DEFENSE PROFILE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP70B00338R000300080041-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 9
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 9, 2006
• Sequence Number: 41
• Publication Date: November 1, 1966
• Content Type: NSPR

Approved 0080041-2
ARMED FORCES MANAGEMENT. Nov. 1966.
defense digest
DEFENSE PROFILE
General Counsel Warnke
He was not affronted by the question, but considered
it seriously. The post had been vacant since June 25,
1964 when John T. McNaughton took on the job as
Assistant Secretary for International Security Affairs;
his replacement had not assumed the long-vacant post
until October 3, this year.
"Should the post be filled by a professional civil
servant? No, I don't think so. You see, the General
Counsel of the Department of Defense has two re-
sponsibilities. First, he is responsible for all legal affairs
of the Department. Second, he performs such special
assignments as are handed him by the Secretary of De-
fense." He cited Congressional investigative problems
and labor disputes as typical of the special assignments
requiring a legally-oriented mind.
The speaker was Paul C. Warnke, a lawyer and
partner in the firm of Covington and Burling of Wash-
ington, D.C., who left the firm to join government
service.
He elaborated on his answer.
"The General Counsel should serve as aide to the
Secretary. The day-to-day work of the office can be
done by the permanent staff; legal business will be com-
petently handled. [And it had been, too, during the
27 months the top slot was vacant and Deputy Counsel
Leonard Niederlehner served as Acting General
Counsel.]
"If the entire staff were regular civil servants, it would
be at a great disadvantage. The appointed head can act
as a buffer in controversial matters; the career govern-
ment servant should not be subjected to political heat.
"The appointed head, too, is in a less precarious
position than the civil servant. He has already carved
out quite a different career before joining the govern-
ment. It is rare that an appointed official is planning to
make a second career out of government, although I
don't believe in accepting an appointment with a fixed
term of service string attached. By having the top man
act as a buffer, however, the professional is freer to do
his work.
"Another point is worthy of consideration," Warnke
continued. "The appointed official should bring a differ-
ent approach to the new job and he can help avoid
development of overly rigid patterns in government
performance.
"I find the subject matter is inherently interesting.
Consider all the
legal problems of
an organization of
11115 516G 411U t:Ull-
sider that most of
these are prob-
lems of signifi-
cance, and that
you get a crack at
all of them."
Warnke, at 47,
is the Department
of Defense's
Approved For ReI68006/01/30: CIA-RDP70BU0338R000300080041-2
 ' A proved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300080041-2
ARNED FORCES MANAGEMENT. November 1966.
In the McNamara Era,
What Is Congress' Role in National
CRAIG POWELL
Associate Editor
In both Houses of the United States
Congress, several specific committees
share a closely vested interest in the
matter of national security. Probably
as illustrative as any of the correlation
between Congress and Defense is Rep.
L; Mendel River's (D., S.C.) House
Armed Services Committee. News media
headlines invariably chronicle the De-
partment of Defense and that committee
as being constantly locked in combat.
But headlines do not tell the full story.
The facts are that in the vast majority
of actions aflecting the armed forces,
Congress and the Department of De-
fense are in accord. This is not to say
that there are not disagreements. There
are many; some on very major issues.
This report concerns the River's Com-
mittee as representative of the role of
the Legislative Branch in the area of
military affairs and national defense.
"T but RAISE AND SUPPORT ARMIES" is
but one of the specific powers re-
lating to national security which have
been constitutionally mandated to the
Congress of the United States. Those
words, emblazoned in bronze in the
House Armed Services Committee room
are implicit of that committee's strong
belief that the security of the nation is
the first duty of government. On occa-
sion, detractors have alleged that Con-
gress is losing some of its initiative.
Whatever the truths of that allegation,
to apply such a charge to Armed Serv-
ices Committee would be fatuous.
Probably no other single Congressional
group has been as tenaciously interested
and aggressively active in its sphere of
responsibility as has the Armed Services
Committee of the House of Representa-
tives under the Chairmanship of L.
Mendel Rivers and his predecessor, Carl
Vinson. Despite the myriad subtleties of
the complex task, this committee has
been prolific in its activities associated
with the control and management of the
national defense resources in this arena
of changing military requirements.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman
Rivers: "We f')11$tC~ ossi e. +P? e
mightiest military NsFreng posse e. . .
The lawmakers' in-depth hearings
into the areas of the proposed merger
between the National Guard and the
Reserves, airlift capabilities and tactical
airpower will have a considerable affect
on the future activities in the Pentagon
management of the Defense Establish-
ment. That all individual portions of
the total affect will be palatable to the
Department of Defense is highly proble-
matical. But unquestionably, the actions
taken by the committee and subse-
quently by Congress as a whole, are
conscientious actions and, as repre-
sentatives of the people, Congress will
continue to pursue the course of direc-
tion that it feels to be in the best inter-
ests of the nation. That there should be
some disparity of opinion between-
Congress and Defense is only natural.
