments to the bill were in the Air
Force portion. There were three of
them.
First, the committee added $10 million
for a start on 100 additional Minuteman
missiles. It is only a start, but it is an
important step toward the kind of inter-
continental ballistic missile position
which the country much achieve.
The other two Air Force amendments
relate to the B-70 bomber, or as it is
called today, the RS-70-RS means re-
connaissance strike.
The first of these amendments added
$491 million for the RS-70 and the sec-
ond of them amended existing law to row, ide r errier, Tartar, Taros,
For Release 2003/10/10: CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006
March 21
place all aspects of the RS-.70 within the
provisions of section 412.
Now, those are the amendments. I
will speak at length about the RS-70 at
a later point in my remarks.
It is my intention now to speak about
the individual military department pro-
grams as they are reflected in this bill.
ARMY
Let us look at the Army first.
The bill authorizes $273,790,000 for
aircraft for the Army. A list of the air-
craft to be bought and a description of
each airplane appears on pages 17 and
18 of the report.
Briefly, the Army plans to buy three
kinds of helicopters-the Chinook, the
Iroquois, and observation helicopters of
the Sioux and Raven types.
The bill authorizes also three kinds of
fixed wing airplanes. The Caribou, the
Mohawk, and the Seminole.
A glance of pages 17 and 18 of the re-
port will give you a good picture of these
aircraft.
And I might say that the aircraft used
by the Army is, of course, the kind that
is flown within the battlefield area.
There is no conflict or duplication at
all here with the Air Force.
The Air Force provides the tactical sup-
port but the Army needs aircraft for
surveillance and to enable the com-
manders to travel from unit to unit, to
evacuate the wounded, and operate gen-
erally within the restricted battle area.
The planes are also used to move a squad
of soldiers from one place to another as
the battle situation might dictate.
Today, there are about 22,000 people
in Army aviation of which 7,000 are
pilots. The Army has about 5,631 air-
planes in its inventory.
In the field of missiles, the bill author-
izes $589,482,000 for Army missiles.
These missiles are the Hawk, the Nike-
Hercules, the Redeye, the Honest John.
the Little John, the Pershing, and the
Sergeant. And also some target mis-
siles and some antitank missiles.
Of these, the Hawk, Nike-Hercules,
Honest John, and Little John are opera-
tional.
And the Nike-Hercules, as you know,
is the surface-to-air missile that defends
many of the great metropiltan areas,
industrial complexes, and military bases
throughout the country.
Again, a glance at pages 17 and 19 of
the report will give you the picture of
these missiles.
NAVY-MARINE CORPS
For the Navy and Marine Corps, the
bill authorizes $2,134,600,000 for aircraft.
The Navy and Marine Corps are buy-
ing the Skyhawk, the Intruder, the Vigi-
lante, the Phantom, and a number of
others all listed on page 20 and all de-
scribed on pages 20, 21, and 22.
The bill authorizes missiles for the
Navy in the amount of $930,400,000 and
missiles for the Marine Corps In the
amount of $22,300,000.
These missiles include the Sparrow,
the Sidewinder, the Terrier, the Tartar,
and a number of other missiles which
are listed on page 20 and described
on pages 22 and 23.
You will note from that list that Spar-
 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
Bullpup, Polaris, and Hawk are opera-
tional.
NAVAL VESSELS
The bill provides $2,979,200,000 for the
construction and. conversion of naval
vessels.
The program covers the construction
of 37 new ships and the conversion of
35 other ships. The larger and more
important areas of the shipbuilding pro-
gram involve an aircraft carrier at a
cost of $310 million-and I might say
that this is a conventionally powered
carrier.
Also, there is one guided missile frig-
ate at a cost of $190 million-eight nu-
clear powered submarines of the attack
kind at a cost of $510 million-and six
Polaris submarines. at a cost of .$720
million.
These are the biggest, more impor-
tant portions of the shipbuilding pro-
gram but every one of the ships in the
program is set out on pages 23, 24, and 25
of the report with a description of the
ship and its cost.
AIR FORCE
For the Air Force, the bill authorizes
$3,626 million for Air Force aircraft.
These aircraft include the KC-135 jet
tanker-the F-105- fighter-bomber-the
F-110 tactical fighter-and a number
of other airplanes which are listed on
page 26 and described on pages 26, 27,
and 28.
In the field of missiles, the bill au-
thorizes $2,510 million for Air Force
missiles.
These include the Atlas, the Titan, the
Minuteman, Bullpup, and others, which,
again are listed on page 26 and described
on pages 29 and 30.
You will note that Atlas, Bullpup, Fire-
bee, and Sidewinder are operational.
As you know, the ICBM's are the
Atlas, which is operational today, the
Titan, which will be operational in the
very near future, and the Minuteman,
which will be operational later on.
The Atlas and Titan are liquid fuel
missiles while the Minuteman will use
solid fuel.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to talk to
the committee with reference to the
amendment relating to the RS-70, here-
tofore referred to as the B-70. After
this program gets underway it will be
designated and known as RS-70.
Mr. Chairman, I want to announce at
this point that it is my intention at the
appropriate time, when the amendments
are being considered, to offer an amend-
ment by direction and by unanimous
vote of those who were present at the
Armed Services Committee this morn-
ing to delete from the bill the word "di-
rect" and substitute the word "author-
ize." This may come as a surprise to
many of you, but I do not think it will
be a surprise to those of you who have
followed the logical progress of this
whole controversy.
Now, let us look at what lay behind the
language "directed that the Secretary of
the Air Force use the $491 million." It
is a realistic and a natural conclusion of
the whole matter.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 4309
It was simply this: I and the whole
committee felt that we were getting out
of the bomber business. How strongly
we felt about this is clearly reflected in
the committee report.
How could we change the course being
followed by the Department of Defense?
Merely authorizing the additional funds,
as hertofore happened in the past, was
not enough. This has been tried. Most
of the time it has not worked. So some
other course had to be found which
would impress the Department of De-
fense that we meant what we said: that
we were not going to stand idly by and
see ourselves heading down the road
that had nothing at the end but missiles.
What course could we follow to see that
this did not happen? It had to be some-
thing drastic, something unusual, some-
thing that had not been tried before.
That "something" turned out to be a
direction that the funds would be spent.
I realized that there were some con-
stitutional questions involved, questions
that had never been answered. But
there seemed to be nothing else we could
do. So we put in the word "direct."
What happened? Exactly what could
be expected td happen. A great con-
troversy in the press, some taking one
side and some taking the other, and none
of this was lost on the Secretary of De-
fense. He saw we were going to get
something done.
Mr. Chairman, from here on I am in
the field of conjecture. But there can
be little doubt that this is what hap-
pened: The Secretary of Defense was
worried about two things: First he was
.worried about flying directly in the face
of the Congress, because this was a war
he could never win-even if he did win
a battle now and again. This was his
first worry. His second worry was that
maybe he was wrong about the RS-70.
Maybe he was going too slowly on this
bomber. So, what could he do? He did
not want to fly in the face of the Con-
gress, and he had an honest concern that
he was wrong about the bomber, and
about the RS-70. He could do only one
thing. He could only seek some com-
promise which would dispel both of these
facts. And, what compromise could he
make to take care of that? This had to
be something firm and at the same. time
well reasoned. It had to be something
that an aroused Congress will accept.
Well, he arrived at the right answer-
and I, for one, am very glad that he did.
Because, we were engaged in a contro-
versy that if allowed to go on could only
result in a disruption of relations that
would be harmful to both sides-and
harmful to the country.
The kind of a fight that nobody wins.
What did he do? This is what he
did. I am now going to read to you two
letters. One is from Secretary McNa-
mara and the other is from the Presi-
dent himself. This is what they say.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the Clerk be permitted to read
these letters.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the, request of the gentleman from
Georgia?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:
THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
Washington, March 20, 1962.
Hon. CARL VINSON,
Chairman, Armed Services Committee,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN:,. While the President
is writing to you directly concerning the
constitutional problems raised by the pres-
ent language of H.R. 9751, I want you to know
that we are anxious to work with you, your
committee and the Congress in the spirit
which a Government of divided powers such
as ours must maintain in order to function
successfully. Consequently we are initiat-
ing immediately a new study of the RS-70
program in the light of the recommenda-
tions and the representations of the Armed
Services Committee. This study will give
full consideration- to the magnitude of the
committee program and the depth with
which the committee has emphasized this.
Furthermore, if technological developments
related to sideview radar, and associated
data processing and display systems, advance
more rapidly than we anticipated when the
fiscal 1963 Defense budget was prepared,. we
will wish to take advantage of these ad-
vances by increasing our development ex-
penditures; and we would then wish to ex-
pend whatever proportions of any increases
voted by the Congress, these advances in
radar technology would warrant.
Again let me express my continued friend-
ship and admiration for you personally, and
our gratitude for the work you are doing
on behalf of our national defense.
Sincerely,
ROBERT S. MCNAMARA,
Secretary of Defense.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
Washington March 20, 1962.
Hon. CARL VINSON,
Chairman, Armed Services Committee,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: With the profoundest
respect for. your leadership in national de-
fense and congressional affairs, I must take
this opportunity to urge your reconsidera-
tion of the language added by your commit-
tee to H.R. 9751. The amendment to which
I refer states that the Secretary of the Air
Force is "directed" to utilize not less than
$491 million of this authorization (fiscal year
1963 funds for aircraft, missiles and naval
vessels) to proceed with production planning
and long leadtime procurement for an RS-70
weapons system. I would respectfully sug-
gest that, in place of the word "directed," the
word "authorized" would be more suitable to
an authorizing bill (which is not an appro-
priation of funds) and more clearly in line
with the spirit of-the Constitution.
Each branch of the Government has a re-
sponsibility to "preserve, protect and defend"
the Constitution and the clear separation of
legislative and executive powers it requires.
I must, therefore, insist upon the full powers
and discretion essential to the faithful exe-
cution of my responsibilities as President and
Commander in Chief, under article H, sec-
tions 2 and 3, of the Constitution.
Additionally implicit in the Constitution,
of course, is the intent that a spirit of comity
govern relations between the executive and
legislative. And while this makes unwise
if not impossible any legislative effort to
"direct" the Executive on matters within the
latter's jurisdiction, it also makes it incum-
bent upon the Executive to give every possi-
ble consideration in such matters to the
views of the Congress. For that reason, Sec-
retary McNamara has indicated to you in a
separate letter his willingness to reexamine
No. 42-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
4310 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE
the RS-70 program and related technological
possibilities.
Your devotion to our continued military
effectiveness is admired and appreciated; and
I look forward to working with you and re-
ceiving your counsel for many years to come.
Sincerely,
Mr. VINSON. Now, if my colleagues
will bear with me while I make some
observations as to what this letter of the
Secretary says. Let me emphasize what
the letter said:
Consequently we are initiating immedi-
ately a new study of the RS-70 program.
I ask my colleague to listen to these
words:
In the light of the recommendations and
the representations of the Armed Services
Committee. This study will give full con-
sideration to the magnitude of the com-
mittee program and the depth with which
the committee has emphasized this.
Furthermore, if technological develop-
ments * * * advance more rapidly than we
anticipated * * * we will wish to take ad-
vantage of these advances by increasing our
development expenditures; and we would
then wish to expend whatever proportions
of any increase voted by the Congress these
advances in radar technology would war-
rant.
Now let us see what the President said.
The President said:
It makes it incumbent upon the Execu-
tive to give every possible consideration in
such matters to the views of the Congress.
For that reason, Secretary McNamara has in-
dicated to you in a separate letter his will-
ingness to reexamine the RS-70 program and
related technological possibilities.
fuss, we got our point across. We are
on the right road now. I might say this,
we are going to watch this new study by
the Department every step of the way
from this point on. I advised the Com-
mittee on Armed Services this morning
that periodically I was going to respect-
fully request these people who are deal-
ing with this new study to come before
the Committee on Armed Services and
give a report on the progress of the study.
We are going to make sure that every
advance developed by this study will
be translated-and immediately trans-
lated-into the expenditure of funds for
the most rapid development possible of
the RS-70.
Let me say that I am completely satis-
fied with what we accomplished by the
sensible approach that was taken yester-
day in an hour and a half conference at
the White House.
I mean every single word I am saying.
I feel that any reasonable man is will-
ing to abide by the results of a thor-
oughly objective study such as that which
is now going to be made by the Depart-
ment-and with the full, personal sup-
port of the President.
The President is interested now.
He has injected himself right into the
middle of this whole matter.
And another thing, the committee will
get a full assurance that the group mak-
ing this study will have not only scien-
tists and representatives of the Secretary
of Defense in it, but will have people
from the Air Force, not only the tech-
nical ones but the policy ones; and not
only civilians; but military people whose
Now what is the sum and substance of background and experience in the devel-
these letters? Well, the first thing they opment and operation. of bombers gives
mean is that the Congress has made its them special understanding of the prob-
point and has won the fight-or maybe lem that we are talking about.
I should not say "won the fight," but Just what is the net effect of this whole
maybe I should just say we caused the action?
Department of Defense to see the error First. In the first place, this commit-
of their ways. Reasonable people don't tee has expressed a complete unwilling-
go bumping into each other and having ness to place this Nation in a position
difficulties that can be avoided. There where its sole method of warfare would
is always room for a little give and take. be massive retaliation.
That is what makes our kind of govern- The committee's concept on this mat-
ment work. We are not infallible, they ter is preserved by this action.
are not infallible. There is room for Second. This committee had expressed
differences. We are all headed for the its total unwillingness to junk manned
same goal. We have just been disagree- bomber systems as a weapon in our
ing as to how we would get there. So future defense arsenal.
here we are-reason and commonsense That position is respected in this
have won out. The committee has made action.
its position crystal clear. The depart- Third. There have been no indications
ment is now going to take a good, hard that the Secretary of Defense was in the
look at that portion. It would be an un- least concerned with the size of the
reasonable man, indeed, who would ob- program which this committee approved
ject to this kind of solution. We want or the depth of its conviction in approv-
an adequate Military Establishment with ing that program. .
all of the things that such an establish- The Secretary states in his letter that
ment needs. We want bombers and, the study which he will promptly insti-
certainly, we have no objection to taking tute will take into full consideration not
a good hard look at how we will get them. only the size of the program recom-
We would be in a pretty shaky position mended by the committee but the depth
if we said, "Go ahead, spend this money of the committee's conviction in approv-
and never mind any more thought on ing that program.
the subject, just spend these dollar Fourth. The Secretary has publicly
bills." stated that he could not and would not
Now the Department is going-to turn spend any more money in fiscal 1963 for
their whole solution to the RS-70. They the development of the RS-70 than the
have gotten the message. They know $171 million which he requested.
that the Congress is not just talking. He now states that if technological
They know we mean business. So we developments advance more rapidly than
can congratulate ourselves that although was anticipated` when the fiscal 1963 de-
we had to raise a good ruckus and a good fense budget was prepared, he will wish
March 21
to take advantage of these advances by
increasing development expenditures.
He also states that, in that event, he
would wish to expand whatever propor-
tion of the increase voted by the Con-
gress these advances in technology would
warrant.
The foregoing represents the four ma-
jor points which have been stressed by
this committee. In view of the results
which have been achieved and the as-
surances now given to the committee,
I have no hesitancy in concluding that
the committee's program remains intact
and that the committee has achieved its
objectives in a far more logical way than
was provided in our initial approach..
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. VINSON. If the gentleman will
withhold his question for a moment, for
I wish now to talk about the justifica-
tion of asking the Appropriations Com-
mittee to follow the modern version of
what "authorized" means. The correct
version was quoted by the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. FORD] from a pro-
ceeding that took place some 12 years
ago. But time changes everything, and
so we will now accept the modern ver-
sion.
I hope the committee will bear with
me patiently here. This is very impor-
tant. As I say, this is the turning point.
You are either going to have bombers
or you are not going to have bombers.
Where does it lead you? It leads you
down but one road, massive retaliation.
It would lead to defeat if interconti-
nental ballistic missiles were to be out-
lawed.
Mr. Chairman, now, that is the picture
of the whole aircraft, missiles, and naval
vessels program for fiscal year 1963.
R5-70
Mr. Chairman, of course, there will be
differences of opinion between the De-
partment of Defense and the Congress as
to just exactly what should be done in
particular areas of defense.
This is a healthy situation.
I do not believe that, after the Armed
Services Committee has held extended
detailed hearings that we have only en-
gaged in an exercise of self-improvement
in the area of knowledge.
To me, knowledge is something to be
used, not merely to be possessed.
Now, the committee was briefed in the
greatest detail about the RS-70. We
obtained the knowledge we wanted. And
it is on the basis of the knowledge gained
that we amended the bill in the fashion
we did. -
Last year, the Congress authorized
$525 million for manned bombers. The
Appropriations Committee found itself
in complete agreement with this action
and recommended an appropriation of
$515 million against this authority. The
Congress accepted this recommendation.
And the same thing is true of the B-70.
Last year there were $220 million in the
bill for the B-70 and the Congress
raised this by $180 million to a total of
$400 million.
I have mentioned the strong position
taken by the Appropriations Committee
last year in increasing by $180 million
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R00010.0100006-8
1962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
the amount requested by the Defense
Department.
This was a courageous act. I con-
gratulate the Appropriations Committee
for adding this $180 million, and the
Congress approved it. The Appropria-
tions Committee has been the - trail-
blazer in the field of the B-70. Indeed,
I can say in a very real sense the Armed
Services Committee is following the
leadership which has been furnished by
our great Appropriations Committee.
I think it might be well to review Con-
gress' action last year in providing $525
million for manned bombers.
This is the history of it. As I said. the
Armed Services Committee was very
concerned that we are getting out of the
bomber business entirely. With this in
mind, the committee added $337 million
for B-52 or B-58 or a mixture of both.
And the bill passed the House this way.
The Senate committee- felt that we
should not designate what kind of air-
planes-and that the amount should be
$525 million which is, incidentally, just
about the cost of one wing of B-52's.
In conference the House agreed to the
Senate figure and the Senate language-
and that is how the law came to read
$525 million for manned bombers. And
as I have said the Appropriations Com-
mittee appropriated $515 million.
Now, let us look at the money situation
with respect to the B-70. The first
funds were appropriated in 1955-7 years
ago. And funds have been appropriated
every year since that time for a total of
over $1 billion to date.
All of the funds so far have been
appropriated for a B-70 which was a
bombing airplane exclusively.
These funds have been used and are
being used for the three basic airplanes
which, of course, could become either a
B-70 or constitute steps toward the sys-
tem which is now called the RS-70.
These first three are experimental planes
and constitute the basic structure of
whatever plane finally would be decided
on.
None of this money has been wasted.
Nor will the additional $300 million,
which will make a grand total of $1.3
billion, be wasted since proper experi-
mental models will be provided.
However, the concept today is not to
have a plane which. is just a bomber,
but to have an airplane which is a
bomber and a lot of other things, too.
It will be used as a plane for observ-
ing, reporting, evaluating, and exercis-
ing on-the-spot judgment and action.
It will have unusual communications
equipment and a number of other fa-
cilities and capabilities which are classi-
fled.
So, this is a very different kind of
airplane than the B-70 as -it was first
conceived-not different in appearance,
but different in the great number of
functions it can perform.
The $491 million added by the com-
mittee does one immediate thing: It is
a major step toward three additional
airplanes so that there will be a total of
six.
But it does something perhaps even
more important than that. It raises the
level of progress so that instead of ac-
quiring only three flying laboratories,
we will be acquiring in addition some-
thing very close to a complete fighting
machine. So close indeed that should
the program be pursued completely, the
second three airplanes would become an
actual part of the inventory.
The Department of Defense feels that
the 'present program of $1.3 billion will
permit the exercise of an option as to
whether to continue on after the third
plane.
I have serious doubts as to whether
this is actually so-because the present
program has its sights set too low and
the program will produce only basic pro-
totype airplanes which will prove little
more than that they can fly.
The committee's program more clear-
ly preserves the exercise of an option
since it will produce an airplane con-
figured as a combat aircraft which is a
very far thing, indeed, from a flying
laboratory.
I would also like to say this. Mr. Mc-
Namara is quoted as saying that in view
of the size of our existing forces, ICBM's,
Polaris submarines, B-52's, and so forth:
It does not appear wise at this time to
make a final commitment to a $10 billion
B-70 production program. To do so would
in my opinion be a serious waste of the
Nation's resources.
The committee's action is by no means
a commitment to a $10 billion program.
It is designed, however, to give us an
opportunity to decide what commitment
should be made in the area of an ad-
vanced follow-on strategic bombing
system.
I join Mr. McNamara in his objection
to the waste of our Nation's resources.
I do not join him in his belief that the
B-70 should be pursued at the low level
that it is today.
It is a human trait-to oversimplify
issues. I think that is exactly what has
happened here. The problem has been
presented. in black and white. Mr. Mc-
Namara says we are committed to $10
billion if we do anything at all, other
than follow the present plan which is
to build only three planes.
This is not the case at all. And I
would like to set the record straight.
The actual issue that is presented to
us is whether we should go along with a
policy that would result, in the long run,
in the extinction of bomber aircraft, or
whether we should provide a reasonable
option for the continuation of bomber
aircraft as a part of our strategic force.
This is the sole issue.
I cannot stress this point too much:
the $491 million which the committee
recommends is not directed toward pro-
duction which would lead to a large num-
ber of aircraft.
What it would do is to provide devel-
opment that will maintain a true option
for a subsequent decision to go ahead
with a full weapon system program.
To reach the $10 billion figure quoted
by Mr. McNamara you would have to in-
clude cost of design, development, test-
ing, and you would have to procure and
operate a large number of these aircraft
for an extended period of time.
Now, what happens if the $491 million
is not made. available? We will find our-
4311
selves at the-end of fiscal year 1963 with
a 3-year lag in engine deliveries, about a
year lag in the important areas of honey-
comb panels for the airframe, a real
possibility that critical tools will be dis-
posed of, the plant facilities being used
for other- purposes, and a concentrated
skilled labor force scattered through-
out the country in other jobs.
Now, that is what would happen if we
do not raise the level of funding to $491
million.
But if we do grant this authority -and
these funds, we will permit the start
of development of reconnaissance-strike
-subsystems, we will permit the third air-
plane to change over from a B-70 type to
an RS-70 type. The additional authority
would also allow long leadtime commit-
ments for the fourth, fifth, and sixth air-
craft, and very importantly, permit a
wide range of options in 1965.
Then in 1965, we will determine what
course to follow-whether to produce air-
planes or not-and we would be doing it
on the basis of true factual knowledge.
These options range all the way from
completion of the sixth aircraft to going
ahead to. a full weapon system develop-
ment leading toward a force of actual
fighting planes.
As is clear from what I have said, we
are buying more than three additional
airplanes. We are buying the critical
element of time, perhaps as much as
3 years.
It is said that much of the equipment
for the RS-70 still has to be developed.
This is true. There is no doubt about
it. It is for this very reason that we need
the larger program for the RS-70.
Why should we wait until the third
plane is built before starting on the sub-
systems which need further developing.
Let us save time which is so valuable to
our Nation.
It is said that further research must
be done on some of these elements be-
fore they are far enough along to initiate
a development program aimed at actual
operational use.
This is not the case. These elements
are within the current state of the art.
For example, a very important part of
the RS-70 is the "high resolution radar."
Now, this radar, which concededly is
a very complicated device, had its first
working model made by the University
of Michigan years ago. One company
has even built and demonstrated in
flight a system very similar to the one
that would be used in the RS-70.
I can say, and this is important, that
the quality of the radar picture obtained
today is such that the radar operator
can see and identify targets that can-
not be seen. at all with current systems.
We can all recall that very much
the same arguments were made against
the Polaris submarine years ago. If the
Congress had not taken up for Admiral
Rickover's ideas and supported him in
his fight, we would have no Polaris sub-
marines today.
What the committee has been trying to
get across now for 2 years is simply
this: We think it is dangerous to get out
of the bomber business entirely.
Consider this: Where would we have
been 5 years ago if we did not have
Approved For Release 2003/40/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -. HOUSE March 21
bombers? Where would. we be today if
we did not have bombers? In all prob-
ability, we would have been attacked end
would have been unable to strike back.
'I oday's B-47's, B-52's, and B-58's,
have kept the peace, have been the one
weapon which has deterred an enemy
from attacking us. There is no doubt
about the accuracy of this statement.
This is no special plea for the RS-70.
If it were some other advanced bomber,
the committee would feel exactly the
same way. The whole point of the com-
mittee's action is that we don't want to
be entirely dependent on missiles-
whether they be ICBM, IRBM, Polaris,
or any other kind.
And the very simple reason for this
is that it permits us only a single way
to fight a war.
A missile cannot look at something
and report back. It cannot turn around
once it is shot off. It cannot do any-
thing but go and explode its nuclear
warhead.
Let me make my position clear.
The last B-52 and the last B-58 will
come off the production line this year
in August and October.' We have over
1,200 bombers today. These bombers
will wear out. If we do not start out
on a new bomber, then the time will
soon come when we will have no
bombers.
A complicated weapon system such as
the bomber cannot be bought off -the
shelf.
Perhaps some Members do not realize
that from the beginning of a bomber
to the time they are in the inventory
covers a period of 10 years. It is this
very consideration-the element of
time-which could threaten our national
security.
Now, let us look at the argument that
in a few years the country will be
bristling with intercontinental ballistic
missiles-and for that reason, we would
not need bombers.
What does this mean? It means that
we have a massive deterrent which we
do need, and a capability for massive
retaliation which we may never need.
Our hands are tied. We have no filexi-
bility. We can fight a nuclear war, but
we cannot fight a general war in which
nuclear weapons would not be used. It
is all or nothing.
Now, just suppose that nuclear weap-
ons are b4nned by international agree-
ment. This would eliminate the inter-
continental ballistic missile entirely be-
cause no one would ever use an ICBM to
carry a mere high explosive warhead.
If this should come to pass-or if we
engaged in a general war in which by
mutual agreement nuclear weapons
would not be used--as we did with re-
spect to poison gas-then the side that
has the bomber force is a winner by that
very fact alone.
Perhaps the view of the Armed Serv-
ices Committee is an overly conservative
one-perhaps the bomber has lost its
glamour-but if the committee is going
to push hard on one side or another, it is
going to be on the side of having too
much rather than too little, having a
strong conventional capability such as
the bomber with a man's brain guiding
it rather than an electronic device 'which I think of the Congress as an active
purports to have all the answers but participant in the direction of policy,
which cannot ask a question. and as a partner in the achievement of
B-47's, B-52's, and B-58's. The ]3-47's
are already rather old airplanes. They
will start to fade out df the force in the
not-too-distant future. Then the 3-52's
will start to fade out. And finally the
B-58's will go out, too.
I am logical when I say that when
the only bombers we have are gone, then
we will be out of the bomber business.
And this is an absolute certainty if there
is no new bomber coming along to take
their place.
Let me say to you-the Soviet Union
is by no means following this course.
The Soviet Union is developing newer and
faster bombers right today.
The Soviets have had three bombers
in their inventory since 1954. They are
known as the Badger, the Bison, and
the Bear. Altogether the Soviets have
over 1,000 medium and heavy bombers
in operational units.
Most important is the fact that their
long-range air arm is capable of deliv-
ering nuclear weapons to targets any-
where in the United States.
But have they stopped developing new
bombers as we propose to do? The an-
swer is "No."
They have a new supersonic heavy
bomber, known as the Bounder. And an-
other supersonic bomber-roughly com-
parable in size to our B-58 medium
bomber-known as the Blinder. And I
might mention that the Blinder most
probably has the capability of our B-58
which last year set a record of 3 hours
and 20 minutes from New York to Paris-
about 3,700 miles.
It does not make much sense to me
for us to go out of the bomber business
while the enemy is getting more and
better ones.
So, here we have a problem made up
of two elements: One of the elements is
a thing and the other element is a prin-
ciple. I have already dealt with the
thing, which is the RS-70, and as for
the principle I will simply say this:
I ask you-What is Congress' function
in defense? Is it a partner? ? Does it
have a voice? Or is it just Mr. Money-
bags, to give or to withhold funds?
That is not what the Constitution
says; the Constitution grants the Con-
gress the exclusive power to raise and
support and make rules for our military
forces. The language of the Constitu-
tion is clear.
Congress does not want to run the De-
partment of Defense-Congress just
wants to sit at the table and get; across
an idea once in a while.
I say the country loses something if it
loses the voice of Congress in Pentagon
deliberations.
I simply do not like the idea of Con-
ess
d.
uncle who complains but who finally, as get the planes.
everyone expects, gives in and raises his Mr. GAVIN. Would the gentleman
hand in blessing, and then rocks in his care to make an estimate of what the
chair for another year, glancing down three RS-70's will cost?
the avenue once in a while wondering Mr. VINSON, Yes. I think I should
whether he has done the right thing. - tell the House this. While this item is
This is not the kind of picture that only for $491 million-to get these three
I have of the Congress. additional planes in the next 3 years or
Mr. BOGUS. Mr. unairman, wni tine
gentleman yield?
