JOURNAL OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP71B00364R000100190067-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 48
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 9, 2006
• Sequence Number: 67
• Publication Date: January 7, 1969
• Content Type: NOTES

Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
JC LJRNAL
OFFICE OF LE(..YISLATIVE COUNSEL
Tuesday - 7 January 1969
25X1
25X1
25X1
1.
Assistant,
IWork1 out with Robert Michaels, Staff
riouse Appropri tions Committee, plans for his visit to some
2.
William Woodruff, Assistant Chief
25X1
25X1A
25X1
25X1
Clerk, Senate Appropriations Commiztee, informed me that Senator Russell
wanted to be certain that his Subcommittee-received an Agency roundup
briefing before we briefed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Woodruff
wanted to be informed as soon as we had any indication that the Foreign
Relations Committee wished to schedule a briefing. He said Senator Russell
would be preoccupied with the Senate Rules debate next week (13-17 January)
but might like an Agency briefing the following week (20 - 24 January). In
any event however the Senator would want to be sure that his Subcommittee
heard from the Agency before we appeared before Senator Fulbright's
Committee.
3. Met with Representative F. Edward
Hebert (D., La.) and advised him that has
not filed the application for employment furnished him at the time of inter-
view and that we are now putting his file on the inactive list. Mr. Hebert
agreed that the file should not be kept open any longer and expressed
appreciation for our assistance i.i this case.
25X1A
25X1A
In conversation, Mr. Hebert advised that he will be returning to New Orleans
in March for an eye operation which will take him out of circulation for some
three months. For the first time in recent months, he seemed somewhat
optimistic about improving his eyesight.
4. Met with Mr. J. R. Blandford, Chief Counsel,
House Armed Services Committee, and completed the appropriate documenta-
tion on two projects for which Secrecy Oaths had not been signed.
5. Met with Mr. Frank Slatinshek, Counsel, House
Armed Services Committee, and briefed him on the security control systems
utilized in the protection of sensitive information and completed the appro-
priate Secrecy Oath. Mr. Slatinshek has recently been designated by the
Chairman to attend CIA Subcommittee briefings.
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
25X1
25X1
25X1A
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
- Office of Legislative Couris,.:1, Page 2
- 7 Zanuary 1969
6. In response to his call, met with Mr.
Norris, Counsel, House Armed 5ervices Special Subcommitton ee
Seapower, who requested a h.,:lef :anciowIl on the current picture _anca
forecast, both political and economic, ,,:he country of Liberia. Chairmai
Charles Bennett (D., Fla.) is currently reviewing registration of commercial
vessels arid has noted in particu.iar no disproportionate amount of tonnage
flying the Liberian flag. DD/1 has 1.-f.a advised.
7. S-Dor-e. -t.) Representative Michael Feighan,,
, Ohio), concerning the 2r1v:Ltt: his for
rhich he had introduced in
irc last Session but which dieL Lac elm ot the Session. Feighan said he
25X1
25X1A
be glad
6.
Assistant to
to reintroduce the
',Di
Informed aoy Carlson, Adrninistratve
-al
Washington), that
Representative Julia Iliansen (D. ,
be interviewed by our recruiter on 13 January. See 3-earn
would
of 6 January.
25X1
9. J. ::.kju'rwine, Senate Internal Se.curiA-v- -
committee, called and said he understooct that the Agency has prepar,.:d
study on Communist influence in radical student activities on a wor-Ldwide
basis. He asked if it would be :jos olsfor him to read the study, and 5:f in.
we could provide a briefer fo brie-: him on the subject as his Subdommnitee
',:lanning to hold hearings on this H.11.4je,et during this session. I told
him I would look into it and be back n t,..;uch with him.
25X1
1O Bill Wocht.if,on the staff of the Senate
priations Committee, called and saia= he had been going over some of on:
reserveletters for Senator Eusseli, in connection with the 16 December
1968 letter, he would like a brealcd.-,v,rh_ of the figures for Vietnam and Laos.
With respect to tne 23 December leer, he would like further clarification
regarding the sensitive project invoi.ve-41. He would like this information
sometime tomorrow. I contact.ec_i vho is working on this.
Approved For Release 2006/01/30,: CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
25X1
25X1A
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
ournal - Office of LcisaLive e Page 4
Monday - 6 January 1969
A.pproriations Committee
with Mr. William Woodruff,
although Mr. Woodruff will not:E
for at least two to three weei,....5
can be away from the Committa
but will be unable to travel at a
The DD/S&T. have been acivised.
Also received from
documents forwarded to Me -.tie
cc:
0 /DDCI
Ex/Dir-Compt
HA /DDP
DD/I
DD/SiszT
DD / S
Mr. Houston
Mr. Goodwin
OPPB
Item 3 - FBIS
Item 4 - DID/OCS
cicm Mr. Robert ivlichaels, House
advised after a final check
ata,ATypropriations Committee., that
to get away from the city
r,lt)hger, that he (Mr. Michaels)
tns week after Wednesday morning
date in the foreseeable future.
,Viichaels a receipt for classified
.:_riran on 23 December.
CitE M. MAURY
. ..,:_,1,,Lative Counsel
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
25X1
25X1A
25X1A
Approved For Rele
:Journal - Office of Legislative Counsel
Friday - 3 January 1969
aP71600364R000100190067-4
Page 2
4. In connection with Senator Ernest F.
Hollings' (D., S. C . ) earlier call to OLC, for information on
the World Anti-Communist League, accompanied the
Taiwan analyst of OCI, to a meeting with Senator Hollings and Michael
Joy, his Legislative Assistant. Senator Hollings' interest stems from an
invitation to attend a conference in Taiwan on 23 January in which the
League is involved.
The briefing went well, with Senator Hollings complementing
on his detailed knowledge of the subject. I stressed that the
Government's position with respect to the World Anti-Communist League
was not within the Agency's province. Mr. Joy had contacted Mr. Hart,
of State Department, whose information and evaluation was similar to
that given by Senator Hollings was grateful for our help and
determined it to be in his best interest to decline the invitation.
25X1A
25X1A
25X1
5.
Staff Director,
furnished to
Liberty to
At the request of Garner J. Cline,
25X1A
Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization,
him the name of as the person in Radio
whom he could write
a "thank you" letter.
25X1
6.
Talked to Frank McNamara, House
Committee
on Un-American Activities,
concerning the Committee's
25X1A
25X1A
25X1
25X1A
request for to appear before the Committee. I noted
that Chester Smith, General Counsel of the Committee had made the
original request. McNamara was unaware that the request had been
made and expressed some doubt that could provide information
of value to the Committee. He also stated that because of the lack of
appropriations and a Committee agenda that he thought it unlikely that
could appear before the Committee prior to February. McNamara
will check with Smith on this.
7. Met with Mr. Robert Michaels, House
Appropriations Committee staff, who advised that neither he nor Mr.
Woodruff, Senate Appropriatisla, were able to set a time
for possible travel to next week. I will recheck with Mr.
Michaels on Monday.
Approved For Release 20604 I DIENSFIAL00364R000100190067-4
25X1A
ApprovekFor Release 200 FE
90067-4
the
JOURNAL
OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL
Friday - 3 January 1969
Fran Hewitt, on the staff of
called to say that he had a
considerable amount of classified material to be destroyed and asked
if we would assist (as we have in the past) by making our incinerator
facilities available for this purpose. I told Hewitt we would be happy
to cooperate with him and would make arrangements with him for this
to be done next week.
2. Jay Sourwine, on the staff of the
Senate Special Subcommittee on Internal Security, called to say he
wanted to be quite clear regarding our position on the
ase.
3.I Attempted to see Mr. M. Albert
Figinski, Chief Counsel, Senate Improvements in Judicial Machinery
Subcommittee, in connection with Senator Tydings' letter to the
Director on the Agency's cooperation with the U.S. courts on
computerized translation of court reporter's notes. Mr. Figinski
was unavailable and I will try to contact him Monday morning.
Approved For Release 20
B00364R000100190067-4
25X1C
25X1
25X1C
25X1
25X1A -
25X1
25X1A
25X1
25X1A
25X1
Approved-For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP711300364R000100190067-4
Journal - Office of Legislative Counsel
Thursday - 2 January 1969
Page 3
8. FI Staff, advised that a former
staff agent has an appointment with a Member of Congress in the leadership
to obtain his endorsement for a position with the new Administration.
is bringing this to the attention of the DDP and it was
recommended that the Member of Congress be advised of the former
Agency employment either directly by the individual or by this office.
9. In connection with recent legislation
enlarging the scope of the Department of Defense dependent schooling
program to include kindergarten instruction, spoke with Dr. Anthony
Cardinale, Director for Dependents Education, Office of the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense, who advised that the funds for the program
were appropriated in P. L. 90-580 and that the approval of the appropriation
constituted approval of the program as reflected in the hearings on the
DOD appropriations for fiscal 1969. This information was passed to
pns.
11. Talked with Mr. Chester Smith,
General Counsel, House Committee on Un-American Activities, and
indicated that we were available to begin discussions with the HCUA
staff regarding a possible appearance by before the
Committee in executive session. Mr. Smith said, since the Committee
will have a new chairman and be reorganized, he would prefer to delay
this until around the 15th of January. He will contact us at that time.
It was agreed that if should become anxious to make any public
pronouncement before that time we would so advise the Committee.
12. Met with William Woodruff Senate
Appropriations Committee staff, and briefed him on the substance of
a recent bulletin item having to do with the Soviet defense budget.
Additional material on this is being prepared by OSR and will be made
available to Woodruff at a later date.
Wi:P?
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
25X1A
25X6
25X1A
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA4RVeg364R000100190067-4
YORK TIMES ?AG
Senate Unit Defies Tradition, Leaves Aid Sum LT p to Aui
By FELIX BELAIR Jr.
Special to The New Yark Tines
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16?The
iswtq Apprs2i2riations-
41thfiati,ed tradition today and
V its approval of a foreign
aid money bill whose level
VrOttld be fixed by Senate and
lIcuse conferees now consider-
The authorizing legislation.
e committee adopted with-
attchange a total of $2.13-bil-
lion recommended only an hour
eater by its Foreign Operations
Sullcommittee for the substan-
tin economic and military ai
pro,rams in the current fiscal
year ending June 30.
But the figure was arrived a'
in _the interest of speed and
subject to an understanding
that it would be lowered before
coming to the Senate floor to
whatever figure the conferees
on the authorizing legislation
may produce tomorrow.
It thus appeared that the ap-
propriation on which the Senate
would be asked to act would
be about $1.75-billion? about
the same as Congress appropri-
ated last year.
Conferees for the Senate and
House reached tentative agree-
ment earlier in the day on an
authorization of $1,644,525,000
for all economic aid categories.
This was about $561-million
less than had been requested
by President Nixon for helping
less developed countries.
Authorizing legislation sets
spending ceilings and fixes poli-
cies. Appropriation measures
actually provide the money.
aditionally, the Senate Ap-
propriations Committee does
not begin its markup process
unto both legislative branches
have adopted the compromise
agreement reached by conferees
on the differences between the
Hotise and Senate versions of
the authorizing legislation.
rye on Recess
If was clear that the Aprixtt7
n-LE-ions Commmittee action
wa an effort to complete the
appropriations agenda in time
or he usual Christmas recess.
?redcient Nixon warned in a
hews conference recently that
he would call Congress back
into extra session the day after
Christmas unless it completed
ill,aonev bills and several leg-
,s1L;Ive projects urged by the
The $2.13-billion appropria-
tion bill took the full commit-
tee less than an hour to ap-
prove. The subcommittee, head-
ed for the first time this year
by Senator Gail McGee, Demo-
crat of Wyoming, held a single
meeting on the bill earlier in
the afternoon and completed
its recommendations in two
hours.
As ordered reported to the
Senate, subject to the ceilings
fixed by conferees on the au-
thorizing legislation tomorrow,
the money 'bill provided about
$1.7-billion of economic aid and
about $375-million for military
aid grants. Also included in the
measure was $75-million to
provide a reserve fund for the
newly authorized Overseas Pri-
vate Investment corporation.
This reserve fund was con-
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
tamed in t
ure as an
without ai
ing. The
that the $'
rovided or
tion stage.
The cor
vide priva
tive under
the existh
antee prog
Agency fc
velopment.
The mi
proved foi
grame by
priations
million mc
the House-
measure. I
$79.5-millic
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
thorization Conferees
he authorizing meas. aid section of the House
open-end item and
ty fixed money ceil-
kdministration asked
75-million finding be
ily in the iippropria-
poration wpuld pro-
te enterprise initia-
Federal suepices for
tg investment guar-
ram operated by the
a- International De-
)ney amounts ap-
? economic aid pro-
the Senat. Appro-
panel werc $486A.
ire than provided in
passed appropriation
3ut the group stripped
rn from the military.
measure.
This cutback included a total
disalowance of the $54.5-mil-
lion voted in the House for a
down payment on a squadron
of F-4-D jet fighter planes for
Natimalist China. A further
cut of $25-million in general
military aid funds by the Sen-
ate ,:ommittee would have cut
the total for the purpose t,
But the panel then put baci
into the money bill a S50-mil
lion House provision for adde(
military assistance to Soul
Korea. This item ha been ap
nroved by the House but the
was stricken in the Senate al
thorization measure.
_
RIMEMBER THE NEEDVEST!
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
S 16782
McIntyre
Murphy
Packwood
Pastore
Pearson
Prouty
Approved For Retwagin3pL: 9,1ettlerT1BIgRA.11.%0010019q9Vekber 16, 1969
Scott
Smith, Ill,
Spong
Stennis
Stevens
Talmadge
Thurmond
Tower
Williams, Del.
Young, N. Dalt.
PRESENT AND GIVING LIVE PAIRS, AS
PREVIOUSLY RECORDED-5
Cook, for. Metcalf, for.
Saxbe, for. Mansfield, against.
Magnuson, for.
NOT VOTING--10
Anderson
Cooper
Jackson
Miller
Mundt
Russell
Sparkman
Symington
Tydings
Williams, N.J.
So the amendment of Mrs. SMITH of
Maine was rejected.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I move to
reconsider the vote by which the amend-
ment was rejected.
Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT
AMENDMENTS OF 1969
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask the
Chair to lay before the Senate a message
from the House of Representatives on
S. 3016.
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid be-
fore the Senate the amendment of the
House of Representatives to the bill
(S. 3016) to provide for the continuation
of programs authorized under the Eco-
nomic Opportunity Act of 1964, to au-
thorize advance funding of such pro-
grams, and for other purposes, which
was to strike out all after the enacting
clause, and insert:
That this Act may be cited as the "Eco-
nomic Opportunity Act Amendments of
1969".