While both share a common objective
of national defense, the individual
philosophies of each, as to how best
assure the security of the country, are
widely divergent.
Congress Prefers a Margin
Defense?
gether with Richard B. Russell's Senate
Armed Services committee) has been
chartered with maintaining a vigilance
over " ebmmon defense and the Depart-
ment of Defense, in general, including
the Departments of Army, Navy and
Air Force" and their associated en-
deavors. Congress has the responsibility
and obligation to the American people
to maintain an intimate involvement
with matters of national defense. Thus,
L. Mendel Rivers and his committee in
behalf of Congress and the people not
only will, but rightly should, continue
to probe and question the Military
Establishment and influence defense
legislation within the best dictates of
their own conscience.
Generally speaking, relationships be-
tween the Armed Services Committee
and the Department of Defense are ex-
cellent. Rivers and some of the more
senior members of the committee meet
with Secretary of Defense Robert
McNamara and his deputy, Cyrus
Vance, at breakfast frequently to discuss
subjects of mutual interest. As a rule
,
The climate of today's Pentagon is one there is a concordance on the majority
of cost reduction and cost effectiveness. of issues and while barbs sometimes fly,
The Secretary of Defense has made it they do not inflict irrecoverable wounds,
abundantly clear that he will procure and the disagreements are not personal.
only the minimum essential goods and' However, there are some very real and
services and that he desires to maintain honest differences in opinion as to
only those forces he feels mandatory sources of authority and in the manage-
to meet Defense-anticipated contingen- ment of the military forces.
.ties. Congress, on the other hand, feels Most all-encompassing thorn pricking
that there are flaws in this type of cost Congress appears to be what the com-
effectiveness studies and systems analy- mittee feels is the Defense attitude
ses and that'the stakes are far too ex- toward Congress and its constitutional
cessive to run the Military Establish- authority, as well as the mutual coopera-
ment in the same manner as a major tion that must exist between the two. To
industrial complex. Or as Chairman quote Chairman Rivers, "The Congress
Rivers has put it, "I think the American and the Department of Defense must act
people will always be willing to pay the as partners in the matter of national
price for having too much defense, security, but I think there are times
rather than risk the inestimable cost of when the Department of Defense for-
having too little defense." gets that Congress exists for reasons
But regardless of the issues and dif- other than to provide a blank check."
fering points of view, one fact is ir- A close examination of this situation
refutably clear; the constitution of the indicates an annoyance on the part of
United States has invested in the Legisla- Congress that they have, on occasions,
tive body of the government, the power gone through a futile exercise of enact-
to raise and support armies, provide and ing authorization bills after long and
maintain a navy, and make rules for the serious consideration, whether they be
2@Mios/8Of:tl 1AHRDR7 0038R0003A0i81i41 hardware, military con-
As executor of these responsibilities, the struction, or other matters, only to have
House Armed Services Committee (to- the projects deleted or deferred by the
 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300080041-2
Defense Department. Further, it should
not be difficult to understand that the
legislators would be "righteously in-
dignant," if, while attempting to re-
sponsibly meet their obligations, they be-
lieve that the Defense Department cir-
cumvents Congressional "intent" (see
Special Report-September AFM).
The true crux of the matter seems to
be that Defense officials feel that theirs
is 'a better informed judgment. Thus, in
matters of conflicting evaluations, par-
ticularly in areas of policy and force
structures, the Defense Department is
inclined to delete or delay programs
recommended or directed by Congress,
or if implementing them, doing so in a
manner not intended by the Legislative
body. This obviously does not lend itself
to an aura of mutual understanding.
In such areas as pay and allowances,
housing, retirement benefits and other
personnel matters, Defense is apt to de-
fer to Congressional edict even when
there is not complete concurrence. But
in areas concerning force structures,
application of forces and the manage-
ment of resources, the Department of
Defense feels that the diversity and com-
plexity of defense activities are such as
to preclude the civilian committees hav-
ing an in-depth understanding of the
issues. It appears that the DOD position
is that questions of proper mix of forces,
systems to be developed for maximum
cost effectiveness, and questions involv-
ing the conduct of military engagements
are so complicated that even the best
intentioned legislator, with only limited
knowledge and background, cannot
have a properly informed judgment on
which to base complex force level
decisions.