Mr. VINSON. With pleasure.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Chairman, I should
like to say that the gentleman from
Georgia has just made a magnificent
presentation dealing with the defense of
the United States of America. I think
that those of us who have had the priv-
ilege of serving with him for a short
time or for a long time may feel very
confident of the security of our country
as long as he is directing the affairs of
this great committee. I think the fact
that his committee time and time again
has supported him unanimously, the
fact that the leadership of the House
time and time again has supported him
unanimously, speaks more eloquently
than anyone can for his devotion to our
country, for his understanding of its
problems.
I read some time ago where some
columnist had described the gentleman
from Georgia as "the Fox." I think if
it requires the knowledge and the cun-
ning of a fox to succeed he will succeed;
but I would rather think that he has
the courage of a lion and the vision of an
eagle; and I commend the speech that
he has just made.
Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. VINSON. I yield to the distin-
guished gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. GAVIN. It is quite evident how
much interest they had in this bomber
when they only asked for $171 million
and we had to add $320 million to bring
it to $491 million to get prototypes of this
RS-70. Why is it necessary for you as
chairman of the Committee on Armed
Services to go to the Secretary of De-
fense and to the President of the United
States to get them to acquiesce in this,
and to permit the Department of the Air
Force to proceed with the development
of this development program which, in
my estimation, is the most important
matter that this committee can consider
here today?
Mr. VINSON. Let me suggest to my
distinguished colleague, the gentleman
knows when it is necessary to act, the
Committee on Armed Services acts. We
felt it was necessary in this instance to
act. We did not think $171 million was
sufficient so we added on additional of
$491 million.
Mr. GAVIN. Well, when we run out
of the $491 million how are they going
to get the money to expedite this
project?
Mr. VINSON. The Congress will
meet again next year and, if they can
spend $491 million this year toward get-
ting the three RS-70's we will be ready
to give them more money--and we will
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
 Approved' For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
1962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 4313
so, it will cost a total of $1,200 million sound conclusions. The bill before us is with the administration then insisting
to $1,300 million. Now bear in mind we based on the knowledge and recommen- upon more "battlewagons," as battle-
have already committed ourselves to dations of our best military minds of ships were called. If military judgment
cutive judgment were infallible
d
d
,
s- an
exe
spend $1,300 million and we get nothing all the services, and the recommen
but a prototype airplane that I classify tions of our brilliant Secretary of De- we would not have had the construction
as a flying laboratory. That is all you fense. of the carrier Forrestal stopped. And
get for that money. But, if you add The measure now before you repre- we would not have found ourselves so un-
$1,300 million more, we will get a modern sents the considered judgment of your prepared for the Korean war.
bomber of the kind and capability that Committee on Armed Services in the I am not trying to fix blame on any
the country and the world has never discharge of our constitutional respon- one, any President, or any Department
seen produced. sibility for size and kind, in men and of Defense Secretary. I am doubtless
Mr. GAVIN. What has me discon- weapons, of a national defense we shall laboring my point. I am simply trying
certed is the fact that your committee, have. We present this to you as our to emphasize that while our Committee
and with you with 48 years of experience conviction of what we must undertake on Armed Services can be wrong, it is
behind you, must go to the Secretary in our defense planning and procure- not wrong-ipso facto-because the Sec-
of Defense and the President of the ment that we may have a national de- retary of Defense is always right and he,
United States, to get something done.. fense second to none. We have such a and he alone, can be right. -
Mr. VINSON. I have tried to point defense today, and we intend to keep it There is only one feature of the pend-
out that the Department of Defense that way. ing bill that is in issue. That is, as
and the executive branch, with these When I say that this bill is the unan- Chairman VINSON has pointed out, with
letters in the RECORD, are going to have imous considered judgment of our Com- respect to the B-70 bomber, now called
ircraft
i
an
ic
th
i
a little different viewpoint on things
that the Congress wants done and on
the determination of the Congress to
get them done.
Mr. GAVIN. I think it is about time
we took a determined stand. When the
committee arrives at a conclusion that
certain materiel or hardware is needed,
they should pay more respect and at-
tention to our conclusion. It is quite
evident, Mr.- Chairman, that after the
committee had arrived at a decision, you
still had to go down and talk to the
Secretary of Defense and to the Presi-
dent. If you had not this RS-70 might
not have been given any consideration.
This should not be necessary for a
man who is concedely the greatest leader
in the field of defense the Congress has
ever seen. Here we have a man who
represents to the country their own
personal leader in the area of defense.
CARL VINSON is elected by the people of
the Sixth District of Georgia. So far as
defense is concerned, he represents not
only that district but the whole of the
United States and every person in it.
The word of this kind of man should
be listened to just because he said it.
Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself 10 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, as always, the distin-
guished gentleman from Georgia [Mr.
VINSON], the chairman of our Commit-
tee on Armed Services, has presented to
you a complete explanation of the con-
tents and purpose of this bill. I shall
not take up your time merely to repeat
the details he has so ably presented. As
a matter of fact, neither he nor I could
go into much more detail than embodied
in the committee report itself without
risking a breach of security. ings and briefings. Into the decision You will recall how disturbed the
made by the committee went the com- American people and the Congress were
what I the shall, however, chairman has risk said repetition and what i is s
e mt
set forth in our committee report solely posite of years and years of hearings, to discover suddenly with the launching
to emphasize certain salient facts in briefings and study of each and every of "sputnik" by Russia how far behind
connection with the defense measure phase of our national defense. we were in the development of missiles.
now before us. I should like to make We do not claim that our committee It was an alarming awakening to learn
one or two observations which I hope judgment is infallible. By the same that immediately following the end of
will be persuasive with you in giving token, we do not believe that any such the war, Russia proceeded with a missile
your full support to our Committee on claim can be made for the Secretary of program while we did practically nothing
Armed Services. Defense nor for the Joint Chiefs of in this field. We can congratulate our-
. In the first place, we present this bill _ Staff. If military judgment were infal- selves on the remarkable strides that
to you without a dissenting vote in our lible we would not have had the case of have been made in the field in the last
committee. Every single member of our Billy Mitchell as an object lesson. Nor few years.. We have since brought into
committee has had the benefit of all the would we have had in more recent years being missiles. of destructive power be-
data available, secret and nonsecret, before World War II the controversy over yond imagination.
military and civilian, diplomatic and the wisdom of constructing more battle- But it would be folly for us to put com-
domestic, to enable him to arrive at ships rather than carriers and aircraft, plete reliance on an arsenal of missiles
-
ere
s
ces,
mittee on Armed Serv
other point I believe might justly be
emphasized. Whenever, as in this bill,
the committee departs from the recom-
mendation of the Secretary of Defense
the capacity of the committee to make
such a military decision is inevitably
brought into question. Who are we to
be so presumptuous as to substitute our
judgment for that of the Secretary of
'Defense who is advised by the Joint
Chiefs of Staff?
There is no denying that we have an
extremely able man serving as Secre-
tary of Defense. He is a dedicated man
of remarkable ability and limitless en-
ergy. As able and knowledgeable as he is,
it is hardly possible that in the brief pe-
riod of a little more than a year his
capacity to evaluate our overall defense
needs exceeds that of our own committee
chairman who has been dealing with
such matters for almost 48 years. Or
go down the committee roster and re-
flect on how many Secretaries of Defense
and Joint Chiefs of Staff members have
appeared before the committee over the
years.
Reflect on the number of military
questions, in peacetime and in war, upon
which the members of the Armed Serv-
ices Committee have had to pass judg-
ment. Reflect on the questions the com-
mittee has had to resolve when, as in
this instance, there is a difference of
opinion among the members of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff themselves.
And so, Mr. Chairman, when I refer to
the bill as reported by our committee as
being the considered judgment of our
Committee on Armed Services there is
a
the RS-70. This is a superson
in the development stage. It is an air-
craft that can, be much more than a
bomber. Fully equipped it will be cap-
able of detection or reconnaissance to
the extent almost unbelievable. At the
same time this new plane will carry an
enormous bombing power, so that it can
not only report what our missiles may
have missed but can also proceed to make
its own strike on target. That is the
meaning of the symbol RS-reconnais-
sance-strike-that we now call this ad-
vanced B-70 the RS-70. It does con-
siderably more than drop bombs.
It is the considered judgment of our
committee that if we are to maintain a
national defense second to none in the
foreseeable future, we must proceed with
the development of the RS-70 weapon
system program as a supplement to our
missile program,
That was our decision -last year, in
which the Committee on Appropriations
and the. Congress as a whole concurred.
For fiscal 1962 we authorized and appro-
priated additional funds for manned
bombers and for a prosecution of the
RS-70 weapons system program. The
Committee on Appropriations itself
added $180 million to the $220 million
requested for the B-70 development
program.
Those funds were impounded. The
Secretary of Defense for reasons not
convincing to me decided not to use the
funds. Other secretaries of defense
have impounded funds, and we find no
satisfaction in having to say that sub-
sequent developments vindicated the
judgment of the Congress over that of
the Defense Secretary..
-Approved For Release 2003/10/10: CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 -
 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
4314 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -? HOUSE
as our deterrent force. It must be borne
in mind that the ICBM's and other mis-.
siles carrying nuclear warheads is an un-
tried weapon. Its component elements
have been tested. We have every reason
to believe our missiles will be operation-
ally successful in actual combat. But we
do not really know whether they will do
all the things we believe they will.
When we launched Lieutenant Colonel
Glenn into orbit we had every reason
to believe from all the tests made that
it would be a successful flight. But we
did not actually know whether, and to
what extent the flight would be success-
ful until it was actually made. And were
it not for the fact that it was a manned
flight, with adjustments made by Colonel
Glenn, the flight probably would not
have succeeded.
But even assuming that our complete
missile system to be everything we ex-
pect it to be under combat conditions,
it must also be borne in mind that it
has its limitations. Once the decision
is made to launch a missile there is no
.turning back. On the launching an ir-
revocable, unchangeable military deci-
sion has been made. This type of weapon
is indispensable in an all-out war, but
it is of questionable value in any other
type of warfare.
To place all our reliance on the ICBM's
and a huge arsenal of such missile would
be tantamount to the same mistake
France made in placing all its reliance
on the Maginot line. Our committee has
always taken the position that we must
have a balanced flexible defense estab-
lishment, one that can be effectively em-
ployed anywhere, everywhere, in whole
or in part, to meet any emergency when-
ever and wherever it may arise. A
bomber program in process is essential
for this continued flexibility. A man
operated bomber itself has the flexibility
that the automation of missiles cannot
possibly have. As we pointed out in our
committee report last year, unlike mis-
siles the bombers "can go part of the way
and wait; it can go part way and turn
around; it can proceed or not proceed in
any fashion whatsoever since it is at all
times under the intelligent control of a
human being."
There is an old adage: "Do not put all
your eggs in one basket." But that is
what the Department of Defense would
have us do by refusing to recognize the
need for developing the RS-70. They
contend we have on hand a great and
powerful force of bombers. That is true.
Surely we are not so unimaginative and
so shortsighted that we intend to stop
there.
We delayed until it was almost too
late in developing a missile program. We
cannot afford to delay proceeding with
the development of the intricate RS-70
weapons system. A single year lost can
never be regained in our determination
to have a defense second to none now
and in the years ahead. We are not
proposing that we put RS-70's in our
military inventory next year or the year
after. We are not committing ourselves
to any vast RS-70 procurement program.
We are merely proposing that we proceed
in an orderly manner with the develop-
ment of such a program and to explore
its great potentials.
There is a military adage that you
should never plan an attack unless you
plan a retreat, that you should always
base your military strategy on alterna-
tives that if plan A does not prove suc-
cessful you can immediately adjust to
plan B. If our missile weapons system
does not work according to plan, What
is our alternative? What perchance
would be our situation if nuclear war-
fare should be outlawed just as poison
gas was outlawed as an instrument of
warfare? How prepared will we be for
the day that no one would dare employ
ICBM's?
What is our defense alternative? Will
we have nothing more than a fleet of
outmoded bombers which will be no
match to the type of manned aircraft
our enemies may have developed? We
are far ahead of Russia in bomber
know-how, both in operation and pro-
duction technique. The only way for us
to make certain we stay ahead for our
own security and the peace of the world
is to develop this unique RS-70. We
must explore its potentials to keels
ahead, we must always be developing.
We must recognize the need for trial
and error.
That, in substance, is the considered
judgment of our Committee on Armed
Services. We make that decision in the
exercise of our responsibility under the
Constitution as to the size and nature
of the Armed ,.Forces we shall have.
That is our responsibility and we seek
to discharge it. We have no intention
to transgress upon the constitutional
duties and responsibilities of our Presi-
dent, as Commander in Chief. We shall
give him our fullest cooperation. We
ask of him and of his Secretary of De-
fense that they cooperate with us.
It unfortunately took extraordinary
action by our committee to get assurance
from the President and the Secretary of
Defense that they would give the Con-
gress some recognition in what we con-
sider necessary for our defense. While
somewhat belatedly, we. now have an
expression from them that they will give
attention to what we believe to be a
weapon we may sorely need in this long
cold war.
There are some who believe that our
Committee on Armed Services has sur-
rendered, that we have capitulated in
not insisting upon the provision we
originally proposed to incorporate in the
bill. I, for one, have not capitulated
nor have I surrendered. I, for one, shall
insist that this President and every
other President recognize the constitu-
tional responsibility-a right as well as
a duty-of the Congress to determine
the size and r}ature of our Armed Forces.
The chairman says we have won our
point in this respect. But why should
it have been necessary to rally forces
prepared to do battle on this constitu-
tional principle at all?
If we have won, it is a paper victory.
I shall await the translation of the as-
surances we now have into affirmative
action. The President forced us to get
ready to make a fight we should never
be forced to make.
March 21
As to the great victory claimed by my
chairman, future events will determine.
Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. ARENDS. I yield to the gentle-
man from Pennsylvania.
(Mr. VAN ZANDT asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Chairman, I
arise in support of H.R. 9751. As has
been mentioned by Chairman VINSON
and my colleagues on the House Armed
Services Committee, the purpose of the
bill is to authorize appropriations in the
amount of $13,065,772,000 for the pro-
curement of aircraft missiles and naval
vessels for our Armed Forces.
In discussing the bill, I wish to point
out that the Military Construction Act
of 1959 in section 412(B) states as fol-
lows :
No funds may be appropriated after De-
cember 31, 1960, to or for the use of any
Armed Forces of the United States for the
procurement of aircraft, missiles, or naval
vessels unless the appropriation of such
funds has been authorized by legislation en-
acted after such date.
Mr. Chairman, the Committee on
Armed Services of this House has con-
ducted extensive hearings to determine
the requirements of the military depart-
ments for new equipment under this pro-
vision. H.R. 9751 represents the unani-
mous opinion of this committee as to the
program for fiscal year 1963 which
should be pursued by the Department of
Defense and funded by fiscal year 1963
appropriations.
The programs of the Navy Department
and the Marine Corps coming within the
purview of section 412 include aircraft,
missiles and ships in the total amount of
$6,066 million. For the fiscal year 1963,
the Navy has requested procurement au-
thority to permit the continuation of
readiness to meet assigned responsibil-
ities around the world, to apply the fruits
of research and development to the
fleets, and to compensate for obsoles-
cence of older equipment.
The aircraft authorized by this bill
for the Navy and Marine Corps total
$2,134,600,000 and will provide a versa-
tile combination of capabilities for con-
ventional and nuclear attack, recon-
naissance, air defense, antisubmarine
warfare, early warning. and amphibious
warfare. Aircraft procurement this
year is about 16 percent higher than in
fiscal year 1962 and will enable the pur-
chase of 887 new aircraft and related
equipment as compared with 803 aircraft
for the previous year. Of this 887 air-
craft, 863 will be combat types.
Fifteen different types of aircraft are
being authorized. The most important
of these is the F-4H Phantom? which re-
cently joined the fleet. This remarkable
carrier-based aircraft holds the world's
speed record for combat aircraft and is
also being bought by the Air Force.
Admiral Anderson, the Chief' of Naval
Operations, has characterized the F-4H
as the best all-around fighter aircraft in
the world today.
Another high-performance aircraft in
the Navy budget is the A-3J-3 Vigilante,
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
 Approved For Release 2003/10/10' : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
1962
which also is already augmenting our
carrier attack capabilities. This aircraft
is effective at very high altitudes or on
treetop level missions, and is capable of
more than twice the speed of sound.
The program also contains follow-on
procurement of the A-4D-5 Skyhawk
and the A-2F-1 Intruder carrier- or
land-based attack aircraft, and the F-
8U-2N Crusader all-weather fighter.
These five aircraft comprise the bulk of
combat procurement. Other aircraft for
which continued procurement is author-
ized include the W-2F Hawkeye, an im-
proved carrier aircraft for early-warning
and fighter control; the P-3V-1 Orion, a
long-legged antisubmarine warfare pa-
trol aircraft; and the S-2F-3 Tracker, a
versatile carrier-based ASW aircraft.
The HSS-2 Sea King, and ASW heli-
copter, for which the Navy would be
authorized additional numbers, set sev-
eral world's speed records over the last
year.
Further procurement of the HRB
transport helicopter and introduction of
an improved assault support helicopter
are authorized for the Marine Corps. A
utility helicopter, navigational trainer,
and two tactical reconnaissance versions
of aircraft now in production complete
the aircraft program.
_ ? The Navy has requested authorization
for missiles, drones, and related equip-
ment, totaling $930,400,000, which is
about 10 percent more than in the pre-
vious fiscal year. Continuation of pro-
curement is authorized by the bill for the
Sparrow III and Sidewinder air-to-air
missiles and the air-to-surface Bullpup
missile. Initial procurement of the air-
to-surface Shrike, the Subroc, the under-
water-launched ASW missile, and a
training version of Bullpup, is provided.
The. Program will continue to furnish the
Terrier, Tartar, and Talos antiaircraft
missiles to destroyers, cruisers, and car-
riers in the active fleet. The procure-
ment of Polaris missiles is phased with
the construction schedule of ballistic
missile submarines.
Authorization is also provided for the
funding of shipbuilding and conversion,
in the amount of $2,982 million, an in-
crease of about 11/2 percent over the pre-
vious year. The 1963 construction pro-
gram of 37 ships includes 6 fleet ballistic
missile submarines, a conventionally
powered attack aircraft carrier, 8 nuclear
powered attack submarines and a nu-
clear powered frigate to be armed with
the Typhon missile system.
The 6 additional Polaris submarines
will raise the number of that type to a
* total authorized of 35; we are also au-
thorizing long leadtime procurement for
6 additional SSBN's for a program of 41.
The authorization for 8 more nuclear
powered attack submarines will raise the
total for that type to 38. The aircraft
carrier will allow the Navy to maintain
its carrier forces at the requisite level of
modernity. Representing a new ad-
vance in an integrated antiair missile
and radar system, the Typhon frigate
will be in the first -ship to be armed with
this powerful equipment.
A conventionally powered carrier is
provided rather than a nuclear powered
one on several grounds of professional
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 4315
judgment. Firstly, it has been estimated
that a nuclear powerplant would increase
the construction, operation, and main-
tenance costs of a carrier to 30 to 50
percent. Such greater cost could more
advantageously be allocated to other
shipbuilding which the Navy very
urgently needs. Secondly, nuclear power
has been applied to surface ships for only
a very short time so that broad experi-
ence with the operation and mainte-
nance of a nuclear powered force is
essentially very limited. With the tech-
nological progress being achieved in nu-
clear power, it would thus seem prudent
to more closely observe the performance
of the nuclear surface ships now in com-
mission and to afford sufficient time for
developments in the field of nuclear re-
actors to enable us to reduce cost and
weight, and to increase efficiency. This
does not- mean that there is not every
expectation of success in the operation
of nuclear surface vessels, just as there
has been with nuclear submarines, but
simply a well founded decision to defer
construction of additional nuclear pow-
ered carriers at this time.
Other ships in the program are four
amphibious transport docks, an am-
phibious assault ship for Marine heli-
copter assault operations, five escort
ships and three guided missile escort
ships, and two new-design gunboats.
There is also included a fast combat sup-
port ship, a -tender for Polaris subma-
rines, two oceanographic research ships,
a surveying ship, and a roll-on roll-off
cargo vessel.
The conversion of 35 ships is author-
ized, as against 22 conversions in fiscal
year 1962. Twenty-four of the conver-
sions in- the current bill will continue
the modernization of World War II de-
stroyers to extend their lives as well as to
improve their effectiveness. The other
11 conversions authorized will transform
2 old light aircraft carriers into a major
communicgtions relay ship and a com-
mand ship; will provide a mine counter-
measures support ship, 2 fast ammuni-
tion ships, 2 jumbo or large oilers, and 2
technical research ships, in addition to a
Polaris resupply ship and a Typhon
guided missile development ship.
The provisions of H.R. 9751 reflect
extremely thorough exploration into the
detailed requirements of the Navy De-
partment by our committee. I am con-
vinced that the Secretary of Defense,
the Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of
Naval Operations, and the Commandant
of the - Marine Corps have exercised
sound judgment in their recommenda-
tions to us. This bill will provide the
Navy and Marine Corps, within the
limits of funds which can reasonably be
made available, with the best new air-
craft, missiles, and ships, as well as the
maximum degree of modernization of
older vessels. In conclusion, this bill,
H.R. 9751, is- entitled to unanimous sup-
port because it concerns the security of
the Nation which depends solely upon an
adequate national defense.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ARENDS.
man from Texas.
I yield to the gentle-
Mr. MAHON. As the gentleman well
knows, I was among those who were dis-
turbed by some of the language in the
original bill, especially by the language
designed to direct the expenditure of
certain funds by the Secretary of the
Air Force. I want to say that I am
highly pleased with the way the Com-
mittee on Armed Services has resolved
this matter in the settlement today.
You have not surrendered, in my judg-
ment. I think you have done a magni-
ficent job in dealing with this matter
and in finding a way to resolve differ-
ences. ' You have dramatized for the
Congress, for the executive branch, and
for the country a very vital and im-
portant matter.
I want to commend the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. ARENDS], and I want
to especially commend the gentleman
from Georgia [Mr. VINSON], chairman,
of the committee, for the matchless way
in which he has handled this very dif-
ficult situation. I think we are on the
right road in the steps being taken
today.
Mr. ARENDS. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield
10 minutes to the distinguished gentle-
man from Illinois [Mr. PRICE.]
Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, at the
outset I want to assure my colleagues
in the House that I am in full support
of the position taken by our distinguished
Chairman [Mr. VxNsoN] and the full
Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. VINSON and Mr.
ARENDS have, and others will, cover the
bill as reported by the Armed Services
Committee, and will deal at length with
the RS-70.
In the light of the Defense Depart-
ment's attitude toward the RS-70, I
would like to outline briefly just what
the Soviet Union is doing in the field of
manned bombers.
The U.S.S.R. has made phenomenal
progress in creating air power needed to
support the drive toward world domina-
tion. They have built a large and power-
ful tactical aviation organization and
an effective military transport service.
They have created an air defense sys-
tem equal to any in the world, and, most
important of all, they have created a
long-range air arm which is capable of
delivering nuclear weapons to targets
anywhere in the United States.
Soviet long-range aviation is organ-
ized into long-range air armies, with
the bulk of aircraft based in western
U.S.S.R.; the remainder are based in the
Soviet Far East. These long-range air
armies have over 1,000 medium and
heavy bombers in operational units.
When the Korean war ended in July
1953, long-range aviation consisted of a
force of approximately 1,200 copies of
our old B-29.
Since then the Soviets have demon-
strated their ability to develop a modern,
effective strategic bomber force with a
nuclear capability. They began this
demonstration with the June 1954 Mos-
cow Air Show by displaying nine swept-
wing jet bombers similar in performance
to the U.S. B-47.
These aircraft, which we have desig-
nated Badger, have an estimated gross-
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
weight of 150,000 pounds, and a speed of
about 500 knots. The Badger is powered
by two turbojet engines, each developing
an estimated 18,000 pounds of thrust. It
has a radius of over 2,500 nautical miles
with one refueling and with a 3,300-
pound payload.
Also displayed in the 1954 air show
was a large bomber comparable to the
U.S. B-52. This aircraft, desig-
nated Bison, has four jet engines which
are probably similar to those installed in
Badger. It has an estimated weight of
over 350,000 pounds, a wing span of 170
feet, and a radius of over 4,000 nautical
miles with refueling and a maximum
speed on the order of 500 knots. This
aircraft, in spite of its size, can be ac-
commodated by over 200 airfields within
the U.S.S.R.
Another long-range bomber, the Bear,
first appeared in April 1955. The Bear is
powered by four turboprop engines, each
developing approximately 12,000 equiva-
lent shaft horsepower and turning
counter-rotating propellers. It is ap-
proximately midway in size between the
Badger and the Bison. It has an esti-
mated combat radius of around 4,200
nautical miles, and a maximum speed of
approximately 495 knots.
Although the Bear, Bison, and Badger
all appeared initially prior to 1956, modi-
fication of existing units and production
of new aircraft has continued until very
recently.
We have seen that resurgence of
Soviet long-range aviation began with
the dramatic demonstrations of new
bombers in the 1954 air show. Now the
operational equipment derived from the
showpieces are obsolete. Just at the
time that the developmental life was
passing from the 1954 series of bombers
there has begun a new resurgence. In
the summer of 1961 was another spec-
tacular demonstration of new Soviet
bombers.
The display of Soviet military avia-
tion at Moscow on July 9, 1961, indicates
that the U.S.S.R. has again made major
progress in the development of all types
of aircraft despite Premier Khrushchev's
statement on January 14, 1960, that,
"We have been curtailing sharply pro-
duction of bombers and other obsoles-
cent equipment."
A new supersonic, heavy bomber re-
search vehicle known as the Bounder
was displayed in public for the first time,
although it had been under develop-
ment for a number of years. The
Bounder is powered by four turbojet
engines and is obviously a supersonic
design with its highly swept delta wing
configuration. It is about 200 feet long
and has a wing span of about 80 feet.
The Soviets also displayed 10 new
Blinder bombers. The Blinder is a su-
personic aircraft roughly comparable in
size to the U.S. B-58 medium bomber.
The B-58, as you know, on May 26, 1961,
set a record of 3 hours, 19 minutes, and
51 seconds from New York to Paris, a
distance of 3,652.97 statute miles.
In addition to the previously men-
tioned conventionally powered aircraft,
the Soviets are known to be interested
in a nuclear powered bomber, a devel-
opment in which I have always had a
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE March 21
strong personal interest. I regret to say
that my experience with the nuclear
powered airplane is very much the same
as that being experienced with respect
to the RS-70. In my opinion the De-
fense Department is being equally short-
sighted about both of them.
There is no doubt that Soviet long-
range aviation crews regularly undergo
extensive training and can navigate ade-
quately to any point within their air-
crafts' range under all weather condi-
tions. Their bombing accuracies are un-
doubtedly compatible with requirements
to place high-yield nuclear weapons on
target from all altitudes.
The Soviets are evidently continuing
the design and development of new and
advanced long-range bombers.. They are
thereby in a position to introduce into
their operational units new models as
well as improvements in existing designs
during the next several years.
So that is what the Soviets are doing.
But in the face of the rapid advance that
the Soviets are making, our Defense De-
partment apparently proposes to let the
bomber die on the vine. I support my
chairman, Mr. VINSON, and the Armed
Services Committee wholeheartedly in
urging that the,House exercise its con-
stitutional right to insist that the un-
imaginative, shortsighted, and dangerous
direction in which the Defense Depart-
ment is leading us with respect to
manned bombers be reversed-and re-
versed by an affirmative vote on H.R. 9751
as reported with authorization for $491
million for the RS-70 program in lieu of
the $171 million requested by the Defense
Department.
Mr. OSMERS. Mr. Chairman, will. the
gentleman yield?
Mr. PRICE. Yes, I yield to the gen-
tleman from New Jersey.
Mr. OSMERS. Mr. Chairman, I want
to say that I. am in full support of the
bill.
(Mr. OSMERS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.) -40
Mr. OSMERS. Mr. Chairman, the
distinguished chairman of the Commit-
tee on Armed Services, Mr. VINSON, has
made an excellent and complete state-
ment with respect to the need for the
enactment of the H.R. 9751. He has
also explained in great detail the reasons
why it is of the greatest national defense
importance for us to continue the de-
velopment of the RS-70 weapons system
at least for the coming fiscal year. The
outstanding leader of the minority mem-
bers of the Committee, Mr. Arends, has
also explained several important aspects
of the measure before us.
We need the weapons authorized in
this bill even though, in my opinion, an
all-out nuclear war batwean the U.S.S.R.
and the United States is extremely un-
likely. Both nations have too much to
lose and too little to gain from such a
war. Only the development of a really
effective anti-missile missile would
change this situation and the develop-
ment of such a weapons system does not
seem likely in the near future.
Within the next 5 or 10 years, how-
ever, Communist China can reasonably
be expected to acquire a nuclear-weap-
ons capability. It is from Red China
that the United States, and even the
U.S.S.R., could expect such an attack.