TITLE I?EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION
SEC. 101. For the purpose of carrying out
programs under the Economic Opportunity
Act of 1961 for which there are no separate
authorizations of appropriations in such Act,
there are hereby authorized to be appropri-
ated $1,563,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1970, and such amount as may be
necessary for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1971.
SEC. 102. Sections 161, 245, 321, 408, 615, and
835 of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964
are each amended by striking out "1967" and
by inserting in lieu thereof "1969". Section
523 of such Act is amended by striking out
"June 30, 1968, and the two succeeding fiscal
years" and by inserting in lieu thereof "June
30, 1969, and the three succeeding fiscal
years".
TITLE II?SPECIAL WORK AND CAREER
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
SEC. 201. Title I of the Economic Opportu-
nity Act of 1961 is amended redesignating
part E as part F, by renumbering section 161
(as amending by section 102 of this Act) as
section 171, and by inserting after part D the
following new part:
"PART E?SPECIAL WORK AND CAREER DEVEL-
OPMENT PROGRAMS
"STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
"SEc. 161. The Congress finds that the 'Op-
eration Mainstream' program aimed primarily
at the chronically unemployed and the 'New
Careers' program providing jobs for the un-
employed and low-income persons leading to
broader career opportunities are uniquely
effective; that, in addition to providing per-
sons assisted w i M. jobs, the key to their
economic independence these programs are
of advantage to the community at large in
that they are directed at community beau-
tification and betterment and the improve-
ment of health, education, welfare, public
safety, and othei public services; and that,
while these programs are important and nec-
essary componeets oi comprehensive work
and training provraros. there is a need to en-
courage imagins .*ive and innovative use of
these programs, -Ai enlarge the authority to
operate them., a ad to increase the resources
available for thein.
"Ill-- CIA I. PROGRAMS
"Sc. 162. (a) "f be Director is authorized to
provide financial assis)ance to public or pri-
vate nonprofit agencie, to stimulate and sup-
port efforts to provide the unemployed with
jobs and the by;income worker with greater
career opporturnly. Pr grams authorized un-
der this section hail alclude the following:
"(1) A special program to be known as
'Mainstream' winch nvolves work activities
directed to the tired, ol those chronically un-
employed poor c ho have poor employment
prospects and are unable, because of age,
physical condita,n, obsolete or inadequate
skills, declin ng economic conditions, other
causes of a lack employment opportunity,
or otherwise, to iectire appropriate employ-
ment or training awisi aace under other pro-
grams, and whirl,, in addition to other serv-
ices provided. c 11 enable such persons to
participate in pt leets for the betterment or
beautification re tile community or area
served by the progrfun, including without
limitation activil tes winch will contribute to
the managemern . con mrvation, or develop-
ment of natural esom ces, recreational areas,
Federal, State, aod loeal government parks,
highways. and o sier lands, the rehabilitation
of housing, the i*Iproveinent of public facili-
ties, and the irm rovement and expansion of
health, educatiot, ela, care, and recreation
services;
"(2) A spell , prop ram to be known as
'New Careers wi oh w:II provide unemployed
or low-incorr e n..rsoir with jobs leading to
career opportun tee. including new types of
careers, in prop qns designed to improve the
physical, social, conom lc, or cultural condi-
tion of ihe con manity or area served in
fields of public service, including without
limitation heali I . education, welfare, recre-
ation, day care, acigliborhood redevelopment,
and public safe: i ch provide maximum
prospects for on ,he-j, kb training, promotion,
and nth:income) t and continued employ-
ment with Fece ral essista,nce, which give
promise of cant: outing to the broader adop-
tion new mccl ods cm structuring jobs and
new rnetliodf 01 arovirii ng job ladder oppor-
tunities, and win ih or code opportunities for
further occupiv ain ,1 'aiming to facilitate
career advancers art
" (b ) The Dirc; to.' ic athorized to provide
financial anc. o, .er a s)stance to insure the
provision of sup )orcice and follow-up serv-
ices to supplern1, prnerams under this part
including heal! Ties, counseling, day
care for children . transportation assistance,
and other spech serv-ces necessary to assist
individuals to mu Mew success in these pro-
grams and in Cl: ployment.
"ADMIN s 1-1IA ru P. REGULATIONS
"SEC. 163. Thu Director shall prescribe reg-
ulations to assto e Liar, programs under this
ate internal administrative
tiny requirements, person-
;a1.),11, ion procedures, avail-
'ice *mining and technical
km-, mid other policies as
10 promote the effective
part have ailed,
controls, accoui,
nel standards.
ability of in-ser
assistance progr,
may be necessin-
use of funds
"SEC. 164. (a)
vide financial a:
'IA I . NDIT/ONS
rho Ui rector shall not pro-
- e for any prograni Un-
der this part unless he determines, in ac-
cordance with such regulations as he may
prescribe, that?
"(1) no participant will be employed on
projects involving political parties, or the
construction, operation, or maintenance of
so much of any facility as is used or to be
used for sectarian instruction or as a place
for religious worship;
"(2) the program will not result in the
displacement of employed workers or impair
existing contracts for services, or result in the
substitution of Federal for other funds in
connection with work that would otherwise
be performed;
"(3) the rates of pay for time spent in
work-training and education, and other con-
ditions of employment, will be appropriate
and reasonable in the light of such factors
as the type of work, geographical region, and
proficiency of the participant; and
"(1) the program will, to the maximum ex-
tent feasible, contribute to the occupational
development and upward mobility of indi-
vidual participants.
"(b) For programs which provide work and
training related to physical improvements,
preference shall be given to those improve-
ments which will be substantially used by
low-income persons and families or which
will contribute substantially to amenities or
facilities in urban or rural areas having high
concentrations or proportions of low-income
persons and families.
"(c) Programs approved under this part
shall, to the maximum extent feasible, con-
tribute to the elimination of artificial bar-
riers to employment and occupational ad-
vancement.
"(d) Projects under this part shall pro-
vide for maximum feasible use of resources
under other Federal programs for work and
training and the resourc-is of the private
sector.
''PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS
"SEC. 165. (a) Participants in programs un-
der this part must be unemployed or low-
income persons. The Director, in consultation
with the Commissioner of Social Security,
shall establish criteria for low income, taking
Into consideration family size, urban-rural
and farm-nonfarm differences, and other
relevant factors. Any individual shall be
deemed to be from a low-income family if
the family receives cash welfare payments.
"(b) Participants must be permanent res-
idents of the United States or of the Trust
Territory of the Pacific Islands.
"(c) Participants shall not be deemed Fed-
eral employees and shall not be subject to
the provisions of law relating to Federal em-
ployment, including those relating to hours
of work, rates of compensation, leave, un-
employment compensation, and Federal em-
ployment benefits.
"EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF ASSISTANCE
"SEc. 166. The Director shall establish cri-
teria designed to achieve an equitable dis-
tribution of assistance among the States. In
developing those criteria, he shall consider,
among other relevant factors, the ratios of
population, unemployment, and family in-
come levels. Of the SUMS appropriated or
allocated for any fiscal year for programs
authorized under this part not more than
121A per centum shall be used within any one
State.
"LIMI=IONS ON FEDER A L ASSISTANCE
"SEC. 167. Programs assisted under this part
shall be subject to the provisions of section
131 of this Act.
"AUTI-IuRIZ '.T1ONS
"SEC. 161. For the purpose of carrying out
programs under this part, there are hereby
authorized to be appropriated $110,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and
such amount as may be necessary for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1971."
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
December 15, /9Approved
nfteirrpsmaQiii/p1k3LOGSMVRDRM30064R000100190067-4 S16781
One of :he most fateful issues before
us as a people at the present time is
whether or not we should proceed with
the construction of an ABM system. It
is an exceedingly complee issue. to which
there is no easy answer.
1.ast summer we enca red here in tire
Fe note in a long and thorough debate of
tee issue. When the roll was finally
celled, we found ourselves evenly divided.
do no regard this vote ;le a final
nate pronouncement on the issue. Even
if it had been more decisive, it would be
proper, in my view, to reexamine the
iseue at a later date.
I do not believe, however, that now is
an appropriate time for such a reexami-
nation. Du? to the press cf business upon
us as the holiday season approaches, we
simply car not reopen our deliberations
in the depth which our responsibilities
require. Ur der the circumstances. I have
decided to vote against today's amend-
ment.
'Fbis vote should be nterpreted for
what it is and no more. I voted last
slimmer against the administration's
proposal to move ahead with construc-
tion of the Safeguard system. I stand on
my vote. but I also feel we should abide
OL this time with the result of last sum-
mer's rollcell. My vote tcday, therefore,
is directed against the timeliness rather
than the substance of today's amend-
ment. I simply do not believe that it
would be proper to reopen the underlying
iseue at thi.; time.
SAFEGUARD IS NO SA ,EGUARII
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President. the
safeguard hard-point ABM is. a system
of many weaknesses. Nct the least of
these is the missile site radar. or MSR.
watch is se inadequate as to invalidate
lire entire system.
zSll four najor Safeguard components
are carried over from the Sentinel and
Nike-X city-defense systems: none are
suitable for the hard-poirit defense mis-
sion. Let us consider the missile site
radar as an example. It is possible for
the Soviet Union to mount an inexpen-
sive reliable attack on the MSR' s which
would render the entire Safeeuard sys-
tem inopereble.
Because of its high cost?current esti-
mates run at about $1e5 million per
copy?it is impractical as build more
than one MSR for each Minuteman
ICBM farm. An MSR is n ?eessary for all
ABM intereeptions. Because of its short
ranee. there is no overlap Let ween MSR's.
Thus. destruction of a Minuteman farm's
MSR would leave that farm without
ABM proteetion. Destruction of all 12
of Safegua:ai phase 2's MS1Res would
-ender the ntire system inoperable.
Let us .te;sume the Safeauard ABM
syetem will be 70 percent effective. Even
aliewing to multiple interceptor firings
at a single soviet wareeac, this is a leen-
erie/S assumption of' ABM system effec-
la mess =ler ideal test conditions. In
CF' CO% text of a real-life heavy sophist i-
( .e men te attace. It is (?xtremely goa-
lie folloving three estimate, oi Soviet
offensive missile capabilite are based on
official Pentagon statements. If. in fact,
the Soviet capability is not as great as
the Pentagon claims. our ICBM's are not
seriously threatened and we do not need
Safeguard. If the Soviet missile capa-
bility is as good or better than the De-
fense Department claims. Safeguard will
not help us, as I shall now demonstrate.
Pirst, let us assume Soviet missile ac-
curacy will be such that a 5-megaton
warhead will have a 95-percent nroba-
bility of destroying a hardened ICBM
silo. Since an MSR is only one-tenth as
"hard" as a silo, a one-half megaton
warhead will have a 95-pereent probe-
bilitv? of destroying an MSR.
Second. Let us assume 20 percent of
the Soviet warheads will malfunction at
some point.
Third. het us assume the Soviet SS-9
missile is capable of carrying a single
20- to 25-megaton warhead, or three 5-
megaton independently targetable MIRY
warheads. From this it can be extrapo-
lated that an SS-9 could carry 10 one-
half megaton warheads and have some
payload left over for penetration aids.
Applying standard statistical proce-
cedures to these three assumptions, one
can calculate that an attack by 8 one-
half megaton warheads would leave a
13-percent probability of MSR survival.
An attack by 16 warheads reduces the
probability of 1.8 percent; 20 warheads
reduce it to a negligible 0.7 percent.
Dr. Foster ofthe Defense Department
has estimated the cost of a single war-
head SS-9 at $30 million. Based on this.
a 10-warhead MIRV SS -9 might cost $35
million. Thus, the cost of destroying an
MSH would be two SS-9 missiles, or about
$70 million. The entire 12-MSR Safe-
guard system, which will cost at least
$12 billion, can thus be rendered inoper-
able by 24 SS-9's casting a total of $840
million.
So each dollar we spend on Safeguard
can be neutralized by a Soviet expendi-
ture or 7 cents. Safeguard is a poor in-
vestment indeed.
Several alternative proposals have
been smetested, some of which offer
some hope of economical and effective
hardpoint defense. But none of these
have any major components in common
with Safeguard. Therefore, if we even-
tuaily decide to build an effective ABM
defense, all money spent on Safeguard
deployment will have been wasted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the Smith-Cooper-
Hart amendment. On this question the
yeas aria nays have been ordered, and
the clerk will call the roll.
I he assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COOK I when his name was
called). On this vote I have a live pair
with tee Senator from Iowa (Mr.
MILLER . If he were present and voting.
he would vote "nay." If I were permitted
to vote, L would vote "yea." I therefore
withhold my vote.
Mr. SAXBE (when his name was
called). On this vote I have a live pair
with the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
MUNDT I . It he were present and voting.
he would vote "nay." If I were permitted
to vote. I would vote "yea." I therefore
witiMoid my vote.
Mr. MAGNUSON i after having voted
in the affirmative). On this vote I have a
live pair with the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. RUSSELL). If he were present and
voting, he would vote "nay." If I were
permitted to vote. I would vote "yea." I
therefore withdraw my vote.
Mr. METCALF after having voted in
the affirmative,. On this vote I have a
live pair with the Senator from Washita"-
ton (Mr. Jeer:Loa If let were present
and voting. Ile would vote "nay.- If I weee
permitted to vote. I would vote 'yea." I
therefore withdraw my vote.
Mr. MANSFIELD (after ins voted
in the negative ) . On this vote I 'nave a
pair with the distineuished Senator from
Maryland I Me TYDINGS . If he were
present and %Teener he would vote "yea."
If I were net mated to vote, I would
vote "nae." I therefore withdraw my
vote.
Mr. KENNEDY. I announce that the
Senator from New Mexico (Mr. ANDES-
SN), the Senator from Georgia (Mr.
RUSSELL) the Senator from Alabama
(Mr. SPARKIM1N a the Senator from Mis-
souri (Mr. SYMINGTON) the Senator
from Maryland (Mr. Tveirees) ? and the
Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Wit-
trams ) are necessarily absent.
I also anaounce that the Senator
from Washington (Mr. JaciesoN) is ab-
sent, because of a death in his family.
On this vote. the Senator front New
Jersey (Mr. Wirsearasi is paired with
the Senator from Alabama (Mr. SPARK-
MAN) If presert and voting, the Sen-
ator from New Jersey would vote "yea."
and the Senator from Alabama would
vote "nay."
I further enneunee that. if present and
voting, the Senator from Missouri (Mr.