Staff is Experienced
It is a fact, however, that neither the
committee members nor the committee
staff personnel are either naive or unin-
telligent. The majority have long years
of experience and association with both
defense philosophies and military mat-
ters. Many of the staff members have
been in the business far longer than
their Pentagon counterparts and are
equally as dedicated to the primary ob-
jective of national defense. This is not
to say that Congress is not fully aware
of the dangers inherent in making de-
cisions without the full and total infor-
mation available to military officials in
the Pentagon. Tp the contrary, Rivers,
himself, would be one of the first to
acknowledge these pitfalls. And here
lies a prime source of Congressional
contention. In past years, the Armed
Services ComA}Vr5 drF1R11 PA19ilpe
on the nation's top military leadership
for advice and counsel. These military
Control of Purse Strings Can
Strongly Influence Defense Programs
~N 1949, all Defense appropriations Some critics readily want to throw the
were consolidated into one Defense charge that in many instances Congress
Appropriations Bill and concurrently merely rubber stamps the budget re-
Congressman George Herman Mahon quests from the Executive Branch. This
(D., Tex.) was named Chairman of the is particularly true when the Congress
House Subcommittee for Defense 'appropriates almost the identical amount
Appropriations. A champion of strong of money as that requested by the De-
national defense programs for over a partment of Defense and the Armed
quarter of a century, Mahon not only Services. "A brief examination," says
still retains the Defense Subcommittee the Appropriations chairman, "would
chair, but also has, since 1964, been completely refute such a conclusion."
chairman of Congress' largest commit- In explaining this contention, Mahon
tee, the House of Representatives' 50. states that, "Congress, often within the
member Appropriations Committee. framework of defense funds re-
"It is not meddling," says Mahon, quested, has substantially and importantly
"When Congress seeks to influence de- changed the course of defense programs,
tense programs and defense policies. giving them new direction and emphasis.
Rather it is performing its proper and In some cases the change may represent
mandatory function." And, from the a reduction such as a cutback in funds
position of his dual chairmanships, it for an outmoded system or other
is the Texas legislator's view that, over weapons considered by Congress to be
the years, Congress has exhibited strong of low priority value; a high priority
leadership in pushing toward the attain- weapon may be substituted for a low
ment of an effective national defense. priority weapon; or a high priority pro-
While Mahon recognizes the role of gram may be accelerated beyond the
the Legislative Branch is not always point recommended by the Executive
startling when the Administration and Branch. A case in point would be the
the majority in Congress are of the same current year's appropriations relative to
party, he nonetheless maintains a firm the proposed nuclear frigates."
conviction that it is the duty of his com- In the current budget requests, AFM
mittee to serve as "watchdog of the was told, the Department of Defense
treasury" and to intelligently attempt to had requested funding for two conven-
ascertain that funds are applied to those tional destroyers. However, as Congress
programs clearly in the best interests of has always been particularly sensitive to
the nation rather than to projects of mar- the demand inherent in the current
pp ~qC ue~~ss ~~qq~~nt~ v~ c~ that the U.S. be as well
OH ~1s;'~orlgi'e NY ~dtapossible and desiring to
 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300080041-2
Mahon: "Congress, often has
substantially and importantly
changed the course of defense
programs giving them new di-
rection and emphasis."
constantly improve its state of readiness,
the Committee took a long look at the
request. Ultimately, the Armed Serv-
ices Committee authorized not only the
destroyers but added funding for a
nuclear frigate and the long leadtime
money for a second nuclear frigate. The
Appropriations Committee, on the other
hand, recommended and budgeted only
the necessary funding for the frigates
and not that for the destroyers. In this
manner Congress asserted its influence
on the future of the surface navy.
Other examples, explained the com-
mittee, were the authorization and
appropriation of money to keep avail-
able the production capability for the
F-12 Mach-3 interceptor not asked for
in the budget, and additional monies
for Research on the Navy's Deep Sub-
mergence Program. Also there was a
modest sum allocated for the continu-
ance of three Air National Guard heavy
airlift units (the maintenance of which
the Secretary of Defense has agreed to)
and for the maintenance of the B-52
bomber force at 600 aircraft.
"The Executive Branch . does not
always move to accelerate programs in
consonance with Congressional intent,"
said Mahon. "At times funds are im-
pounded and not used for the year in
action along the lines recommended by
Congress is usually taken sometime
within the fiscal year for which the
funds are appropriated."
A Source of Irritation
Without question, one of the greatest
irritants to Congress is the current
trend taken by the Department of De-
fense in the major reprogramming of
funds. The Secretary of Defense is not
required to explain how monies were
spent once the appropriations were
made. It is within his prerogative to shift
funding within a lump sum allocation
(such as major aircraft systems procure-
ment) without necessarily informing the
Congress, but merely submitting a semi-
annual undetailed report showing how
much money had been shifted. Over
recent years, however, a reprogramming
system has evolved in which by "gen-
tleman's agreement," the Department of
Defense informs Congress of such shifts
at the time and/or requests prior
approval of the commitees. Such was
the case of the recent request of Con-
gress for authority to shift funds from
various other programs in order to make
additional buys of F-4 and A-4 aircraft.