The heartless, cynical attitude toward
human life that seems to motivate
China's leaders, coupled with their fail-
ure to either develop their nation's
economy or even feed its people, might
well cause them to launch a nuclear at-
tack. The powers-that-be in Peiping
might reasonably figure they would gain
more than they would lose considering
their huge population and low state of
development.
It is my earnest hope that the state-
ments in the President's letter to Chair-
man Vinson about the RS-70 weapons
system will not be forgotten by the
President in the fiscal year ahead. Many
of us are suspicious about the sincerity
of the President with respect to any
defense statement. The President's at-
titude on defense is likely to be affected
by the great success with which he used
the "big lie" technique in his ]1960 cam-
paign. All will recall how he charged
that the Eisenhower administration had
been derelict in permitting a missile
gap to develop between Russia and the
United States. It was probably the
greatest single factor in his winning the
election by a few thousand votes. There
are those, of course, who will argue, with
some cause, that phony promises made
to Negro voters with respect to civil
rights were the dominating factor in
providing his 1960 narrow margin. It
is important to the Nation that the
RS-70 program be better remembered
than the missile gap.
Mr. Chairman, because we are dis-
cuesing national defense, it might be
well to take a look at the so-called dis-
armament negotiations now going on at
Geneva which may have great impact on
our defense future. The scientific com-
munity that is associated with, our mis-
sile and nuclear programs is almost
unanimous with respect to the need for
U.S. nuclear atmospheric testing at the
earliest moment. There have been grave
doubts that our Nation will ever obtain
the scientific benefits expected from
these tests simply because the President
left the door open for cancellation of the
tests at the very moment he announced
them. There has been considerable
evidence in the newspapers that leads
one to believe that the Russians may
succeed in talking us out of our much-
needed test program by giving us empty
promises of possible future inspection
privileges. Such a result at Geneva
would indeed be a national calamity.
While not directly related to this,
authorization bill, it seems appropriate
while discussing defense to make com-
ments about the callup of the reserves
last October. On the news ticker a few
minutes ago, it was stated that plans are
under consideration by the Secretary of
Defense to release the reservists, called
to active duty last fall, between August
and September of this year. The re-
serve callup may have served a domestic
political purpose last year when the ad-
ministration wanted so much to pep up
our citizens after the depressing Cuban
fiasco and the unchallenged building of
the Berlin wall. However, there was no
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
1 9 62 ' CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
proven need then, or now, for the re- tential destruction either for ourselves
serves called, and, neither adequate plans or for others. Time is of the essence
for effective training nor proper, facilities and we must move with tremendous
were available for most of those who were speed and dispatch. That, of course,
called to duty. This is true of the Army Mr. Chairman, was the sum and sub-
in particular. The decision apparently stance of the controversy that arose with
was political, not military. Intransigent respect to the RS-70 which our com-
and stupid decisions at the highest level mittee considered at great length.
with regard to releasing those men, who As we make this transition from that
were suffering great hardship, have which is tried and proven and tested and
caused distress for families in every area move into a new field of missiles, where
of the country. we have never actually fired a missile
The Department of Defense should with a warhead along its full and com-
permit those reservists who want to re- plete course, there is some question in
turn to civilian life to do so now. Why our minds, Mr. Chairman, even though
wait until August or September? military authorities assure us they have
Vacancies created can be filled by volun- perfected these missiles. But as I re-
teers and draftees where necessary, member, and as all of us here today
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the remember, prior to World War II when
gentleman yield? we had the assurance that we would
Mr. PRICE. I yield to the gentleman sink the Japanese fleet in 2 weeks and
from Illinois. that day never came to pass as we well
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, I con- know. So our committee, properly con-
gratulate the gentleman on a very forth- cerned for the defense of this Nation.
right statement and associate myself saw to it that we put into this bill an
with him in his remarks, amount of money which might be neces-
Mr. PRICE. I thank the gentleman. sary in the event that certain develop-
Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield ments were forthcoming. We wanted to
10 minutes to the gentleman from make certain, if those developments did
Massachusetts [Mr. BATES]. come to pass, that the money would be
(Mr. BATES asked and was given per- available so that we could proceed full
mission to revise and extend his re- speed ahead with the RS-70. I think
marks.) that decision on the part of the com-
Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, if there mittee was a wise one. I support it
is anything that really characterizes the wholeheartedly and I believe that the
world in which we live today it is change Secretary of Defense, prompted as he
and transition. Time has been tele- will be by members of the Committee on
scoped in the last 20 years as never be- Armed Services, will see to it that until
fore in the history of our country or, that day comes to pass when we can
indeed, the history of the world. proceed with absolute certainty, at least
I remember about 10 or 12 years ago this Nation will have a weapons system
we had a bill before our committee, un- ate the form o the that can
enemy no
der which a general was asking for more matter effectively against gainst nst any enemy no
be found. wi So I
money. All of us become a little aggra- am ma in accord, he Mr. might
on the with
vated at the request of this particular action taken , this morning on Chairman,
of
general and a membor of the committee this e part the
pointed his finger at him and said, "Gen- our committee. We have indicated to
eral, if we let you, you would fortify the the Pentagon and to the Secretary Defense and to the President of
nt of the
moon." United States and to the world at large
Now, Mr. Chairman, how far are we that as we wean ourselves away from the
really from that today? A concept, an Manned bombers and enter into the field
idea, a hope of today becomes practically of missiles, we want to make certain
a reality of tomorrow. Those of us who that at least we have in our inventory
work on the Committee on Armed Serv- a bomber upon which we have depended
ices are considering to a lesser extent so much in the past, until such time as
what we have today, but instead most of we know absolutely and positively and
our thoughts are projected 5 and 10 years definitely that these missiles will work
hence as we move ahead at this tre- without fail. We owe that much to our
mendous pace. Associated with this is country and we cannot give our people
the question of things becoming obsolete less.
even before they become a reality. There Mr. Chairman, there is one question I
was a time, Mr. Chairman, when we could would like to bring up which has not
dip back into the archives or mothballs been discussed by any of the preceding
and withdraw from our fleet, for in- speakers.
stance, ships that had been built 25 and That is the question of the future
30 years before. That is what we did 'of the U.S. Navy. Today we have
during World War II with the Nevada some 900 ships; 75 percent of our
and the Texas and the Arkansas and the ships are of World War II vintage.
Pennsylvania, and all the destroyser When we consider that the life of the
that we gave to Great Britain likewise average naval vessel is only 20 to 25
were ships that had been built during years we must contrast it with the au-
World War I. But those days are gone. thorization in this bill today of but 37
We no longer have time on our side. We new naval vessels. As we look ahead
no longer have that great army of France 5, 6, or 7 years we see mass obsolescence
upon which we once depended. No of our Navy. Because of that situa-
longer is England the Queen of the tion and the concern that has been
Waves. No longer is the Atlantic and expressed by myself and the chairman of
the Pacific with the great protection to the committee and others, we are under-
us that they once afforded us. Today taking an investigation of this whole
we, are within a half hour's time of po- subject that we shall pursue in the very
4317
near future. If we do not take action
now, if we do not chart our course, if
we do not know exactly how many ships
we need or the various sizes and 'types
there will be a bill presented to this
Congress and the American people in
about 5 or 6 years that will approxi-
mate $25 billion. So we must set our-
selves to the task for a normal buildup
of the number of ships that might be
needed and look forward and correct
the situation.
The gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
HARDY], is working hard on this.
Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BATES. I yield
Mr. HARDY. Let me commend the
gentleman for his presentation of this
most important subject. I would like
to associate myself with his remarks.
I feel certain that as our subcommittee
begins to function under the chairman-
ship of the gentleman from South Caro-
lina we will produce results that -will
show clearly what our Navy needs.
Mr. BATES. There is just one other
thing, Mr. Chairman, that concerns me.
As I said, we are living at a tremendous
pace and in an age of transition. So
we must do the things this committee
feels need to be done to protect our own
security. We place great reliance on our
Navy, yet today we have no program
for a buildup. In my own thinking I
am sure that in the long run, if we
ever have a long run, our form of gov-
ernment will win, but in a short run
no one knows what will happen. I was
gratified when the President of the
United States indicated he would pro-
ceed with nuclear tests, because from the
results of recent Russian tests it is
clearly'indicated that we must go ahead
in that same field if we are to remain
supreme. If the Russians should come
up with a new breakthrough, some
things that we did not have, we would
be in a very difficult situation indeed.
If they should develop, as we developed
in the forties, a new type of atomic
bomb, I know they would blackmail us
immediately. There are many coun-
tries, so-called neutral and uncommitted
countries, throughout the world who cau-
tion us against such a course of action as
nuclear testing, but I want to say to
them, Mr. Chairman, and to you that we
should do the things that are necessary
for our own protection. Let us hope
that these other nations of the world
will go along with us, but if they do not,
Mr. Chairman, let us still do the things
we must do for our own security.
(Mr. HIESTAND asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD.)
Mr. HIESTAND. Mr. Chairman, in
the middle of this discussion of the con-
stitutionality of this bill, I think we want
to be sure and not lose sight of the tre-
mendous importance of its substantive
content-namely, the continuation and
stepping up of the great B-70, now
RS-70, program.
The Defense Department has an-
nounced that the B-52 and B-58 produc-
tion will be phased out this year. Thus,
unless we reactivate the RS-70, by 1964
we shall have no planned bomber pro-
No.42-10 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
4318 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
gram and will, in effect, be creating a
bomber gap.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there are a great
many reasons why we need manned air-
craft. Although tremendous progress
has been made in the development of
missiles, we all must agree that they
have not been successfully tried in actual
warfare. Manned bombers have and
their success is a matter of record.
But we must have better and faster
manned bombers, certainly better and
faster and more capable than the So-
viets.
Now, the Soviets have delta-winged
manned bombers of great size and capa-
bility. We have seen photographs of
them as flown over Moscow in Soviet air
displays. I believe we are substantially
ahead of them with our B-52 operation,
especially since we have kept it improved
and up to the minute. But why be con-
tent when we know full well the great
B-52 and probably the B-58 will be well
on their way to obsolescence within 2.
years? In fact, previous delays on the
RS-70 may lead to a bomber gap in spite
of any immediate action we take today.
Mr. Chairman, let us not repeat the
missile gap folly and the procedure
which created it, from 1946 to 1952. At
that time despite the demands of the
then General Eisenhower, we had prac-
tically no missile program. It requires
5 or 6 years since 1952 to close that gap.
But when we start a program let it be
one far in advance of anything today.
Let us bear in mind that although the
proposed RS-70 program will be expen-
sive, the important thing is it will cost
potential enemies 10 times as much to
devise a defense against such an ad-
vanced weapons system.
The Secretary of Defense declares that
we shall need a breakthrough in radar
and other electronic equipment and con-
tends that this cannot occur for the next
2 or 3 years. But supposing it does take
3 years-need we sit on our heels waiting
for it to happen, thereby setting our de-
fenses back another 3 years? Of course
not: We must prepare for the future
today.
Why not take the expert advice of the
professions the military experts who
have made the military their life ca-
reers? They are practical men skilled
in military science and.tactics. They
have scientists there who have worked
on these problems for years. The the-
orists have their value, but the practical
men whose careers are at stake have
pleaded for this program for years.
Great progress was being made when
the B-70 program was originally cut
back from some 18 major subcontractors.
Might not that breakthrough have al-
ready occurred if we had been pushing
the project the past 3 years?
Mr. Chairman, this could well be the
most important action this Congress will
take this year. The whole safety, the en-
tire defense of this Nation, depends upon
it. It is vitally important, almost trag-
ically so. Let us be sure and not lose
sight of the value of this program in our
discussion of rights of the Congress to
make laws for all departments, includ-
ing the executive. Here we can take a
giant step forward-if we remain firm
and back-up our committee.
Mr. Chairman, I am heartily in sup-
port of the bill.
(Mr. ROUDEBUSH asked and was
given permission to extend his remarks
at this point in the RECORD.)
Mr. ROUDEBUSH. Mr. Chairman,
this Nation's defensive posture is of ex-
treme interest to all of us.
I think without exception every Mem-
ber of this body wants to do everything
possible and provide every means to as-
sure the safety of our citizens-and to
provide the military with weapons of re-
taliation in the event of nuclear war.
Therefore, I do not consider the
proposition before this House today to
have any partisan-political significance.
Rather, any discussion results from two
different opinions or ideas as to how we
can best provide this safety and assur-
ance to our Nation.
I submit to you here today that the
investment requested by the Armed Serv-
ices Committee to get the RS-70 pro-
gram moving is most essential and cer-
tainlyjustified.
I feel that the decision we must make
here today could well be the most im-
portant and the most decisive that Con-
gress must make during this session. It
affects the future security of our Nation.
Many of you know that I serve on the
House Spade Committee, and I feel I am
familiar with our present level of excel-
lence in missilery. With this in mind,
I have carefully analyzed the potential
of the so-called massive retaliation by
missiles alone.
I have analyzed both the reliability
and the failures of the long-range mis-
sile practice firings accomplished by the
various agencies of our Government.
With what knowledge I have on this
matter, I am completely unwilling to see
this Nation depend solely on missiles for
retaliation. I say this whether these
missiles are borne by nuclear submar-
ines-are launched by manned aircraft-
launched from foreign lands by our
troops or friendly allies-or are of the
nature of the huge projectiles capable
of interoceanic flight and guided by
mechanical brains.
I am also unwilling for this Nation to
be placed in a position of failing to com-
pete in the field of manned bombers. I
think we all know that the B-52 pro-
gram is being phased out-and even with
skybolt-type missiles, rapidly approaches
obsolescence.
The B-52 first was placed in service in
1955--7 years ago. This aircraft, now
rapidly facing obsolescence, forms the
very backbone of the striking power of
our SAC forces.
In my judgment, the RS-70 is the most
awesome weapon "ever conceived by any
nation. It travels faster than a rifle bul-
let at an altitude of nearly 14 miles.
The RS-70 would provide us a strik-
ing force that is necessary in limited
warfare, yet it would be a tremendous
asset in case of massive retaliation.
Most nations still would have to rely
on water transports to move large num-
bers of troops. The RS-70 could travel
5,000 miles while a troop transport trav-
eled 50 miles or less at sea.
March 21
. After leaving its base here in America,
if orders were changed it could do a fly-
over and still return to base.
We have nothing which compares to
it in our arsenal of weapons-and
neither does any other nation,
I believe one of the best demonstra-
tions of the capabilities of man was by
John Glenn. I am sure one of the most
valuable lessons coming from his flight
is that there is no substitute for man's
ability to make decisions and perform
tasks under extreme conditions of speed
and weightlessness.
A missile cannot think-nor can it
change its mind after launch. It cannot
even be safely destroyed in flight should
a change in plans occur.
I hope that this tremendously im-
portant program will be approved.
Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10
minutes to the gentleman from Indiana
[Mr. BRAY].
Mr. BRAY. Mr. Chairman, the issue
before us today goes far beyond the RS-
70 program. At stake is the future of
the manned bomber in the American
Air Force. Not only is the Secretary of
Defense rapidly downgrading the RS-70
program, but he is "phasing out" all
bombers.
Last year the Armed Services Com-
mittee, over the objections of the De-
partment of Defense, included in the
authorization bill one wing of B-52
bombers and one wing of B-58 bombers.
The Department of Defense refused to
allow these planes to be built and has
now begun to close down all Air Force
bomber production lines. By October,
if the McNamara plan holds, all produc-
tion on Air Force bombers will be fin-
ished. We are going out of the manned-
bomber business.
Today we are well ahead of Russia in
manned bombers and intercontinental
ballistic missiles, but Russia is proceeding
with the development of new and better
bombers. If the Department of Defense
persists in its present line of thinking
and acting it will soon be the old story
of the tortoise and the hare. We will be
the hare and Russia will be the tortoise.
As the bombers we have today gradually
wear out and become obsolete, Russia
will become superior to us in the air-
the tortoise will pass the hare.
When this will happen I do not know.
The time will surely come, however, un-
less our planning changes. We will be
behind Russia in manned bombers.
Some will say that we should buy
bombers as needed. They fail to realize
that we cannot go down to the hardware
store and buy them. The bombers which
we will have in 1966 and 1967 are the
ones we plan today.
I do not claim to bean authority on the
efficiency and capabilities of the RS-70,
but I assure you that I have studied it
carefully and have discussed it with the
best authorities in the world. Its poten-
tial as a bomber and reconnaissance
craft is enormous. Whether it will live
up to all of the expectations of its de-
signers, no one knows of a certainty, and
the technical matters involved are too
complex to adequately discuss on the
floor. However, I do know that the
RS-70 as planned unquestionably will be
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
1962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 4319,
the finest bomber in the. world in speed, the Congress finally did raise this in the 22 years I have been here I have
altitude, range, carrying capacity, recon- amount. President Kennedy never used seen many Secretaries. of Defense, and
naissance, capabilility, and versatility. the additional money authorized. great ones, Including Forrestal, Lovett,
However it will not be in operation for There has been a growing belief in and Gates. I do not know of any one
several years. Its capabilities are well America, and one of its strongest propo- individual that I have seen come here
recognized by practically all authorities nents has been President Kennedy, that with the genius for administration and
on aviation. our defense should not be totally depend- the ability to act as an effective admin-
Do we want to be first or do we want to ent upon nuclear bombs carried in inter- istrator as the present Secretary of De-
"phase out" of the entire bomber pro- continental ballistic missiles. Yet, the fense. In the field in which I am most
gram? President Kennedy . recently course that the Department of Defense knowledgeable-in the area of procure-
stated that he does not want America to is pursuing is directly contrary to the ment-he has done things in the last
depend altogether on massive retalia- goals anripunced by President Kennedy; year that we have been asking to be
tion. That is, he does not want the that is, not to rely wholly on massive done at the Pentagon for certainly 12
United States to be entirely dependent. retaliation. Rather we should build up or more years. He is a master admin-
upon massive destruction alone to resist our conventional forces and maintain istrator. He is a` dedicated individual.
aggression. Yet today, if we follow the our superiority in manned bombers for He is perhaps the most unique man to
course 'that Is being developed by the possible conflicts in which massive re- occupy the Office of Secretary of Defense
Department of Defense, we will have only taliation with nuclear missiles certainly in the last two decades. But here let
two answers to aggression. We must could not be used. This is why we insist us pause and examine exactly what his
say that we are helpless to resist or we upon the importance of the RS-70 pro- qualifications are to make military de-
must destroy our enemy by using nuclear gram. cisions. If I operated a huge hospital,
warheads by means of Intercontinental Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield I would have the gentleman as my ad-
ballistic missiles. I want us to have an- 5 minutes to the distinguished gentle- ministrator, and he would do an excel-
other alternative-the ability to stamp man from.Louisiana [Mr. HESERTI. lent job. But if it came to operating
out small "brush wars" without resorting Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Chairman and on a patient, I would call on a doctor
to total destruction. Members of the Committee, there still and follow his advice.
A good example of the importance of seems to be some confusion as to exactly Mr. Chairman, the Committee on
having strong conventional forces to take who won what and who lost what. I think Armed Services did not come to this de-
care of limited aggression occurred 4 it quite necessary that an effort be made cision on the RS-70 program without
years ago this July when President to clear the atmosphere now and present the advice of high military authorities.
Eisenhower sent forces into Lebanon and to the committee exactly the situation We had a full and complete briefing by
stopped Communist aggression there, in which we find ourselves. the Air Force. We - had the benefit of
This operation did more for American The distinguished gentleman from the knowledge and experience of men
prestige than any other incident in re- Georgia [Mr. VINSON], chairman of the who actually have worn the uniform, the
cent years, without the loss of an Ameri- Committee on Armed Services, has made men who know what the military needs.
can life. Firing an intercontinental the statement here in the well that to- Backed up with that, we had the judg-
ballistic missile into Lebanon certainly day we make history. We certainly do ment and the wisdom of a committee
would not have been considered by any make history, because for the first time which reflects Its seniority in the 48
responsible government, yet unless we this Congress has come to grips with years during which the chairman, the
had, done something at that time the the executive department as to each gentleman from Georgia [Mr. VINSON],
entire Middle East might now be lost to one's responsibility related to the other. has served in this House. I submit that
the Kremlin. Without a powerful air The resolution is long overdue. It in view of this experience we are in
force and an ability to resist limited ag- should have come to pass 12 years ago just as good or better position to judge
gression by land, sea, and air, we could when the Congress authorized the build- or to make a judgment upon the needs
never have another Lebanon. - Ing of the flush-deck carrier United of the military as related to an indi-
If we desire only to be strong in mas- States and the funds were refused by the vidual who came here shortly more than
give retaliation, the. path now being fol- Secretary of Defense. If we had come a year ago. Washington is a bad place
lowed by the Department of Defense to grips with the problem then, we would for a man to attempt to play God, even
would be the correct one. We are de- not be discussing it here today. But, if it be the Secretary of Defense. I
veloping an intercontinental ballistic through the succeeding years the will of think as a result of what has happened
missile capability which together with the Congress has been cast aside; the in this matter the Secretary of Defense
the Polaris submarine can destroy Rus- will of the Congress has not been ad- has learned a lesson, and I hope he has.
sia or any other country at will. i want hered to, and nothing has been done He has learned the lesson that this Con-
us to have such a capability but I cer- about it until this present situation grass does stand for something; that the
tainly do not want our defense strength arose. Committee on Armed Services does have
to reach such a condition that we must In past years the Congress has au- a responsibility and will not hesitate to
totally rely on such a capability. While thorized the full strength of the Marine discharge it. It has been a long time
such massive retaliation may some day Corps to 200,000. It was not adhered coming, but I congratulate Secretary
be necessary, we shudder to think of such to. It authorized funds for the mdderni- McNamara on the position which he
a day coming. We can contemplate a zation of our Army. It has not been ad- has now taken, though belatedly. I
situation arising, however, where strong 'hered to. It authorized money for the think all of us should know this because
bomber forces backed by strong conven- extension of the B-52 program. It has it is most important: This is the first
tional forces could stop limited aggres- not been adhered to.' In other words, to time that the Secretary of Defense has
sion before it reached the point of our put it in simple language that we all un- given any indication of acknowledging
having to resort to full nuclear defense. derstand, this situation of the RS-70 is that other people can make decisions
Last year I took the lead in the com- the straw that broke the camel's back, and do not have to use an IBM machine
mittee fight to restore the RS-70 pro- and some vigorous and direct action had to do it. It has been said of him, and
gram to the status that it had in the to be taken, some vigorous and direct I think in a critical though charitable
Eisenhower budget. President Kennedy, language had to be used, and that Ian- vein, that he is as inscrutable as the
in the 1960 campaign, criticized Eisen- language was the word "direct" in the sphinx, and twice as inflexible. That
hower three times for-not pushing the amendment offered to this bill by the observation was before yesterday after-
RS-70 program, yet when Kennedy pre- committee. noon.
sented his budget to the Congress in Mr. Chairman, I think we should know Mr. Chairman, I want to pay particu-
February 1961, for fiscal year 1962 it was some of the background. I think we lar tribute to the President of the United
$138 million less than the amount sub- should understand exactly the events States in this instance. When he came
mitted in the budget for fiscal year 1962 which have led up to this situation, and into this picture, he came into the pic-
by President Eisenhower. We lost this this exercise which I think has been a ture with the knowledge that he had ac-
fight in the committee to restore the most healthy one, and one which I think quired through the years as a Member of
$138 million that Kennedy had deleted will have its effects in future days to this body, and as a Member of the other
by two votes, but after reconsideration come. I want to say here right now that body. He came in with the full affec-
Approved For Release 2003/10110 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
4320 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -. HOUSE
March 21
tion and understanding of the problems what the President has said, that he had per victory. It can only be a paper vic-
which we have here. In order to give confidence in his Secretary of Defense; tory however if we, in the Congress,
an indication of how this whole thing I may say that I, too, have confidence allow it to become a paper victory.
has been misrepresented to the public, I in the Secretary of Defense; and not Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, will the
will cite one instance, or two instances: that I have less confidence in the Secre- gentleman yield?
Every time the Secretary of Defense has tary of Defense, but I have more con- Mr. HEBERT. I yield to the gentle-
talked to the American people, and he fidence in my chairman, the distin- man from Pennsylvania.
has given his views on many occasions guished gentleman from Georgia. Mr. GAVIN. It must be remembered,
on the subject, the rejection of the RS- So today this is not a battle won or we have to get ourselves elected every
70 has always been referred to as "the lost, or something we should gloat over. other year and when we express our-
President's program," and the press has This has been a constructive exercise. selves, we are expressing the sentiments
picked it up and said "The President This has been an exercise which has of our people back home whom we are
backs Mr. McNamara, the Secretary of focused the attention of the Nation on proud and honored to represent.
Defense." a serious problem of conflict in approach Mr. HEBERT. I thank the gentle-
Now, actually what did the President to problems. man. I think his remarks are well
say publicly, and that one time was in The President wisely has pointed out chosen because we do have a representa-
a news conference, when he said that he his powers under the Constitution, but tive form of government, and here is
relied on Mr. McNamara, and had full we, too, must point out that under being demonstrated one of the ad-
confidence in him, but suggested there article I, section 8, we have the respon- vantages of representative government.
was some compromise available. That sibility and the backing of the Con- I think this point should be stressed
is all he said. That was the President's stitution to raise and maintain armies right here, sir, that when the vote comes
position. The President has never as- and navies, and to appropriate moneys later today the resounding and solid
sumed responsibility for this program per for their upkeep; and also to make the vote of this House will reflect what the
se, but his name has been bandied about rules and regulations for the control people of America believe when it comes
as though indicating that he was in full of those bodies. to the RS-70 program. And I hope the
accord with the abandonment of the The Department of Defense is much in Secretary of Defense will be impressed
RS-70 program. the position, I think I would say, as that with the decision not of one lone man
There is another facet to this contro- of a baseball manager; or perhaps I backed by dubious authorities on mili-
versy which I think you should know should say the Secretary of Defense is, tary weaponry, but the decision of mil-
about. Unfortunately, those of us on He is in full command and charge on lions of Americans reflected in the vote
the Committee on Armed Services have that field. But he has got to play ac- today of their constitutional representa-
been unable to get our story over to the cording to the rules. He may not tives. '
public because we are under the com- change the size of the ball or shorten Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield
pulsion of security. We have had meet- the distance between the bases. Nor 10 minutes to the gentleman from Cali-
ing after meeting under top secret direc- do I think he is in a very enviable posi- fornia [Mr. WILSON].
tion. The last time Mr. McNamara ap- tion when he tells you, as the gentle- Mr. WILSON of California. Mr.
peared before us, his speech was stamped man from Indiana has pointed out SO Chairman, I am entering this contro-
"Top Secret." We could not discuss that well, that we are at the end of the versy today not as a constitutional law-
speech nor. could we discuss the questions road in bombers. It means that when yer, but rather as an aviation historian.
which were asked him, nor even now the B-52 and the B-58 go out we have Progress in aviation has been a fascinat-
can we discuss what went on in that no other bombers on the drawing boards ing thing. Even within my lifetime,
meeting. I think it would be very en- to replace these manned weapons. The which incidentally is less than the 48
lightening if you knew the colloquy, but Secretary of Defense gives out great years that our distinguished Chairman,
we are still under the compulsion of figures. I cannot compete in his realm CARL that , has served-even within my
security and secrecy. The presentation with numbers, statistics and figures, lifetime, the airplane has progressed
which Mr. McNamara made to us, every other than to approve them if they are from a flimsy, unpredictable, sputtering
page of it, marked "Top Secret" was on my side. But it is like the football toy, literally nothing more than a box
given out almost in toto the next day coach who said that in 1967 he is going kite wa motor into the greatest de-
at a hurriedly called press conference to have the greatest team he has ever
in the Pentagon. had in history. ifensive kite with i weapon and deadliest e st de-
As man, and
I think this is serious business when we He will have reached his peak and he anaent magic of wcarpet of ar war ever devised
nd
worldwide transporta-
cannot discuss these matters in public. can defeat any team against him. ion.
a matter of fact, and I think paren- But, I submit what will happen after day did not
thetically, I should inform you of this 1967, if they have nobody on the bench ju The appear airplane like we magic, kgnow It todthe esult
rather amusing incident. A very artic- to come up and fill the ranks of the sen- o generations of applied imagination
ulate and able young colonel was fors when they go out, and that is the and effort, from glider pioneers ers like John
testifying before us during the hearings situation in which we find ourselves in hers to the scientists
that were in secret and his biography this particular instance, unless there is Montgomery s
otoday.
was stamped "Secret." We could ask a weapons system, a manned bomber and omy with its and d others
improvements, Eachnew air-
him
him where he was born, and he could weapons system on the drawing boards plane, tell us within the confines of the com- and ready to replace the deficiencies in a nwith bits own
the Air to the thee structure u as our know
know mittee room, but outside of that none of the inventory, at the end of 1967 we will today
us could open our mouths if we were be absolutely lost?in the field of retalia- mercial airline system.
going to respect the stamp of secrecy. tion in this particular atmosphere. Up Before World War I only the dreamers
So I think it quite necessary that to this time the Secretary has been writ- could visualize the airplane as anything
everybody in this body should under- ing the obituary of the RS-70 in in- more than an exhilarating experiment.
stand exactly what the situation is. stallments. Today, I hope his letter The first airplane dogfight in battle was
I compliment the distinguished rank- retracts those words and that he will between pilots with pistols. But as air-
ing member of our committee, the gentle- begin to take a constructive and pro- planes became faster and more aneu-
man from Illinois [Mr. ARENDS ] , who gressive view. His language is clear in verable, it was inevitable that theould
certainly made a very lucid explanation his letter. There is absolutely no doubt be armed with machineguns and later
of the problem today. Of course, it is in the world that this Committee on rockets. The first load that a military
not necessary to add more laurels to Armed Services has not capitulated. It airplane carried was an observer who
the crown now worn by my distin- has won a very distinct and very deserv- spotted for artillery forces. Later on,
guished chairman, the gentleman from ing victory in the interest of represent- messages were carried by airplanes from
Georgia [Mr. VINSON]. He and I have ative government and in the interest of headquarters to the frontlines. And, of
differed on many occasions, as many of the American people. We have a re- course, inevitably the obvious advantage
you know. But my devotion and affec- sponsibility to meet from here on out. I developed for using the airplane as a
tion and respect for him have never been agree with the gentleman from Illinois means of delivering destructive explo-
diminished. I might almost paraphrase in referring to that. This may be a pa- sive power on the enemy. The first
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
 Approved For Release 2003/10/10: CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
1962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
bombs were little more than glorified
hand grenades, and from there, through
progression, the means of dropping
blockbusters and later nuclear bombs de-
veloped into the ultimate and awesome
capability of the latest SAC aircraft,
which today in the form of the mach II
B-58 is capable of flying 1,200 miles per
hour and flying from Los Angeles to New
York and back to Los Angeles nonstop in
a period of some 4 hours.