SYMINGTON) would vote "yea."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Iowa (Mr. MILLER ) 13 nec-
essarily absent.
The Senator from Kentucky (Mr.
COOPER) is alieent because of illness in
his family.
The Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
MuNeet is absent because of illness.
ef present and voting, the Senator
from Kentucky Mr. Coopea) would vote
The respective pairs of the Senator
frem Iowa (Mr. MILLER) and that of
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
alleNee) have been previously announced.
The result was announced?yeas 36.
49, as follows:
_No. 2,33 Leg. I
YEAS-36
Ft, t
lia h
I o...?,ice
,
('P (''h
Cranston
nfl jetkm.
t:1:, rider
Fe 1 Orletht
(10 del!
tic re
1(,. ? .1,
All at
Baker
i,ea
Ito'. net
Bible
Soega
Burdick
Byrd, Va.
Byrd, W. Va.
heid
7I ,hei?
Live
fl its
SI ehia.
M.?.3art y
M-4;041 rn
!'?,1
SAY-49
non
11(.1 Ion
(to Ilia
d
11, b!
13crnini-k
Eas?:land
Ervin
Fannin
Fong
eieldwa ter
5t 'is
Muskie
Nelson
1,1.11
Percy
Proxmire
Randolph
Ribicoff
Schweiker
Smith. 1\Caine
Yarborot:!th
Yon mj, Ohio
Griffin
Gurney
Hansen
Holland
loll ml S
Hruska
Jordan, N C.
Jordan, Idaho
Long
McClellan
McGee
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
S 16780
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
CONGRESSION AL RECORD? SENATE December 15, 1969
satelliteS...aillke the_ fimetion U.S.
satellites 111, sPace is to monitor prenaar
tions around the Soviet ICBM aites,...4t
is clear that we wouleLbe_in a dangerous
situation if the Soviets achieve an_effic-
Lye way to counteract our intelligence-
carrying satellites.
To sum up the Soviet capabilities, the
Soviets are devoting '10 percent of their
military budget to strategic forces. Sec-
retary Laird says that they are out-
:,pending the United States at the ratio
of $3 to every $2 which we spend. In 1968,
the Soviets passed the United States in
expenditures for research and develop-
ment. In fiscal 1970, the United States
will spend about $15 billion for R. & D.
The consensus of experts on the Soviet
economy is that in the same period the
U.S.S.R. will spend between $15 and $20
billion for research and development.
SOVIETS GOALS
In closing, the question remains,
then, as to why the Soviets are putting
on such a tremendous push in weapons
development. Up to this point, I have
said little about Soviet intentions. Our
military planners must plan on the
basis of their capability. We must plan
to meet the Soviet capability not only
at the present time, but 5 years from
now. Historically, the United States has
repeatedly under-estimated the Soviet
intentions and capabilities on critical
offensive items such as Soviet develop-
ment of the A-bomb, H-bomb, and ad-
vanced jet engines, long-range turbo
prop bombers, airborne intercept radar
and large-scale production of enriched
fissionable material. At the same time,
the Soviets have never displayed any
serious interest in bilateral arms con-
trol agreements which would include
effective on-site inspection.
But in the long run, in the light of
such developments, it would be folly not
to consider them as expressions of the
Soviet drive for world domination.
The Soviets have always proclaimed
that they would triumph over the West
and they continue to prepare for that
outcome. As recently as April 21, Gen.
Alexei Yepishev, Head of the Main Po-
litical Administration of the Soviet
Defense Ministry, laid down the party
line for all to follow. Yepishev is a close
friend of Brezhnev and he wrote in the
official journal of the Soviet Commu-
nist Party Central Committee. His ar-
ticle clearly expresses the highest policy
sanction.
Echoing the speeches of Khrushchey,
Yepishev declared that "The imperial-
ists are hypocritically preparing ?for
new world war", and he warned:
A third world war, if imperialism is al-
lowed to start one, would be the decisive
class conflict between two antagonistic so-
cial systems.
He said that such a conflict would
"guarantee the construction of socialism
and communism." Finally, he said:
Such a war would be a continuation of
the criminal reactionary aggressive policies
of imperialists . From the side of the
Soviet Union, it would be a legal and justi-
fied counter-action to aggression.
I submit that this is the voice of the
Soviet Union that has been preparing
for war, that its Colidnued a tough drive
to achieve strategic military superiority.
In view of sue a an attitude, it would be
folly not to ccnsider the deployment of
the Safeguard ABM System to be essen-
tial to our Nation's security.
I hope tne amendment of the distin-
guished Sen i- or I corn Maine will be
defeated.
Mrs. SMITi of Maine. Mr. President,
I hope thei e v 11 not be a motion to table
this amen:In-atilt, RI- that would confuse
the issue. Instead. j would ask the Sen-
ate to do the .;lear cut and direct thing
by clearly vol ing this amendment up or
down on the inernis, rather than on a
parliament ary r ia iieuv er that merely
confuses the i2suo.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agresing to the amendment of
the Senator from Maine.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, just to
make certain 111141 everyone under-
stands?and I shall not make a motion
to table?this amendment would strike
out all the money in the bill, including
research and development, except funds
for personnel The Senator from Maine
has explained that ooint, but other Sen-
ators have since come into the Chamber.
This is a ;tweet) i-g amendment that
takes out eve 'thin except personnel, as
the Senator nas; related. I hope the
amendment will be defeated.
Mrs. SMITJ I of Maine. Mr. President,
will the Sena tor from Mississippi yield?
Mr. STENNIS. yield.
Mrs. SMITE cf Maine. Is it not clear
that there is research and development
money, a classified tern but a substantial
part of the $212 million for the Nike-X
advance dove iprnent? ?
Mr. STENNJS. ke-X?
Mrs. SMITi I of Maine. Advance de-
velopment
Mr. STENNIS. 'I be Senator's amend-
ment would net cover that.
Mrs. SMITIT oi Maine. That is already
in; so there is a substantial part of the
$212 million 11 VailaWe that is in the bill
for research a:ad development.
Mr. STENNIS. Yias, that was a part of
the old program. That could be used. But
I mean to say The amendment would take
out all the research and development
money for 197(,.
Mrs. SMIT; of Maine. It takes out all
the research and cl.relopment money on
Safeguard, bid, not on other develop-
ments.
Mr. STENN:S. That is right. It takes
out the R. & D. on Safeguard, but not
on the old Nik? prof ram.
Mr. HART Mr. President, will the
Senator yield'
Mr. STENNIS. I ield.
Mr. HART. Is it correct to say that the
amendment a iminates the money for
Safeguard?
Mr. STENNIS. That is correct.
Mr. HART There is in the bill, how-
ever, money tor otber advanced antibal-
listic missile concepts?
Mr. STENN :S. That was the point I
was making. It tares out the R. & D.
money for Sal eguai d
The PRES (DING OFFICER. The
question is on a.g,reeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Maine.
Mr. STENNLS. Mr. President, I yield
to the Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, be-
fore the vote is taken on the pending
amendment, I should like to make a spe-
cial and personal plea to all members of
the Appropriations Committee that after
the disposition of the pending bill, they
meet downstairs in room 5-128 with the
distinguished chairman of the Appro-
priations Committee, the Senator from
Louisiana (Mr. ELLENDER), to consider
the disposition, finally I would hope, of
the HEW appropriation bill and the
transportation appropriation bill.
I make that plea because if we do not
do something of that nature, we are not
going to have any business to transact
when we come in tomorrow morning. We
have the mistletoe hanging over our
heads. And we have the threat of a call-
back if we are not finished by Christmas
eve. I would like to get out by Christmas
eve. With the concurrence of the Appro-
priations Committee on the Senate, I
think we can make it before that date.
I think the plea will be taken to heart.
Anyone whom I can see personally, I will
ask to go there, and I hope that the
chairman will do the same with respect
to anyone whom I do not see.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, that
is perfectly all right. However, we have
the whole HEW appropriations bill fin-
ished at this time. There are two items
which have been in some conflict. With
respect to the so-called Whitten amend-
ment, we have some other language. The
Senator from Mississippi was perfectly
willing this afternoon to finish that mat-
ter and have a time limitation. However,
because of the way the Defense bill went
and the executive session, he had to be
up here and the Senator from Louisiana
had to be up here. So, we got everything
ready.
We thought that we could meet at 9
o'clock in the morning and have 1 hour
In which to finish the matter. However,
it is perfectly all right with me if we do
It tonight.
As long as we have to be here, we can
meet tonight and get the matter com-
pleted, if it is agreeable with the chair-
man of the committee.
Mr. MANSFIELD. It is very agreeable
with him and also with the Senator from
Mississippi.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Then, I made my
usual request. When we finish action on
the pending bill, everybody on the full
committee will please report down in the
salt mines.
Mr. MoINTYRE. Mr. President, I would
like to make a brief statement in ex-
planation of my vote on today's ABM
appropriations amendment.
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
1PY?ember 15, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL
i'aeorably on the ABM. SALT talks began
and are now in progress.
f know he President feels his hand
tnitild be vastly strengthened in the
\ LT talks if we acted favorably here on
ABM eppropriation. I think those
-.no desperately want the SALT talks to
, eietd?aid I am one of them?should
in the position of supporting the ap-
e. lineation on ABM and should oppose
iimenc.ment by the distinguished
i-,;:-iator from Maine.
I say, I think it is essential to the
eieninued :excess. or any decree of sec-
or anticipated success, on our part
the SALT talks, that ?xe do this, be-
ise put sus in the right kind of Mim-
i eiec position for us to be able to deal
-nth the Soviets on this matter.
eould like to again eepress my great
esteem for the Senator from Maine. I
teeinot think of anyone I would rather
not oppose on an amendment, but I ask
the Senate to approve thie appropriation
le proceed with the ABM.
Mr, THLRMOND. Mr. President, the
most important weapon the Pentagon
era develop, in my judgmmt, that would
act as a deterrent to a nuclear war is an
antiballistic missile system. This is not
a weapon Coat will send a missile across
Ate ocean and kill people and destroy
property. It is purely a defensive weapon.
if the Soviets?and they are the threat
to the United States and the free world
.',.viay?shaild send miss.iles over here
nd we hate an ABM sys-em, we will be
iiankfui that we do have a system to
in iervene those missiles. I the Soviets do
nue send missiles over here, then we have
Oe' erred sane an attack and can be even
wsire thankful.
%Tr. Pres.dent. I regret that 1 am on
tne opposing side from my distinguished
leader on the Armed Seivices Commit-
tee. the distinguished and beautiful Sen-
ator from Maine, but I hype the Senate
In this case will follow the committee and
..tooroye the ABM system.
T had plepared an hour and a half
-:setecii, but I have boiled it down to 14
minutes.
What does the Safeguard system do?
First. The Safeguard protects our
TCBM's, thereby guaranteeing to an ag-
,ssessor Om:. the United States would re-
tain the no ver of retaliaLon if attacked.
::he Safeguard posture avoids
suggest .on that we may be preparing
fir a first strike, as might happen if our
ienture ape eared to be that of protecting
cities attainst retaliation.
Third. It provides early warning and
defense of our boraber bases, by
ntecting against a FOBS strike coming
"tn the togit.h. The FOBS Is the frac-
inai orbital bombing system, a satellite,
ici the Eoviets have tested.
It provides an increased pro-
then against Soviet increased deploy-
of submarine-launched ballistic
fth. It protects against the acci-
,t,?iital firing of a few missiles by the
;ixtri.. It will be relatively cheaper in
alitial phases. giving time to work
any Mies before full eeployment.
.''tenth. It gives the President time to
tiethe ? the Soviets are serious about
RECORD ? SENATE
negotiations, while not delaying protec-
tion.
Eighth. It provides reasonable protec-
tion against the capability the Chinese
will hate by the mid-1970's.
Ninth. It gives the United States a pro-
tection which is similar to the protection
which the Soviets have had for 6 years.
Tenth_ It helps to reestablish the
symmetry of the strategic balance. The
Soviets have increased their offensive
capability. They have more ICBM's in
being and under construction than we
do. and they are beginning a rapid build-
up of nuclear submarines.
Objections have been raised to this
program. Critics have raised the point
that it will not work. I will simply say
that the parts have all been tested, ex-
cept the perimeter acquisition radar, and
all the component parts have been tested
Individually, with the exception of that
particular one.
Some critics say it costs too much. My
answer to that is that the cost as given
here, $779.4 million and in the military
construction bill, which includes $14.1
million. is less than 1800 million. This is
lees than 1 percent of the military budg-
et. and it is less than 10 percent of the
amount we spend on welfare.
Some critics say it will escalate the
arms race. My answer to that is that the
Soviets have It and they did not think it
would escalate the arms race.
Some critics say we have the sub-
marines that can launch ballistic missiles
and the B-52's if the ICBM's are de-
stroyed, and we do not need the ABM. My
answer is that we need a mix of systems
and we must not rely on any one system.
Some critics say we can rely on an
ICBM deterrent. My answer to that is if
the ICBM fails to deter, there is no
option then but a nuclear war.
Some critics say that it will delay arms
control. My answer to that is that the
Soviets asked for arms control talks
when the ABM was announced. In other
words, the more powerful we are mili-
tarily the nearer we will come to getting
arms control than if we are weaker mili-
tarily or we do not have the ABM.
Some critics say the Soviets have good
intentions. My answer to that is that we
must plan for capability, not intentions.
although I do not subscribe to the belief
that the Soviets have good intentions. My
answer to that is that we must plan for
capability, not intentions, although I do
not subscribe to the belief that the
Soviets have good intentions, because
there is nothing to show they have
changed their goal of world domination.
1 would remind the Senate of some-
thing of the Soviet capability. If we ever
had any doubts about the Soviet desire
for power, the past year or so should
have cast those doubts away, because the
age of U.S. strategic superiority has
passed. foe age of parity has passed. In
the past few months. the Soviets have
dramatically stepped up their produc-
tion and deployment of offensive
weapons. Listen to this: At the present
time, the Soviets have 1,140 ICBM's; we
have 1,056. Within the time frame of 5
years, necessary to get the Safeguard
ABM in operation, the Soviets will have
S 16779
the capability of deploying 2,500 ICBM's.
In 5 years. the U.S. plans to have 1,056
ICBM's.
Whether the Soviets will exercise
their capability to produce 2,500 ICBM's
In 5 years is beside the point. We cannot
afford to second-guess about intentions.
It is noteworthy that the Soviets did not
stop at parity, as many predicted.
liareaVar...._the_SOYietS have he-en con-
centrating prof:3=10M_ OP the_SUper-size
ss,a.jilTpwdve missiles, capable of -Car-
wing, up tone, 25-megaton warhead or
three...wee-heal-1e of J.fLemegations each.