Under the current agreements, had the
committee said "no" to the request, the
President by making a supplemental
budget request in the usual manner.
It is apparent, though, that the incli-
nation on the part of Defense to exten-
sively apply the reprogramming princi-
ple to carry out the DOD desires rather
than the utilization of the funds as Con-
gress had intended, is leaving many
Capitol Hill legislators in a something
less than happy frame of mind.
In general, from the Appropriations
Committee view, Congress desires to
influence national defense through the
control of national purse strings. At the
same time, it must attempt to do so
without becoming inextricably bound in
the myriad details of the intermeshing
defense management.
Chairman Mahon feels that the U.S.
is measurably stronger today and more
adequately prepared to meet its responsi-
bilities as a result of the aggressive ac-
tion of Congress, taken upon its own
initiative, above and beyond the recom-
mendations of the Executive Branch.
"My position," says the Congressman,
"is that if Congress is due any credit,
and I think it is, the credit comes, prin-
cipally, not from increasing or decreas-
ing defense budgets but from redirecting,
re-emphasizing, and accelerating key
defense programs. The important role
which appropriated, but this is an excep- Secretary would have been left with the of Congress has been in the downgrading
tion to the rule. However," he con- alternatives of going ahead with the of marginal projects or low priority
tinued, "while prompt action is not procurement (thereby risking the ire of projects and the acceleration of high
always taken by the Executive Branch the committees), not making the pur- priority projects having a direct relation
ecK EleaSLta29Q61f0AAVat; RH UW8F300M0i60ilBOOA ive."
to carry out the Al
 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300080041-2
experts have been traditionally brought
before the committees and their frank
appraisals and best judgments solicited.
This has historically been a major
source of Congressional defense exper-
tise. Today, however, Rivers and the
committee feel that this source of ex-
pertise has been shut off or at best
seriously diluted. Frank and open dis-
cussion of the issues, they believe, is
no longer possible. This belief stems
from their conclusion that, in the cur-
rent Defense Department climate, the
information made available to them is
but a predetermined Defense Depart-
ment position, and that the top military
leaders can do little when appearing
before the committee but parrot that
defense position.
The Armed Services Committee told
AFM that it needs and desires guidance
from the military as it has known it in
the past and that with such advice they
could carry out their own responsibili-
ties to the nation more efficiently and to
the greater benefit of the Defense De-
partment. It is a committee opinion that
it would behoove DOD to take Congress
into closer confidence and keep them
better informed of its actions rather
than tending to disregard the Congres-
sional role in defense when appropria-
tions are not in total consonance
with Defense judgments. However,
for the moment at least, there is no such
tendency.
The Committee Setup
It is in this environment, then, that
the House Armed Services Committee
feels it must carry out its obligations to
the people. The committee is a highly
competent gathering of 37 United States
Congressional Representatives with a
collective total of 199 years of experi-
ence and close involvement in national
security affairs (a pertinent point, the
committee feels, when related to the
comparative tenure of many policy and
decision-making officials at the Depart-
ment of Defense level).
Guiding activities of the committee is
able L. Mendel Rivers, Congressman
from South Carolina. Rivers has been
in public service since 1933 and a mem-
ber of the United States Congress for
26 years. He has been on the Armed
Services Committee for most of those
years and has chaired for the past two
years. He has been accused of trying
to consolidate his position as committee
leader and of being a temperamental
chairman, though those who work
closely with him thoroughly discount
the former. To the latter, they concede
only that in hiAldpt Oi FtorlReleas
liefs he is direct and inclined to caustic
comment to emphasize his point. His
COUNTERPART to the River's Commit-
tee in the House of Representatives
is the 17-member Senate Armed Services
Committee chaired by Richard B. Rus-
sell of Georgia. By some, Russell has
been accused of being aloof and difficult
to reach. In fact, however, the senator
possesses a politic appreciation of the
separate yet co-equal status of the Legis-
lative and Executive Branches of Gov-
ernment. Further, he believes strongly
that in his critical role as Chairman of
the Armed Services Committee, person-
alities should not be allowed to blur
objectivity nor independent judgment
be influenced by personal friendships. As
a result, Russell makes a conscious effort
in his associations with the Executive
Branch to be cordial but not intimate;
an attitude which to a degree permeates
his committee.
"It is the moment of truth for those
in the Executive Branch who formulate
defense programs and those in the Legis-
lative Branch who pass upon them," said
Russell, prior to the start of a series of
hearings on authorization and appro-
priation of funds for the defense of the
country.
"For several weeks these (Congres-
sional) committees will consider vol-
umes of testimony and almost a moun-
tain of supporting data to help them
form a judgment on whether the opti-
mum degree of emphasis is being placed
United States." Russell continued, "The
decisions that are weighed in this proc-
ess are awesome in their complexity and
consequences. In all sincerity, I state my
awareness that those who participate
need a profound understanding of the
lessons of history, a discerning judg-
ment of contemporary events, a pre-
scient knowledge of the future to be con-
fident their choices are wise ones."