It is an ill wind that blows nobody
some good. Certainly the greatest in-
strument of war has also resulted in the
greatest instrument of peacetime trans-
portation known to the world. The
modern airlines today exist only because
of the initial development of military
aircraft. We would not have our net-
work of airlines had it .not been for the
billions of dollars that have been poured
into the development of military aircraft
in, the period since World War I. The
first airmail and passengers were car-
ried in surplus World War I airplanes.
The workhorse of the airlines after
World War II, the famous DC-3, was a
direct outgrowth of a military airplane
produced by Douglas. The modern jet
transports produced by three leading
companies, Convair, Boeing, and Doug-
las, had their design origination and
early development based on the B-47
and later the B-52 bombers.
Progress in aviation has not always
been easy. There have always been the
doubters and the scoffers who were will-
ing to tell why it could not be done.
Many scientists and engineers at the
time of the Wright brothers, using their
slip sticks and their equivalents of
Univac and IBM, whatever they were
in those days, had it all figured out that
it was physically impossible for man to
fly. They could prove it with statis-
tics. Yes, and there were plenty of
doubters within the military, too. The
Secretary of the Navy in 1912 made the
statement "If you can demonstrate to
me that the aeroplane is capable of tak-
ing off and flying out to a battleship,
landing alongside and capable of being
lifted aboard, then I shall believe it to
be of some value to the military."
Our own distinguished chairman of
the Armed Services Committee, partici-
pated in the 1920's in the investigation
of the rather absurd proposal by Col.
Billy Mitchell, that the airplane was ca-
pable of sinking a battleship. Perhaps
that is one of the reasons why this dis-
tinguished gentleman believes so strong-
ly in the RS-70.
Bombers, in particular, have always
had to fight hard for their existence. I
mentioned the Billy Mitchell contro-
versy. In more recent times we have
seen the B-36 controversy, when many
people felt the long-range interconti-
nental bomber was unnecessary as long
as other forces were available today.
Well, I say, thank God for the visionaries
and the experts of their day who pro-
vided us with the B-17 and the B-24 and
the B-36 and the B-47 and th' B-52 and
the B-58. This country has been safer
because of them and without them I
think it is no overstatement to say we
would not be here today as freshmen in a
free nation.
These are the thoughts that have been
running through the minds of many of
us who serve on the Armed Service Com-
mittee today. This is the reason for the
apprehension we indicated through our
unanimous vote in favor of the continu-
ation and extension of the B-70 or RS-
70 program. These are the reasons why
we reject completely the contention by
the Secretary of Defense and his sub-
ordinates that we can phase out the
bomber program and rely in the future
on missiles for our defense. All of the
Univac's and the IBM's in the Penta-
gon, had they been available back at the
beginning of World War I and World
War II, couldn't have predicted the
fantastic development in uses and ca-
pabilities that grew out of these early
aircraft. I submit to you that all of the
Univac's and the IBM's and the think-
ing machines that are available to the
modern Pentagon are incapable of pre-
dicting with infallibility the forces and
materiel that might be necessary to pro-
tect this country in the future. -
For the first time in our history we
are laying down our tools that have
helped to forge the greatest protective
force and the greatest peacetime trans-
portation force in, history. No, my
friends, I cannot believe that the people
of this country are willing to legislate
man out of the air. Yet in effect, that is
what the throttling of the B-70-RS-70
program means. It means we have no
faith in the future of aircraft. It means
we are putting our entire reliance on the
little black boxes that may be electronic
marvels, but that even today have been
known to blow a fuse.
Now I have no personal quarrel with
the Secretary of Defense. I am willing
to rate him as a genius, as many people
have called him today. I think he. is
probably the closest equivalent to a real
live flesh and blood thinking machine
that modern industry has ever produced.
Yet he would be one of the first to tell
you that a computer is valueless if you
do not have enough input. In other
words, you have got to take all the fac-
tors into consideration when you press
a button and ask a computer to make a
decision for you. You have got to crank
in all the possible variations and infor-
mation into the machine before you can
get an answer out the other end on a roll
of printed tape. Until these thinking
machines at the Pentagon get cranked
into. them the factors of unpredictable
future needs and the supplemental bene-
fits that derive from continued develop-
ment of the aircraft, I am sure they are
going to continue to get the answers that
say we do not need airplanes for the
future.
Certainly, the chairman of the Armed
Services Committee, Mr. VINSON, our
distinguished colleague from Georgia,
has a sense of history. His championing
of a stronger Navy, of nuclear-powered
submarines, of a modernized expanded
,Air Force, are factors that are rather
hard to crank Into a Univac. As for
me, I would rather put my faith in a
hunch of CARL, VINSON'S than in the
punches on all of Mr. McNamara's IBM
cards. Yet today we see the Congress
in conflict with' the Secretary of De-
fense and with the President of the
United States, a man who was highly
touted during the 1960 campaign as hav-
ing a sense of history. I think that
Mr. Kennedy, the candidate, probably
did have more of such a sense then than
he has now. He was in favor of an ex-
panded B-70 program at that time, be-
fore he started listening to the experts
and their printed tapes. Listen to what
he said on November 2, 1960, in my own
hometown of San Diego. Here is what
he said:
I endorse wholeheartedly the B-70 manned
aircraft. We could not get the administra-
tion to release the funds until this week.
That does not exactly jibe with the
recommendations he has been sending
up to Congress through the Secretary of
Defense, does it?
How about the Vice President; where
does he stand? I have been reading a
rather remarkable document. , It is
called the investigation of the prepared-
ness program by the Preparedness In-
vestigating Subcommittee of the Com-
mittee on' Armed Services of the U.S.
Senate, printed in 1960, the 2d session of
the 86th Congress. LYNDON JOHNSON,
the chairman of the subcommittee, con-
ducted a sweeping investigation into the
B-70 and he came out with some remark-
able recommendations. In the first
place, he proved that the B-70 would be
of tremendous use to the military in lim-
ited war. He pointed out its efficiency
for the rapid support of troops and the
delivery of missiles and equipment. He
pointed out, for example, that it would
take 10 days for 25 turbojet airplanes to
airlift 4,000 tons of cargo over a 3,500-
nautical-mile range and this same job
could be done, not in 10 days, but with
the RS-70, or the transport equivalent
of the RS-70, in 21/2 days.
Can an IBM machine predict that
some time in the future it may be impor-
tant to get 4,000 tons of vital war mate-
rial up to the frontlines of some remote
fighting front of the future? You know
it cannot. Well, let us just read for a
minute what Mr. JOHNSON recommends
to the Congress of the United States.
These are the conclusions of the Senate
Investigating Preparedness Subcommit-
tee. I like the title of that "Prepared-
ness." We need that.
First. The advent of the ICBM does
not preclude the necessity for continued.
development and use of advanced,
manned weapon systems.
Second. Manned weapon systems-
such as the B-70-could strongly com-
plement other strategic weapon systems,
Third. There is a need to develop a
bomber beyond the capabilities of those
presently in being, since a bomber-mis-
sile or mixed-forces concept is essential
to our defense posture.
Fourth. There is a continuing require-
ment for a manned bomber with super-
sonic and intercontinental characteris-
tics.
Fifth. The Nation possesses the nec-
essary resources to build a B-70 type
weapon system.
Sixth. The technology required ' to
build a B-70 type weapon system is at
hand and is not dependent upon tech-
nological breakthroughs.
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
4322
Seventh. Successful development of a
weapon system such as the 8-70 pro-
gram, could also advance the age of su-
personic commercial and industrial
transport and represent an essential link
in the chain of continuous advances in
controlled flight.
Eighth. Because of its size and basic
configuration, the B-70 is suited to pos-
sible adaptation as a supersonic, nu-
clear-powered air vehicle.
Ninth. A B-70 type system, because of
its planned altitude and speed capabili-
ties, has potential application as a re-
coverable booster space system to per-
form recurring heavy payload orbital
launches.
Tenth. Unless an operational super-
sonic bomber is developed now, there will
be no replacement for the B-52 at the
time at which it enters its period of ob-
solescence-mid-1960's--and experience
has demonstrated that stretching out an
essential military development program
not only increases ultimate total cost but
loses valuable time.
So here we have additional testimony
indicating the value of the B-70. This,
in effect, is the testimony of LYNDON
JOHNSON, the chairman of the Senate
Preparedness Subcommittee. Has Mr.
JOHNSON changed his mind today? I
don't believe he has.
I can easily understand a man chang-
ing his mind; I have done it many times
myself. But normally when this
happens, it is a question of the scales
tipping slightly in one way under one
set of circumstances, and tipping slightly
the other way in ? another set of
circumstances.
However, with respect to the B-70 this
condition does not obtain at all.
Nothing could be more precisely, directly
or forcefully stated than the position
of the Preparedness Subcommittee-Mr.
JOHNSON, chairman-with respect to the
B-70. This was no slight tipping of the
scales in favor of this weapon system.
This was an outright and aggressively
stated recommendation-and one made
without equivocation of any kind.
A person of Mr. JOHNSON's intelligence
and obvious capability does not whim-
sically arrive at a particular conclusion.
Nor does a person like Mr. JOHNSON
capriciously change a decision on a
fundamental issue.
Mr. JOHNSON does not speak out in this
controversy over the B-70 today, but
his voice is heard-loud and clear-in
the decision of his subcommittee from
whose report I have just read.
Mr. Chairman, I support the expanded
program for the RS-70. I do so in the
certainty that the RS-70 is not in itself
the ultimate weapon of ultimate air-
craft. It is another step forward in
man's conquest of the air. It is just a
prelude to such fantastic airplanes of the
future-as Convair's proposed space
plane, which will make even the RS-70
as old fashioned as the Jenny of World
War I.
Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield
10 minutes to the gentleman from Cal-
ifornia [Mr. GUBSERI.
(Mr. GUBSER asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE March 21
Mr. GUBSER. Mr. Chairman, I would
like to commend our chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services, the Hon-
orable CARL VINSON, for his vigorous
leadership in a fight which is designed
to gain the respect of the Congress which
the Constitution intended.
The committee report states on page 7:
The role of Congress in determining na-
tional policy, defense or otherwise, has de-
teriorated over the years. In the place of
joint formulation of national policy by the
Congress and the President we have seen an
acceptance of the principle that in some
matters, defense in particular, government
should be by "expert."
This is the greatest mistake that can
befall a republic.
The German Reichstag made the mis-
take in 1933 and it did not get the
chance to live to regret it.
In our republic we do not have a dic-
tator of defense, we have a Secretary
of Defense who holds no power except
that which flows to him through the
President.
Our entire system is based upon op-
position to the concentration of absolute
power in the hands of one man, regard-
less of his expertise, because, as the
committee states, "expertise is not in-
fallibility."
Experts are human and no human is
infallible. So, we dare not trust one
man with making the decision which
determines whether we shall survive.
Men make mistakes. It was some
man, an expert-I do not know which
one-who decided to build the Edsel, and
the stockholders of Ford Motor Com-
pany know it was a mistake.
I am greatly impressed with the out-
standing ability of Secretary McNamara,
but he is only a man and, as such, bears
some human limitations.
It was Secretary McNamara, an. ex-
pert, who opposed me as a novice, when,
last year on the floor of this House, I
proposed an amendment to authorize six
more Polaris submarines. He was wrong,
and has now admitted it by his action to
do administratively what I tried to do
legislatively.
It was a man who said on January
23, 1960, that "America had become
second in missiles" and it was the same
man who worried all through 1960 about
the effect of this missile . gap on our
national prestige.
To many, authenticity and expertise
is the automatic windfall of presidential
candidacy, so many thousands of peo-
ple believed that we were second in mis-
siles. As one member of the Committee
on Armed Services I repeatedly said the
missile gap did not exist, but nobody
listened-I was not an expert.
Here again is another case where an
expert, a man, was wrong. It is now
admitted that there never was a missile
gap.
We cannot afford to ignore the time
proven constitutional formula for co-
operation between Congress and the
Executive. Thanks to Chairman VIN-
SON, this issue has now been spotlighted
to the extent where the Executive can
no longer ignore it. We have worn all
we could expect to win and more than
could have been won without the com-
mittee amendment striking the word
"directed." Admiral VINSON has won
our battle for us.
This morning a question was asked
in a session of the Committee on Armed
Services as to whether the letters from
the President and Secretary could be in-
terpreted as an intention by the admin-
istration to request all necessary funding
up to $491 million in fiscal year 1963 for
the RS-70 program. The answer was
affirmative and unequivocal.
With this battle the deterioration of
the role of Congress is now at an end,
and the American people will be the
beneficiaries.
Mr.. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield
10 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. BECHER].
(Mr. BECKER asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. BECKER. Mr. Chairman, it
would seem to me that after the execu-
tive meeting we had of the Armed Serv-
ices Committee this morning we are now
proceeding in what I would call an exer-
cise in futility. A great many words are
being expressed about what we are do-
ing here today-who has won and who
has lost; who has capitulated and who
has not capitulated. We have made
quite a reversal in the discussion made
here today about why we are doing this,
and the concession made by the Secre-
tary of Defense in the fact that now he
has conceded to make a study.
Well, anyone who heard the reading
of the letter from the Secretary of De-
fense before our committee this morning
in executive session and those who heard
the reading of that letter on the floor
of the House today know that this is an
old legislative trick-that when you want
to get rid of something, agree to a study.
This is the surest way to brush some-
thing under the rug that you want to
get rid of. This is all the Secretary of
Defense agreed to do in his letter.
Mr. Chairman, studies have been going
on for years in this program, and for
these studies we have appropriated over
$1.3 billion, and will agree to appropri-
ate another $1.3 billion to complete the
additional RS-70 planes.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard the
statement of our good chairman, the
very distinguished chairman of the
Armed Services Committee, the gentle-
man from Georgia [Mr. VINSON]. While
we heard his statement today, I won-
der how many read the statement in the
report of the Armed Services Committee
on the bill authorizing some $13 billion,
and dealing specifically with the RS-70
program? Let me read one paragraph
of that report. I think it is quite dif-
ferent than that which we are getting
today in this exercise in futlii:ty:
To any student of government, it is emi-
nently clear that the role of the Congress in
determining national policy, defense or
otherwise, has deteriorated over the years.
More and more the role of the Congress has
come to be that of a sometimes querulous
but essentially kindly uncle who complains
while furiously puffing on his pipe but who
finally, as everyone expects, gives in and
hands over the allowance, grants the per-
mission, or raises his hand in blessing, and
then returns to his rocking chair for another
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 4323
year of somnolencd broken only by an oc-
casional anxious glance down the avenue
and a muttered doubt as to whether he had
done the right thing.
Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BECKER. I will be happy to
yield to my colleague from Louisiana.
Mr. HEBERT. May I say to the
gentleman that the excerpt he just read
from 'the report is probably one of the
most accurate descriptions of the Con-
gress today. There has been a change,
however.
Mr. BECKER. I agree with the gen-
tleman wholeheartedly. That is why
I have used it here, in the light of what
has been said in the previous statements
before this House. Nothing could be
clearer than this. Let me call attention
to what we are doing in Congress, not
only in the picture of our national. de-
fense, with which our committee is
charged, and sits month in and month
out in trying to design a program for
the defense not only of the United States
of America, but of the free world, we are
again giving up our constitutional rights
to provide a Military Establishment for
this country.
In doing so let me bring this to the
attention of the Members of the House.
Are we doing differently than that which
we are being asked to do? There is leg-
islation proposed from the "Avenue"
that is.coming before the House to give
up other constitutional powers this year
in the fields of tariff and trade, and turn
this over to the executive branch of the
Government. This is the proposal of
the administration. In article I, clause
3 of the Constitution, this is clearly em-
powered to the Congress of the United
States.
Mr. Chairman, there is another piece
of legislation to be considered, this year
wherein we are being asked to again give
up our constitutional powers, and that
is in the field of taxes wherein we are
being asked to give the President and
the executive branch of Government the
right to lower taxes 5 percent, if he
deems it advisable to do so.
Mr. Chairman, again in the same iden-
tical clause in the Constitution, these
powers are spelled out to be the powers
In another piece of legislation we are
being asked to give the executive branch
of the Government $1 billion to spend
at will on public works, in the event the
executive branch feels it is necessary and
advisable. This again dilutes the power
of Congress to authorize and appropriate
for specific projects as we deem advis-
able.
I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that what
we are doing here is not a matter of yield-
ing, or a matter of being unwilling to
mously because over the years we have
come to understand what they were real-
ly trying to do.
Why do I go along with Curtis LeMay,
this great general, with the great record,
and his advisers in the Air Force? I
will tell you why I do and why I am
willing to; because, in the history of the
United States of America it has been
our military leaders who have led us
to victory in every war. It has been our
civilian experts who have put the world
in the mess in which it is today. I say
that our military leaders are men who
are dedicated to the defense of this Na-
tion and who have proven that beyond
any shadow of doubt.. That is why I
am willing so many times to go along
with their reasoning; because of their
great experience and- their great
dedication.
I think Mr. McNamara is a great, a
wonderful man. I have nothing against
him as an individual or as a personality.
But when Mr. McNamara goes before
the American people day after day to
try to get the press, the news media on
his side, as against the will of the Con-
gress of the United States, I say that
is wrong. It does not comport with the
intent of having three equal branches of
Government, each equal in its powers
under the Constitution. I do not believe
that any Secretary of Defense is carry-
ing out his duty as he should when he
uses those methods. The President of
the United States as an elected official
has a duty, and I have no criticism of
him when he takes any means at his
command to prepare legislation on those
things he desires, because he has that
responsibility under the Constitution.
But we who are the elected representa-
tives of the people-and I close on this
note-have to take this position. I say
this to you, that when I go back home
and see what is reflected in the mail that
I receive, there is a great disturbance
in the minds,of the American people as
to the effectiveness of the Congress to-
day. What are we doing to off set the.
many things that are happening in our
Nation and the world? I think today is
a good example. In all conscience I
must vote for this bill. I have no alter-
native than to provide for the national
defense. I do so with a full appreciation
pf what is necessary. I can only hope,
and express the fervent prayer, that
the Secretary of Defense will wake up to
the will of Congress. And as to our
good chairman, I am sure he will do
what he said he will do, see, to it that
we get regular reports of what this study
is going to do, and not have the matter
brushed under the rug. So many studies
that we have asked for in the years that
I have been a member of the committee
I never heard of again. This may be
just another one.
compromise with the executive branch So I say, Mr. Chairman, that while I
of the Government, but we are yielding certainly must vote for this legislation,
to the so-called civilian experts ' of the because I must vote for it as others do,
executive branch of the Government, I do so, with a great reservation insofar
who are telling the Committee on Armed as the great need of bombers is con-
Services and telling our Military Estab- cerned, one which the Committee on
lishment-our Air Force, who came be- Armed Services has marked for study
fore our committee with every intent and year in and year out. We know that
with every means at their command to this is a vital, an essential part of the
impress upon us why the RS-70 is vitally defense weapons system of this great
necessary. We agreed with them unani- country of ours.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BECKER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I have
been waiting all afternoon to hear some-
one tell us, under this agreement that
has been reported, how much of the
$491 million is going to be spent for the
purpose for which it is intended.
Mr. BECKER. You heard the letter
of Mr. McNamara. He did not say he
would spend any, but he said if the study
proved that technological advances in
certain fields in the way of a weapons
system of the RS-70 proved in the
course of the year essential or moving
ahead, he would spend part or all of it
that was deemed necessary.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
(Mr. HALL asked and was given per-
mission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD.)
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, this bill,
H.R. 9751, would authorize appropria-
tions during the next fiscal year for air-
craft, missiles, and naval vessels for the
Armed Forces. The total amount of au-
thorization is over $13 billion. It con-
stitutes the largest single authorization
bill to come before the Congress during
this session. It involves nothing, except
the defense and security of our country
since it includes authorization for every-
thing from missiles to revolvers; in
short, all the military hardware and
weapons which comprise our military
deterrent.
It is no easy responsibility, to sit in
judgment on matters which result in
such a heavy burden on the American
taxpayer, and yet to realize that these
are decisions on which our very lives
may depend. The Armed Services Com-
mittee has been in almost daily session,
listening to posture briefings by our
military chiefs, hearing highly classified
intelligence estimates of the military
capabilities of the Communist bloc, and
considering all the evidence which must
form a basis for our decisions.
Bills which are reported out of the
Armed Services Committee are unique
in that much of the basis for commit-
tee action is highly classified and cannot
be discussed in open debate on the floor
of the House. Therefore, the Congress
must rely on the judgment of the com-
mittee, to a far greater extent than they
rely on other committees; whose recom-
mendations can be fully discussed dur-
ing debate, and any particular bill
amended, and so forth.
I can report to you that the recom-
mendations of our committee on this
particular bill were originally unani-
mous. Party affiliation did not enter
into our decisions, as indeed it should
not on matters affecting our Nation's
defense.
The major controversy on this defense
authorization bill occurs between the
Armed Services Committee and the ad-
ministration's Secretary of Defense; and
then only on two of our major weapons
systems. One involves the Minuteman
intercontinental ballistic missile. As
yoft may know, several counties in the
Seventh Congressional District of Mis-
souri are included in the Minuteman-
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
 Approved For Release 2003/10/10: CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
4324 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
complex which has its headquarters at
the Whiteman Air Force Base, Knob-
noster, Mo. SAC has already contracted
for the construction of underground fir-
ing sites, several of which will be located
in our northern tier of counties.
Twelve squadrons totaling 600 hard-
ened and well dispersed Minuteman
missiles have been funded through fiscal
year 1962. Funds for four more squad-
rons are included in the 1963 budget
and are included in the bill approved
by our committee. This represents $10
million more than the amount requested
by our executive branch. It was the
opinion of our committee that a larger
force of Minuteman missiles should be
initiated at this time in order that the
ultimate number procured and placed
will move us closer to the capability
which our country must have in the
years ahead. The first Minuteman
missile was fired in February 1961 and
was completely successful. Numerous
tests since then have also been success-
ful. In view of the rapid strides which
Communist Russia has and is making
in the field of missiles, the committee
believed our Nation had no choice but
to develop a strong deterrent capability
in this area.
The other area of controversy involves
the B-70 or RS-70 bomber. This super-
sonic bomber-or space capable plat-
form-is still in the development stage
and a high degree of secrecy is attached
to its intended capabilities. The com-
mittee believed it has a very special
place in our defense structure because
it possesses the potential to do many
things in the areas of reconnaissance,
strike, and communications. Further-
more, unlike a missile, a bomber of this
type give us greater flexibility. Once a
missile is fired from its launching pad
we have reached the point of no return.
A nuclear explosion is as certain to fol-
low as day follows night. A bomber with
the capabilities of the B-70 would pro-
vide us with the option of waiting until
the last possible second before making
the fateful decision of whether to touch
off a nuclear holocaust in the event of
war. It can be recalled.
For the last 3 years, the Congress
has authorized the expenditures neces-
sary to produce three experimental
types. But in each case the recom-
mendations have not been carried out in
full by the Secretary of Defense.
The bill finally, but not unanimously,
voted out by the Armed Services Com-
mittee authorizes the Secretary to utilize
an additional $491 million to proceed
with production planning and long lead-
time procurement of the B-70 weapons
system. The debate taking place this
week undoubtedly would have dealt with
interpretation of the Constitution as to
whether the Congress has the authority
to so instruct the administrative branch
of Government. This question was sold
out by the leadership and chairman, and
majority party, after a White House
conference of 3:30 Tuesday afternoon.
I am on record-May 23, 1961-as urging
more and firmer policy of the Armed
Services Committee to the chairman.
In respect to our ability to finance
the additional B-70 authorization, I
might point out that the foreign aid
which we are now extending to Commu-
nist and so-called neutralist or :non-
alined countries, would finance our entire
B-70 development program. I certainly
believe that this expenditure of tax funds
will serve a far better investment in our
defense posture and for civilian flight
development and progress than in sup-
porting and building up those countries,
who would be likely to side with the
Communist bloc in the event of war.
When the foreign aid bill comes up again
this year, I certainly will vote in accord-
ance with these beliefs and convictions.
In all fairness, I want to point out that
our committee, as a whole, has the high-
est regard for Defense Secretary McNa-
mara. I personally believe he is capable,
and dedicated to carrying out the enor-
mous responsibilities which are his. The
areas of agreement between the Defense
Secretary and our committee are far
more numerous than the areas of dis-
agreement. This is as it should be. I
regret the issue was not joined and that
in the interest of expediency, principle
was forgotten. Perhaps only time will
tell whether the vaunted courage of the
Armed Services Committee has served
our country well, protected it faithfully,
and lived up to our constitutional re-
sponsibilities. Certainly, the proverbial
"walk" in the White House rose garden,
changed things abruptly. I find it diffi-
cult to yield by altering the House's
"direction," and still support unwanted,
and unneeded, further spending, even
for defense; when we are already com-
pletely deterrent capable and annihila-
tory. It would seem more appropriate to
strengthen the demands and will of our
total people and defend them by expe-
diting an anti-missile missile, through
not only the "whiz-kids" and their ideas
under control; but, also by utilizing the
grizzled and tried and true knowledge
and experience of our military leaders.
Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Michi-
gan [Mr. CHAMBERLAIN].
(Mr. CHAMBERLAIN asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Mr. Chairman,
I rise in support of the bill before the
House and to say that when the chair-
man in his statement today stated that
the Members of the House would be sur-
prised at the news he was going to bring,
I assure you, I, too, was greatly sur-
prised, when I heard this news just an
hour or so before. But though I have
reservation about what has been (lone
to the RS-70 program, I can say in all
good conscience, I do not disagree with
the decision that has been made with
respect to striking the directive words in
this bill. But, as we heard in a colloquy
earlier in the debate as to what the word
"direct" might mean or "authorize," I
think now we should turn our attention,
as my colleague from New York has
pointed out, to what the word "study"
means? So often when we reach a dead
end here with these problems, we throw
the legislative machine into neutral
and stop for a study. When the Secre-
tary of Defense says, "Consequently,
we are initiating immediately a new
March 21
study"-I would like to ask when he
says, "Consequently, we-" who is we?
Who is going to be the head of this study
or is it going to be composed entirely of
those in the Department of Defense that
had a negative attitude toward this B-70
program? Are we going to call in some
people from the Air Force who might be-
lieve there is some merit to the RS-70
and listen to what they have to say?
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I am happy to
yield to my colleague from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. I have an idea you will
see the hiring of some kind of manage-
ment or consulting firm to come up with
the answer that the Secretary of De-
fense wants in this matter.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I would not be
surprised, nor would I be surprised if it
took a couple of years. Are we going to
have a stacked committee to study this
problem? I think that is something we
should inquire into and I want to serve
notice on my chairman that I am going
to be making some inquiries as to who
will be making this study in the weeks
and months ahead.
Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I yield to my
colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. HEBERT. I would refresh the
gentleman's memory as to what the dis-
tinguished chairman of our Committee
on Armed Services said originally when
he was speaking as to who would be on
the study committee and who would par-
ticipate in the study. He said:
And another thing, the committee will
get a full assurance that the grcup making
this study will have not only scientists and
representatives of the Secretary of Defense
in it, but will have people from the Air
Force, not only the technical ones but the
policy ones; and not only civilians, but mili-
tary people whose background and experi-
ence in the development and operation of
bombers gives them special understanding
of the problem that we are talking about.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I am glad that
my colleague has pointed that out. I
hope he will join me in making certain
that a stacked committee is not created.