One megaton is equivalent to 50 times
the explosive power of the bomb
dropped on Hiroshima. The Secretary
of Defense says that the Soviets now
have 200 SS-99's and will have 500 with-
in the time frame we need to get our
ABM deployed.
At the present time, the Soviets are
building one Polaris-type submarine a
month. At this rate. the Soviets have the
capability to exceed the 656 U.S. Polaris
missiles by the end of fiscal year 1971.
In addition, the Soviet Navy has a 2-to-
1 nuclear advantage over the U.S. Navy
In attack submarines. The most effec-
tive weapon against a nuclear subma-
rine is the attack submarine. The U.S.
position is even worse when we con-
sider that nearly half of our attack sub-
marines are of World War Ii construc-
tion, while almost all the Soviet attack
submarines have been built within the
past 14 years.
At the present time, the Soviets are
teeting the FOBS, or the fractional or-
bital bombing system. If the same ve-
hicle with refinements is launched at
a different angle, then the FOBS can
become a full orbital bomb. The United
States has rejected the development of
such a system.
At the preseet time, the Soviets have
700 medium and intermediate range
ballistic missiles deployed against tar-
gets in NATO countries. The United
States has no MRBM's or IRBM's de-
ployed against the Soviet Union. Be-
cause of our commitments to NATO,
any assessment of the strategic balance
must take into the equation the
MRBM's and IRBM's. The combined
total of ICBM's, IRBM's, MRBM's and
SLBM's is 2.750 for the Soviet Union as
against 1,710 for the United States.
At the present tune, the Soviets have
had an ABM system in operation for 6
years. The Soviet ABM is now in its third
generation of improvement. Each time it
has been carefully evaluated and tested
before the new deployments were author-
ized. I cannot belleve that the Soviets
would continue to deploy system after
system in their ABM defenses if their
ABM was, in the words of one critic, "A
bunch of junk." I think that the Soviet
scientists and military experts who ac-
tually had the opportunity to test and
evaluate the equipment on the spot would
be in a better position to judge the effec-
tiveness of the equipment than those who
have only guesses to go by.
There are nadications-that-the Soviet
Union has gone beyond anti-ballietic-
miseleeem Intifiiieislatectine testing anti-,
spae.defen,aes i1esignedAQ?immobilue
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
S16778 CONGRESS1Or AL RECORD? SENATE December 15, 1969
One crucial element in the fragile structure
of these deliberations has been the relation-
ship between Soviet offensive forces, on the
one hand, and the Safeguard response to
their rapid proliferation, on the other. In
this connection, the planned deployment of
Safeguard is the President's trump card in
the effort of our negotiators to bring a halt
ti . the seriously destabilizing continued
build-up of Soviet offensive power. For if
Safeguard conveys any message to the Soviet
Union it is this: "We are not prepared to
sit by while you continue to deploy offensive
missiles. We are determined to protect our
deterrent force. The extent of the protection
we require is related to the size and nature
of your forces. The limits you place on your
offensive forces will determine the limits we
are able to place on our defensive deploy-
ments." That is what Safeguard says to the
Soviets.
Safeguard, then, is a central element in
the SALT talks. Without it, not only would
our capacity to arrive at limits on offensive
power be seriously diminished, but our ef-
fort to control ABM itself would be hope-
lessly frustrated. For it is almost certainly
the case that the Soviets, like ourselves, must
prepare for the day when the Chinese are
capable of launching nuclear weapons at
their homeland. The Soviets appreciate this
fact; their record on ABM is clear. They have
consistently favored defensive systems, in
their military doctrine and their public pro-
nouncements. They have deployed a system
around Moscow. They are engaged in exten-
sive research and development with a view
to improving their present ABM capability.
And they possess an extensive network of
surface to air missiles that could well form
the basis for an upgraded system with sig-
nificant capabilities to intercept some bal-
listic missiles.
Our efforts to constrain these develop-
ments?to contain them within stabilizing
limits?are postulated on a concrete, visible
and limited deployment of our own. Without
Safeguard as a base system indicating our re-
quirements, the talks might well end without
established parameters to guide the future
development of defensive systems for pro-
tection from emerging nuclear powers.
The situation we face today is very dif-
ferent from the circumstances that sur-
rounded the debate in the Senate on the
military authorization bill this. summer. I
trust that even those Senators who opposed
Safeguard in August will recognize that our
commitment to it is an inextricable part of
our negotiating posture in Helsinki. To with-
draw now the support that was approved in
August would not only weaken catastrophi-
cally our position in the talks, it would en-
courage the Soviets in the belief that delay
and procrastination will enable them to
capitalize on the hesitancy to maintain our
military position in the strategic balance.
Those Senators who are today considering
whether to deny the President a system he
considers essential to our position in the
SALT talks?or to substantially cut the
funds for Safeguard and delay it further?
must recognize that, in so doing, they must
bear responsibility for any failure in Hel-
sinki or Vienna that might result from the
collapse of our position there. For this is
what is at stake?quite apart from the stra-
tegic importance of Safeguard in the event
that the talks fail for other reasons.
Many opponents of Safeguard were argu-
ing this summer that we must take care not
to prejudice the opportunity for a successful
round of arms negotiations. We were urged
to treat the Soviet Union gingerly?to refrain
from a deployment that would create ill-
feeling on the eve of the talks. I can find
nothing in the history of negotiations with
the Soviets that suggests they are influ-
enced by anything other than their calcula-
tion of advantage. They are not subtle. They
do not determine their military posture by
ref skenc-gee conceptions of "good
will." They nen ler gIve nor expect to receive
gestures of kin, ness. What more convincing
proof of this vow id. I bring to bear than
to point out. thr t their unprecedented build-
up of strategir nuclear forces remains un-
abated since ths summer, and since the talks
in Helsinki beiiin in November? Not a single
Soviet program i his been slowed down. On
the contrary, ta are ate grave indications that
they have in e development stage weapons
that will take them tar beyond the parity
some claim the, seek
All across the boar.1 the latest intelligence
is bleak: ni si, )maroies of the Polaris type
and their assosiated missiles, in land-based
missiles with ,!ncrmous megatonnage and
improving ace, racy, in the development of
ABM systems rile has lets are pursuing an
aggressive end iienerously funded program of
expansion. in one areas they are developing
multiple systen s assIgned for the same oper-
ational mission presumably with the inten-
tion of selecting aiming prototypes in order
to deploy the most effective version.
If the Soviet, genuinely desire a stabiliza-
tion of the strategic balance they will nego-
tiate limits in the hiABT talks that are re-
sponsive to thsr requirements, for strategic
stability. Whil,i we roust hope that they
fully intend ti do sc., we must recognize the
grave consequences oi leading them to be-
lieve that they need not negotiate?that
rather than s andori their continuing of-
fensive deployments limy can trust to our
reluctance to inake the necessary sacrifices
to insure our own security.
These disturbing developments, coupled
with tire delio.:te slate of the negotiations
in Helsinki, fcri ce 1.1E 0 view the decision to
deploy Safegu rd in is new light. No longer
Is the issue, one in watch the international
implications see tangenti : they are direct.
They are Mime, Hate
A weakenin today of the decision made
in the Senate in A liStISI; would undermine
the President in Helsinki and strengthen
those voices in the Kremlin that have been
promoting the. :tures trained expansion of So-
viet strategic power This vacillation would
be a clear inch satiom to the Soviets that we
lack the will and r( solve to provide for our
own defense. -uch. an "on-again, off-again"
approach to i ndan.enta,1 questions of stra-
tegic posture, far from eliciting reasonable
and mutually fiesararile concessions from the
Soviets, encou r tges their intransigence in an-
ticipation of the next ' 'off-again".
Mr. TOWE)C,. M2. President, during the
course of the ABM debate I pointed out
that the longer the debate continued and
the longer it took to get an authorization
and subsequent appropriation, we could
expect some appreciation in cost. This is
a matter thst was brought up by the
distinguished Senator from Oregon a
moment ago. think it is easily explained.
I think the oelay in getting the appro-
priation bill i'assed accounts for some of
the increase in the long-range cost. It
does not, hey 'ever, affect the amount of
money that presei Cy appears in the ap-
propriation h11. It does not mean 1 more
dime will be appropriated.
I ask unsnimous consent to have
printed in the Rocoxn at this point a
detailed anelysis of the matter of in-
creased cost which amounts to about 6
percent.
There being no objection, the state-
ment was ot-dereo to be printed in the
RECORD, ELS follows
The latest formal cost estimates on Safe-
guard tra?snetted to Congress were ones
giving information as of 30 June 1969. These
were sent to tire senate and House Appro-
priations and Armed Services Committees
In mid-October as one of the Department of
Defense, quarterly, Program Status Reports,
sometimes called "Selected Acquisition Re-
ports." That Program Status Report on Safe-
guard carried $4.185 H as the Department
of Defense cost of Safeguard. This cost
Included the total funding requirement for
Research, Development, Test and Engineer-
ing (RDT&E) , military construction (MCA),
and procurement and checkout (PEMA) as
of 30 June 1969. These were the estimated
costs for RDT&E, PEMA and MCA for the
seven-year period FY 68 thru FY 74, the time
when the final Phase 1 site would be ready.
Later in testimony to the House Appro-
priations Committee on 17 November, the
Secretary of Defense presented a tabular
listing entitled "Selected Acquisition Report
on 34 Major Weapon Systems, June 30, 1969,
Cost Summary" which showed this same
figure for the Safeguard. Department of
Defense costs.
The next Program Status Report on the
Safeguard program is now in its final stage
of review by the Department of Defense
and will show the program costs updated to
be as of 30 November 1969. It will be for-
warded very shortly to the Chairman of the
Armed Services and Appropriations Commit-
tee. The Report will show a cost increase over
the earlier Safeguard reports. The total
increase will be $277 M to $4462 M total; or
a percentage increase from the earlier re-
ported total of about 62/, per cent. This in-
crease is brought about by three things.
a. First, the largest is the inflation that has
occurred. In this regard, estimates of the 30
June report were based on the price levels as
of 31 December 1968. The new Program Status
Report has been updated to a 31 December
1969 level so that it will be in agreement with
the budget and authorization submissions
for FY 71 now being prepared. Approximately
$136 M of the $277 M is due to this price level
change, or 31/2 per cent of the earlier reported
total program investment costs.
b. Second, the Department of Defense has
held back on major commitments for con-
struction and procurement until after pas-
sage of the authorization and appropriation
bills. This has necessitated delaying the final
Equipment Readiness Dates of the Phase 1
SAFEGUARD complexes by 3 months. Com-
pletion of deployment of the second
site complex is now delayed from the
earlier scheduled July 1974 to October
1974. In other words, it has stretched
out the deployment and the period over
which our production/engineering base is
maintained. This stretchout has caused an
increase of $55 M or 11/3 per cent of the earl-
ier reported total program investment costs.
c. Finally, and the second largest, the DOD
has continued analysis and refinement of the
estimates prepared at and shortly after the
March 14 announcement of the SAFEGUARD
program. Certain changes in the estimates of
several line items have been brought about
by this further estimation and study and a
few necessary design changes have been made.
These together account for $86 M of the in-
crease, or about 2 per cent of the earlier re-
ported total investment costs.
d. In summary then the total cost increase
shown in the next Program Status Report
will be one of about 62/3 per cent: of which
nearly 31/3 per cent or half is due to inflation;
11/3 per cent due to stretchout; and, 2 per
cent due to design and estimate changes.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I would
like to associate myself with the remarks
of the distinguished Senator from Mis-
sissippi (Mr. STENNIS). I think one of the
major features of the debate had before
was that if we passed favorably on the
ABM, it would delay prospect of the
SALT talks. That has been disproven by
the fact that not too long after we acted
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
December 15, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE S 16777
There being no objection, the table
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
Funds obligaisd under oontinuing resolution
for Safegvarel as of October 31, 1969
R.D.T. & E $210.2
Procurement 2. 3
O. & M.A 9.5
Military personnel 3. 4
Total 252. 4
Mr. FLLENDER Mr. President, the
distinguished Senator stated that there
has been money allocated for Project
Safeguard.
Mr. STENNIS. Yes.
Mr. ELLENDER. I wonder whether the
Senator would put the authority for that
in the RECORt. If I recall correctly, under
the 1969 act, the money was provided for
Sentinel for meeting the protection of
our cities. Safeguard is an entirely new
program to protect the missiles them-
selves. I trust that the Senator will place
in the RECORI the legal authority for hav-
ing obligated the funds under the con-
tinuing resolution for the Safeguard
system, when the money was provided in
1969 for the Sentinel.
Mr STEN/US. A quick answer there is
that I just referred to the fact that we
could have both sites under that 1969
money. The Sentinel money was in broad.
elleiral language for a missile system of
an anti-balli tic-missile type. I will get
the book and page number .'or the Sena-
tor. I believe that he hes taiced a rood
point. It is not unusual for languaee as
broad as this to be interpreted as being
subject to the continuins resolution.
Mr. ELLENDER. Then the Senator will
have that pri tied in the RECORD?
Mr. STENNIS. Yes: if not this even ins.
1. will place it in the RECORD at the earliest
liossible time.
Mr. Presidint, during the ABM discus-
sion last summer. some concern was ex-
oressed about the fact that the Army as
a matter of ,aw could proceed and ac-
quire real estate for the phase 1 portion
of Safeguard since authority and funds
were enacted in fiscal year 1969 for this
purpose. The Senator from Virginia (Mr.
Spoise) expressed to be some concern
over this ma-ter. Insofar as I am con-
cerned, the Safeguard program approved
in the authojzation bill fcr fiscal year
1970. and in he appropriation bill, rep-
resents an intent that the .krmy should
not proceed ieyond phase 1 insofar as
site acquisitien is concerned.
The Army has furnished a feet sheet.
dated December 12. 1969. which in effect
states that ether than surveying and
site investigations, there will be no action
on phase 2 real estate sites.
In other words. until Congress spe-
cifically authorizes phase 2. there will be
no real estate acquisition for these sites.
Mr. President. I ask unanimous con-
sent to have the fact sheet printed in
the RECORD.
There bein no objectich. the fact
sheet was ordered to be minted in the
RECORD, as follows:
nitAsr 2 erre SELEari.si AcrtvtslEs
I. Plans for :he phased Safeguard deploy-
ment annoumed by the Prtsident on 14
March 1969 provided for the selection and
acquisition of all twelve sites, although con-
s' ruction and leployment was to be under-
taken only for the two Phase 1 sites near
Grand Forks APB, North Dakota. and Malm-
strom APB, Montana. The acqmattion of all
twelve sites was planned to avoid undue
delay in the program In case it became nem-
sery to move ahead rapidly with one of the
Optional Phase 2 deployments.