Chairman Russell is equally aware of
the legislative power that is in the hands
of Congress and its constitutional re-
sponsibilities in the field of national
defense. He also leaves no doubt of his
conviction that Congress and in partic-
ular his Committee are properly facing
those responsibilities and taking the nec-
essary legislative action to carry out its
obligations. He believes, however, that
it would be an oversimplification of the
subject to consider these constituted
authorities alone. They are not an ex-
clusive grant to Congress and an exam-
ination solely of these powers as stated
in the original charter leaves many
modern day questions unanswered.
The Constitution has given Congress
the power to enact laws. At the same
time, it has invested in the Executive
Branch strong unilateral power. "it is
a fact of life," says Russell, "that the
division of powers between the Legisla-
tive and Executive Branches is not a
simple or a complete one."
on each of several kinds of forces that Consequently, the veteran legislator
2g Qlio3QheCAt P7~QQo0V8{h'QOO QO OcltVy and with conviction
 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300080041-2
Defining Limit of Congress' Powers
Is a Sensitive Matter of Judgment
Russell: "The division of powers
over military affairs between the
Legislative and Executive Branches
is not a simple or a complete one."
tended to observe this thin line of de-
marcation between the Legislative and
Executive charters. While he strongly
defends what he conceives to be the
proper role of Congress in guiding the
activities of his Armed Services Com-
mittee, he is equally meticulous in mak-
ing certain that there is no intrusion into
the sphere of Executive responsibility.
To do so, he feels, could have disastrous
consequences. (The constitutional word-
age delineating the powers and responsi-
bilities of the Branches is sufficiently
vague as to create a twilight zone be-
tween the two; where blacks and whites
must fade to varying shades of grey.)
As a case in point, AFM was told, the
committee for some time has had a lin-
gering doubt and concern that perhaps
there has been an overreliance on the
Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, and
there is a stringent need for a follow-on
The Chairman looks upon Congress
manned bomber to replace an aging
B-52 fleet in the mid-1970s. The elon- a
capons yet at the same time recognizes
gated F-Ill (FB-111) they feel to be w
heir limitations. While he feels that
only an interim bomber at best and that t
there is a valid requirement for an Ad- C
vanced Manned Strategic Aircraft to be d
and the Committee as highly potent Congress has infinite power to grant or deny funds, he is generally skeptical of Congress' ability to legislate efficiency into the management of the Department of Defense. "It is difficult," he says, "to
under full development at this time. As C
a result, Congress has provided the i
authorization and the appropriations to 0
lake wisdom a matter of law."
proceed with such development. To n
Con-
Yet, by cutting back on funds, Con-
date, however, Defense has not seen fit
ress can force Defense to take a
to implement any full scale development g
e examination of its programs and re-
re-examination
of the AMSA. At the same time, despite
the obvious "in nt" of C res t ere e
is really no c&W~~~> '6~ Ses
egress desires to effect to force the port within its already authorized budget.
of the provided authority or the This is not to say that Russell's Armed
orated funding. Services Committee is not and will not
This does not mean that no proof- continue to be keenly interested in all
ns are made within the Constitution facets of Defense activities, nor that it
d the nation's laws for Congress to will not act whenever it feels it appro-
e action to force its "intent" (though priate. (In fact on many occasions,
has few weapons other than its almost such as last year's military pay increases,
used powers of impeachment). "In- Congress has remained resolute despite
C may be made more positive in one conflicting Defense desires.) The com-
cc of legislation than in another, de- mittee recognizes that under Secretary
riding upon how implicitly the law is of Defense McNamara "options" have
itten. Laws can be passed in what- been emphasized in an effort to do away
er degree of specificity that Congress with limited or static strategies. At the
sires to legislate. Some Congressional same time, the committee is cognizant
itics of the Defense Department would that there can always be a lapse into
e to dot every "i" and cross every "t." over-conservatism and failure to appre-
owever, Russell feels the Executive ciate the value of advanced weaponry
anch should always be left a degree and changing strategies. For this rea-
flexibility. son, Congress will unquestionably con-
tinue to carry out the functions of in-
an Wisdom Be Legislated? quiry and criticism of the 'Department
of Defense and to legislate to the degree
it feels necessary.
Thus, in a dangerous age and in an
arena of separate yet co-equal status
with the Executive Branch, Congress
must perform its role in national defense
with wisdom and discretion. For, as
Chairman Russell would say, "Under
our Constitution the initiative in the
conduct of international relations and
the command of our armed forces is in
the hands of the President. But what
the President can and will do in any
tgg those which it believes will be specific instance is conditioned by Con-
~ftQ1 ndn s Yt9E1Q3318ROOQWQflf~B( 94dolj and reaction."