Mr. HEBERT. I am sure, and the
gentleman knows my record when it
comes to matters of that kind and knows
of my persistence in that respect that I
will be on your side to see that that
promise is carried out.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN, There is one
other thing that I want to point out. In
the next paragraph in the Secretary's
letter, he said:
Furthermore, if technologica:L develop-
ments advance more rapidly than we antici-
pate, we will wish to take advantage of
these advances by increasing our develop-
ment expenditures.
Which raises the question of which
came first, the chicken or the egg?
I think it is the will of this Congress
to spend more money right now to make
certain that we do everything we can
to bring about technological advance-
ment and get this program going, and
get this plane off the ground.
I would like to say in conclusion that
I share wholeheartedly the statement
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
1962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 4325
that was made by my colleague from Rapid airlift in proper quantities, using year's share of the total force, which will
Louisiana, about the testimony of Sec- equipment designed for the job, can help require 5 more years to build. This point
retary of Defense classified top secret, stem possible aggression. Failing in bears emphasizing: The 16 C-141 aircraft
yet the morning papers have had much this, it can put the forces in place and to be authorized are merely the first in-
of the same information spread in the continue to support them as required. crement and the 136 C-130 aircraft only
press reports. Having failed for 2 years Timely airlift can often keep outbreaks a part of the total force of over 400 which
to convince the committee, in top secret of violence limited. modernize both the Tactical Air Com-
sessions, of the soundness.of his posi- In my judgment, the case for airlift mand and Military Air Transport Serv-
tion the Secretary of Defense elected to is made by just these examples, but there ice and provide a versatile aircraft for
take this complex issue to the people in are more. Our strategic retaliatory force support of the Army. Each year some
an apparent attempt to have it decided depends in part upon airlift support, as procurement of the C-141 aircraft will
on the front pages of the newspapers does our Mobile Strategic Army Corps be requested until over 200 are bought
with unclassified information. This and our Tactical Air Forces. The very and the program goal is attained. We
every Member of Congress should resent. mobility of these latter forces is given must appreciate that the total objective
While I question that any funds that meaning only through the use of air- force is required even though it is to be
may be appropriated in excess of lift. achieved by a year-by-year procurement
budgetary recommendations will ever be The unique role which airlift plays to- program. Each year, in other words,
spent, I certainly share the view of my day is best exemplified by the nature we must be prepared to authorize 1 year's
distinguished chairman and my col- of U.S. support to the United Nations to- share of the ultimate force.
leagues on your Armed Services Com- day. In the past 18 months, some 31,000 What are the objectives of the Air
mitteethat the time has come to speak troops and 7,000 tons of cargo from 17 Force in projecting a force of the most
up and find out whether we do have any different U.N. member nations have been modern transport aircraft the "state-of-
voice in determining the level of our airlifted into the Congo in furtherance the-art" can provide? Broadly speaking,
national security programs. It is my of the U.N.'s efforts to maintain order they are to achieve complete flexibility
hope that the vote on this issue will and provide for democratic development. in airlift forces so that support for all
cause our able Secretary of Defense to Now, if we can do all these things types of missions can be provided from
reflect about the mutuality of our re- with today's forces, why is there still any operating location and to permit the
sponsibilities to the Nation. I urge your more needed? A brief review of today's accomplishment of all the airlift require-
support of the recommendations of your force and its posture is perhaps the best ments of cold, limited, and general war.
Armed Services Committee. way to seek an answer and identify some Specifically, the aim is to relieve our de-
Mr. I3EBERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield limitations. pendence on island bases; to acquire the
such time as he may desire to be the Today, there are over 1,800 transport ability to deploy strategic Army forces
gentleman from Florida [Mr. BENNETT]. aircraft including some 230 of the Civil up to several divisions, plus mobile strike
(Mr. BENNETT of Florida asked and Reserve Air Fleet which are available to forces anywhere in the world in the
was given permission to revise and ex- the Air Force during times of emergency. shortest possible time; and above all, to
tend his remarks.) This is a sizable force, but one which be able to undertake simultaneously air-
Mr. BENNETT Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, the Committee on Armed d Services has many demands made upon it, most lift tasks of some magnitude to more has wisely resolved the RS-70 legisla- of which can be met separately but than one theater of operations.
tive debate by providing for joint legis- which, taken together, create shortcom- I am convinced by what I have seen
lation and Executive scrutiny of this de- ings in timeliness or method of delivery of this program that the airlift force of
vepooment program. I was glad to hear or mission accomplishment itself. In the future will have impressive capabili-
the chairman of our committee an- other words, there isn't enough airlift ties, distinguished by flexibility and ver-
nounce that the research and develop- today to meet in quantity or quality all satility. It has my support and I am
ment of this plane and its subsystems wartime airlift requirements. There are convinced it merits the continuing sup-
will have continuing periodic investiga- some requirements, such as missiles and port of the Congress.
tion by the committee to assure that certain Army equipment, which are Before closing, I should allude to some
progress is made in the maximum degree; heavier or larger than present aircraft requirements of the future which are
so that when opportunities arise for are capable of airlifting and yet which not now a_ part of the airlift program I
pushing ahead to the prompt and pos- require transportation by air. More im- have just discussed, but which when
sible final production that this will be portantly, the majority of the strategic presented to us will deserve our most
done in fact. airlift force is obsolescent and piston- thoughtful consideration.
Now I would like to turn to another type, operating. in the 200 to 250 knot I have reference to three items. First,
aspect of this bill. range. Also,'the force is made up largely a follow-on aircraft is required to re-
Aggression, of any magnitude, at any of converted passenger-type aircraft
car-
location, must be met with the proper which lack flexibility because they can spar place capable the C-133 of h as an outsize cargo car-
force at the right time. Airlift helps to perform airlanded missions only and space boosters now beiall ng planned and
or
make this possible. - Without it, our have no outsize cargo carrying capabil- developed. now bocce is currently
ity. The latter is true of the entire dThe Air Force is currently
ability to meet aggression would be preparing a specific operational require-
greatly reduced. CRAF fleet. In addition, the capability ment for this aircraft. Second, a light
It was never more important that we of the piston engine force is predicated transport aircraft with true vertical or
do everything possible to reach our na- on the existence of island bases en route short field take-off and landing capabil-
ities objectives across the entire spec- to Europe and the Far East. which will carry 8- to 10-ton pay-
trum of conflict and international rela- The Air Force has developed a pro- loads to provide support and combat
tions. Airlift has the power to support gram for airlift modernization both in- zone mobility to the ground forces in the
this country and free world aims to such terim and long range which, when imple- future We can expect to see a specific
an extent that it holds a unique position mented, will reduce or eliminate most of operational requirement for this essential
as a tool of national policy. A quick look the limitations I have just mentioned. aircraft in the near future. The Army
at the past will show just how flexible This Congress by its fiecal year 1962 has already expressed its view in the
airlift can be as a tool of national policy authorizations enabled the program to form of a qualitative material require-
and just how important it is as a corner- continue when last year it authorized ment and the Joint Chiefs of Staff are
stone of our strategy. 93 C-130 aircraft, 15 additional C-135's now studying the matter. Last, and
The Berlin airlift of 1948-49, Lebanon and funds to proceed with a positive looking to the 1970's, we should expect
in 1956, and Taiwan in 1958 are three development and procurement program. to see a valid requirement expressed for
examples of how airlift supported our for the C-141-the most vital step to a supersonic transport-1,500 miles per
national effort in times of emergency, date toward a truly modern transport hour or faster. Technology will inevit-
The recent deployment of forces to Eu- force. The items we see in this year's ably permit its development and future
rope is another more current example of budget request and which we are being strategy will dictate its acquisition. One
the need and effectiveness of airlift. asked to authorize represent the coming dramatic example should illustrate this:
No. 42-11
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
4-326 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
Today's battle group could be delivered
in Europe with little warning, in less
than 10 hours and with approximately
43 sorties.
Economic considerations alone will
probably determine our position in this
matter but we could ill afford on the one
hand to see another nation develop this
aircraft first and become the world's sup-
plier and on the other to surrender our
historical position in the forefront of
aircraft development.
March 21
and that the Congress in adopting the any of the money we are providing to-
legislation as proposed by our committee day in this great bill for missiles, tanks,
will also be winning its point. guns, ships, and all the other -things.
Last week Defense Secretary McNa- But this committee is charged with the
mara appeared before our committee, as
has been mentioned, Later on he held a
press conference and presented publicly
at least a great portion of the material
he had presented to the committee.
The interesting thing about the Sec-
retary's appearance and his subsequent
press conference is that on the basis of
Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the information he gave us the B-70 or
10 minutes to the gentleman from New the RS-70 was a Complete waste of
York [Mr. STRATTON]. money and a completely worthless weap-
(Mr. STRATTON asked and was given on system.
permission to revise and extend his re- The Secretary is a brilliant man, as
marks.) has already been testified to here earlier,
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, a but his testimony before the committee
good deal has been said on this contro- proved too much, because in his own
versy already and I shall address myself budget there is set aside the sum of $171
to just one or two points. Much has been million to promote an aircraft which he
,said this afternoon as to who is winning was trying to tell us last week, on the
and who is losing in the compromise that basis of his computers, was completely
has been worked out by the committee. worthless and a complete waste of
l: think there is some confusion on this money. That $171 million was in the
issue. In fact we are presented with two budget, of course, because the President
issues as I see it. The first is the con- of the United States and his officials in
stitutional issue, the question of whether the Defense Department had already
the Congress has the, right to direct the very wisely recognized that you cannot
Executive to spend any particular sum base the future of the Nation solely on
of money. Many people have been in- what a computer tells you. Any com-
terested in this particular issue and puter has to have certain assumption,
some perhaps have looked forward to a fed in to get started. The fact of the
head-on clash between the legislature matter is that the Defense Department,
and the Executive on this particular in spite of Mr. McNamara's analysis, has
point. This clash has now of course been proceeding, but proceeding all too
been avoided by the action of the com- slowly in the judgment of our commit-
rnittee. tee, toward the development of a new
In this connection I am reminded of a manned plane, a new manned bomber, in
story that a former Governor of the case the time should ever come when it
State of New York, Al Smith, used to like might be needed.
to tell, about a young man who was tak- So all that our committee was doing
[ng an examination to be a railroad was to tell the Defense Department that
crossing guard on the New York Central it should proceed more rapidly on this
Railroad. He passed his written exami- advanced plane than the Secretary
:nation with flying colors, but when it wanted to proceed. The point at issue is
came to the oral examination they asked whether we are going to proceed at $171
him this: "Suppose there is a train com- million worth or whether we are going
:rug from one direction on a one-track to proceed as rapidly as humanly pos-
'line and then you look the other way and sible to develop this new aircraft so that
you see another train coming in the it might be ready even sooner in the
opposite direction on the same line. event it is needed, that is, as the gentle-
You wave your lantern but the wind man from Louisiana [Mr. HEBERT] said
blows it out. You wave your red flag a moment ago, be ready when the seniors
but the wind blows it away. What would on the team have graduated, and when
you do then?" The. young man looked we are looking at the bench for some-
up and said: "I would go and call my body else to replace them to carry on the
wife." The examiner said: "No, no, this battle.
is a serious matter. I do not think you Our committee is not willing to put all
understood the question. I will repeat it: our defense eggs into the missile basket.
"'There are two trains on the same track So we have insisted that the new genera-
coming from opposite directions; the tion, the mach 3 bomber, be prepared
wind blows your lantern out and more rapidly. The result of the letters
tears your flag off the stick. What would that have been read into the committee
you do?'" He said again, just as em- record this afternoon is to demonstrate
phatically: "I would go call my wife." that the President and Secretary of De-
They asked him: "But why would you fense are now both in complete accord
call your wife?" And he replied: "I'd with the committee, that money shall be
call her to come and see the darndest spent on this system just as rapidly as it
railroad wreck she'd ever seen." can be effectively used.
Well perhaps this is what some folks We are not asking here to spend $10
had hoped to see here today. billion. We just want six of these planes
But the real issue here is not the con- instead of three. That is the real dif-
stitutional issue the real issue is the ference and that is the real measure of
ons system. Will it be expedited as us. It may well be that our country will mittee and now before the House is
rapidly as possible? And on this point never have to use the B-70. We did not whether instead of $171 million, the sum
I do not think there is any question but have to use the B-36, either, as you re- of $491 million be provided te, expedite
what the committee has won its point call. We might not even have to use. the prototype development of this unique
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
defense and the security of the Nation,
and we would be doing less than our
solemnly pledged duty if we did not do
everything possible to guarantee our se-
curity in the years to come, when the
decision will not rest on the IBM com-
puters, but on a situation that we can
only guess at today will be upon us.
I want to commend the chairman of
our committee for the action he has
taken. I fully support the amendment
he will offer this afternoon, and I con-
gratulate the members of the committee
because I am sure we will all go along
with an action that will not, it is true,
result in any great railroad wreck, but
will protect the security of our Nation
as we believe it needs to be protected in
the face of Communist challenges and
aggression from abroad. I support the
committee's position on this bill.
Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield
10 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. PIRNIE].
Mr. PIRNIE. Mr. Chairman, what
constitutes adequate military prepared-
ness for our Nation? The better in-
formed one becomes as to the nature and
scope of the threats to our security and
the technological problems involved in
modern weapons to meet these threats,
the less inclined one should become to
assert an arbitrary opinion. However,
the Armed Services Committee has a
direct responsibility to prepare and sub-
mit to this body measures which in its
well-considered judgment support our
Defense Establishment at the level of
military preparedness the current world
situation requires. Balancing factors of
economic and military requirements, we
have unanimously brought to the floor
H.R. 9751. In it is embodied the results
of weeks of briefings, hearings, and de-
tailed presentations during which we
have heard our leading military authori-
ties, uniformed and civilian. The bill
embodies all basic recommendations of
the Department of Defense and adds a
further important item which has be-
come a subject of considerable contro-
versy. , It is vital to the Nation. that the
dispute be kept in perspective.
Our able Secretary of Defense early
demonstrated a surprising grasp of the
vast program he directs. Our commit-
tee has great respect for his sincerity,
diligence, and ability. The bill before
you gives him the tools he requested to
do the job, but it goes beyond his request
by authorizing additional funds for the
development of the RS-70 weapons sys-
tem-the reconnaissance version of the
mach 3 bomber. The development of
this aircraft was first authorized in 1955,.
Funds have been appropriated in each
fiscal year since that date until now we
have approximately $1 billion invested
in the program. The Department of De-
fense recommended that a follow-on sum
of $171 million be expended for the fiscal
 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
1962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 4327
weapons system. The Secretary of De- it should give full expression to that con- Asia. We must prepare for the almost
fense has consistently maintained that viction. This is our duty. Although we certain war with China while at the
the additional funds are not required, may change the language of the bill so same time be prepared for possible con-
but in the opinion of our committee, the as to eliminate the word "direct," our flict with Russia.
Air Force made a convincing case for intent is clear and we have the assur- I might remind the House that Her-
the authorization of this additional sum.' ance of the President and the Secretary man Goering, commander and chief of
Knowledge of the background of this of Defense that our concern will not be the German Luftwaffe, boasted before
difference in opinion is helpful. Last ignored. Our able chairman has de- the entire world that no bomb would fall
year the Congress voted funds for addi- tailed this measure. Our committee on Berlin. He boasted that the anti-
tional conventional bombers. That ac- unanimously brought this bill to the aircraft defenses of Berlin and of Ger-
tion was prompted by a conviction that floor. It represents our best judgment. many were impregnable and could not be
the missile program has not proceeded to Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield pierced. Herman Goering based his
the point where complete reliance could such time as he may consume to the fallacious belief on the calculations of a
be placed upon its capabilities to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. mathemwas atical g"quiz un his ,"a Dr. Dru wig,
exclusion of the manned bomber. De- DORN].
spite approval by the Congress, the Sec- Mr. DORN. Mr. Chairman, I am for wig had informed Goering that no
retary of Defense declined to make use this bill. I wish to thank the distin- bomber could get over Berlin as he could
of the funds so appropriated, and the guished Committee on Armed Services of prove by slide rule, mathematical deduc-
assembly lines on these bombers-our the House for the work it has done on tions, and computations that the bomb-
most advanced operational types-have the bill. I hope the RS-70 program can ers simply could not pass the antiair-
ground to a halt. The best intelligence proceed as expeditiously as possible. craft batteries. I greatly fear that some
available makes clear that the Soviets (Mr. DORN asked and was given per- of our "quiz kids" in America today have
have not taken similar action but in- mission to revise and extend his figured out on paper and by mathemat-
stead are adding and developing new remarks.) ics that they have all the answers against
manned bomber strength. Mr. DORN. Mr. Chairman, it is with air attack. They may have, but we still
It may well be, and we sincerely hope particular pleasure that I rise to support need the RS-70 for insurance. The
it to be so, that our program for 1963 the distinguished, able, and farseeing chances are your house will not burn;
will be effective without the addition we chairman of the Armed Forces Commit- but it may; therefore you have fire in-
propose. We would like to feel that pro- tee, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. surance. During the initial period of our
vision for 1,000 Atlas, Titan, and Minute- VINSON], and his great committee. conquest of space, bases on the moon and
man intercontinental ballistic missiles, Mr. Chairman, when war comes to the on planets, we will need something to
plus 41 submarines with over 650 Polaris United States, it will begin in the Far protect us while we get there. The
missiles, plus our existing great bomber East. Red Communist China, seething answer is the RS-70.
fleet would constitute sound protection with unrest and seeking a foreign scape- Mr. Chairman, I was in this House
for the Nation. Nevertheless, we believe goat, will attack Quemoy and Matsu or when we passed a 70-group Air Force.
that nothing has transpired to cause us Formosa. Red China will launch her The year was 1947. It was a bitter
to ignore the potential of the RS-70; overwhelming land juggernaut into struggle, but this Congress looking
that it is vital to our interests to develop South Korea or into South Vietnam, ahead, looking to the future, appropri-
and fly the best manned weapons system Burma, Thailand, or India. China may ated money for a 70-group Air Force.
modern technology can devise. Time is decide to attack all of these objectives it was a tragic mistake when the first
of the essence. We must avail ourselves simultaneously. In any case, the United Secretary of Defense and the President
of the technical miracles which this fly- States will be involved in war. The Far impounded the money and refused to
ing laboratory will provide. Its surviv- East is the key area of the world. The carry out the wishes of the Congress
ability, its reconnaissance potential, and road to Paris is still the road through and the American people. Three years
its weaponry will reflect scientific Peiping. The road to Latin America and later the bloody Red forces of North
achievements, yet to be placed in a flying the soft underbelly of the United States Korea crossed the 38th parallel and
configuration. is the road from the Far East through launched another world war. Again, we
The sum of $491 million made avail- the Near East and through Africa. Red were tragically unprepared. We had to
able now will move this program faster China is anxious for war. Her popula- appropriate billions of additional dollars,
and more efficiently. It would be false tion is increasing rapidly and in a few and place new plans on the drawing
economy not to make-full use of the years will reach a billion people. She board. We now had to build a 124-
latest advances in sophisticated commu- can, afford to lose a half billion popula- group Air Force. I have wished many
nications and manned weaponry. A tion to win a war. The United States times that this 70-group Air Force had
short time ago, Col. John Glenn indi- cannot possibly win a ground war with been built promptly. Had this hap-
cated the significant advantages of man- the millions of Red Chinese soldiers. pened, I believe the Korean war would
directed systems. Furthermore, ap- Mr. Chairman, by 1970 the only deter- have been averted, 33,000 American lives
proval of the committee's action in this rent to Red Chinese aggression could be saved, and billions of American dollars
instance in no way constitutes an irre- a powerful RS-10 strategic bomber com- not to mention the other hundreds of
vocable commitment to a later multi- mand. With the outbreak of war, a thousands killed and wounded in Korea.
billion dollar production program-but powerful RS-70 command might be our Sometimes men are so close to their
only buys valuable leadtime should only means to stop such an avalanche profession that. they can not see some
mass production be required. Whether of manpower pouring into southeast of the simple, basic, elemental truisms.
its prototype performance and later de- Asia. It is quite possible that,in such a I believe this was true of many of our
veloped counterweapons will dictate struggle Russia may remain neutral. great military leaders following World
squadron procurement, time will tell, but She may deny Red China the use of her War I when the great and incomparable
if we are to have any bomber program, air defense forces. It will be many years Billy Mitchell was court-martialed for
and I believe we should, it should pro- before China will or can develop ade- pointing out obvious facts about the
teed now and with all possible speed quate defense against strategic bombing. future role of aircraft in war. -Back
and efficiency. In addition to a lack of technicians, through the history of this great Nation,
Surely Congress was intended by the China does not have the billions of dol- many Members of Congress were ahead
Constitution and is expected by our peo- lars necessary to create the air defense of the time and could see into the future
ple to have more than a veto power over necessary to even remotely challenge the with uncanny accuracy relating to fu-
military programs. In this bill we are RS-70. We must not fall into the fatal ture instrumentalities of war. One
not trying to usurp prerogatives of the error of being hypnotized by the bombast Member of this Congress expressed great
Executive, but are solemnly exercising of Khrushchev. We must not permit shock when conferring with the Presi-
our constitutional duty "to raise and our whole attention to be attracted by dent in the late thirties he noticed min-
maintain the armed force necessary for him and his dazzling feats in space. All iature battleships and cruisers on the
the preservation of our Nation." If Con- of this may just be designed to divert President's desk. This Congressman
gress has a firm conviction that any af- our attention while the Red Chinese trembled with fear for the future secu-
firmative action is necessary or desirable. amass their forces to conquer southeast rity of our country and told the Presi-
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
4328 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE March 21
dent that airplanes could sink those reading of the language: "Congress shall ware in the next 12 months. I am cer-
battleships and cruisers. The President have the power to raise and support tain that there is no one in this body
laughed and said impossible. A few armies" has, to this simple country law- who would not prefer, if the safety of
years later, America learned the hard yer, a fairly clear meaning. Raise means the country permitted It, that this money
and tragic way early one Sunday morn- get the men-support means get them and these efforts be devoted to activi-
ing, December 7, the place Pearl Harbor, the equipment they need. It does not ties forwarding the peaceful advance of
The Congress was right in 1947; the mean to tell them where, or how, or human society.
experts .and the executive branch were when to use it; that would be the re- But the present state of the world
dead wrong. Billy Mitchell and many sponsibility of the Commander in Chief. precludes such action on our part and
Congressmen were right; the experts But the constitutional issue is being by- requires the action that we must take
and executive leaders were dead wrong. passed, which brings us to the experts. here today. The refusal of the Soviet
I believe today that we must conquer The experts in the Defense Depart- Union to agree to any meaningful pro-
space. We can not predict future mili- ment say they do not need the money visions for international disarmament
tary science and tactics on concepts and cannot spend the money to further make it necessary that we authorize the
of the past. We must prepare for war in the development of the RS-70 aircraft, program this legislation encompasses.
space. We must master pushbutton The experts in the Air Force say they In a word this bill represents a major
warfare; but, Mr. Chairman, while we can use the money advantageously; not part of the price of freedom (luring the
are preparing for this war of the future, waste it, not squander it, not spend it next 12 months. Anything else, any re-
we must be prepared for the war of the uselessly, but spend it usefully toward duction of the level of effort provided in
immediate future. We must be ready the day when a new generation of this bill would make it impossible for us
during this transitory period. We must manned strategic aircraft will come into to reasonably guarantee so far as we can
bear in mind Red China and the Far being. If there is anything which the the security and freedom of our country
East. magnificent exploit of John Glenn and her ability to meet commitments to
Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield taught me, it is that in the most ad- friendly nations.
5 minutes to the gentleman from New vanced of systems, man is not yet ob- The fiscal year 1963 request for total
York [Mr. PIKE]. solete. new obligational authority for the entire
(Mr. PIKE asked and was given per- As between the experts who will have Department of Defense totals over $50
mission to revise and extend his re- to fly the plane and those who will sim- billion. Of this amount, the adminis-
marks.) ply watch it go by, I will cast my lot with tration, as has been indicated to you, re-
Mr. PIKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank those who are prepared to risk their quested $12,481 million under section
the gentleman from Lairman for lives in manning it. I have learned, to 412(b) of Public Law 86149. The com-
yield- my sorrow, that no experts are infallible. mittee, as my colleagues have already
ing me this time to speak on this highly This Year's experts are next year's ex- outlined in detail, has increased this re-
important bill. No one knows better experts.
than our able and eloquent chairman, Two years ago, quest by money eve00 a then sueand
the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. ViN- plane being built in the my own experts called district the even sum eve o for oney even 000 these times ;and
soN] , that I dislike not like this bill. On the fothis great Nation.
sontrary, I dlike it thoroughly-for best fighter-bomber available. Today I regret to find myself in a position of
they are saying that a plane which has advocating-that any aspect of this or any
most primitive reason. It is going to been available for 4 years was really bet- other budget recommendation be in-
mean serious economic dislocation for ter all along. It just took the experts 4 creased. I would rather be a party to a
the district I represent. A very major years to find out. So I am not over- cutting of the budget recommendations.
procurement which the so-called experts whelmed by the word "expert." I am Indeed, we hope that cuts may be pos-
at the Pentagon were talking about impressed by the fact that in a nation sible in other aspects of the Department
speeding up as recently as last fall is where we feel obliged to produce new of Defense allocation which will balance
being cut back this legislation. So I models of every make car every year out this half billion dollar increase in
do not like this bill one bit. But I for the pleasure of our people, we have the present bill.
respect this bill. I will offer no amend- not produced a new strategic aircraft As a matter of fact, unbalanced
ments seeking to continue production since the B-58 for the benefit of those budgets and deficit spending represent,
of a wonderful aircraft. The fight was who risk their lives daily to keep us free. in my opinion, a threat to the future of
made in the committee. Anyone who If we pass this bill and spend the this country which is second only to the
cares can find it in the hearings, but money authorized we will still not have danger of our encountering a military
the fight was lost. The fight was not a new bomber until 1967 or 1968. By disaster should "our deterrent power be
made on any political considerations or that time our newest bombers will be 6 allowed to lag. Accordingly, it is only
on any economic considerations or on or 7 years old. I hope that regardless of because I am convinced that the safety
any consideration other than what I be- the semantics involved, the RS-70 proj- of my country requires it that I can bring
lieve would provide the best defense for ect is pushed forward as rapidly as myself in the belief there Is no alterna-
America at the least cost to America. I possible. tive but to say that we must pass this
lost. So, I rise in support of a bill that I urge the support of this bill, and bill with the additional $584 million iii-
I do not like, a bill that may mean that state that I would have been happy to. eluded. The extra money will expedite
I shall not survive to support next year's support it in its stronger language. the modernization and mobility of our
military appropriation bill. I do so Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield Army. It will provide the necessary re-
lady because there is at issue, in this such time as he may require to the gen- search, development, test and evaluation
bill a principle far more important than to enable us to substantially expedite the
the survival of any number of freshmen tleman from Missouri [Mr. HALL].
Congressmen. The question is this: Can (Mr. HALL asked and was given per- time when we can exercise that
Congress only say that we have too much seems ission to extend his remarks at that seem a fleet of RS-70 the 7 aircraft, if option that
desirable.
strength, or can it also say we have too point in the RECORD following the re- Mr. Chairman, I urge the passage of
little? Can it only pull up on the reins marks of Mr. BECHER.) the bill with these authorizations intact.
air can it apply the spurs? Those who Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield
say that Congress has no greater power 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ver- 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
than to say "no" occasionally base their mont [Mr. STAFFORD]. [Mr. CLANCY].
position on one of two theories: First, Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. Chairman, I (Mr. CLANCY asked and was given
is the constitutional question; and, sec- rise to urge the passage of H.R. 9751. I 'permission to revise and extend his re-
end, there is the argument that no one recognize that it authorizes the expen.di- marks.)
should question the experts at the ture of an enormous sum-$13,065,772,- Mr. CLANCY. Mr. Chairman, I rise
Pentagon. 000 for ships, planes, and aircraft for in support of H.R. 9751, which provides
Mr. Chairman, as to the first, there the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1962. for the authorization of $13,065,772,000
are better qualified constitutional law- I feel certain that all of us regret the for the procurement of aircraft, ships,
yers than I among the Members to chal- necessity for devoting so much of our and missiles. This amount is $584,672,-
lenge the constitutional lawyers who treasure, our energy, and our intelli 000 more than was provided for in the bill
apparently abound in the Pentagon. A gence to the production of military hard- that was originally resented to Con-
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006 p8
 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
1
gress. The greatest part of this addition, Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5
$491 million is for the RS-70 program. minutes to the gentleman from Iowa
The adoption of this legislation will [Mr. GROSS].
assure the people of this Nation that we (Mr. GROSS asked and was given per-
.are intent upon maintaining a military mission to revise and extend his re
posture that is more than sufficient to marks.)
deter aggression on the part of the Mr. GROSS: Mr. Chairman, I have
adversaries of freedom. listened attentively to all of the discus
The adoption of this legislation will sion this afternoon with the exception
further insure that the United States has of about 5 minutes for a sandwich and a
the capability of deterring the use of cup of coffee. I have heard repeatedly
mass destruction weapons that our of a wonderful compromise that has
potential enemies possess at this time. been worked out on the bill by the House
In evaluating and reappraising our Armed Services Committee and how the
defense posture, we are concerned with House is winning its point. I guess I
the threat to our security which exists subscribe to and read too many news-
as a result of the tremendous progress papers. I had been reading for days
that has been made in the technology of about the struggle to the death between
mass destruction. the colossus of the South and the colos-
We must have in our military in- sus of the Northeast on the subject of
ventory sufficient weapons and force that the big bomber. But I found when I
will survive an initial massive nuclear arrived on the House floor this noon
attack and be capable of delivering a that although the House Armed Services
decisive counterblow. We have the Committee had voted unanimously orig-
capability of doing this today. inally to direct the Secretary of Defense
We should make every effort that can to spend $491 million for the RS-70 that
reasonably be made to strengthen these this was not the last word. I learned
vital retaliatory forces that we now have that overnight the gentleman from
at our command. This bill will contrib- Georgia had trod the primrose path to
ute greatly to the defense posture that is the White House and the signals had
necessary and one which we should been changed. I am not aware of an-
maintain in the best interests of this other all night twist party at the White
Nation. House last night. At any rate I came
the House floor this noon and found
t
o
it is imperative, however, that we have
a mixed striking force of proper propor- that the word "direct" would no longer thi sr is the n t a compromise; it is a
Representa-
It is for this reason that I whole- be used in this legislation to force the Pe
heartedly support the committee action Secretary of Defense to spend $491 mil- fives.
with respect to the RS-70 program. The lion for development of the RS-70 minutes GAVIN the ge Mr. air from ield 10
capabilities and tremendous value of bomber.
manned bombers have been demon- I went to the dictionary a little while igan [Mr. FORD].
strated time and time again, and we ago, for it was apparent the alleged com- . (Mr. FORD to revise annd wextend his as given per-
should not neglect the manned bomber promise has been worked out on the mission re-
program in the future. basis of two words. I went to the diction- marks.)