2 As the Deputy Secretary of Defense tes-
tified before the Senate Armed Services Com-
mittee On 13 May. the approval of acquisition
et' land for the twelve Kites had been re-
quested is a part of Phase 1. At that tlme.
uowever, secretary Packard stated ". I
would not propose that it be used unless the
Phase 1 request is approved by the Congress."
im 22 May the Secretary of De-
fense testiried to the House Appropriations
Committee that he had on his own initiative
" . held up all construction work on ABM
sites and any further acquisition of land for
these sites, pending Congressional decision on
tees program."
3. The Army suspended all action toward
survey or acquisition of all sites, including
those of Phase 1. until Congressional action
on the FY 70 Authorization Bill. Following
such Retina on 3 October, the Army sub-
mitted real estate acquisition reports cover-
ing the sees at Grand Forks AFB, North
Dakota, and Malmstrom APB, Montana.
These submissions were preliminary to final
survey and engineering activities at these
sh PS However, in submitting these reports.
the Army stated that no action to acquire
land in these areas will be taken until en-
actment of the FY 1970 Defense Appropria-
ion Aut. On-site survey, exploratory ezcava-
ilon and engineering has been underway
Ei October 1969 on the Phase 1 sites
4 The Army will continue to withhold any
survey and selection of Phase 2 sites until
alter Congressional action is completed on
the FY 1970 Defense Appropriation Bill. The
Aenly then proposes to conduct preliminary
:Airveys anti site investigations as necessary
is make tentative selection of appropriate
leentinns for peril of the remaining Phase 2
a. Safeeuard sites will generally be in re-
mote locations, outside metropolitan areas.
h. However, in the case of the site for de-
lens.' ce the National Command Authority
INCA} in Washington. D.C.. the Safeguard
epability must be provided close to the city
fe; to give protection to the NCA. At the
preeent time, no final nor tentative Safe-
eitard site in the Washington area has been
chosen leer have the field surveys been con-
ducted which would be a necessary pre-
requisite to selection. If a site is later
approved fer the Washington area, it will
(ea.-est of a Missile Site Bader and a Spartan
end Sprint missile field. The Sprint must_be
Ines' ed reasonably close to the site defended:
In this i7.FISP, the NCA. The Spartan can be
located in a second field at a much greater
distance front the site to be protected.
5. Final selection of any Phase 2 site and
submission to the appropriate committees of
Congress (4 it real estate acquisition report
covering the site will be dependent upon
approval by the President of a Phase 2 de-
rieyinent requiring that site. In any case.
l!nviever. anpliMt.1023 of land will be withheld
pending Cengressional authorization of the
additional clenloyments involved.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President., I invite
the Senate's special attention to the fact
that the Senator from Washington (Mr.
Jacissorsl, a very valuable member of the
Armed Services Committee, was planning
to be here today and had timely and
forceful remarks prepared for that
purpose.
However. the Senator was called home
on account of the passing of a very close
and dear relative and could not be with
us today.
I therefore ask unanimous consent to
have his remarks printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the state-
ment by Senator JACKSON was ordered to
be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT BY SENATOR JACKSON
Mr. President. last August the Congress
voted to authorize Phase I of the Administra-
tion's plan to proceed with deployment of
the Safeguard ABM system. The affirmative
vote in the Senate followed more than a
month of vigorous debate during which a
wide range of issues were subjected to
thorough, if not always dispassionate, dis-
cussion.
/ need hardly remind you that the vote
to approve Safeguard was a narrow one. But
after extensive hearings in the Armed Serv-
ices and Foreign Relations Committees, and
an exhaustive national debate, Safeguard
was incorporated into our national strategic
posture on August 6. From that day to this
the extensive planting effort that has gone
en in the Department of Defense on our
strategic posture. and the extremely complex
and difficult planning that led to a
position in the Strategic Arms Limitation
talks, have proceeded on the assumption that
we are committed to u limited and phased
deployment of ABM defenses. After much
delay?which was not without cost--one
nAj(1->vreidincerteirhy effecting our planning was
r
One of the Many issues surrounding the
decision to deploy Safeguard that -concerned
a number of Senators had to do with the
effect of an initial deployment on the talks
now underway in Helsinki. It was my view
then, and it remains my view now, that
the only way to approach the negotiation
of limits on ABM and other strategic systems
was to place in the President's hands a con-
crete program demonstrating our determi-
nation to provide for the defenee_of our land-
based missiles, our bomber bases and the
national command authority In Washington,
What incentive would the Soviets have
had to consider seriously limitations on their
offensive forces if we were to refraiu from
undertaking a limit?d, defensive deployment
capable of fruetrating any advantage that
might result from their proliferation of 58-9
missiles? And why should they entertain
limitations on their efforts to develop an ABM
capability if we were to unilaterally abandon
our own efforts?
So our preparation for the Helsinki talks
assumed a firm commitment to Safeguard
as a phased, flexible deployment, consistent
with President Nixon's intention to make
an annual review taking account of the
threat, technical developments, and the dip-
lomatic context, Including the SALT talks.
I am pleased at the early indications that
the negotiations in Helsinki have indeed been
serious and business-like. These are perhaps
the most complex negotiations in the long
and often discoureeing history of the effort
to limit armaments. and / ant certain that
we all welcome the constructive atmosphere
that has attended their opening.
13ut the crucial consideration in these
talks--and the fag; that makes them so
complex---is the difficulty of negotiating an
agreement on strategic armaments in a situ-
elon where every element of our respective
deterrent forces is related to every other ele-
ment?where no sirgle system can be con-
sidered in isolation. Thus our ABM defenses
are critically related to Soviet offensive de-
ployments, to the extent, size and accuracy of
their ICBM force, to multiple warhead tech-
nology and to present and future missile
intercept systems.
It is this array of interrelated systems that
has determined the nature of the SALT
tolks--in which we and the Soviets have been
huilding toward identifying areas in which
accommodation is possible in the interests
of embilizing our recpective deterrent forces.
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
S 16776 Approved For Re 8N0219.K1?11)./if
_ FMB? (wpm 100190067-4
iember 15, 1969
fiscal year 1970 all of the funds that were
authorized for appropriation in the mili-
tary procurement legisation as passed by
the Senate and finally enacted into law.
The amount of these funds in $759.1 mil-
lion, consisting of $345.5 in procurement,
$400.9 million in research and develop-
ment, and $12.7 million for construction
and test facilities at Kwajalein. Other
appropriation items for personnel and
0. & M. bring the total to $779.4 million.
I would point out, Mr. President, that
of the $345 million in procurement funds
only about $600,000 will be spent for mis-
sile parts which are for certain long-lead
components. The remaining funds are to
procure the various radars, training
equipment for phase land to provide the
required production base support.
Mr. President, as the Senate knows,
the ABM matter was probably the hard-
est fought issue on the floor of the 'Senate
of the entire procurement authorization
debate.
I appreciate the earnestness, sincerity,
and thoroughness of everyone who voted
on that important matter. Whichever
way they voted I respect them, of course,
just as much and admire them for their
earnestness and for the way they went
into the matter. That certainly includes
the distinguished Senator from Maine
(Mrs. Sigirit) . She and I had a long con-
sultation, not only on this matter but
also on many other matters. I appreciate
very much the contribution she made to
the debate. I told her once that she scared
half the life out of me at one time. There
is no need to go into all the details here.
Mr. President, I shall not take the
time to repeat the various arguments of
this debate which are already a matter
of record, including the secret session
which has been reviewed for security de-
letions and printed.
I do, Mr. President, however, wish to
impress on the Senate a few thoughts
which I consider to be in the form of new
matter. Some of these points, Mr. Pres-
ident, update the material of our pre-
vious debate.
It is an undisputed fact that the Rus-
sian threat to our own second-strike nu-
clear capability is continuing to develop.
Last May, Mr. Laird advised the Con-
gress of the Russian Missile program, the
principal element of which is the SS-9,
an ICBM with a 25-megaton warhead.
The Russian program of development,
construction, and deployment is continu-
ing for the SS-9 program. There is no
doubt about that.
In terms of the threat to America the
SS-9 system can have only one objec-
tive?to destroy this country as we now
know it. The purpose of the ABM sys-
tem, of course, is to provide some degree
of protection beginning in the mid-1970's
for our land-based nuclear deterrent.
Mr. President, I can appreciate the re-
luctance of Members to vote funds for
weapon systems which are most likely to
protect foreign countries, rather than our
own. The purpose of the ABM, however,
Mr. President, is to protect our home-
land?to protect our own people. The
Al3M, I am confident, will provide a sig-
nificant degree of protection and I might
add, Mr. President, even if the Safeguard
system is subject to all the weaknesses its
critics indicate,_ it will be better than no
system of pintection at all.
Mr. President- as we all know, the
SALT talks which have already begun
between 'United. States and Russia are of
critical importance to the present, as well
as future generations of all countries. We
all hope and pray that some meaningful
result will be produced which will enable
the United States and Russia, as well as
other countries, to divert their resources
to peaceful oursuits, rather than con-
tinue an arms race which could result in
the mutual incineration of our civiliza-
tion as we kritw it, These talks, however,
will be long and hard. We must have a
discipline in terms of policy on the part
of the Congress and the Executive which
will enable the President, whoever he
might be, to know that he can rely on a
solid homefront.
No one is going to follow those talks
with any more concern and interest than
I shall follow them. I think that, if at
all possible, somewhere, sometime, and
sometime soon, I hope it is going to be
absolutely neeessary for the so-called
great nuclear :3 owers to get some-kind of
understanding and basic agreement that
will give scum control and have a Meas-
ure of certainty with respect to being
able to detect a possible violation.
One of the most significant issues in
the SALT talks is the anti-ballistic
missile matter. I urge in the strongest
possible terms that the Senate not pull
the rug from wader President Nixon in
the SALT talks by refusing to approve
the appropriatiOns for the Safeguard
system.
Incidentally, Mr. President, I would
Point out to the Senate that under the
authority of the continuing resolutions
already enacted there has been obligated
as of October 31, 1969, a total of $252.4
million for the Safeguard system; that
is, of the money that is in this appropria-
tion bill. Many of these are already obli-
gated under the continuing resolution we
passed. A continuing- resolution author-
ity, Mr. President, permits the military
departments, a well as other agencies of
the Federal Government, to obligate
moneys at the previous year's level of
effort in anticipation of the funds to be
appropriated for fiscal year 1970. When
the appropriation is finally approved the
funds already obligated under the con-
tinuing resolution are taken out of the
final appropnation This means that
$252 million in effect has already been
spent out of fiscal 1970 funds.
Let me interject, Mr. President, that
I personally do not like the entire con-
tinuing resolution concept. This device
has become necessary, however, in view
of the lateness of the appropriations
acts if the Government is to continue
to operate.
If all the funds were to be denied there
will be the problem of finding the $252
million elsewhere in the appropriations
bill to meet these obligations.
Mr. President, there have been a num-
ber of factors on which opposition to the
ABM system ha ve been based. Some peo-
ple believe we will not need it, others do
not believe the system is technically
workable. Another belief is that in view
of the many domestic problems we now
have the city crisis, runaway inflation,
and the like, that too great a proportion
of our Federal funds are being used for
national defense. Mr. President, with
respect to the reductions in the Defense
funds over the course of just 1 year, I
think the facts should speak for them-
selves and should be quite briefly re-
viewed.
The oiiginal Defense budget submis-
sion for fiscal year 1970 by President
Johnson was $80.6 billion. This was sub-
sequently reduced in two steps by Presi-
dent Nixon to $75.2 billion. The Defense
appropriations bill as passed by the
House was $69.9 billion. The bill before
the Senate today is $627 million below the
House, or only $69.3 billion. Mr. Presi-
dent, these are remarkable figures. From
an original request of $80.6 billion, the
Defense budget has been reduced to
$69.3 billion. This represents a reduction
of over $11 billion, or about 14 percent.
It can be fairly stated, therefore, Mr.
President, that the Defense budget this
year has probably been the most carefully
scrutinized of the various appropriations
before the Congress.
I say that as a member of several sub-
committees on Appropriations. This year,
we beat all of them in scanning the mili-
tary items that run into big money. But,
they will always run into big money.
The Armed Services Committee and the
Appropriations Committee have already
scanned this ground. My prediction is
that the new budget submitted will al-
ready have a great deal of scanning done
by the Department of Defense. I am not
saying it will be as low as the figure in
the bill now, but in my judgment, it will
be far below what the first one was last
year.
I hope that next year there can be
even?and I think there should be?fur-
ther reductions and as one Senator I
intend to use every effort to determine
where greater savings can be made with-
out critically affecting our defense pro-
gram.
Let me make clear that I am not prom-
ising to stand for the total amount that
is less than this bill, because we do not
know what we will run into.
At this junction, Mr. President, in view
of the cuts that have already been made
in the overall Defense budget and in
view of the critical need for the Safe-
guard system, I urge the Senate to sup-
port the President in the position he took,
and the Congress in its former position
took, to provide funds for an ABM system
that is aimed at protecting the American
people.
Mr. President, I emphasize again that
this debate has been very fine this year
on all major military items, especially
this one. Everyone had a chance. I re-
spectfully say that this matter has had
its day in court. A decision has been
made. There is only one thing we can
do now and that is to move forward.
I trust that there will be the necessary
votes in the Senate and that the vote
will come early.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have printed in the RECORD the
first of the funds obligated under the
continuing resolution for Safeguard as
of October 31, 1969.
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
December 15,
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4..
1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 16775
opportunity to apply some of the re-
sources, which all of us know not to be
limitless to waging an all-out fight
against the real threat which is reflected
in the inadequate housing, insufficient
education and the failure of effective
medical delivery. We know the litany. It
is a litany we recite frequently at lunch-
eon clubs and when we go on campuses.
But the test of our willingess really to
begin this kind of war?a war that should
be infinitely more exciting than all-out
war against an enemy?thc only way we
can launch that kind of war, is to direct
more of the resources internally.
I thank the Senator from Maine for
giving us another chance to direct this
element of our total resource away from
the construction and away from the re-
search on a system of doubtful value,
against a threat of uncertain measure,
to the real target and the real threat?
that which is within our walls.
Mrs. SMITH of Maine. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. HART. I yield.
Mrs. SMITH of Maine. Mr. President,
I thank the distinguished Senator from
Michigan for joining me in sponsoring
this amendment.