Co
use
all
sio
an
k
to
it
un
ten
Pic
Pe
r
w
ev
de
cr
k
li
H
Br
.
of
C
 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300080041-2
competency to direct activities of his
committee has been attested to by high
level Pentagon officials close to the com-
mittee, who told AFM they find Rivers a
"highly capable" chairman.
Backing the Congressional contingent
is a 20-year committee veteran, Chief
Counsel John Blandford and a profes-
slonnl tstalT, well versed in defense
activities.
To direct its attention to the myriad
aspects, of those activities, the commit-
tee is currently composed of four perma-
nent subcommittees and nine special
subcommittees. These subcommittees
are chaired by some of the most knowl-
edgeable names in military affairs on
Capitol Hill: Philbin (Mass.), Hebert
(La.), Price (Ill.), Fisher (Tex.), Byrne
(Pa.), Bennett (Fla.), Hardy (Va.),
and Pike (N.Y.).
The subcommittees carry out the re-
sponsibilities of the committee charter
that charges it with an obligation in the
management of ammunition depots,
forts, arsenals, as well as all Service
reservations and establishments. They
are concerned with the conservation, de-
velopment and use of naval petroleum
and oil shale reserves, as well as the
scientific research and development in
support of the armed Services. The size
and composition of the Services fall
within their purview as do the pay,
promotion, retirement and other bene-
fits and privileges of the members of the
Services. Major among its activities is
the area of strategic and critical mate-
rials necessary for common defense.
These responsibilities are mandated
and obligatory to the Armed Services
Committee as action agent for the
House Legislative branch. Mendel
Rivers leaves no doubt that he and the
committee fully understand both the
dictate and the devoir, and that they are
zealously devoted to meeting their
charge.
AFM talked with Chairman Rivers
and members of the committee staff in
regard to the present relationship with
the Department of Defense and current
areas of committee concern.
It is obvious that relationship between
the two is better than usually reported,
but not so harmonious as it has been in
the past. However, it is also obvious
that both are working toward their com-
mon objective of the best defensive
forces possible for the security of the
country. It is equally apparent that Con-
gress is inclined to go to greater lengths,
more expeditiously and at a commen-
surately greater cost than the current
defense regime where the philosophy of
"cost effecti*p?r vac ffor Re azse 2
decision process and a holding of de-
fense resources (predicated upon systems
Legislators' Power to Investigate
Is a Potent Aid to Defense Efficiency
Stennis: "It is imperative that
Congress constantly measure our
military preparedness against the
possible demands we may face."
)06/01 /30 :._.CIA-RDP70B00338R000300080041-2
 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300080041-2
.t, rs HIGHLY questionable that any
large bureaucratic organization such
as the Department of Defense would op-
erate at peak efficiency for any extended
period of time without the motivating
force of authoritative criticism from out-
side sources. While Defense and the
military Services have tried to build their
own investigative capability (e.g., the
Inspector General system) the very na-
ture of the hierarchy and its inherent
"chain of obedience" either makes diffi-
cult, or precludes, the application of
informed criticism in important areas.
In this view the investigative powers
of Congress become a valuable and
potent aid to the effective management
of Defense resources and to proper
legislative actions. By picking an area
of Defense activity, narrowly and de-
liberately circumscribed, Congress can
focus its energies to a degree not other-
wise possible and in this manner make
a most telling contribution to national
defense. The true value of the appli-
cation of these powers is well illustrated
? by recent Congressional hearings into
Military Airlift Resources and defense
capabilities in the area of Tactical Air
Power and Close Air/Ground Suport.
On Capitol Hill, it is generally con-
ceded that "Mr. Investigator" is Senator
John Stennis (D., Miss), Chairman of
the Subcommittee on Preparedness In-
vestigations and ranking member of the
Senate Armed Services Committee. "The
responsibility of Congress is clear,"
Stennis told AFM. "It is imperative that
it (Congress) constantly measure our
military strength and our military pre-
paredness against the possible demands
which we may face in view of our
worldwide commitments and that we
face up, realistically, to the problems
which may confront us at hot spots and
potential hot spots all around the world
as a result of the aggressive and expan-
sionistic designs of communism."
To do this, Stennis pointed out, Con-
gress must collect its own facts and
make its own evaluations independent of
the military. He feels strongly that Con-
gress has the responsibility to take this
independent action and examine and
evaluate each area for itself rather than
blindly accepting a Defense-assessed
position. He said, "Despite the trend
something less than n. full partner in
military and defense matters, I, for one,
will never be content to abdicate my re-
sponsibility in this field to any individual,
department or agency; nor will I ever
be content to sit idly by and see the re-
sponsibility and obligation of the Con-
gress in this area turned over to the
Executive Department by default or
eroded beyond repair or recall."