I disagree with the administration ary to look up the difference between Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, in all of
that the RS-70 should not be carried "direct" and "authorize." "Direct" is the debate that I, have listened to this
forward at this time as a full scale absolute; "authorize" is discretionary, as afternoon I have not heard anybody
weapon system development. we all know in the House when we quote the precise language which is in
Military experts recognize important vote authorizations for appropriations. basic controversy, or was in basic con-
advantages in a mixed missile and bomb- There is nothing mandatory upon the troversy I should say, up until this
er - force. The principal advantage of Appropriations Committee to provide morning.
the RS-70 is its ability to operate under the amount suggested in any authoriza- This language on page 2 of H.R. 9751,
positive control and to deliver a large tion bill. One is absolute; the other is which was in controversy, reads:
number of nuclear weapons in a single completely discretionary. For the Air Force, $3,626 million, of which
sortie. It is highly maneuverable, can Then there was a letter from the the Secretary of the Air Force is directed to
employ tactics and does not have to fly President read into the RECORD this utilize authorization in an amount not less
o
over or into the target. It also possesses afternoon. Let me read just a few words than d with 91 milli oduu ionri planning anc163 to
the advantage of having a human being from this letter from the President. pro
aboard to exercise judgment consistent "I must, therefore, insist upon the full leadtime procurement for an RS-70 weapon
system.
with changing environment. powers and discretion$," and so on.
It will have extraordinary reconnais- Is there anything mandatory about I want to go on record, as I have in
sance aids which will permit the study that? Of course there is. "I must in- the past, as being unalterably opposed
of targets in detail and report the condi- sist upon the full powers of the executive to that language. I do agree there was
tion of same after an ICBM strike. It branch of government," is what the Pres- no harm in the Committee on Armed
could then go in to finish a job. Its tre- ident is saying in effect. Services recommending an authoriza-
mendous capabilities are vital to and will What kind of a compromise are we tion of $491 million for the RS-70 pro-
greatly complement our strategic mili- engaged in here this afternoon? What gram. Such a dollar authorization
tary posture. kind of fight is the Committee on Armed would not be objectionable. But I want
The budget that was submitted to us Services winning? What kind of fight it to be very clear that the language
by President Eisenhower in January of is the House of Representatives winning, directing the Secretary of the Air Force,
1961 provided that the then B-70 pro- for this involves all of us? and in effect the Commander in Chief,
gram be continued as a full weapons Then I read the report accompanying is wrong for a number of reasons,
system development. this bill, and I found this: First, it would have invaded the re-
We shall continue to make every ef- To any student of government, it is sponsibilities and the jurisdiction of the
fort to have the present administration eminently clear that the role of- the Commander in Chief, the President of
recommend the RS-70 development as a Congress in determining national policy, the United States. This would have
full weapons system. We sincerely hope defense or otherwise, has deteriorated been, in my judgment, an unconstitu-
that the study which is to be conducted over the years. tional invasion of the responsibilities of
by the Defense Department will result in I agree with the distinguished gentle- the Chief Executive. Secondly, the
an acceleration of the day in which the man from Georgia, the chairman of the language would have usurped the appro-
our becomes operational and part of Committee true. Armed
You can scarcely turn Appropriations. Thfirdthe ly, thisnlanguage
our inventory. absolutely
4329
a page of H.R. 8400, the foreign give-
away bill, last year, but what you find
powers delegated to the executive branch
of the Government that ought to have
been retained by Congress.
The concluding paragraph entitled,
"Deterioration of the Role of Congress,"
reads:
Perhaps this is the time, and the RS-70
is the occasion, to reverse this trend. Per-
haps this is the time to reexamine the role
and function of Congress and discover
whether it is playing the part that the
Founding Fathers ordained that it should.
Those are beautiful words, those are
significant words. What now? Will
you, before the afternoon is over, ask
that these words be expunged from the
report? I think that would be most fit-
ting. I do not believe they belong in this
report under any such compromise with
the executive branch as is being sug-
gested.
I say that Members of Congress
and the public had been led to believe
that here was a fight that would settle
the question of separation of powers as
between Congress and the executive
branch of government.
I intend to support the bill for I be-
lieve this country must have incompa-
rable defenses, but I deeply regret that
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
4330 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE March 21
would have created inflexibility in the tee back and going into the matter fur- its prerogatives. I do not want those
management of the RS-70 program they. of us who are members of the Commit-
which undoubtedly would have led or Mr. FORD. I will rely entirely on the tee on Appropriations drafting legisla-
conceivably would have led to harm and wisdom of the chairman in conference tion on an appropriation bill. I op-
detriment to the program rather than to correct this very awkward sounding posed It in every instance that I can
helping and assisting it. Inflexibility in sentence. recall. On the other hand, I do not
such a complicated weapon system would Mr. VINSON. Yes; it might be car- think it is the prerogative of the Com-
hamstring the responsible management rected in conference, i will say, before it mittee on Armed Services to invade the
in the Air Force. becomes law. I assure you there I will jurisdiction of the Committee on Appro-
May I say to my highly respected try to improve on the sentence. priations. This language, if it had been
friend, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Mr. FORD. I thank the gentleman. approved in its original form, would
ViNSON], that if he is going to make a Mr. Chairman, I would like to take ex- have been an invasion of the authority
change in this committee amendment, ception to some remarks made in the of the Appropriations Committee.
to just change the word "directed" to committee report. I earnestly request I am just as jealous that the Congress
"authorized" the result will be. an awk- that members of the committee read this not invade the jurisdiction of the Chief
ward sentence. report, starting on page 3, under the Executive. Mr. Chairman, the gentle-
Mr. VINSON. I grant you that is heading "Manned Bombers" and running man from New York [Mr. BECKEB] ear-
true. We are trying to make as little through page 9. her pointed out that President Kennedy
change as possible. The committee report says in one has sought by one means or another to
Mr. FORD. It is a very awkward heading on page 5: "Disregard of Con- gain greater authority over the raising
sentence. If the gentleman makes that gressional Will." On page 6 the com- or lowering of taxes. The President cur-
change, could the gentleman in. his wis- mittee cites 13 Instances, beginning with rently wants some authority in a stand-
dom and good judgment revise the lan- fiscal year 1956, and running through by fashion to institute a vast public
guage of that sentence so we at least fiscal year 1961, where the Executive has works program. I strongly disapprove of
will have a decent-sounding sentence in refused to do what the Congress has this authority in either of those cases,
any law? directed. and I will not vote for them.
Mr. VINSON. Well, I think in view Mr. Chairman, I do not question the On the other hand, I do not want the
Of the letter from the President, when validity of those figures. But on the Congress to usurp and take from the
he uses a word, that 4s the word I adopt. other hand I made a check to see how Chief Executive authority that is his.
Of course, there are different words we many times during this same 6-year pe- And so the amendment to this language,
,could-adopt. We could just put a period riod the Executive has followed the di- as originally proposed, is sound.
after the figure and strike out the bal- rection of the Congress on military Now I should like to ask my good
ance, but I do not want to do that, be- matters. It is interesting to see, if one friend, the chairman of this committee,
cause I wanted the relationship of the will look at the record, that during this when he offers this amendment to
RS-70 to the money figure to be re- same period of time the executive change the language from. "direct" to
flected. It may not be exactly accurate branch of the Government has followed "authorize," whether or not he will agree
from a grammatical standpoint, but the recommendations of the Congress that this part of the language in the
nevertheless it is good enough from a 28 times in toto. In nine cases out of committee report Is also revised; and
legal standpoint, so I hope, therefore, this same period of time the executive let me read it from page 9:
that the gentleman will not be too tech- branch of the Goverment followed the Lest there be any doubt as to what the
nical and concur in the amendment. recommendations of the Congress more RS-70 amendment means let it be said that
Mr. FORD. I am always proud of the than 50 percent. So, Mr. Chairman, it means exactly what it says; i.e., that the
handiwork we do on the floor of the the Chief Executive, whether it was for- Secretary of the Air Force, as an o?mclal of
House and in committee, and I am very inter President Eisenhower, or President the executive branch, is directed, ordered,
gthe full
disappointed, I will say to my friend, Kennedy, far more times has followed amount ont of and 91 1 million to utilize
ranted
when we do something that is awkward, the recommendations of Congress on Pceedhw$h production plaannnninng planning and
l0
that does not meet the standards that he military matters than he has not. So, long leadtime procurement for an RS-70
and others establish in the drafting of I am not convinced at all as to the weapon system."
legislation. If you just change the word validity of the statement made on page Are you changing this when you
"directed" to "authorized," it leaves a 6 of this committee report on the con- change the language by the amendment?
very awkward sentence. ejusion made therefrom. Mr. VINSON. Of course, when you
Mr. VINSON. Well, that may be true. Mr. Chairman, I must say that I agree use the word "direct" that argument is
Let me read it: "of which the Secretary in other portions with the committee re- sound and logical. When you use the
of the Air Force is authorized to utilize port. Nothing is more obnoxious in my word "authorize" it would not be applica-
authorizations." opinion than to have someone in the ble to the section the gentleman has
Mr. FORD. That does not sound very executive branch of the Government, just quoted.
well. whether he is in the Defense Depart- Mr. FORD. I am delighted to hear
Mr. VINSON. Well, that might not be ment or the Department of Agriculture, the gentleman say that when you
exactly up to the latest and most proper place a halo over his head and decide change the language from "direct" to
phraseology, but nevertheless if I do it on his own that all the wisdom in the "authorize" that this part of the com-
the other way, then I lose entirely the world exists in his Department. mittee report is no longer applicable.
connection of the $491 million with the AN, nhe;?? +s,:., ,.,,?,.--__
1bV-' V. have a good record, and the facts which guished gentlemen of the Committee on
Mr. FORD. May I respectfully sug- I recited before prove it. They have Appropriations. I am pleased at the
Best that you write it this way: "of which followed our recommendations, in toto, high compliment the gentleman paid the
the Secretary of the Air Force is au- 23 times in this 5- or 6-year period. report. I do think it is a very fine re-
thorized $491 million during fiscal year They have followed our reeommenda- port and I point with lasting pride to the
1963 to proceed with the production, tions substantially in nine more 'in- reports of the Armed Services Commit-
planning, and long-time procurement stances. tee. I trust there is enough of informa-
for RS-70 weapon systems." Mr. Chairman, I think that the Con- tion in the report to cause him to con-
Mr. VINSON. This question was gress would have been unwise to ap- tinue to give his strong and loyal
raised in the committee this morning, prove the language "directs" because it support to the RS-70 concept.
and all that the gentleman says was un- would have caused trouble between two Mr. FORD. I do agree with the RS-
der consideration. The thought of the great committees, the Committee on 70 concept. Our House subcommittee
committee was that we wanted to tie this Armed Services, and the Committee on on military appropriations last year, as
in, that is, the $491 million, with the Appropriations. I am very jealous of the gentleman may remember, did not
RS-70 program. I trust that the gentle- the prerogatives of my committee, the accept President Kennedy's cutback in
man will go along with the committee. Committee on Appropriations. I am the program. We stuck with former
I cannot now change the committee very envious that the Committee on President Eisenhower's dollar amount of
amendment without calling the commit- Armed Services exercise to the fullest $358 million.
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
1962 CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD - HOUSE 4331
Mr. VINSON. That is right. Mr. FORD. Not at all. As a matter of go to the House Appropriations Commit-
Mr. FORD. I must say I have not fact, I think I am saying quite the con- tee.
passed judgment on whether we should trary. I just want to clarify what this I respectfully suggest that in my
have $171 million or $491 million for the letter said. humble judgment the wording of the bill
fiscal year 1963. Our committee has not I want to commend the committee for in line 2, page 2, would be in substantial
marked up our bill and it would be pre- making the change, and I will support contravention of the jurisdiction of the
mature on my part to make any such them despite the awkwardness of the House Appropriations Committee, un-
decision at this point. sentence because I think we are now do- less the word "direct" is stricken. The
Mr. VINSON. Yes; but I was refer- ing what this committee and this House very honorable, timely, and constructive
ring to the fact that in last year's de- ought to do at this time. adjustment made yesterday afternoon
bate, the gentleman so clearly pointed , Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Chairman, I have late by the President of the United
out the justification for a continued no further requests for time. States and the Secretary of Defense in
appropriation for the then B-70. I Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Chairman, I -yield conference with our distinguished Armed
trust he will follow the same logical such time as he may require to the gen- Services Committee chairman, the gen-
course this year with the RS-70. tleman from Oklahoma [Mr. WICKER- tleman from Georgia, the Honorable
I think he was right then and I hope SHAM]. CARL VINSON, all of whom met at the
he will continue on the beaten path he Mr. WICKERSHAM, Mr. Chairman, White House on yesterday, is very pleas--
has already laid out. as a member of the House Armed Serv- ing and inspiring to me. This is because
- Mr. FORD. May I comment on this ices Committee, I have, for a long this important incident in the history of
letter from Secretary McNamara to the period of time, urged the continuation our legislative and Executive depart-
chairman. This letter is a very care- of the research, development, and ac- ment responsibilities again gives crystal
fully drawn letter. May I read it so tual production of the B-70, and later, clear evidence of the fact that our con-
there is no misapprehension on any- the RS-70 on a 24-hour-a-day, round- stitutional form of government can and
body's part who heard it earlier: the-clock basis. does work efficiently and with utmost ac-
This study will give full consideration to The passage of this measure means cord between these department set up
the magnitude of the committee program continued life, rather than an ap- by our constitutional frameworkers
and the depth with which the committee preaching death, not only to the RS-70 when there is an actual emergency aris-
has emphasized this. program and the manned bomber pro- ing either by way of important differ-
Here is the real guts of the letter: gram, but the life of the Air Force itself. ences of opinion, or by way of any other
Furthermore, if technological develop- Also, a much longer life for our valuable 'emergency which should be cooperatively
ments related to sideview radar, and associ- SAC bases. understood and honorably adjusted.
ated data processing and display systems, The overwhelming majority of the Having sat all through this important
advance more rapidly than we anticipatd debate from the very beginning until this
When the fiscal 1963 Defense budged was committee not only favored this measure minute in the debate, and with the clos-
prepared, we will wish to take advantage but favored the continued production ing of the debate within the next few
of these advances by increasing our develop- line of the B-52 until sufficient RS-70's it appears to me there will be
votes "nay be
ment expenditures; and we would then wish are available to replace them. minutesa very, sparse number me
to expend whatever proportions of any in The result of the agreement that has This is as I believe it should be; as it
crease voted by the Congress these advances been reached means increased stature for must be, and in the best interests-of our
in radar technology would warrant. Gen. Curtis LeMay and Secretary of
national defense. Therefore, I shall
There is not a scintilla of evidence in the Air Force, Eugene Zuckert. vote to approve the bill on its merits and
this letter that the Secretary of Defense The enactment of this well-considered on the deletion of the word "direct" on
is going to recommend the procurement bill means more security and less inse- M its merits. I cordially compliment our
of aircraft four, five, and six in either curity for the free world. distinguished committee chairman, the
the B-70 or the RS-70 configuration. Furthermore, it means that the Pres- gentleman from Georgia, the Honorable
All he has said is we are taking a look ident, in 'his wisdom, has remembered CARL VINSON, who has served in this
to see whether in the radar and sub- some of the lessons he learned while a great legislative body for 48 years last
system components program we should U.S. Representative and as a Senator, past.
spend more money in fiscal year 1963. and, consequently, has followed to a I repeat, I compliment all in connec-
All the testimony before our commit- great degree, the wishes of the legislative tion with this timely adjustment of sin-
tee is to the effect that if there is an branch-the Congress, cere and responsible differences of opin-
expanded program in this area, all they our action here today, and the un- ion. I believe my Armed Services Com-
will spend is an additional $10 million to derstanding that has been reached, will mittee has achieved its purposes in main-
$30 million in fiscal year 1963. This they enhance the future of the Nike-Zeus pro- taining its responsibilities in the prem-
can easily get from the emergency fund duction. and I honor the executive depart-
.
or from the contingency fund, $30 mil- This measure will act as a further de- merit of our Government for maintain-
lion in the contingency fund and $150 ing its constitutional responsibilities
.
million in the emergency fund. terrent to the Communist world likewise.
Mr. COHELAN. Mr. Chairman, will Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield (Mr. DOYLE asked and was given per-
the gentleman yield? such time as he may require to the gen- mission to revise and extend his re-
Mr. FORD. I yield to the gentleman tleman from California [Mr. DOYLE]. marks.)
from California. Mr. DOYLE_ Mr. Chairman, I rise, to (Mr. COHELAN asked and was given
Mr. COHELAN. The gentleman un- express my approval of the proposed permission to revise and extend his re-
derstands, however, that the Secretary change of the text of the bill before the marks.)
intends to spend that money provided House by striking the word "direct" at Mr. COHELAN. Mr. Chairman, I
the breakthroughs in this radar area line 2, page 2, from the text of the bill want to take this opportunity to offer
.should come through. What is wrong and substituting the word "authorize." my high compliments to our distin-
with that? This I believe is in accord with the ac- guished chairman, the gentleman from
Mr. FORD. Nothing is wrong with tual situation as it exists under our con- 'Georgia [Mr. VINSON], for the wisdom
that, but some people got the impression stitutional form of government because and judgment he has once again demon-
and some people said to me after the let- the Commander in Chief, who is always strated in the handling of this most com-
ter was read that the Secretary, in ef- the President of the United States, is the plex and difficult problem.
feet, was saying that he was going to sole elective officer who can actually di- Our country is blessed in these difficult
push with aircraft four, five, and six. rect what shall be done with the money times with outstanding leaders in every
He did not say that. which we in Congress authorize to be ex- branch of our remarkable system of gov-
Mr. COHELAN. That is quite per- pended. It is his constitutional respon- ernment. The President and his most
rect. The gentleman would not, cer, sibility to do that; it is our constitu- brilliant and distinguished Secretary of
tainly, as a member of the Appropria- tional responsibility as the Armed Serv- Defense, Mr. Robert McNamara, have
tions Committee suggest that the House ices Commitee to authorize an amount, acted with discretion and restraint in
burn dollar bills just to get this program and which authorizing action by our keeping with their awesome responsi-
going. Armed Services Committee must then bilities.
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
4332 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE
I congratulate all parties to this great
public debate for their superb leader-
ship.
Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may require to the gen-
tleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
BOLAND).
(Mr. BOLAND asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks at this point.)
Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I am
very pleased to hear from the distin-
guished chairman of the Armed Services
Committee, the gentleman from Georgia
[Mr. VixsoN], that an agreement has
been reached with respect to the B-70
bomber, now known as the RS-70.
Otherwise, I would be opposed to the
Armed Services Committee's original
recommendation, which, in effect directs
the President of the United States to
build the bomber. Here we get into a
deep constitutional question.
President Kennedy has said that this
aircraft is too costly, with a price tag
conservatively estimated at over $10
billion, and it will be obsolete for mili-
tary purposes before it is ready to fly.
Mr. Chairman, the Congress should
not command nor should the. Congress
direct the President on how to arm the
military forces for the missions the
President decides are in the national in-
terest. The President is the one person
in government and in the Nation with
all of the facts and intelligence at his
fingertips. He is the man who has to
make the big decisions on weapons. He
is the man who knows whether or not it
is worth the cost of billions of dollars for
a weapon which may be obsolete before
it is placed in the national arsenal. And
the President is the man. who has access
to secret information which may be the
cornerstone of his final decision.
I am sure my colleagues will agree
with me that no President will gamble
our national security and preservation
to save dollars. Neither does any Presi-
dent want to embark on a crash program
of bomber construction when he knows
the weapon will be obsolete in a few
years hence. Yet, the Armed Services
Committee originally recommended in
its report "that the Secretary of the Air
Force, as an official of the executive
branch, is directed, ordered, mandated,
and required to utilize the full amount
of the $491 million authority granted to
proceed with production planning and
long leadtime procurement for an RS-70
weapon system."
Mr. Chairman, I believe that Congress
should carry out the intent of the Found-
ing Fathers who drafted the Constitu-
tion, and that we limit our activity to the
traditional and time-tested role of "ad-
vise and consent" and "to investigate
and propose."
President Kennedy and Secretary of
Defense McNamara, after taking office
last year, approached the B-70 bomber
controversy with an open mind. Their
investigation showed that the B-70 never
enjoyed the full support of President
Eisenhower, his Secretary of Defense, his
principal civilian advisers nor the Joint
Chiefs of Staff as a corporate body. In
fact, the only consistent supporter of the
B-70 program was the Air Force. The
March 21
secretaries and chiefs of the other or delay the successful development of
services, whether under the Kennedy ad- the RS-70 program.
ministration or the Eisenhower adminis- Earlier in debate, an effort' was made
tration, never supported the B-70 for to create the impression that Mr. Ken-
full weapon system development or pro- nedy supported the RS-70 program as
curement and, indeed, many vigorously a candidate for the Presidency, but has
opposed it. So, it is a matter of record now reversed his position. The President
that the B-70 has long been considered has not changed his position. The
a very doubtful proposition, with the President believes In the development of
weight of competent scientific, technical this RS-70 program. The question in-
years.
President Kennedy and Secretary
McNamara have not closed their minds
to the B-70, or RS-70, problem. They
feel that by continuing our XB-70 pro-
gram of three prototype aircraft and by
proceeding with the exploratory develop-
ment of the key subsystems of the pro-
posed RS-70 for which funds have been
included in the 1963 budget, they will
have open to them the option of produc-
ing and deploying an RS-70 system at a
later time if the need for such a system
should become apparent.
Mr. Chairman, since the key subsys-
tems of the aircraft have yet to be de-
veloped, delaying the decision for 1 year
would not postpone the real operational
readiness of the first wing at all. But,
President Kennedy and Secretary Mc-
Namara, after thoroughly reviewing all
aspects of the problem, have decided
that the RS-70 program will not add
significantly to our strategic retaliatory
capability in the period after 1967.
Therefore, I am extremely pleased that
a compromise has been worked out and
the original committee recommendation
has been substituted.
lion can be spent in this fiscal year. It
was the judgment of the President's ad-
visers that this money could not be
spent at this time because the entire
program is not sufficiently advanced to
justify this large appropriation at the
time and that, therefore, there was no
sense in throwing the budget out of bal-
ance for fiscal 1963. For these reasons I
think both these men have reached an
excellent compromise which will actually
speed up basic research and development
in this program.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the long-
range manned bomber is still our first
line of defense. The Strategic Air Com-
mand has provided for our Nation and
the entire free world, the greatest deter-
rent to war that we ever had. There is
no question in my mind that if Mr.
Khruschev is twisting and turning today
and starting all sorts of local provoca-
tiohs and has not touched off a third
world war, it is only because he Is mind-
ful of the awesome strength, the defense,
the retaliatory power that the United
States has in its manned bombers in the
Strategic Air Command. Let there be
no mistake. Our manned bombers can
Mr. HEBFRT. Mr. Chairman, I obliterate the Soviet Union if Mr.
yield Khruschev is foolish enough to violate
5 minutes to the gentleman from Illi- the peace at this time. No one knows
nois [Mr. PUCrNSxiJ. this better than Mr. Khruschev himself.
(Mr. PUCINSKI asked and was given It was my honor to lead ray bomber
permission to revise and extend his group in the first B-29 raid over Tokyo
remarks.) in World War II. It was also my privi-
Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise lege to serve under General LeMay who
in support of the bill H.R. 9751, as I was commanding general of the 20th
understand it will be amended by the Global Air Force in World War II. I
committee. I congratulate the chair- think that General LeMay is one of the
man of the committee, the distinguished greatest military leaders this country
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. VINSON], has ever produced. Millions of Ameri-
and the members of his committee for can soldiers were spared the horror of in-
calling to the attention of the American vading Japan's rocky shores because
people the tremendously important con- General Lemay helped bring the war in
sequence of a successful development of Japan to a successful conclusion with
the RS-70 weapons system. I think massive bombing raids under. his per-
the American people owe .this commit- sonal leadership and supervision. The
tee a del-et of gratitude for bringing this Defense Department will be wise in seek-
subject to the attention of the entire Ing his continued counsel. Like him, I
Nation. But with equal conviction, Mr. believe we must go forward with this
Chairman, I think the President of the long-range manned bomber program.
United States deserves a great deal of We should make all the progress we can
credit and the Nation owes him a debt in missilry, but we cannot for one mo-
of gratitude for proposing a compromise ment weaken our manned bomber pro-
formula and a solution which, indeed, grain.
will move - this important program Reference has been made here today to
forward. Earlier, Mr. Chairman, during Colonel Glenn and the fact that he
debate today, some doubt was cast upon stated right from this podium that if
the wisdom of the compromise language human beings had not been in the space
which was agreed upon by the chairman vehicle he controlled, the mission might
of the Committee on Armed Services and not have been successfully accomplished.
the President. It is my judgment that Perhaps we should also recall another
President Kennedy and Chairman VIN- incident last year when we launched the
soN have demonstrated that reasonable spy-in-the-sky satellite, Tiros. It was
men can reach reasonable agreements, designed to give us information about
under the democratic processes in our weather and to give us other informa-
Republic. The compromise proposed by tion that we need about various parts of
President Kennedy will in no way deter the world from a military standpoint.