I also join him in expressing our very.
very deep sorrow with respect to Senator
COOPER'S mother, a woman 91 years of
age, who has been keenly interested in all
that has been going on here, and I am
sorry that he has to be away for that
reason.
Mr. FULERIGHT. Mr. ?resident, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. HART. I yield.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I
wish to associate myself especially with
the reasons the Senator from Michigan
has expressed so eloquently for support-
ing the Senator from Maine. I think he
has stated it extremely well. His point of
calling attention to the report of the
commission headed by Milton Eisen-
hower and i,he statement of John Gard-
ner is extremely well made. I agree that
this is the last chance before we go down
a road which is very likely to end up
costing us anywhere from $30 to $50
billion, which will be wasted on another
one of these missiles which proves to be
ineffectual and useless.
I wish to join the Senator from Maine
in the report and the Senator from
Michigan in the reasons he has given for
supporting the Senator from Maine.
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota obtained
the floor.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield without losing his right
to the floor'?
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. I
yield.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I re-
gret that I am unable to handle this
part of the bill for the committee. As is
well known, I spoke against the ABM
when we had extended debate on it
However, I would vote for funds for the
ABM if they were limited to research
and development on the missile. But
this is not the situation, for procurement
funds are included. It Is not my purpose
again to debate the issue, but I ask the
distinguished Senator from North Dak-
ota and the distinguished Senator from
Mississippi to take part in the debate,
since they are both in favor of the ABM
and I am opposed to it.
I expect to vote with the distinguished
Senator from Maine.
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr.
President, I usually find myself in an
uncomfortable position when I am on the
side opposite to that of the Senator from
Louisiana. He is always very effective on
the floor.
Mr. President, I rise in opposition to
the amendment offered by the Senator
from Maine and other Senators.
I do not intend to take the time of the
Senate to discuss the merits of the pro-
posed Safeguard ABM system. That mat-
ter was more than adequately discussed
during the debate on the authorization
bill. Basically, the issues today are the
same as they were then.
However, there are several points I
would like to call to the attention of the
Senate. The Soviet Union is continuing
to increase its deployment of offensive
weapons, especially the large SS-9 ICBM
.T.bey are continuing with theirllighLtest
les.
ave _exidertee that the flovtets
? ? ? %It ?.'
ists had two noclear tests?one on I e
22 w ich was their first undergrotind
tea, lti
teat was a surprise to the Intent ence
Comm i y. a
aanegateneviee the_igatzSalUe.
a? ? events 11 us two things: First.
ust
and
ment
rem
program an., secon
is g? ns .e ommun
WVAIErtYllItftl.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have included in the RECORD at
this point a colloquy between Chairman
RossEta and the Secretary of Defense on
December 9. 1969, on these matters.
There being no objection, the excerpt
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
nvIET CNION AND CHINA
on their present course. This fact has a
direct innuence upon the strategic arms
limitations talks which have recently begun
in Helsinki, Finland, with the Soviet Union.
Chairman RUSSELL. LIAVe there been any
further significant_ .deEeloDments_ in the So-
ylet Union or China since your last appear-
nn fntId to mention the new .0i7vert
bomber. Please comment on this develop-
Secretary LAIRD. I would be happy to, Mr.
Chairman. Among the developments in the
Soviet Union whith cause particular con-
cern are, first, their continuing flight-test-
ing.j.__u_muittote reentrv vehIcieszsagraw_late
ulrea_cinniented titpo and second their
coT-itint...? ITC St their ABM tech-
nology.
.-R-eiterdlTIR the listx-boDalker,--t120--saziet.s
are believed LO Ilav_e begun night testa of a
new medium bomber. The program is ex-
pected to follOw a cycle similar Wthat of
other-rriethudr nom%rs. The aircraft is ex-
pected to b_e_le_ the 2/9_000-pound class.
tIIUnder. It obably have a sat-Tid-
o-stir ace m ad
L.uet
I 1,41,444.041 pess ruels.....na the
di.
Th. 'Run nuclear t.fIsy !MI r. tr. al-,
tember are also ofLutereat_ The first on
September 22. took us by .rle because
ifeWr, lEtt"frrgrffiTdffg. cannot
be sure as to tile purpose of that test. The
Wood.. on belmentnef ay, was in the atmos-
phere, and was III the U-TIletraCOrr-IWW.
TUESC-EPRIarindiOnte-Vrat-121F-CIIITEFSAT-ralq
continuing their nuclear developMent pro-
gram and arereminders that we cane t
nrn-to-fgrforir-range t t of a
nurtxturzarisable C u China.
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr.
President, we have representatives of our
Government in Helsinki participating in
talks with the Soviet Union on the /imi-
tation of strategic weapons that seem to
be making progress. I share the hope of
every Member of this body that these
talks will lead to a satisfactory limita-
tion on the deployment of strategic
weapons. However, I can think of noth-
ing that would weaken the position of
our representatives more than the adop-
tion of the pending amendment. Mr.
President, it is my hope that the pend-
ing amendment will be rejected by a
sizable majority in order that the rep-
resentatives of the Soviet Union will
Chairman Rosana.. It is my understand- know that we are willing to do whatever
Ing that the Soviet Union is continuing to is necessary to maintain an adequate
increase Its deployment of its large 5S-9 strategic nuclear capability.
ICBM I wish you would comment on this
matter, and especially its deployments over Mr. SPONC1. Mr. President, will the
and above the number you discussed when Senator yield?
you appeared before the subcommittee last Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. I yield.
June. Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, the amend-
Rlnc,Jun5 we ment of the Senator from Maine seeks
rootIniud-deploracut above to amend certain figures appropriated
tb.a_ratirs...AluVo te.._IgelL41_,,r1a:;;Eria.f3S-- unch- for deployment of the ABM. I believe the
tocznatiottle-bierne-ia-gatat same figures appear on pages 5 and 6
usual& I no at that t nte.
there have been approxirnateli ideletedi ad- of the committee report. I am concerned
aitiener -starts, but exactly when___. _th to ese in clarifying Just one point. I would like
stgruspcmili..1.0
etl,_zign know if any money provided in this
icao.acience?Wg_olai.4_44.w.441160 have buist-1 __aLooT bill will be used for acquistion of land
rrliat Inn hy for any sites other than the two sites
oontinning-depn. in North Dakota and Montana?
-.I also note that thetlioviets are continu-
4ng...61les? Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. No; no
1 n 0 money could be used to purchase sites
oautipia-zseroxic-ausigalaa--faa---thex-largo except these two. These are pilot projects
sass is gun not clear. The_ileld and accu- and no money will be spent for other
riej pf these warheads is such that they sites.
coul&-4Saaa-a-aiii?aw-trargat--t4-115-ICEW Mr. SPONG. I thank the Senator.
it on steps to cou.nter them I do
e ve-
Ito ? ? ?
6 ? ?
mu Mr. sTENNis. Mr. President. as the
d
Senate already knows, the Defense at)-
i the strategic annforace 11 they continue propriations bill would appropriate for
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
816774
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 CIA-RDP71B00364R000100190067-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE December 15, 1969
arguing it gives Russia the capability to
knock out American strategic missiles in a
first strike, -
The local, American response, these officials
argued in Winning congressional approval of
the Safeguard antiballistic missile system
this year, is to build missiles to protect some
of our Minuteman ICBMs. Then they could
retaliate if Russia ever attacked the United
States first, providing the deterrent to any
first strike.
At the same time, Pentagon officials said
the multiple MIRV warheads destined for our
Minuteman and Poseidon -missiles were not
big or ace-Li-rate enough to threaten Russian
IC81Vls. The American MIRV, the argument
Went, is basically for blowing up Soviet cities,
not hard targets. Therefore, Russia need not
build an ABM to protect its missiles.
The Ryan testimony indicates the Air Force
is working on an Improved version of MIRV
which, like the SS-9, could be viewed by the
Russians as a first strike weapon.
TicTross-aEscrfox
This is the kind of action-reaction phe-
nomenon that Sen. Jacob IC. Javits (R-N.Y.)
and other Senate critics warned about in
opposing the plunge into MIRV and ABM.
"Is not the SS-9 the Soviet Union's riposte
te Our MIRV development?" Javits asked
Deputy Defense Secretary David Packard in
Senate Disarmament Subcommittee hearings
March 26.
"Are we not witnesSing here that every
time we take a step or every time they take
a step," Savits continued, "there is a cor-
relative step accelerating the arms race and
that, therefore, there is a great advantage
in having one of the parties at some point
when they are reasonably secure, if only for
Six months or a year, saying, "This is it. We
are ready to stop now . . .'?"
Packard 'distinguished between the big
Soviet SS-9, with hard-target capability, to
American city-busting MIRV's and said the
,two superpowers had achieved "a hopefully
stabilized level" conducive to arms talks.
_ HARD TAncers
When asked earlier this year what the
Pentagon meant when it said it wanted to in-
crease missile accuracy against hard targets,
a spokesman for Laird cited such things as
Steel mills?not missile silos
The Ryan statement goes beyond improved
accuracy by asserting the Air Force is out
to increase the explosive power of its war-
heads as well. Accuracy and yield are the key
to first strike ability?also called counter-
force.
Former Vice President Hubert H. Hum-
phrey and other political leaders have por-
trayed MIRV as a menace to the nuclear
balance of terror between the U.S. and Rus-
sia.
The argument of the IVITRV critics is that
once one side figures the other can knock
out its missiles in a sneak attack, it will
be tempted to fire first.
utp,v aecera:i, and big enough to "knock
out a hardened IGBM site could be used
'to destroy any ronaining missiles after a
nation attacked the LB. first. Therefore, mil-
itary officials argue, an improved American
MERV is not necessarily a first-strike
weapon.
The Air Force has awarded Singer-Gen-
eral Precision Inc ,-yf _Lege Falls, N.J., a $3.9-
million contract 7;-i work on improved guid-
ance for MIRV we-hearls under a broad pro-
gram called Tech,: )logy C.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, I rise in
support of the aknenement of the distin-
guished senior Senate's from Maine (Mrs.
Spann), the rankine minority member
of the Senate Armed Services Commit-
tee.
We all understand_ with deep regret,
the reason that occasions the absence of
Senator CoopER. We trust that the news
with respect to the -serious illness in his
family is less alarming than that which
occasioned his absence, but I am sure he
would want me to express his apprecia-
tion to the distinguished Senator from
Maine as well as my cwri.
Initially, Senator CoOPER and I had
favored an amendment which would
strike only the deployment funds for
Safeguard; namely, $345,500,090. How-
ever, on con,shltatiari with the Senator
from Maine, _I int persuaded of the
soundness of her position. If the Safe-
guard ABM wilt not serve its purpose?
or purposes, because the mission of the
system blows north, east, south, and west
from day to (fay and from month to
month?then Pt us not devote further
millions to this particular system.
The bill before us. without the $769,-
600,000 which would be struck by this
amendment, kill still provide ample
funds for further, re_search, development,
tast, and evaluation on anti-ballistic-
missile systems. -The Senate report on
page 6 points out that $12,700,000 has
already been appropriated for research
and development facilities at Kwajalein,
and $1,400,000 br planning. Additionally,
on page 114, the report outlines the pro-
vision of funds for Nike-X advance de-
velopment; the amount is classified but
am told it is substantial. On page 134
is an item of $71,700,009 for strategic
technology---befetider?a related item
for other anti ballistic-missile systems.
Thus, there ls ample provision in this
bill, without the funds for Safeguard, to
continue research against the possibility
that we mighl one day need seriously
to consider deploying an anti-ballistic-
missile system. By eliminating funds
An Air_ Force spokesman, when asked for specifically ear rna rlsed for Safeguard, we
elaboration on the Ryan statement, declined in no way impair the security of the
comment, Several disarmament leaders, United States, and, in a time of severe
when queried, said the Air Force statement fiscal problems, permit ourselves to
confirms their fears about ttv. take stock btu ore undertaking the thei
d t
t ex-
Soviet strategists are bound give . . , penditure of still more funds on un-
testimony close reading as they prepare
needed programs. nis is very much to
ful value. In the intervening months, I
hope it has become increasingly clear
that there is a much graver threat to
America's security and survival than the
possibility of a further deployment in
Russia or Timbuktu of an anti-ballistic-
missile system.
In his interview on the CBS-TV pro-
gram "Face the Nation" yesterday, Dr.
Milton Eisenhower, Chairman of the
President's Commission on the Causes
and Prevention of Violence, observed
that our society is in at least as much
danger from internal forces as from any
combination of external forces. Dr. Ei-
senhower was not speaking of the threat
of violent overthrow by political subver-
sives. He was talking about the accel-
erating deterioration of our society
through continuing neglect of basic hu-
man needs?in housing, in education,
and health care, a neglect that will con-
tinue as long as this Government con-
tinues to preoccupy itself with the ex-
ternal threats it perceives to be greater,
and continues to pour billions of dollars
into wasteful and unnecessary items like
the Safeguard ABM. Another highly re-
spected Republican, John W. Gardner,
chairman of the Urban Coalition Action
Council, warned last Tuesday of the
same misallocation of priorities and of
national preoccupation. He said:
Not only must Mr. Nixon propose social
programs adequate to our needs, but when
the legislation goes to Congress, he must
fight as hard for it as he fought for the
ABM and Judge Haynsworth.
Mr. President, we are truly two faced
in the ways in which we view our priori-
ties and the manner in which we deal
with them. When faced by a clear and
present danger of destruction of our so-
ciety through neglect of basic human
needs we grudgingly propose half-loaf
solutions or none at all; but when we are
faced with the less clear possibility of a
threat from without?the suggestion, in
the face of most of the evidence, that the
Soviet Union might be planning a first
strike against the United States, we as-
sume the worst and rush to spend billions
on weapons programs which cannot be-
gin to do the job of countering the ima-
gined threat.
Mr. President, the time is now to cor-
rect this split-level thinking. If we do
not, historians, noting the ruins of 20th
century American society, will add it to
the long list of great nations which fell
because of preoccupation with external
threats and neglect of internal weak-
nesses.
When we became so intent on protect-
ing our "way of life" from external forces
we forgot our main task, the constant
enrichment and improvement of the
quality of American life, without which
"our way of life" becomes a concept with-
out meaning.
Let us remember that when history
reports the fall of nations that were
great and center stage, 19 of 21 of them
fell not because the barbarians scaled
the walls. They fell because within the
walls they failed to do right by each
other. Nineteen of the 21 crumbled for
neglect at home.
Adoption of the amendment offered
by the Senator from Maine gives us an
their positions for the SALTa s.