Stennis is convinced that the major
role that Congress should play in the
defense field must be boldly asserted;
that the Legislative Branch should play a
greater, rather than a lesser, role in our
government.
In his zeal for Congressional inde-
pendence in assessing any given situa-
tion, Stennis does not mean to imply that
Congress would exclude the judgments
of the nation's skilled and professional
military leaders. To the contrary, on
matters that are essentially military in
nature, Stennis feels that their advice
and recommendations should be sought
and seriously weighed and that freedom
of expression and even dissent during
this period should be both countenanced
and encouraged. He feels equally,
however, that such testimony, if it is to
be beneficial to investigation, must be
open and frank, and without restraint
imposed by a previously determined
Defense Department position.
"Congress can discharge this major
responsibility in the defense field," the
veteran senator said, "intelligently and
effectively only if it has access to all of
the facts and to the professional opin-
ions and view of skilled and high-
ranking officers. There must be no
arbitrary restrictions or institutional re-
straints which prevent our high-ranking
officers, when testifying in executive ses-
sion upon matters affecting security and
survival of this country, from present-
ing both the facts and their views to the
Congress openly, candidly and freely.
Without such a free and full presenta-
tion by the knowledgeable military peo-
ple the Congress will be restricted to a
one-sided presentation which merely par-
rots a policy or position which has been
officially approved at the highest
echelon."
gations into military affairs and manage-
ment of the Military Establishment,
Stennis is extremely pointed in stressing
his conviction that the Legislative
Branch is not and will not be bound by
restrictions placed on Congressional
witnesses by executive officers. He
stated that in a memorandum issued last
January, witnesses were given instruc-
tions as "guidance" in testifying before
Congress if pressed for their personal
opinions. "Among other things," he said,
"they were told to give `the considera-
tions or factors which support the deci-
sion'-meaning the decision of higher
authority. This attempts," he continued,
"to compel the witness to argue for a
viewpoint with which he may disagree."
In such interrogation, the subcommit-
tee chairman believes that Congress
must insist upon direct and responsive
answers when requesting the personal
professional opinions in executive hear-
ings. Commented Stennis, "When they
are in professional disagreement, they
cannot and should not be expected to
support the opposing view."
His experience as head of the Pre-
paredness Investigations Subcommittee
has given the senator a strong convic-
tion in the value of the Congressional
role as both mentor and critic in matters
of national defense. He is convinced
that previous investigations have evi-
denced a stringent requirement to ques-
tion and further evaluate Defense assess-
ment of reported defense needs and
capabilities.
So strongly does Congress feel in this
relation, says Stennis, that his subcom-
mittee is currently involved in inquiries
and an all encompassing survey of U.S.
worldwide commitments.
"We have determined," he said, "that
it is necessary to make an overall study
and assessment of our worldwide mili-
tary commitments and an evaluation
of what is required in military man-
power, equipment, weapons and other
resources to enable us to respond to
these commitments."
Whatever the pros and cons, there
seems little question that Congress most
properly has the responsibility to carry
out an investigative role in national
security and this is a view concurred in
and desired b most knowled cable
g
in recent years, to jsPbQ t ftlease BOON @i1/i Uct c1AgROBiFOBfl 3G8R1 3OOt 8?0#4Clta2y.
0
 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300080041-2
analysis) to only those necessary to meet Advanced Manned Strategic Aircraft
assesses contingencies. The committee (AMSA) and an Improved Manned
feels that a surplus of military hardware Interceptor, he stated, "There is little
even if it means waste, is far preferable interest in the civilian sector of the De-
to a shortage that may mean disaster. partment of Defense in a true, follow-on
Rivers told AFM, that the primary bomber. Instead, the Department is
differences between Congress and the content to gamble on an elongated
Pentagon are philosophical. Both agree F-111 to be called the FB-111. It is only
the country comes first. Those philo- an interim bomber at best." He con-
sophical differences, however, make a tinued, "Our interceptor aircraft will
common approach difficult. Rivers feels start a downward trend in the years
further that the attitude of the Defense ahead and the fate of a new Improved
Department toward his committee is Interceptor has not been decided. Per-
more one of toleration than of coop- haps it will be the YF-12A or perhaps
eration. "They simply do not take us they will come up with an IMI-l l l."
into their complete confidence," he said. ? Of equal concern to the committee
He indicated that there were a num- is its conviction that a block obso-
ber of areas of disagreement in the man- lescence of the U.S. Naval Fleet requires
ner in which the Pentagon is currently immediate action to update deep pene-
managing defense resources. "I am par- tration naval gunfire support ships,
ticularly opposed," he said, "to this busi- heavy gun-carrying units and action to
ness of major reprogramming. It makes give the Navy a nuclear power capability.
k f h h 1 ' t "W h th know-how and the
r
a ions a ave a
t
is the most worried of all men," he said.