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
 Approved For Release 2003/10/10.: CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
1962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 4333
You will all recall that on that particular manned weapon; systems in our future aero- to produce it or not. Just that time-
flight, somebody had forgotten to prop- space program. There is no question, for sensitive is this project. It is likewise
erly activate one of the lenses in that example, that this country's defense posture the consensus of much military thinking
will be greatly improved by the phase-in of that our enemy's potentialities for the
space capsule, and the mission failed to effective and reliable ballistic missiles. They future are such that e would be wise the it to
get the information it was designed to are exceptional weapons. Nevertheless, they pons produce. Tiros failed because we relied cannot perform all essential combat tacks. get the S-70 weapon asyptembinto our inventory jt as e.
exclusively This on electronic Again, this is General White speaking: This House cannot afford to let the
This business of relying completely in We will have to rely upon manned weapon RS-70 die on the vine. I repeat: we
on of mm the serving e best i interests of not, of systems to perform vital war functions must issue a mandate that it be put into
y opinionon, , servin ng t the he best which require on-the-spot, trained human work fully and promptly.
this country: We will need human judgment. * * * In any future war, there said by civilians in the
manpower for many years in our struggle is almost certain probability that events It t has has b beeen n saaidn that the financial
for survival. And it is for this reason will not unfold exactly as planned. Thus,
that I am glad the Committee today has there will be a tremendous premium on resources are not adequate to provide us forces, to brought before the House this subject. systems which can look, and find, and re- With the weapons sufficient grouf the ground moforcesdern-
It is most important that research and port, and attack, and return to attack again. ize development go ahead on a manned We will always need systems which can to provide an adequate airlift, to im-
bomber out and destroy mobile targets as plement the RS-70 program in the
bomber that will have the flexibility, that well as fixed or rapidly developing targets
on the manner, or to development embark k full ll speed and speed
will have the maneuverability that it is whose positions are unknown or uncertain proper
needed in our first line of defense. I am until observed. ahead f on
a.
antimissile missile.
sure that every single American wants to , What more powerful a recommenda- But, as I see it, instead of maintaining
have a strong an Establishment, for the RS-70 than that? What adequate ground forces and obtaining
not because it is serves instrument of war greater reason could we give for the essential weapons, the United States has
but because it serves as the n House to issue a mandate that work an been devoting a great portion of its fl-wark my mp but eace. There is is no would question ot greatest t bulin the RS-70 be pushed forward as rapidly nancial resources to foreign aid.
mind inW World Hitler War II in in 1939 if the as possible to completion? The cost of this great weapon is in-
dared start
United an and the f tfree Further consultation with military finitesimal when contrasted with the
d States rest near the the re- experts-with men who ought to know- billions upon billions of dollars we have
ld had had
world anywhere nea t ay. reveals what a wondrous weapon the squandered in lands scattered all around
Therefore pry I power think that every ave today. RS-70 actually will be. We learn that the globe. We say we want to hem in the
o evMember of because of its design? this powerful Communists. There is no better way
Congress worked
and who who up has rt this s on legislation bill weapon will be able to utilize existing than to build the RS-70.
and who will support this profound military and civilian air fields. The air- And it is my observation that Ameri-
Inde contril utionsg one r of
r ation of craft will have intercontinental range cans would be much more content to see
the the most
peace, for preservation which can be expanded to global capac- their tax dollars being used for projects
only because
one language, the Khrushchev understands language of ity with the use of refueling tankers. that will provide for our own safekeeping
only .
f The RS-70 will have all the guidance in time of need.
strength. features of an intercontinental missile- This, the military tells us, the RS-70
a mthe RS-70 and more. The navigation system can will do.
program orderly make a most development
contribution will make and d significant automatically navigate the aircraft to It has been estimated it will cost the
help increase our defense network any point on earth. The digital com- Russians 40 billions of dollars to pre-
new heights perfection. our retaliatory o tr ea- puter provides a rapid solution to both pare a defense against the RS-70, if
new her. Speaker, . For this 75 real will the bombing and navigation equations. they wanted to tackle the job at all.
son, approved overwhelmingly I hope H.R. It can handle more than one target at a This weapons system would give America
Ken- - time and switch targets in a fraction of a a tremendous military show of might at
be approved President with th the
amendment suggested by, Pres second. The RS-70 will have the capa- any spot on the globe in less than 5 hours
reedy and accepted by Chairman VINSON. bility of carrying a multiple and varied time. And, more importantly, it will
Mr. Chairman, as I see it, the princi- weapon load. The flexibility of weapon have a man at the corols.
pal question confronting the House in loads offered by the RS-70 insures us I a a
persuaded that there will never
debate here today is whether the RS-70 the advantage of selection'of the proper
weapons system shall be produced as weapon for each target. be a thinking machine that could be sub-
speedily as possible or whether we shall Are not these powerful arguments that stituted for the human mind in the ac-
abandon perhaps our one most impor- should persuade anyone of the vital role curate and flexible maneuvering of an
tant weapon in the defense posture of of the RS-70 in our defense scheme? air vehicle. We saw a near classic ex-
the United States. The problems that confront the RS- ample of this in the recent space orbit
We hear great wails about economy 40 today are nothing new. General by Colonel Glenn.
everytime the RS-70 is mentioned. And White is the authority for this state As a part of my remarks, Mr. Chair-
all of this at a time when we have thou- ment: man, I wish to include a statement that
sands and thousands of well-trained men, Throughout our history, all bombers have was made by a professional soldier in
called back into duty, who are spending had a hard life. Every system I can think whom I have the utmost confidence.
their time policing up the grounds and of-the B-17, the B-29, the $-36, the B-47, This statement is by Brig. Gen. Bonner
engaged in other nonessential activities., and the B-52-have almost died on the vine, Fellers, U.S. Army, retired. General
As a man of medicine, I know that and yet I submit that each one of those sys- Fellers has had an outstanding career,
when we are ill we consult a doctor. By tems has been the thing that has saved this including a tour of duty as chief of plan-
the same token, I say that when eve are Nation. I ask you to think where we would ping under Gen. Douglas MacArthur in
considering the military might of this be today if we didn't have the B-52's and the Pacific in 1943-44. General Fellers'
Nation we should consult military men B-47 s. statement is as follows:
who are in a position to know.. We can- General White further declares that The only effective free world military shield
not hide behind the cloak of penny- he is absolutely convinced that the same is U.S. nuclear striking power. This is the
pinching when the entire future of. our kind of situation is likely to confront us only decisive force which stands between
country may be at stake. in the future. And he adds: freedom and slavery. it is the only military
.For me, I need turn back only a few Therefore, I say manned weapons systems force which the Kremlin fears.
months to the inspiring and forthright are required from here on out in some pro- Despite these obvious facts, our 1963 de-
testimony of our Air Force chiefs on the portion. That being the case, I would say fense budget fails to insure continuance- of
role of the RS-70. Hear well the words that the B-70 Is the necessity because it is U.S. supremacy in nuclear capability. In-
of Gen. Thomas D. White, then Air Force the latest thing in the state of the art. stead of continuing superior nuclear strik-
ing power-a wholly inadequate conven-
Chief of Staff, when he said: It is General White's expert opinion tional warfare capability is gradually to be
I am deeply concerned with the need to that a delay in producing the RS-70 is substituted. This conventional warfare
maintain a proper mix of manned and un- the difference between whether we ought program is no threat whatsoever to the vast
No. 42-12 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
4334 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --HOUSE March; 21
R
ed Army, submarine fleet, and air force. result in a collision between the legisla- ing it to the Air Force to determine in
Here
1963 is the plbudgetan in the fiscal year tive and executive branches of Govern- the year ahead if we have an adequate
The Minuteman missile production pro- ment. Comment was heard that the stock of ICBM's and Polaris-based mis-
gram is to be cut from 600 to 100 a year. President, as Commander, was in com- siles, and also, B-52's and B-58's, as
The mobile (railway) Minuteman produc- plete command over his forces and that tb give us a powerful nuclear striking
tion is to be cut from 300 to 100. This re- he should not be likened to a general who power. The determination has rightly
duces the total production from about 3,300 has command but cannot dictate the been left to the Department, of Defense
to 900. precise weapons with which his forces with authority to act, and not under
The B-70 bomber program is being re- will be armed. On the other hand, com- a compelling directive, to determine
duced to three-more likely to one-trans- ment was heard that the Congress should whether or not we need this plane to
port type aircraft with no usefulness as a
weapon. The 8-70 would be the most de- not be restricted to simply a passive role send into enemy territory in the event
structive and versatile weapon ever devel- or to supine acquiescense in programs some of our missiles are off target, or in
oped. In 5 hours it could find and destroy handed to it by the Department of De- any event, to determine if this weapon
any target, anywhere. Traveling at 2,000 fense. In preliminary considerations of system is needed to go in and take a look
miles per hour and above 70,000 feet, its this bill there were such comments heard after our missiles have been fired.
probability of penetrating enemy defenses is as "Congress has deteriorated over the Finally, apart from the great cost
nine times that of the B-52. years." In news analyses printed in the which is being charged to the military,
It has been calculated that were a B--70
bomber force in existence, it would cost the press and elsewhere, the Constitution we learned from our visit to the North
Soviets $40 billion to build a defense against was quoted and particularly article I, American plant at Los Angeles, and a
it. section 8, wherein the Congress was personal inspection of the B-70 mockup,
No more B-52 bombers (the backbone of granted powers relating to the armed that much knowledge has been gained
our present striking power) will be built services which all turned upon whether as a result of the research on this faster-
after the current contract runs out in 1962. the Congress could direct the executive than-sound bomber which will yield a
No more B-58's are to be built. branch, and in this case the Secretary dividend and have great value in the field
The F-108 supersonic fighter production
was canceled last year (1960). The F-106 of the Air Force, to utilize an authoriza- of supersonic commercial aircraft for the
now in production will be discontinued upon tion in an amount of not less than $491 future.
completion of the present small contract. million during fiscal year 1962, to pro- Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, we sched
led 1965.e ow0it wawsill beure ai edeuntile1970 leadtime prproduction ocurement) fors thenItS-70 are once aersy that has on cones -
and used for delivery of conventional bombs. weapon system, the controversy that has arisen concern-
Funds for the Dyna-Soar X-16, which has But as is so often true of so much good ing the pace of development of the
already proved that it can orbit and then RS-70, the Air Forces' reconnaissance-
reenter the atmosphere under manual con- legislation, a cojnpromise was at the last strike superbomber. Until recently, this
trot-an advance over Russian develop- moment agreed upon and the word plane has been known as the B-70.
ment-have been cut from $185 to $65 mil- "authorized" was substituted for the The issue at hand is the speed with
lion. word "directed." opose to No more advanced aircraft are to be pro- The final vote reflected the temper of which wl ponary we don. this new
duced. Inferior subsonic aircraft will be the House and the complete agreement and am aawth r.
substituted; 585 such craft are to be built. of every Member present and voting that It acquainted with arguments pam
pre-
For arming them $500 million is to be spent the substitution of words was a wise sented the he son that the d, and I am
annually on old-fashioned conventional still of thopinion that the development
bombs. choice. A collision was averted and a
The atomic warhead production for dike favorable result was reached. The final of the RS-70 could be accelerated in
missiles is being cut back. vote was 403 yeas, and the nays, 0. No accordance
the nce with ton remedForc s I
Air Force research and development for one voted against the authorization bill of the Committee on Armed Forces. I
fiscal year 1963 is cut in half-a $2 billion on a rollcall vote. will try to explain why I have taken this
cut. The only reason we are asking that position,
Turning from nuclear to conventional war- our comments be spread upon the Our Nation, and the free world, con-
fare weapons could be suicidal for us. We RECORD is that in tinues to be faced with a determined and
and the free world are not equipped either connection with an
to deter or to win a war against the Soviets official trip to the Pacific Missile Range aggressive adversary-the Communist
with conventional weapons. On the other at Vandenburgh Air Force Base during monolith. The Communist leaders of the
hand, we can build better planes; we have December, we visited the North Ameri- Soviet Union, and of China, have
better trained crews to fly them; we are not can Aviation plant at Los Angeles and not abandoned their plans for world
committed to a vast land army as is Russia. had the privilege of looking at the B-70 domination. They are determined to
As a consequence, it is readily within our mockup, which is the principal compo- achieve this objective-by every means
capability to create and maintain superior nent of what is now described as the possible, particularly they propose to do
nuclear striking forces. RS-70 weapon system. There are many this by gaining control of space. ,
Despite these well-known facts, within 3
years, present Pentagon planning will pro- details which the Air Force would pre- Just last week, when Soviet Russia or-
vide almost no new U.S. aircraft or missile fer not be commented upon, and some bited its latest satellite, Khrushchev
production. By then, and with our gradual of course are strictly classified, but it can boasted that the Soviet's are develop-
shift from nuclear to conventional capabil- be said that when one leaves the great ing-or have already developed-a global
ity, we shall be at the mercy of the Kremlin. hangar where the mockup is housed, he missile which can annihilate opposition
Could it be that we are deliberately per- has the impression that he has seen on any continent.
mitting our striking power to fall into sec- something almost unbelievable in terms Obviously, therefore, the race for the
and place? Will we next be told that since
the Soviets have become stronger and have of size and in terms of potential accom- control of space is of utmost importance
the power to destroy us, our only hope for plishments. to our own security and the survival for
survival is to join a world order? We do not profess to know whether our civilization.
Only the Congress can correct this alarm- or not further development can quickly In this race, the development of the
ing situation. All funds for the executive be accomplished in the necessary high RS-70 can play a very important part.
branch should be withheld until a sound de- resolution radar which would be re- It can enable us to achieve and main-
fense program is instituted.
quired to provide capability as a post- tain military superiority in one vital
Mr. Chairman, this statement by Gen- attack weapon to recognize, seek out, and area.
eral Fellers along with statements of dis- destroy any unknown enemy missiles The RS-70 is a new airplane which
tinguished general officers of our Air after a nuclear exchange and which ob- will operate higher and faster than any
Force is why I am more persuaded than jectives would be completely out of eye combat aircraft the world has ever
ever that we need the RS-70 and we need range. Further, we do not profess to known. It is expected to insure that the
it now. know whether or not additional money Air Force and the Strategic Air Com-
Mr. RANDALL. Mr. Chairman, the now could speed development of the RS- mand will have the proper military vehi-
debate on H.R. 9751 being the bill to au- 70 and have it ready earlier than the cle to carry out their combat responsi-
thorize appropriations for fiscal year 1970 estimate. But we believe that the bilities in the post-1965 time period.
1963 for aircraft, missiles, and naval ves- House exercised sound judgment in Mr. Chairman, the opponents of the
.sels was heralded earlier as certain to providing for the authorization and leav- program recommended by the House
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
`1962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
Armed Services Committee argue that we
can not speed up the rate of develop-
ment of the RS-70. Mr. Chairman, sim-
ilar arguments were used on many occa-
sions in the past with respect to many
types of weapons. Arguments were and
are used with respect to the development
of missiles. And yet, when the chips
were down, we proved that the develop-
ment of our spacecraft could be acceler-
ated beyond original estimates.
Everyone agrees that RS-70 will con-
stitute an important addition to our de-
fense posture. I believe that we can ac-
celerate the development of this weapon
if we put our minds to it. I will, there-
fore, support the recommendations of
the House Armed Services Committee on
this vital issue.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, on
August 29, 1961, I directed attention to
the abandonment and scrapping of the
Bomarc manufacturing and deployment
program after the program had been
authorized and funded by Congress, and
I urged military leaders to review our
whole defense posture as it related to
the Bomarc.
The production center of the Bomare
engine was established in my congres-
sional district, Ogden, Utah, nearly 6
years ago at a Marquardt facility. Two
years later the facility was doubled and
a 184 acre test facility was established
nearby on the shore of our Great Salt
Lake.
The first Bomarc A missile was
phased-out in 1960 and production was
started on the new Bomarc B missile. A
year later this missile was phased-out
completely by the military.
Today we learn from the Chairman
of the Armed Services Committee that
by June 1, 1962 the United States will
have 12 squadrons of 50 Minuteman mis-
siles each, or a total of 600; that the
Defense Department asked for four more
squadrons in fiscal 1963 at a cost of $21/2
billion; that the committee felt this was
not adequate and added another $10 mil-
lion for a long-lead start on additional
Minuteman missiles.
Today we also learn that by June,
19611 the Navy will have 29 Polaris sub-
marines missile equipped; that Defense
officials asked to add 6 in 1963 and
stated they plan to ask for another 6 in
1964 for a total of 41. The House Com-
mittee, according to the able chairman,
feels there should be more.
Again today we learn Defense offi-
cials insist on plans to phase out
manned bombers in favor of interconti-
nental ballistic missiles. The House
committee questioned the reliability of
the ICBM last year. Defense officials
requested at that time $220 million for
,B-70's; the Congress gave them an ad-
ditional $180 million, suggesting that the
resulting increase in manned bombers
was essential to the defense of this Na-
tion until such time as the workability
of the ICBM's got out of the textbooks
and the laboratories. Defense officials
did not carry out the mandate of the
Congress in fiscal 1962. None of the ad-
ditional funds was spent.
This year Defense officials requested
$3.135 billion and the House committee
in its wisdom increased that amount by
$491 million; at first they directed and
Approved
then by amendment authorized that this
"be utilized In fiscal 1963 to proceed
with production, planning and long-
lead procurement for the RS-70 weapon
system," which is the current nomen-
clature for the B-70 manned bomber.
As the chairman of the House com-
mittee has so cautiously pointed out to
us: If our hopes are realized and nu-
clear weapons are outlawed by interna-
tional agreement, we would be in an
untenable position with no conventional
defense capability.
I again urge review and reevaluation
of the entire Bomarc program, particu-
larly in light of the importance of
manned bomber program to the defense
of this Nation.
Mr. BASS. of New Hampshire. Mr.
Speaker, I am in opposition to the pro-
vision that the Secretary of the Air
Force is directed to spend $491 million
for the RS-70 bomber program.
My objection goes beyond the merits
of the bomber program itself. But it is
worth noting that when the B-70 pro-
gram was considered last year by the
Science and Astronautics Committee,
of which I am a member, there were dif-
ferences of opinion by experts on our
national defense about the program-
differences which still have not been re-
solved. As of now, the program has
been modified and is now redesignated
as the RS-70 program.
My objection is, based on my concern
for the separation of powers in our gov-
ernmental system as specified in our
Constitution.
This legislation proposes to direct the
executive department to spend money
which the President-right or wrongly-
had decided not to spend. I do not be-
lieve Congress has the right to so direct
the executive, nor should it presume to
take that right.
The President of the United States is
Commander in Chief. It is inconceiv-
able to me that Congress should tell a
Commander in Chief what weapons sys-
tem to develop any more than it should
attempt to tell a general in the field
which weapons to fire. These are the
rights and duties of the Executive. We
in Congress should neither attempt to
assume executive powers nor should we
relieve the President of the responsibili-
ty for making the right decisions.
Throughout my 7 years in Congress,
I have fought attempts by the President
to usurp powers that belong in Congress.
I have voted in favor of annual-rather
than 5-year-appropriations for foreign
aid and I have voted against many ag-
riculture programs because, among other
reasons, I believed that the action pro-
posed by the administration would put
too much power into the hands of the
Executive. This argument works both
ways. I believe that the. legislation we
are considering today would assume
powers which properly belong to the
President.
Mr. HFBERT. Mr. Chairman, I have
no further requests for time on this side.
Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Chairman, I have
no further requests for time.
Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask
that the Clerk read the bill.
4335
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That funds
are hereby authorized to be appropriated
during fiscal year 1963 for the use of the
Armed Forces of the United States for pro-
curement of aircraft, missiles, and naval ves-
sels, as authorized by law, in amounts as
follows:
AIRCRAFT .
For aircraft: For the Army, $218,600,000;
for the Navy and the Marine Corps, $2,134,-
600,000; for the Air Force, $3,135,000,000.
MISSILES
For missiles: For the Army, $558,300,000;
for the Navy, $930,400,000; for the Marine
Corps, $22,300,000; for the Air Force, $2,500,-
000,000.
NAVAL VESSELS
For naval vessels: For the Navy, $2,982,-
000,000: Provided, That effective July 1, 1962,
restrictions on the fund authorization con-
tained in Public Law 87-53, approved June
21, 1961, for the procurement of aircraft, will
no longer apply.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re-
port the committee amendments.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 1, line 8, strike "$218,500,000" and
insert "$273,790,000".
The committee amendment was agreed
to.
The Clerk read as follows:
Committee amendment: Page 1, line 10,
strike "$3,135,000,000" and insert "$3,626,-
000,000", and add the following language:
"of which the Secretary of the Air Force
is directed to utilize authorization in an
amount not less than $491,000,000 during
fiscal year 1963 to proceed with production
planning and long leadtime procurement
for an RS-70 weapon system."
Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Committee amendment offered by Mr.
VINsoN: On page 2, line 2, strike out the
word "directed" and insert in lieu thereof
the word "authorized".
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment to the amendment.
The amendment to the amendment
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The question now
recurs on the committee amendment, as
amended.
The committee amendment, as amend-
ed, was agreed to.
The Clerk read as follows:
Committee amendment: On page
2, strike "$558,300,000" and insert
482,000".
The committee amendment was
to.
The Clerk read as follows:
2, line
"$589,-
Committee amendment: Page 2, line 4,
strike "$2,500,000,000" and insert "$2,510,-
000,000".
The committee amendment was agreed
to.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 2, line 6, strike "$2,982,000,000," and
insert "$2,979,200,000".
The committee amendment was agreed
to.
The Clerk read as follows:
Committee amendment: Page 2 line 17
insert:
SEC. 2. Section 412(b) of Public Law 86-
149 is amended to read as follows:
 Approved For. Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
4336 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
March 21
"' (b) No funds may be appropriated after Congress and the country, and the ization, the Hound Dog missile, and
December 81, 1960, to or for the use of any course followed is in keeping with con- tanker and airlift aircraft, but the De-
armed force of the United States for the pro- stitutional precedents. partment in later years fully adopted
cerement of aircraft, missiles, or naval yes- COMMENDATION OF DEFENSE OFFICIALS the policies urged by Csels, unless the appropriation of such funds year 1960, $650 Congress.
s million was
has been authorized by legislation enacted In the heat of controversy, we are In fiscal used out of congressional add-ons of
after such date: Provided, however, That no often inclined to make critical remarks
:funds may be appropriated after Decem- in haste that may not be fully justified. $922 million. The principal items used
ber 31, 1961, to or for the use of any armed I want to say, after long years of deal- were $140 million to support the strength
force of the United States for research, de- of the Army Reserve and National
velopment or procurement of the RS-70 ing with the civilian and military lead- Guard, $200 million for Army moderniza-
such system unless the appropriation of era of the Department of Defense, I have Gun, d, $137 for ASW, or my million for
such funds has been authorized by legisla- found them, on a whole, to be men of Atlas and Minuteman.
tion enacted after such date.' ' ability and dedication who seek to serve fiscal year 19 Minuteman.
Congress voted $1.8
the best interest of the country and who
The committee amendment was agreed seek to be cooperative, as a general rule, billion additional funds, of which $1.6
to. Congress: billion was used for such major programs
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I move with I think we have excellent leadership as Polaris, Atlas, Minuteman, airlift air-
to strike out the last word. in the Pentagon, with Mr. Robert S. craft, and satellite programs.
DEFENSE LEGISLATION BILL McNamara as Secretary of Defense; Mr. 1) =AILS BY FISCAL YEARS
Mr. Chairman, I have felt that the Elvis J. Stahr, Secretary of the Army; The influence of Congress has been
language originally incorporated in the Mr. Fred Korth, Secretary of the Navy; exerted not only in negative ways, that
pending military authorization bill, and Mr. Eugene Zuckert, Secretary of is by cutting funds, but also in positive
which directed the executive branch to the Air Force. ways, by adding funds for specific pro-
utilize a $491 million authorization for The Chairman, General Lemnitzer, grams.
the planning and" production of the RS- and members of the Joint Chiefs of Let-us look at the record, year by year.
70 aircraft was very unwise. The Staff are men of high quality and dedi- FISCAL YEAR 1956
language raised serious constitutional cation. They are not men who agree on The Congress made two increases in
questions and tended to bypass the regu- all subjects. It is a normal and whole- that year: First, $250,000 for the promo-
lar procedures which call for direct some situation- in a free country such tion of rifle practice, which was utilized
action by the Congress on funds recom- as ours. in full; second, $46.4 million for an in-
mended by its Appropriations Commit- COOPERATION BETWEEN CONGRESS AND DEFENSE crease in Marine Corps strength, which
tees before authorized programs can be DEPARTMENT was not utilized.
executed. I have asked the members of the staff There were two add-ons, one minor
I am very happy over the masterful of the Appropriations Committee to help and one major. The minor one was
way the gentlemen of the committee me assemble some information in re- used; the major one was not. And the
and their distinguished chairman have gard to examples of cooperation by the position of Congress on the major mat-
resolved this problem. It will now be Defense Department with Congress ter did not prevail.
possible for the matter to be handled in during the past few years. It .is true FISCAL YEAR 1957
the usual orderly way, and in keeping that Defense officials and the President
with traditional procedures. The gen- do not always comply to the letter with The Congress increased the President's
tleman from Georgia has dramatized an the recommendations of Congress in de- budget in four principal areas in that
interesting and important matter, yet he fense matters. However, as a general fiscal year:
has done no disservice to relationships proposition, the President and officials in First, $15 million for Army Reserve
between congressional committees and the Department of Defense do seek to Forces military construction-utilized in
between Congress and the executive carry out the will of Congress. There full.
branch. are some notable exceptions which have Second, $14 million to increase the
ACTION REQUIRED BY APPROPRIATIONS been referred to in the debate today, strength of the Army National Guard
COMMITTEE and I shall not dwell upon them. I and the number of its civilian tech-
The great Committee on Armed Serv- should now like to extend my remarks at nicians-utilized in full.
ices has brought to bear its best judg- this point in the RECORD and recite some Third, $800 million to increase the
ment, after many hearings and much of the examples having to do with actions procurement of Air Force heavy bombers,
deliberation, on the RS-70 airplane mat- by the executive branch on specific tankers, and other essential weapons-
ter and on the many other important recommendations of the Congress during utilized in full.
procurement matters pending in the recent years. Fourth, $100 million to expedite the
President's budget. INFLUENCE OF CONGRESS ON DEFENSE PROGRAMS Air Force's overall research and devel-
I know that this great committee, and Congress has exercised a strong in- opment program-utilized in full.
the House as well, will expect the Appro- fluence on the character of Defense pro- Thus,, in fiscal year 1957, increases
priations Committee to bring to bear its grams. Some of these influences can be totaling almost $930 million were voted
very best judgment also in determining summarized briefly: and all were utilized in full as desired
what funds shall be recommended under In fiscal year 1956, Congress increased by the Congress. This was the year
the pending authorization bill for the funds by $46.7 million for two purposes. where the Congress gave the B-52 pro-
RS-70 and other procurement items. It The lesser increase was used, the major gram a big boost forward, thereby shap-
is, of course,' impossible to predict today increase for the Marine Corps strength ing the character of our Strategic Air
just what action the Appropriations was not used. Forces to this present day.
Committee will take. The Subcommit- In fiscal year 1957 Congress increased FISCAL YEAR 1958
tee on Defense Appropriations is still four specific programs by a total of about In this year the Congress made two
conducting hearings on the various pro- $930 million, all of which was used. This increases: First, $13.8 million for the
grams which are authorized in this bill was the year in which the B-52 program. Army National Guard, which was utilized
and the other details involved in the was given a substantial boost, forming in full; second, $21.5 million for the Air
regular annual appropriations. the character of our Strategic Air Forces Force for transfer to the Civil Aeronau-
The members of the Committee on Apr as of today. tics Administration for VORTAC, which
propriations always do their best to In fiscal year 1958, funds totaling $35.3 was also utilized in full.
handle defense appropriations to the million were added for the Army Na-
m
best again, the add-ons made by the
of their ability. I think our actions tional Guard and the VORTAC air navi- Ha
C Here eres were the fully -oonns utilized.
are usually reasonably satisfactory to gation system, and were all utilized.
the Committee on Armed Services, to In fiscal year 1959 increases voted by FISCAL YEAR 1959
the House, and to the country as a whole. Congress totaled $1.3 billion for 15 In that fiscal year the Congress made
I am glad to see this system of checks specific purposes. About $730 million a large number of increases, aggregating
and balances, between the authorizing was utilized, including $550 million of over $1.3 billion, of which about $730
committee and the Appropriations Com- $609 million voted for Polaris. Funds million was actually applied as desired
mittee, preserved. This is good for the were not used in 1959 for Army modern- by the Congress.
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
1962 ' . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
First, $65 million for the OSD emer-
gency fund to take care of breakthroughs
in research and development-utilized in
full.
Second, $99 million to increase the
Army strength from 870,000 to 900,000
only about $19.1 million was utilized.
Third, $41 million to increase Army
Reserve drill pay strength from 270,000
to 300,000-$27.7 million was utilized to
achieve that goal.
Fourth, $55.7 million to increase Army
National Guard drill pay strength from
360,000 to 400,000 and maintain the
civilian technicians program-$38.6 mil-
lion was utilized to meet that objective.
Fifth, $5 million to increase Army
mapping-utilized in full.
Sixth, $37 million for Army moderni-
zation-not utilized in that year.
Seventh, $6 million for Army Reserve
Forces military construction-not util-
ized in that year.
Eighth, $45.2 million to increase
Marine Corps strength from 175,000 to
200,000-about $10.6 million was utilized.
Ninth, $609 million to increase the
Polaris program-about $550 million was'
subsequently utilized. This includes
about $241 million released in fiscal year
1959 to permit letting of contracts early
in July 1959 for Polaris submarines 7, 8,
and 9.
Tenth, $11 million to speed work on
Regulus submarines-not utilized. This
program was later terminated in favor
of the Polaris.
Eleventh, $13 million for two destroyer
escorts-utilized in full.
Twelfth, $48 million for Hound Dog-
not utilized in that year.
Thirteenth, $90 million for Minute-
man-although these particular funds
were not utilized, the Air Force, through
the reprograming of funds no longer re-
quired for other projects, did carry on a
program in that year on the expanded
scale desired by the Congress. The,
House Armed Services Committee re-
port, while technically correct in show-
ing this $90 million as not utilized, leads
to the wrong conclusion.
Fourteenth, $55.6 million for KC-135
tankers-not utilized in that year.
Fifteenth, $140 million for airlift air-
craft-not utilized in that year, al-
though, here again, the program was in-
creased through reprograming of other
funds.
Thus, in fiscal year 1959, most of the
increases were utilized in whole or in
part for the purposes intended by the
Congress. But it is interesting to note
that although the Department did not
choose to use some of these increases in
1959-such as for Army modernization,
Hound Dog, KC-135 tankers and airlift
aircraft-the Department in later years
fully adopted the policies urged by the
Congress and increased these programs
very substantially. Moreover, the Con-
gress, in that year, laid a very substan-
tial foundation for our Polaris submarine
program upon which the executive
branch was able to build in later years.