The military contention is that the H.S. be desired, ipsd tic ularly when we are re-
Air Forcemust hedge the nation's strategic minded so forcefully, as we have been i bil
bet by continually working on weapons im- n e past fevr dalss, of the urgent need
i ,- 4,,
provernerits? To do less would be irrespon- to realign our :;pending priorities and re-
sile, said one military official when asked direct our national preoccupation.
about the improved MIRV.
Mr. President,. the Senator from Ore-
He sail the Soviet Union has not taken gon has ably i autioned us about the di-
such steps as putting bombers on airborne
rect economic implications. The Sena-
alert, indicating Russian leaders have no
Sena-
worries about the U.S. striking first. The tor from 141a1/ e, and the long debate of
military line is that doves in this country last summer, have made clear the fact
A nod about WRIT that the Safeguard system is of doubt-
are unlusti ab1
y concerned about
For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000100190067-4
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 .
December 15, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE S 16773
which 34, per cent is due to inflation; l' ACCOrding to October testimony by has been a moment when full debate has
per cent due to stet/Wheat; and, 2 per cent Cien. John D. Ryan, Chief of Staff, U.S. been more vital, whether or not ABM oppo-
due to design and estimate changes. Air POree, on Defellee appropriatiOnt3 nents?who failed by one-vote in August to
IL As I mentioned earlier, we did want you _oo, halt Safeguard deployment--make a new
to have We information as early as possible. A ``,1"e5I"3: effort to stop it now.
Also, I should emphasize, however, that this The most Important factor in the threat The American delegation went to Helsinki
does not change the requested amount for is the changing strategic relationship he- with instructions to make no substantive
FY 70?the .amount carried in the current tween the United states and the 17-6.S.R- proposala. but to settle procedural matters
Authorization Act and Appropriation Re- A primary Soviet objective is to overcome and probe Soviet views. The critical decisions
questa. the U.S. lead In capabilities for nuclear war, are yet to be made on the position the United
aloe Toward this end, the Soviets have built and States will take when the talks enter their
Mr. GOODELL. Mr. President, this are deploying impressive offensive and tie- substantive stage in late January or Feb-
morning an editorial ?
entitled "Senate fensive forces. They will undoubtedly seek ruary. Before he makes those decisions, Presi-
further advances In their relative strategic dent Nixon should have the advice of the
and SALT- appeared :.n the New York position. Senate and know that he will find support
Times. /t states, rightly so, that debate A primary aim of the Soviets is to over- if he takes some risks to head off a new
on the nearly $70 billion Defense aPPro- come the U.S. lead in capabilities for nu- escalation in miseiles,
priations bill offers another opportunity clear war. They are indeed making inapres- The crucial decision Is whether to freeze
"not to be missed" to examine the arms sive gains. Their ICBM force continues to strategic missiles Immediately at about pres-
ence. grow at a rapid rate. They continue devel- ent levels as a preliminary to negotiated
The question of -Safeguard ABM de- opnaent of new and improved systems such reductions, or to leave some new weapons
as multiple reentry vehicles. A fractional uncontrolled and to set "limits" on others
ployraent involves many still unresolved orbit bombardment system has been tested, that would legalize a vast expansion of Wren-
issues. As I stated on August 6, the day They continue a high priority program to sive and defensive delivery vehicles before
of the vote on authoriaIng Safeguard: expand their ballistic missile submarine cut-off.
If ABM and MLRV go unchecked we will force. TheLr long-range aviation continues to The issue turns on three weapons: MIRS-
be in an arms race of proportions enknown be maintained at impressive levels, multiple warheads. the ABM and the Soviet
In weapons history. We will be racing not Now, what are we doing in each of these 28-9 intercontinental missile. There is time
only with the Russians and Red China but areas? First, in missiles. In recent years the to halt ABM or 88-9 deployment which, at
with ourselves as well, introduction of Minuteman III into the force present rates, could not seriously alter the
Today, we are to decide whether to deploy has been successively stretched out, nuclear balance for several years. But MIR17,
the Safeguard ABM. . . . There has been criticism of Minute- which must be halted soon or not at all,
No m,attar what the limited scale of Safe- man costa based on the fact that early esti- probably cannot be stopped without a sus-
guard which has been proposed, we simply mates for earlier contemplated programs have pension of ABM and 88-9 deployment.
cannot assume that there will be no Soviet been greatly exceeded. This criticism falls to Deployment of MIRV, which the Penta-
response, take into account that the program has been gen plans to begin in May or June:Pronnses
I Sear what is in store Is the inevitable a rapidly evolving one keeping apace with a four- to five-fold multiplication of the
action-reaction cycle, technological changes--and that the Minute- 1,700 delivery vehicles in the American
A natural response to an ABM deployment man In the Seld today Is a far different strategic offensive missile forces and un-
by the United States would be further Soviet vehicle with greater capabilities than the one doubtedly would lead to an equivalent
MIRV development and possible deployment. originally envisioned, escalation in Soviet missiles. MIRV can only
In turn our own efforts in MERV capability Minuteman III will further Improve our be halted by a test-ban before deployment.
would incraase, missile force by making possible the Intro- Once deployed, It. could only be controlled
Then will both sides look to deploying duction of Multiple Independent Reentry by on-slte inspection more intrusive than
land-mobile missiles? Vehicles (MIRVs) into operational use for either the United States or the Soviet Union
Mr. President, escalating new elements of the first time. Plight testa of Minuteman III would be likely to accept.
uncertainty can only weaken the stability have been highly successful In meeting test That is why the General Assembly's Polit-
of deterrence with resulting peril to the se- objectives. !cal Committee voted, 67 to 0?with the
curity of oar country. With respect to new ICBM developments, U.S., the U.8.8,11 and their allies among the
Rather natio fill a "deterrent gap" as the we have only the Hard Rock Silo and a emelt forty abstainers?for a moratorium on all
Pentagon claims it will, ASM could unleash advanced ICBM technology effort underway. 'further testing and deployment of new of-
a weapong race spiralling bsyond the possible We, thus, must rely on Minuteman until fen.sive and defensive strategic nuclear weep-
control by nations, well in the seventies. ons systems" as the SALT talks proceed.
Mr. President, on August 6 the Senate
authorized initial deployment of Safe-
guard by a vote of 49 to 51, after a 50 to
50 vote to deny deployment.
Now we are being asked to appropriate
funds for Safeguard.
Today, we already hear of "cost over-
runs" for this ABM system. Under the
rubric of 'cost growth,' it is now esti-
mated ths t phase I of Safeguard will
cost $277 million more than the Depart-
ment of Defense originally estimated.
The Sena:or from Oregon (Mr. HAT-
FiELD), who first disclosed the cost in-
crease, hats indicated that at this rate,
the cost of phase I may now reach over
$13 billion by the target date of 1976.
It should be recalled that last May, the
Pentagon indicated that the full Safe-
guard program would cost about $10
billion.
Beyond spiraling costs for the Safe-
guard ABM system, we raust come back
to the basic question of spiraling arms
systems.
"Ma MIRV > RAIZ?
Mr. President, will deployment of
Safeguard ABM and the buildup in
MIRY from city-target to hard-target
capability oe so great as to render im-
possible meaningful control of nuclear
weapons at the Strategic Arms rAmita-
tion Talks--SALT?
Regarding MIRV developments, Gen-
eral Ryan added:
We have a program we are pushing to
Increase the yield of our warheads and de-
crease the circular error probable so' that
we have what we call a hard target killer
which we do not have In the inventory at
the present time.
Mr. President, I shall oppose the fund-
ing of Safeguard ABM because of my
conviction that we simply must halt this
offensive 'defensive nuclear weapons es-
calation: we simply must stop spending
for false security.
In view of the aims issues facing us
today, I ask unanimous consent that the
New York Times editorial "Senate and
SALT" and an article entitled "AP De-
veloping A-Weapon for 'Hard Targets'
which appeared in the Washington Post
be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the articles
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
8111,4ATE AND SALT
The ;70-billion defense appropriations bill,
which provides initial funds for deploy-
ment of the Safeguard antiballistic missile
(ABM, system, offers the Senate another op-
portunity to debate the nuclear weapons
race, an opportunity not to be missed. The
Administration argues that nothing should
be done that might weaken the American
position in the strategic arms limitation
talks (SALT) in Helsinki. Yet there never
The U.N. appeal undoubtedly is broader
than is necessary': A moratorium on the test-
ing and deployment of multiple warheads
and on the further deployment of ABM's
and 38-9's is urgent, however, if the SALT
talks are to halt. the arms race before rather
than after an enormous new escalation in the
missile forces. This is the issue that cries out
for Senate debate, whether or not the op-
portunity is taken to reverse the August
ABM vote.
AS' DEVELOPING A-WEAPON FOR "HARD
TA Fulcra"
(By George C. Wilson)
The Air Force Is working on a new weapon
bound to upset arms-control advocates in
this country and likely to be viewed by
Russia as a potential threat.
Gen. John D. Ryan, Air Force Chief of
Staff. Indicated his service is developing an
Improved MIRV missile in testimony released
this week by the House Defense Appropria-
tions Subcommittee.
"We have a program we are pushing to in-
crease the yield of our warheads and decrease
the circular error probable so that we have
what we calls hard-target killer which we do
not have In the inventory at the present
time," Ryan said.
The term "hard-target killer" connotes a
warhead big enough and accurate enough to
destroy missiles or command and control
centers buried underground.
FIRST-WIREEZ WEAPON
Defense Secretery Melvin R. Laird and his
Pentagon colleagues have been portraying the
Soviet S8-9 ICBM as just such a weapon,
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
S 16772
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP711300364R000100190067-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE December. 15, 196,9
However, I also feel that we have to be
very clear in our own minds about certain
things. We should realize that it has long
been the practice of the Soviet Union to
convey an attitude of cooperation and
detente in one place?apparently there
seems to be that kind of attitude in
Helsinki?and at the same time to play
the very dangerous game of brinkman-
ship with peace without responsibility in
another place?the Middle East.
I have made my remarks today so that
we may be conscious of the fact that the
U.S.S.R. can carry on both kinds of poli-
cies and that our policy must be adjusted
accordingly.
We cannot allow ourselves to be taken
In by a cooperative atmosphere in an-
other policy area so as to jeopardize the
security of a very effective and durable
ally. The adoption by the Soviet Union
of an intransigent position, with which I
have confidence the administration thor-
oughly disagrees?that is the position of
the Arab States?should not induce us to
make unwarranted concessions.
I think that under the guise of trying
to be balanced and fair, we could be
taken in.
I have made my remarks today to call
the matter to the attention of the Senate.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
/iBtsist rrICIIIS 19_70
The Senate continued with the con-
sideration of the bill (HR. 15090) mak-
ing appropriations for the Department
of Defense for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1970, and for other purposes.
Mr. AAA:FIELD. Mr. President, I rise
to support the amendment offered by the
distinguished Senator from Maine (Mrs.
Swam). I will be very brief here today
because, as my colleague has pointed out,
I think that most everyone has made up
his mind and each has heard all of the
arguments on the ABM question.
In the 35 weapons systems, the ABM
Safeguard was included. The chart which
was released by the chairman indicated
that the current estimate for the Safe-
guard was the same as the original esti-
mate?namley, $4.1 billion?and that,
therefore, there had been no cost growth
from the time of the original estimate to
the time of the release, which was De-
cember 1.
Mr. President, I made some inquiries
and I would like to report to the Senate
some of the results of those inquiries.
The total cost estimate of the Safe-
guard ABM system has risen by $277 mil-
lion since we last considered this issue.
Although the Senate Armed Services
Committee reported, as I have said, on
December 1, 1969 that there had been no
increase in the original $4,185,000,000
cost estimate, the Pentagon informed
me Saturday, after persistent inquiry,
that the cost had escalated by this
amount.
The Defense Department has claimed
that this 6%-percent increase has taken
place since its last program status re
. port of June 30, 1969. I do not know why
such a cost growth was not reported on
December 1, unless an increase of more
than a quarter of a billion dollars has
th
Increasing at a rate of 6% percent
every 5 months, the phase I deployment
of the Safeguard system will not cost the
taxpayers $4.185,000,000, as orginally
claimed, but rather $13,700,000,000 by its
completion in 1976. Such a projection is
not at all unrealistic, for recent history
has witnessed the cost of weapons sys-
tems growing by such proportions.
Further, the Pentagon's $4.185 billion
estimate was only for phase I of Safe-
guard, or deployment at just two sites.
Should we proceed with phase II of the
system, the original cost estimate of $10.3
billion could well rise above $25 billion.
These are the expenditures that are ulti-
taken place in the 12 days since en.
However, I should like to introduce a mately at stake by our decisions today.
subject that was not involved in the We all know of the financial crisis
previous debate?something that has within our land. All of us are alarmed by
come tol be recognized as a new term by seemingly unchecked inflation. During
the Defense Department, called "cost the debate on the tax bill last week, time
growth!' We used to call it "overruns" after time, colleagues have spoken about
or the other terms that were given to it. the absolute need for fiscal responsibil-
They were meant to indicate that there itY?
was a change from the original estimate For instance, some argued that we
of a weapons system to the kind of figure could not give a deduction for the medi-
we were dealing with when it finally cal expenses af those over 65 and not
ended up, or When we were making con- covered by medicare; we could not afford
tinning appropriations. the $255 million this would have cost us
. Mr. President, I read from the state- in fiscal year 1970, it was said. But the
ment of Mr. Pickard, Assistant Secre- increase in the ABM during just these
tary of Defense, when he indicated last past 5 months exceed that, and the total
spring, as appears in the RECORD of De- ABM funds in this appropriations bill
cember 12, 1969, on page S16601: are more than three times as much.
Neither the Department of Defense nor the In explaining the reasons for this cost
Congress will continue to tolerate large cost increase to me, the Pentagon stated that
overrun 6 which relate to unrealistic pricing 11/3 percent was due to "stretchout," 2
at the time of award, or to inadequate man- percent was due to "design and estimate
agement of the job during the contract.
One reason why the cost of weapons
systems increases, then, is simply because
massive funds are spent for them dur-
ing this time of economic instability,
becoming a primary cause of inflation.
The reasons for not proceeding with
ABM deployment at this time have been
clearly set forth in the past. Today, in
light of this new information, I wish
to emphasize only one: We cannot af-
ford it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the fact sheet given to me on
Saturday by the Pentagon confirming
this cost increase be inserted in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the fact
sheet was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
FACT SHEET
1. Secretary Laird has placed great stress
since coming into office on making the Pro-
gram Status Reports submitted to the Armed
Services and Appropriations Committees an
accurate reflection of the major weapons
system acquisition programs, characteris-
tics, and costs. The last Program Status Re-
port submitted to you with regard to the
Safeguard program was as of 30 June 1969,
and showed the DOD acquisition, or DOD
investment costs, expected for the Safe-
guard program as $4185 M. These costs in-
clude the DOD RDT&E, PEMA and MCA for
Safeguard Phase 1 for the period FY 68
through deployment of the last site.