Rivers is blunt. He takes little stock in
"cost effectiveness" if it results in de-
fense without an adequate "safety mar-
gin"; nor is he convinced of the validity
of the theory of "escalation" and "re-
straint." "We have," he says, "too many
people who are counting the costs of
national security and not enough weigh-
ing the cost of defeat." He firmly be-
lieves the proper course of action is "to
build and maintain the mightiest mili-
tary strength possible and, if necessary,
commit without restraint, the entire
arsenal to preserve the nation."
At the same time, there is no doubt
that current philosophies within the
Pentagon will continue to prevail. As of
this writing there appears little hope, at
least for the moment, that the climate
can be other than one of friendly
condescension.
i
e woe approp
a moc ery o
Vigilance is Needed
process." He pointed out that funding dustrial capacity to provide nuclear
authorizations are made by budget line power for major surface segments of the Congress and Defense are close to an
item only after extensive testimony justi- fleet. But we can't even get a decision impasse on many major issues. The
fying those items. "I was dismayed," from DOD to build a new nuclear- Armed Services Committees and Con-
said the Chairman earlier this year, powered frigate," Rivers said. He gress realize that they can effect legisla-
"when the Secretary of Defense an- pointed Qut that facts supporting the tion and make appropriations. But they
nounced that many highly important construction of nuclear frigates in order can not easily force the Department of
military projects would be deferred, to operate nuclear task forces are so Defense to spend the funds appropri-
even though the Congress had not only overwhelming that "it is inconceivable ated. They can give authority for action,
authorized their construction, but funds to me that anyone can dispute them. But but cannot without complications re-
had been provided. These projects must they are still being disputed." quire that authority to be used. Rivers
first go through a long and laborious ? A caustic source of irritation to the recognizes full well these subtleties. He
study and approval by the Bureau of Congressional defense experts is the is cognizant that while Congress has
the Budget and the Department of De- current controversy over the Defense powers that can be evoked to achieve
fense before they are even submitted to Department's proposal for the merger certain ends, it is not in every case
the Congress. I am completely dumb- of the National Guard and the Re- necessarily prudent nor in the nation's
founded," he continued, "by the fact serve Forces. There is a consensus best interest to wield these powers.
that without any prior consultation with among the committee members that Thus, Defense will probably continue
the representatives of the people the despite an unequivocal and clear rejec- in its own way and as it sees fit. Yet
Secretary of Defense announced the de- tion of the merger proposal by the Con- one would be naive to the extreme, to
ferment of many important items and all gress, the Pentagon, electing to follow assume that Congress is not dedicated
military family housing." its own judgments, continues to persist to its cause. Or that it will not continue
Research and development projects, in predicating its future planning on the to apply power within the dictates of its
the development of advanced weapons merger and reorganization proposal. own convictions.
systems and failure on the part of De- This and actions already taken by the If the writers of the Constitution felt
fense to make decisions to proceed with Defense Department (which, in effect, the new nation so complex as to neces-
such developments were among the areas closely parallel ends outlined in the sitate a division of power (Executive-
causing committee concern. original proposal) the committee inter- Legislative-Judicial) then perhaps, in the
? The Hebert subcommittee is mak- prets as "thwarting the will of Congress." United States of today, it is well that
ing a searching inquiry into the Despite the differences, however, the there exists an authority vested with
announced phaseout of the B-58 and Pentagon and the Hill do work closely maintaining a vigilance over any bu-
B-52 strategic bombers and what Rivers in most areas, particularly in support of reaucracy the size of the Department of
terms the "lack of decision to develop the conflict in Southeast Asia. Both are Defense.
a suitable replacement aircraft." He primarily interested in the morale and Congress must stand this vigil. To do
feels distraught that the Air Force is not well-being of the fighting man in Viet- otherwise would be failure to carry out
flying a single aircraft specifically de- nam. But it is the committee's reaction its mandate. Or as Mendel Rivers
signed for close air support that it has that decisions to properly supply and would say, "The Congress has a consti-
been allowed t9 develop itself. equip our fighting forces should have tutional responsibility in the area of
Early this summer, the Chairman been made sooner. "It is high time," national defense. It must either meet
lauded the nation's tremendous defense says Rivers, "that more consideration is this responsibility, watch it erode, or
capability and the advances that had given to the fighting man before he takes unconstitutionally delegate its responsi-
been made. He stated, however that on the `30-yard look'." This, he ex- bility to the Department of Defense."
"there are 00Pti eth ~- e1 2 1 11b3E~'~ I~ sa t~00 d 6Wt e Armed Services Com-
military departments, and our prepara- face when he is 30 yar s rom the m-t'fee wi1I'mi t its constitutional duty
14iiis for the future." Referring to the enemy. "At that point, the Serviceman and responsibility. 0