FISCAL YEAR 1960
In that year the Congress added about
$922 million, of which the Defense De-
partment utilized almost $650 million.
First, $147.2 million was added to
maintain the Army Reserve and National
Guard at 300,000 and 400,000 drill pay
strength, respectively-$140.2 million was
utilized to accomplish that purpose.
Second, $43.1 million was added to
provide a Marine Corps strength of
;200,000-this sum was not utilized.
Third, $375 million. was added for
Nike-Zeus and/or Army moderniza-
tion-$200 million was used for Army
modernization.
Fourth, $137.3 million was added to in-
crease the ASW capability-all of which
was fully utilized.
Fifth, $35 million was provided for ad-
vanced procurement for a nuclear-pow-
ered carrier-none of this money was
utilized.
Sixth, $85 million was added for At-
las-all of which was utilized for At-
las-Titan.
Seventh, $87 million was added for
Minuteman-all was utilized.
Eighth, $12 million was added for
Army National Guard construction-the
funds were not utilized in that year.
Thus, in fiscal year 1960, most of the
items added by the Congress were uti-
lized in whole or in part and, here again,
the executive branch eventually followed
the direction pointed by the Congress
and later increased the Marine Corps
strength and Army procurement.
FISCAL YEAR 1961
In this year the Congress again made
a number of important additions to the
program, some of which were requested
by the Department of Defense. The net
increase totaled over $1.8 billion, of
which over $1.6 billion was utilized.
First, $105 million was added to main-
tain the Army Reserve and Guard
strength-all of which was utilized.
Second, $5 million was added to in-
crease the Army National Guard tech-
nicians program-all utilized.
Third, $201,000 was added for the pro-
motion of rifle practice-all utilized.
Fourth, $158 million was added for
Army modernization-over $113 million
was utilized.
Fifth, $382 million was added for
Polaris-over $345 million was utilized.
Sixth, $105 million was added for
ASW-all of which was utilized.
Seventh, $194 million was added for
airlift aircraft-almost $172 million was
utilized.
Eighth, $97 million was added for air
defense aircraft-not utilized.
Ninth, $82.9 million was added for an
airborne alert capability-all of which
was utilized.
Tenth, $184.3 million was added for
the B-70-all of which was utilized.
Eleventh, $83.8 million was added for
Samos-utilized in full.
Twelfth, $26.2 million was added for
Minuteman-utilized in full.
Thirteenth, $26.4 million was added
for Midas-utilized in full.
Fourteenth, $35 million was added for
Discoverer-utilized in full.
Fifteenth, $132 million was added for
interceptor aircraft improvements-
utilized in full.
Sixteenth, $131.9 million was added for
Atlas-utilized in full.
4337
Seventeenth, $34 million was added for
Bmews-utilized in full.
Eighteenth, $16.2 million was added for
the surveillance program-utilized in
full.
Nineteenth, $15 million was added for
the Gar-9 air-to-air rocket and ASG-18
fire control programs-utilized in full.
Twentieth, $20.4 million was added for
Reserve and National Guard construc-
tion-almost all was utilized.
Here, again, was a year in which the
Congress exerted a major influence on
the pace and character of the defense
program. The Polaris program was
again accelerated, Army modernization
was speeded up, the antisubmarine war-
fare effort considerably expanded, the
airlift aircraft program was finally got-
ten off dead center, an airborne alert ca-
pability for our heavy bombers was firm-
ly established, the reorientation of our
air defense program was begun, and a
sharp impetus was given to our military
satellite programs. Even the B-70 pro-
gram was moved forward in that year.
It cannot be said with accuracy that the
Congress has litttle or no influence on
the defense program.
FISCAL YEAR 1962
This brings us to the current fiscal
year. For this year the Congress pro7
vided a total of about $1 billion above
the President's amended budget, of which
the Department presently plans to use
about $230 million. Increases were made
in over 20 items, of which the Depart-
ment plans to carry out all but three.
These three, however, are the big ones-
the'B-52, the B-70, and the Dyna-Soar
add-ons-totaling a little over $780 mil-
lion.
The arguments, pro and con, on these
three items are well known to all. But
some of the Members may not realize
that the Department is following the de-
sires of the Congress on a number of
other quite significant items. These in-
clude maintaining the Army Reserve and
Guard strength at 300,000 and 400,000,
respectively, to the extent possible under
the present circumstances; substituting
one nuclear-powered frigate for one
conventionally powered frigate-this is
an item of about $41 million; installing
turbofan engines in 15 of the C-135's-
an item of about $21 million; procure-
ment of a long-range jet passenger
transport-$7.8 million; a $71/2-million
increase in the development effort on
special forces equipment; and, finally,
an increase in Reserve Forces construc-
tion-an item of $16.1 million. And the
year is not yet over.
It is important that we continue the
spirit of good will and cooperation which
exists between Congress and the execu-
tive branch in defense matters. There
is room for improvement, but I would
not want to minimize the fine spirit of
cooperation which has been typical in
the past.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
(Mr. GROSS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I take
this time to ask the question as to
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
4338
whether the funds appropriated for
naval vessels may be used for renova-
tion or whether this is entirely for new
construction?
Mr. VINSON. I may say to the dis-
tinguished gentleman that the' bill
authorizes 37 new ships, and 35 conver-
sions, all set out in the report and
referred to in my remarks in a more
limited way earlier. I will put in the
RECORD at this point a complete break-
down of each one of the new ships and
in addition the conversion of some 35
ships.
The matter referred to is as follows:
One attack aircraft carrier--CVA; cost,
$310 million: This ship is the prime off ensive
unit in an attack carrier striking force-the
Navy's major weapon for control of the seas.
The carrier provides a continuously -ready
modern airfield capable of operating all types
of aircraft In any navigable waters of the
world. These characteristics of versatility
and mobility are unique to sea service forces
and are equally applicable in general, lim-
ited, or cold war.
The carrier in this program .will replace an
old Essex-class carrier. This attack carrier
will be an improved Forrestal and the eighth
ship in this class.
One guided missile frigate DLG(N); cost,
$190 million: This guided missile frigate is
the only nuclear-powered surface ship in this
year's program. It is also the first ship to
receive the new typhon weapons system in-
corporating many significant improvements
including greater target-handling capability,
greater range, shorter reaction time, and al-
most complete immunity to countermeas-
ures. The typhon weapons system will
provide this ship with an air-control, anti-
aircraft, and antimissile capability which
hitherto have not been approached by any
naval weapons system. In addition to the
greatly improved weapons systems, this ship
will have the extended range and endurance
at sustained speed resulting from nuclear
power.
Twenty-eight conventional and 2 nuclear-
powered guided missile frigates have been
authorized in previous programs, 10 of which
have joined the fleet.
Eight nuclear-powered submarines--SS
(N); cost, $509.9 million: These fleet attack
submarines are designed for optimum op-
erations against enemy submarines and
surface ships.
They are essentially repeats of Thresher
class included in previous programs.
These submarines will be the first to in-
clude the capability of firing the submerged
launched rocket weapon, SUBROC. This
weapon is capable of carrying a nuclear war-
head, and is designed to destroy submarines
or ships.
Combined with previous new construction,
these 8 will give the Navy a total of 40 nu-
clear-powered attack submarines, 16 of
which have joined the fleet.
Six fleet ballistic missile submarines-SSB
(N) ; cost, $720.3 million: These fleet ballis-
tic missile submarines are a vital addition to
our national deterrent forces. These six Po-
laris submarines are essentially the same as
those in prior programs incorporating im-
provements which have been dictated by ex-
perience.
Twenty-nine fleet ballistic missile subma-
rines have been authorized in previous pro-'
grams. These 6 will give the Navy a total of
35, carrying 560 ballistic missiles. Six have
joined the fleet.
Four amphibious transport, dock-LPD;
cost, $181.6 million: These ships will in-
crease the effectiveness of modern amphib-
ious operations.
These ships each carry 930 troops, 2,500
tons of cargo and equipment, plus 6 heli-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE March ~1
copters and various combinations of Landing
craft.
Six of these ships have been previously
authorized. The first two are scheduled to
be commissioned this year.
One amphibious assault ship-LPH; cost,
$60 million: The amphibious assault ship
(LPH) in conjunction with the LPD is ca-
pable of combat loading, transporting, and
landing a battalion landing team. This ship
carries 2,000 troops and 30 HUS helicopters.
Four ships of this type have been approved
in prior programs. One, Iwo Jima, has re-
ported to the fleet.
Five escort ships-DE; cost, $128.3 million:
These ships are all repeats of similar types
contained in previous programs and are de-
signed for effective performance in locating
and destroying enemy submarines. These
ships are fitted with the latest and best
ASW weapons systems including Asroc,
Dash, and homing torpedoes.
Twenty-four ocean escorts have been au-
thorized in previous programs. Seventeen
have joined the fleet.
Three guided missile escort ships--DEG;
cost, $93.9 million: These 3 DEG's are similar
in all respects to the escort ships except that
the after 5-inch, 38-caliber gun mount has
been replaced by a Tartar missile battery
(16 missiles). Three of these ships were au-
thorized in the 1962 program.
Two motor gunboats-POM; cost, $4.1
million: These are the first of a new class
specifically designed for operations in re-
stricted waters, such as coastal patrol block-
ade and paramilitary warfare. The final
armament is still to be decided; however,
20 tons have been reserved for this purpose.
One fast combat support ship-AOE; cost,
$67 million: This is the second ship of this
design combining the essential features of
both the fleet oiler and ammunition ship.
Having a top speed of 26 knots, this ship
will be capable of staying with the fast task
forces and providing most replenishment
services on a one-stop basis. One has been
authorized in previous programs.
One submarine tender AS (FBMI; cost,
$73 million: This is the third new construc-
tion tender designed primarily to support the
Polaris submarines. It will be equipped
to provide logistic support for nine sub-
marines and complete alongside services to,
three at any one time. These ships also have
the capability to. check out, maintain, and
issue missiles and missile components. The
first new construction tender will join the
fleet later in the year.
Two oceanographic research ships--AGOR;
cost, $8.8 million: These are relatively small
ships of about 1,300 tons and are designed
to conduct basic and applied oceanographic
research in support of the national ocean-
ographic program. They will be civilian
manned. Five ships of this type have al-
ready been authorized. The first two are
scheduled for completion during the fourth
quarter of this year.
One surveying ship=AGS; cost, $9.4 mil-
lion: This ship is about twice the size of the
oceanographic research ship and will be
equipped to conduct hydrographie surveys
and collect other oceanographic, acoustic,
and meteorological data under the direction
of the Navy oceanographer. This is the first
ship of its class. Like the preceding: ocean-
ographic research ship, it will be civilian
manned.
One cargo ship-MSTS roll-on/roll-off;
cost, $20 million: This Military Sea Trans-
portation Service ship is similar to the very
successful Comet, roll-on/roll-off ship now
in regular service between New York and
St. Nazaire. It is designed to transport and
deliver wheeled and tracked vehicles, troop
equipment, and general cargo. Its configura-
tion of internal ramps will provide for quick
loading or'unloading. This is the first ship
to be funded under this appropriation for
Military Sea Transportation Service.
The Navy authorization also provides funds
for 45 service and landing craft, the rehab-
ilitation and modernization of 24 World War
II destroyers and the conversion of 1 major
communication relay ship, 1 command ship,
1 mine countermeasures support ship, 2 am-
munition ships (PAST), 2 oilers (Jumbo),
2 technical research ships, 1 cargo ship
(FBM), 1 guided missile ship, and 1 service
craft, a floating drydock.
Mr. GROSS. Then the bill does pro-
vide for such conversion or renovation.
The gentleman might be able to answer
the question whether funds are pro-
vided in this bill-
Mr. VINSON. No; that comes before
the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. GROSS. I mean funds author-
ized. Let me correct the statement.
Mr. VINSON. Yes, authorized.
Mr. GROSS. "Authorize." That is
a good word around here today.
Mr. VINSON. That is right; it is a
good word.
Mr. GROSS. Whether funds are au-
thorized in this bill for the taking of a
yacht out of mothballs, air conditioning
the yacht, and giving it to Emperor Haile
Selassie of Ethiopia; does the gentleman
know?
Mr. VINSON. Well, I will say the dis-
tinguished gentleman from Texas de-
veloped that fact. All we are doing to-
day is authorizing these things. He
would not give his approval to anything
that would be converted without having
some military value to the country.
Mr. GROSS. Well, would the gentle-
man think that a yacht, an air-condi-
tioned pleasure yacht, is intended to
have military value?
Mr. VINSON. No, I do not know
what the gentleman has reference to,
but I can tell you that conversions in
this bill are for military purposes.
Mr. GROSS. Well, then, can the gen-
tleman tell me this: The bill provides
for the construction of helicopters; is
that right?
Mr. VINSON. In another part of the
bill, yes.
Mr. GROSS. This bill authorizes
funds for the construction of helicopters?
Mr. VINSON. That is right, and we
are increasing it in that respect by rais-
ing the amount about $55 million.
Mr. GROSS. How many of these new
helicopters will be assigned to the White
House?
Mr. VINSON. Well, I do not know
about that.
Mr. GROSS. Did the military not
justify the construction of helicopters
when they came before your committee?
Mr. VINSON. I cannot reveal the
number involved.
Mr. GROSS. Someone here indicates
there may be 10 new helicopters assigned
to the White House. Now, my question
is this: Will these helicopters continue
to be used at the rate of two flights in
2 days to transport the First Lady, Mrs.
Kennedy, to go fox hunting down in Vir-
ginia? Does the gentleman have any
idea?
Mr. VINSON. The gentleman will
have to do like I do in a.press confer-
ence. I ask the questions and then I
answer them. The gentleman will have
to do the same thing.
Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman.
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
 1962
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 4339
N{r. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, I [Roll No. 431
move to strike out the last word. YEAS-403
Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 9751 and Adair Doyle Knox nski
particularly appreciate the initiative of ir Addabbo Durno Kornegay
the Committee On Armed Services in Addonizio Dwyer Kowalski
seeking a speedup in development and Alford beertt Ed oon dson Ku kel
production of the RS-70. Alger Ellsworth Laird
Under date of February 20, .1962, I Andersen, Everett Landrum
wrote Secretary of Defense McNamara Minn. Evins Langen
urging such a speedup, in the light of AAnders n, 111. FFallon arb teen Lan ford
nds Fascell Lennon
my own understanding of the need and Arenfuo
justification for such a weapons develop- Ashbrook Fe ton Lesinski
ment. Ashley
Findley Lindsay
The Assistant Secretary of Defense Ashmore Aspinall Finnegan Lipscomb
who replied to my letter, on March 15, Auchincloss Fino Loser
cited many of the arguments for pro- AAveryy Fisher she McCullough
ynt McDowell
ceeding slowly with the RS-70 program, Bailey Fllood
and brought to my attention for the first Baker Ford McFall
time several factors of admitted import- Baldwin Forrester McI lire
ante in this matter. Barrett ' Frazier Mosween
Nonetheless, the reasons for expediting Barry Frelinghuysen McVey
development and production of the Bass, Tenn. Friedel MMacdona acGreald
r
RS-70 continue to outweigh, in my judg- Bates Fulton Mack
mint, those reasons advanced for the Beckworth Garland Madden
Defense Department position, and I am Beermann Garmatz Magnuson
greatly pleased by the Secretary's an- Belcher Gathings Mahon
nounced decision to re-examine the Bell Gavin Mailliard
Bennett, Fla. Giaimo Marshall
Department's conclusion in the light of Berry Gilbert Martin, Mass.
congressional recommendations. Betts Glenn Martin, Nebr.
This bill is another major step forward Beatnik Gonzalez Mathias
Butch Goodell Matthews
in substantially strengthening our coun- Boggs Goodling may
try's defense and I am confident it will Boland Granahan MMea eadow
be overwhelmingly approved, in further Bolling Gray
Bolton Green, Oreg. Michel
testimony, to the resolution and deter- Bonner Green, Pa, Miller, Clem
mination of the Congress and the Bow Griffin Miller,
American people to provide preparedness Brademas Gross George P.
Bray Gubser Miller, N.Y.
Second to none in the world today, Breeding Hagan, Ga. Milliken
A strong and prepared America Con- Brewster Hagen, Calif. Mills
tinues to be the world's best guarantee Bro ksell HHale olly Minshall
Moeller
of peace, and we add significantly to Broomfield Halleck Monagan
that guarantee by today's action. Brown Halpern Montoya
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, Broyhill Harding Moorehead,
the committee amendment is agreed to. Burke, Ky. Hardy Ohio
There was no objection. Burke, Mass. Harris Moorhead, Pa.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any fur- Burleson Harrison, Va. Morgan
ther amendments? If not, under the Byrne, Pa. Harrison, Wyo. Morris
rule the Committee rises. Byrnes, Wis. Harsha Morrison
Cahill Harvey, Ind. Morse
Accordingly the Committee rose; and Cannon Harvey, Mich. Mosher
the Speaker having resumed the chair, Carey HeHays Multer
t
- Cederberg Hebert Murphy
Mr. KARSTEN, Chairman of the Commi
tee of the Whole House or} the State of Celler Hecheer Murray
Hatcher
it- Chamberlain Hemphill
the Union, reported that that Comm
tee, having had under consideration the Chelf Henderson
Chenoweth Herlong
bill (H.R. 9751) to authorize appropria- Cheperfield Hiestand
tions during fiscal year 1963, for aircraft, church Hoeven
missiles, and naval vessels for the Armed Clancy Hoffman, Ile.
Clark Holifield
Forces, and for other purposes, pursuant Coad Holland
to House Resolution 562, he reported the Colmer helan HHoran
ornier
bill back to the House with sundry Conte Huddleston
amendments adopted by the Committee cook Hull
of the Whole. Corbett Ichord, Mo.
Nedzi
Nelsen
Nix
Norblad
Norrell
Nygaard
O'Brien, Ill.
O'Brien, N.Y.
O'Hara, Ill.
O'Hara, Mich.
O'Konskl
Olsen
O'Neill
Osmers
previous question is ordered. Cunningham Jennings Ostertag
Is a separate vote demanded on any Curtin Joelson Passman
an
amendment? If not, the Chair will put Curtis, MMa . Johansen oss Johnson, Calif. Pelly
them en gros. Daddario Johnson, Md. Perkins
The amendments were agreed to. Dague Johnson, Wis. Peterson
The SPEAKER. The question is on Daniels Jonas Pfoat
the engrossment and third reading of Davis, John W. Jones, Mo. Philbin
Davis, Tenn. Judd Pike
the bill. Dawson Karsten Pilcher
I
Pil
and read a third time, and was read the Dent
Denton
third time. Derounian
The SPEAKER. The question is On Derwinski
the passage of the bill. Devine
s
,Mr. VINSON. Mr. Speaker, on that Dingell
I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas Dole
and nays were ordered. Dominick
.. __ _ Tnnnhi,A
ion
Karth
Kastenmeier Pirnie
Kearns Poage
Kee Foil
Keith . Powell
Kelly Price
Keogh Pucinaki
Kilburn Purcell
Kilgore Quie
King, Calif. Randall
King, N.Y. Ray
King. Utah Reece
were-yeas 403, nays 0, not voting 33, as born Kirwan Reltel
follows: Dowdy Kitchin Reuss
Rhodes, Ariz.
Selden
Tuck
Pa.
Rhodes
Shelley
Tupper
,
Riehlman
Sheppard
Udall, Morris K.
Rivers, Alaska
Shipley
Ullman
Tex.
Roberts
Shriver
Utt
,
Robison
Sibal
Vanik
Rodin
Sikes
Van Pelt
Colo.
Rogers
Siler
Van Zandt
,
Fla.
Rogers
Sisk
Vinson
,
Tex.
Rogers
Slack
W aggonner
,
Rooney
Smith, Iowa
Wallhauser
Roosevelt
Smith, Va.
Watts
Rosenthal
Springer
Weaver
Rostenkowski
Stafford
Weis
Roudebush
Staggers
Westland
Roush
Steed
Whalley
Rousselot
Stephens
Wharton
Rutherford
Stratton
Whitener
Mich.
Ryan
Stubblefield
Wickersham
,
Widnall
St. George
Taber
Williams
St. Germain
Taylor
Willis
Santangelo
Teague, Calif,
Wilson, Calif.
Saund
Teague, Tex.
Wilson, Ind.
Saylor
Thomas
Winstead
Schadeberg
Thompson, La.
Wright
Scherer
Thompson, N.J. Yates
Schneebeli
Thompson, Tex.Young
Schweiker
Thomson, Wis.
Younger
Schwengel
Thornberry
Zablocki
Scott
Toll
Zelenko
Scranton
Tollefson
Seely-Brown
Trimble
NAYS-0
NOT VOTING-33
Abernethy
Downing
Rivers, S.C.
Alexander
Fogarty
Roberts,
Andrews
Gary
Schenck
Bass, N.H.
Grant
Short
Battin
Griffiths
Smith, Calif.
Bennett, Mich.
Hoffman, Mich.
Smith, Miss.
Boykin
Jensen
Spence
Buckley
Jones, Ala.
Walter
Collier
Lane
Whitten
Cooley
Mason
Davis,
Moulder
James C.
Rains
So the bill was passed.
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
Mr. Cooley with Mr. Schenck.
Mr. Alexander with Mr. Hoffman of Michi-
gan.
Mr. Spence with Mr. Bennett of Michigan.
Mr. James C. Davis with Mr. Collier.
Mr. Fogarty with Mr. Bass of New Hamp-
shire.
Mr. Lane With Mr. Smith of California.
Mr. Walter With Mr. Jensen.
Mr. Downing with Mr. Short.
Mr. Abernethy with Mr. Mason.
Mr. Gary with Mr. Battin.
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND
REMARKS
Mr. VINSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous censent that all. Members
may have 5 legislative days in which
to extend their remarks in the RECORD
on the bill just passed.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Georgia?
There was no objection.
CORRECTION OF ROLLCALL
Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Speaker, on Thurs-
day last, March 15, on rollcall No. 36,
a call of the House, I was present in
the chamber and responded when my
name was called. I ask unanimous con-
sent that the RECORD be corrected to
so indicate.
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
 4340
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Connecticut?
There was no objection.
FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE
SENATE
A further messagetfrom the Senate
by Mr. McGeron, one of its clerks, an-
nounced that the Senate agree to the
report of the committee of conference
on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendment of the Sen-
ate to the bill (H.R. 5968) entitled "An
act to amend the District of Columbia
Unemployment Compensation Act, as
amended."
SPENDING, DEFICITS, DEBT, AND
TAXES
(Mr. McSWEEN asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD.)
Mr. MCSWEEN. Mr. Speaker, the
President's foreign aid message of
March 13 in which he asked Congress
for $4.9 billion in foreign aid for next
year has prompted me to rise to com-
ment about our economic strength.
I am deeply concerned about the high
rate of spending which causes budget
deficits and inflation, an increasing na-
tional debt, and pressures for even more
taxes. We will be obliged to borrow this
money to spend on foreign aid.
Since World War II U.S. foreign aid
has exceeded $101 billion and will rise
above $106 billion next year. Net for-
eign aid, after allowing for loan repay-
ments and foreign currency credits re-
ceived for surplus farm products, totals
$91 billion.
We pay interest of about $2.75 billion
annually on this $91 billion portion of
the national debt. So our actual total
foreign aid cost for next year will be
over $7.5 billion.
The enormity of the foreign aid tab is
one of the reasons why I have never sup-
ported this program since I have been
in Congress. While I certainly realize
that some military assistance is essen-
tial to our security I feel strongly that
we are squandering our national herit-
age at a rate beyond the danger point.
Our military might is vital to the free
world, but this depends upon our sol-
vency. Our fiscal situation is vulnerable.
In the 15 fiscal years since World War
II there have been 6 surplus years and
9 deficit years with a net deficit of $28
billion. The current fiscal year deficit
will increase this figure to over $35
billion.
The Federal budget cannot be bal-
anced in the forseeable future unless the
rate of increase in expenditures indi-
cated by present proposals is curtailed.
Non defense expenditures have increased
by 48 percent in the last 6 years until
this year, while defense expenditures
have increased only 15 percent.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --HOUSE
On February 20 1 also voted against
the bill to increase the national debt
limit ceiling by $2 billion to $300 billion,
although it passed 251 to 144. ?I under-
stand there will be another proposal this
year to increase the ceiling even higher.
I have concluded that the only way
to reduce the debt is by a systematic and
mandatory plan under which the budget
must contain a specific item for an ap-
propriation for debt retirement. l again
call the House's attention to my bill,
H.R. 6670, which would require as a start
an annual 1 percent debt retirement ap-
propriation. I find that the people back
home are as concerned and disturbed
about spending, deficits, debt, and taxes
as I am.
PROGRAM FOR BALANCE OF THE
WEEK
(Mr. KYL asked and was given per-
mission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. KYL. Mr. Speaker, I take this
time to ask the distinguished majority
leader what legislative matters are
scheduled for the remainder of this
week.
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, if the
gentleman will yield, in response to the
inquiry of the gentleman, tomorrow the
conference report on H.R. 5968, amend-
ments.to the District of Columbia LTnem-
ployment Compensation Act, will be
called up; and the bill S. 2533, a bill to
amend the requirements for participa-
tion in the 1962 feed grain program, will
be on the calendar. I know of no other
business for the balance of the week.
Mr. KYL. Could the gentleman in-
form the House at this time when we
might expect to vote on the major reve-
nue bill?
Mr. ALBERT. Well, if the gentleman
will forbear, I think the bill will come
up next week, but I would prefer to wait
until tomorrow to announce the pro-
gram.
Mr. KYL. I thank the gentleman.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE NOT
GENERALLY AWARE THAT THEY
HAVE TWO GOVERNMENTS-AN
ELECTED GOVERNMENT AND A
BANKERS' GOVERNMENT
(Mr. PATMAN asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, the Com-
mittee for Economic Development in a
widely distributed statement has said
that the lack of proper teaching of eco-
nomics in our high schools and colleges
has resulted in an "economic Illiteracy"
that is a growing national concern.
If it were not for this widespread illit-
eracy the American people would not
tolerate for very long the present ar-
rangement whereby their economic live-
lihoods are re
ul
t
d th
g
a
e
rough the money
I have been voting "no" on many bills and banking system.
having merit, not because I necessarily As to some aspects of the influence of
otherwise oppose these programs but be- governmental policy over economic ac-
cause I am more concerned about our tivity in this country the general public
overall financial condition. does have some information. Most peo-
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8
March Y
pie are aware that the Government's fis-
cal policies have a great influence over
their economic lives. They know that
the Government's tax and spending poli-
ties can stimulate economic activity or
dampen economic activity, and the na-
tional income, the level of business
profits, and the number of jobs available
are affected thereby.
FED EXERCISES DISCRETIONARY CONTROL OVER
SUPPLY OF MONEY
The general public is not generally
aware, however, that the Federal Re-
serve authorities have complete discre-
tionary control over the supply of money
and the prices which will be paid for the
use of money and that they exercise this
discretion also to influence the level of
economic activity, the rate of invest-
ment, the rate of consumer spending,
and the percentage of the labor force
which shall remain unemployed. In a
money economy such as ours, those au-
thorities who control the money supply
and interest rates have the upper hand
in regulating the economy.
IN NO OTHER MAJOR INDUSTRIAL COUNTRY DOES
THE EXECUTIVE HAVE SO LITTLE INFLUENCE
OVER OPERATIONS OF CENTRAL EANH
In the United States today we have In
effect two governments regulating levels
of economic activity. We have the duly
constituted Government carrying out
laws enacted by the Congress and the
President and reviewed by the judiciary.
Then we have an independent, uncon-
trolled and uncoordinated government
in the Federal Reserve System, operat-
ing the money powers which are reserved
to Congress by the Constitution.
In no other major industrial country
in the world today does the duly con-
stituted government-the Chief Execu-
tive-have so little say and so little in-
fluence over the operations of the Na-
tion's central bank.
How did this second government come
about? Did Congress ever give the Fed-
eral Reserve authority to exercise discre-
tion over the supply of money which the
Nation will have or the level of interest
rates which will be paid for the use of
money? Did Congress ever give the Fed-
eral Reserve authority to try to influence
levels of economic activity-either to try
to dampen booms or to stimulate eco-
nomic activity in periods of recession?
The answer is no.
FED HAS USURPED POWERS
When the Federal Reserve System
was set up under the act of 1913 Con-
gress intended that the Federal Reserve
would provide a system whereby the sup-
ply of money would be automatically
determined by the volume of economic
activity taking place, not by any discre-
tion on the part of the Federal Reserve
authorities, either currently or on the
basis of the Federal Reserve people's
forecast as to what the trend in business
activity will be.
True, the Federal Reserve Act has
been amended many times, but in none
of these amendments has the basic con-
ception of an automatic, non-discre-
tionary money system been changed.
You will not find in the statute anywhere
any words giving the Federal Reser,
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8