2. The next Program Status Report on the
Safeguard program is now in its final stage of
review. It is expected to be forwarded shortly
to the Chairmen of the Armed Services and
Appropriations Committees. The Report on
Safeguard will show a cost increase over the
earlier Safeguard reports and we wanted you
to have this information as early as possible.
The total increase shown in the new report
will be $277 M, or a percentage increase from
the earlier reported total of about 6% per
cent. This increase is brought about by three
basic causes.
a. The largest cause is the inflation that
has occurred. In this regard, initial estimates
of March and those of the 30 Tune report
were based on the price levels as of 31 De-
cember 1968. We have now updated those
costs to a 31 December 1969 level so that they
will be in agreement with the budget and
authorization submissions for FY 71 now
being prepared. Approximately $136M of the
$277 M is due to this price level change, or
31/3 percent of the earlier reported total pro-
gram investment costs.
b. Then, too, as you realize, we have held
back on major commitments for Construc-
tion and PEMA until after passage of the
authorization and appropriation bills. This
has necessitated our delaying the Equipment
Readiness Dates of the two site complexes
by 3 months each. Completion of deployment
of the second site complex is now delayed
from the earlier scheduled July 1974 to Oc-
tober 1974. In other words, it has stretched
out the deployment and the period over
which our production/engineering base is
maintained. This stretch-out has caused an
increase of $55 M, or 11/3 per cent of the
earlier reported total program investment
costs.
c. Finally, and the second largest, we have
had certain changes In the estimates of sev-
eral line items brought about by further
estimation and study and a few necessary
design changes. These together account for
$86 M of the increase, or about 2 per cent of
the earlier reported total investment costs.
d. In summary, then, the total cost in-
crease shown in the next Program Status
Report will be one of about 6% per cent: of
changes," and 31/3 percent due to infla-
The chairman of the Armed Services tion. I find this lost cause to be some-
Committee, the Senator from Mississippi what ironic.
(Mr. SrErnsns), on December 1, Issued a All of us would agree that a certain
statement which included 35 weapons step toward the control of inflation is
prograins and the differences which we the reduction of Government expendi-
could expect to find with between the tures. But the truth is that the most
original cost estimate and the current fiscally inesponsible Government spend-
cost, because of any "cost growth." ing today is defense spending.
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
Decem5er
Approved
15 1969
For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP711300364R000100190067-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE S16771
ary personnel, which can be used else-
where.
The basic issue was debated at great
length on the authorization bill and
ended in a 50-to-50 tie vote.
So this debate is not going to change
anyone's mind. If there has been any
change of mind, that change has come
before this debate.
The purpose of this amendment is the
opportunity for those of us who oppose
the Safeguard ABM system to register
our continuing opposition.
An incidental use will be gained in that
the vote will offer an opportunity for
some to record their change of mind on
this issue in changing their vote from
their vote on authorization of the system.
I want to clearly record the fact that
I have not changed my mind. In fact.
from what I have been told by some
working on the Safeguard system?told
since the authorization vote?I am all
the more convinced that spending funds
for the Safeguard ABM system is a tragic
waste of funds and resources.
I am confident that the very near
future will demonstrate the tragedy of
the Safeguard ABM system and in con-
trast the superiority of a laser defense
system.
In short, I simply cannot vote to spend
money and resources on what I consider
to be a defective system.
THE SOVIET RESPONSE TO
SECRETARY ROGERS
Mr. JAVia.b. Mr. President, I had
meant, during the morning hour today,
to make a brief statement on the situa-
tion in the Middle East, Since that op-
portunity was not available to roe earlier
in the day, I take the liberty of detaining
the Senate for a few minetes to make the
statement now.
Today's reports of the Pravda article
commenting on Secretary Roger's con-
troversial speech of December 9 clearly
reveals Soviet intentions with respect to
the Middle East?intentions that are
most disquieting. While the world looks
for a spirit of cooperation and respon-
sibility in the SALT talks, the Soviet
Union can hardly make a good impres-
sion when it continues to take the low
road in Cairo and Damascus. while seek-
ing to appear to take the high road in
Helsinki,
Secretary Rogers' speech contained
strong overtures to the moderate Arab
govermnents and foreshadowed a tough
U.S. stance vis-a-vis Israel's substan-
tive position on the outstanding Issues
concerning a peace settlement, The ma-
jor effort by the Nixon administration to
go the extra mile to bridge the gap in the
Mideast?even at the cost of undermin-
ing Israel's position?was motivated, I
have no doubt, by a genuine desire to
promote peace.
A Soviet diplomatic offensive against
the U.S. Middle East ,policy, wiaich seems
now to have been inaugurated, presents a
challenge for debate on the international
level, which the United States should
not forego. The Soviet Union is either
preaching to us or scolding us on our
policy without itself making any contri-
bution to peace in this area. The whole
world agrees that there is a great dange
in the Middle East, But the danger. I fee
Is not so much between the great Powel
as it is in the possibility of the whole are
once again plunging into flames with re
Percussions which no one can predie
While the United States announced
policy of "balance" and sweet reason
ableness?a policy which I feel is wen
intentioned but misguided?the Boyle
Union engages in nothing more the
Pandering to the most intransigent posi
tions of its radical Arab clients.The ex
ercise is strictly one of seeking to dis
credit the United States without makin
any contribution to peace in the area.
Whatever may be the Soviet Union'
intentions elsewhere, it obviously intend
to play a strictly opportnrante, teeespon
sible and power-grabbing role in the
Middle East.
The U.S.S.R. has now made It clear
that its policy in the Mideast is to take
a mile every time the United States gives
an inch. Secretary Rogers' detailed state-
ment of U.S. differences with Israel has
not been paralleled by any Soviet indi-
cation of any differences with the un-
relentingly extremist position of its Arab
clients. In fact, the U.S.S.R. in the few
days since Secretary Rogers' speech has
alined itself even More closely?if that
is possible?with the straight propaganda
line of President Nasser's United Arab
Republic, even to the extent of backing
the guerrilla movement in the Middle
East.
The U.S. concessions in Secretary Ro-
ger's speech have been attacked in
Pravda as "tricks" of "Washington prop-
aganda" designed to "split" the Arabs.
The new U.S. policy is described as one
of "support to the Israeli ruling circles
In their aggressive actions, in their stub-
born attempts to annex territories."
The U.S.S.R. obviously is seeking to
draw the United States into a policy of
entrapment there?one of extracting
one U.S. "concession" after another?
by constantly raising the bidding price.
What is at stake is the very survival of
Israel. No one can expect Israel to go
back to the pre-June, 198'7 situation, with
Syrian guns firing down its throat from
the Golan heights, with Jordanese me-
dium artillery able to interdict the 12-
mile waist of Israel and cut the country
in two, and with Egypt able to cut the
entry to Elath and to mobilize in the
Sinai desert.
It is a matter of gravest concern and
regret that the Soviet Union continues
to pursue such a dangerous and irre-
sponsible policy in the Mideast. It is a
real understatement to my that the
U.S.S.R. is not proceeding in the Mid-
east with the spirit of cooperation and
responsibility that we have some reason
to suspect may be in the offing regarding
the SALT talks and other overall U13.-
U.S.S.R. issues. In my Judgment, it is
time for the Kremlin to realize that if
it does want to move?in President
Nixon's memorable phrase?from the
"era of confrontation to the era of ne-
gotiation" it cannot make an exception
of the Mideast. The issues are too seri-
ous there.
It is clear that the Soviets are not
prepared at this time to respond in any
e reasonable, just, or responsible manner
I. to Secretary Rogers' high-minded?but
-s in my judgment misguided?effort to
a place the United States in an "even-
- handed." "balanced," and intermediary
i? Posture in the Mideast. The only visible
a results thus far have been a strong So-
- net reiteration of down-the-line support
- of the radical Arab position. Also, the
t Soviets have for the first time expressed
n overt support for the Arab terrorist
- guerrilla movement,
In this context, the low-keyed request
- of Prime Minister Golda Metz. to Presi-
g dent Nixon. during her recent visit to
buy additional defensive arms?hope-
s fully on less onerous terms?assumes a
S new urgency.
If the United States does not lose
its nerve and does not allow itself to be
maneuvered into pressing Israel to ac-
cept measures which could compromise
its security, current radical Arab and
Soviet policy will fail, the bankruptcy
and total negativism of its premises will
be exposed and a new era of opportunity
and enlightenment can open in the Mid-
dle East. But if Israel loses her viability
as a free state--either because we unwit-
tingly encourage her enemies to think
they have a chance to wage one last
holy war against her, or because our
"balanced" policy forces Israel into
bankruptcy to maintain her military de-
fense against such a war?it would pose
the gravest implications for the United
States and for the peace of the world.
Mr. MURPHY, Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. JA'VITS. I yield.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr, President, I asso-
ciate myself with the remarks of the
Senator from New York and congratu-
late him for bringing the matter before
the Senate today.
I have also been interested in these
developments. I have read with great
concern the apparent further attempt at
appeasement, which is exactly the thing
that the representatives of Israel have
worried about from the beginning. They
were afraid that it would happen in the
U.N. They asked to meet with the Arabs.
The Israelis and the Arabs are the
ones concerned.
We seem now to be in the position of
helping the real troublemakers in provid-
ing them with the side entrance, so to
speak, so that the real meeting between
the Israelis and the Arabs could not take
Place.
I think this is a great mistake. I think
that the attempt is badly taken. And I
think that the wisdom of it is very ques-
tionable.
I am certain that the position the Sen-
ator from New York and the Senator
from California hese taken from the be-
ginning is a proper position.
I sincerely hope that the remarks the
Senator has made today are transmitted
forthwith to the Secretary of State so
that he will know that some Senators
are listening to this and are watching it
and are knowledgeable and have some
judgment as to the matter.
Mr. JAvrrs. Mr. President, I am very
grateful to my colleague.
I will yield to no one in my desire for
good relations with the Soviet Union.
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
S 16770
pinch was causing a major review of its en-
tire defense establishment. This led to ru-
more that the Germans were seeking to back
out of the program.
But Sources elose to the project say there
Is no question that the development program
will be completed jointly and that each will
pick up half of the cost.
It is possible, they say, that Germany will
be allowed to stretch out its annual finan-
cial contributions to the program and that
there may be other changes on previous
agreements such as on patent rights and the
exchange of technical information.
Negotiations on these matters began late
last summer, but final agreements must be
worked out at the defense secretary level,
it is said.
The gun-missile system is also experienc-
ing difficulties, with the artillery element
rather than the missile causing the trouble.
The 152-millimeter gun tube on the MBT-
70, similar to a system being installed on
the new American light Sheridan tank and
on a Modified version of the M-60 tank, can
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-93711499,4,Toolooiggliker 15, 1969
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?
The Army's test and evaluation command The PRESIDING OrriCER. The ques-
ts planning joint tees in the deserts around tion is on agreeing to the amendment of
Yuma, Ariz., at the Arctic test center in the Senator from Missouri.
Alaska, in a nuctear environment in New The amendment was agreed to.
Mexico, in a chemical warfare setting in
Utah, in the hands of engineer troops at the
Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland and
in the hands of troops at Fort Knox, Ky.
Similar tests aril be held in Trier, Meppen
and Munster-Lager in Germany.
-- -
[From the New York 'fimes, Oct. 10, 1967]
BONN SHOWS T.3.3,0ERMAN TANK; TURRET
MALFUNCTION MARS TEST
(By Philip Shabecoff)
Boxer, October 9.?The West German De-
fense Ministry unveiled today in Augsburg a
prototype of the Midi, Battle Tank of the
nineteen-seventiei.
The demonstration of the tank, which is
being jointly developed by West Germany
and the United States, indicated that the
MBT-70, as it is, called, still was not a per-
fect, weapons system.
launch Shillelagh guided missile at tar-
After 30 minutes of a maneuverability test,
gets from 1,500 yards to 3,000 yards away. smoke began pouring out of the turret.
The
The gunner merely keeps the crosshairs three-man crew jumped. out uninjured and
of his sight on the target, and this causes called for fire extinguishers.
corrective signals to be sent to the missile Apparently, a valve in the hydraulic Sys-
to guide it to the bullseye. But the missiles tem of the turret malfunctioned. The tank
are expensive,' coning $2,500 to $3,000 each, could not be used for the rest of the demon
-
So the ,system also fires a 152-millimeter stration, and a tank cha,ssis with a turret
artillery round at closer or less vital targets. missing was used to finish the display.
Instead of a brass cartridge case to hold the ORE RVERS IMPRESSED
powder charge, the gun was designed to use Observers in Augsburg, however, were im-
pressed combustible cartridge case made of the pressed by the tank, particularly its ability to
same substance as the propellant but with rise and lower itself on a hydropneumatic
a different molecular structure.
In 'Sortie instances this combustible case system.Only a few officers and reporters witnessed
has not burned completely and when the the demonstration. Tomorrow the tank will
gun's breech was opened, propellant gas be shown to members of the Defense Com-
mixed with air and was ignited by the burn- mittee of the Iiiinclesta,g, the lower house of
ing residue. This caused a flareback of flame Parliament.
that threatened to ignite other rounds in A spokesman for Bonn's Defense Ministry
In a few instances, premature explosions
the tank's turret. said that if the lvIl3T -70 met expectations, it
would replace ha 1972 all the American-made
are said to have occurred when a new round M-48 tanks now used by the West German
was inserted while burning specks remained ?..._
in the chamber. "'my.
Army engineers have developed and tested He said that if hopes for the tank were
realized, the itundeswehr (armed forces)
a device to flush the gun tube and breech
would have the most technically sophisti-
bl Its with jets of carbon dioxide gas. Still
cated and militarily effective tank conceiva-
more advanced using air or nitrogen gas are
on the drawing boards. ?
Meanwhile, the Army is also trying to de-
velop a "more fully combustible propellant
case.
But as the United States has wrestled with
this problem, the Germans have expressed
second thoughts about having missiles at all.
Some German tankers have said that they
would rather have a rapid-fire 110-milli-
meter or 120-millimeter conventional gun
without the expense of training and equip-
ping their tank forces with missiles, too.
Tank battles in Germany have tradition-
ally been fought at relatively close range,
they say, and the Shillelagh is not very ef-
fective close in; it has to fly out a certain
distance before it is "captured" by its guid-
ance system and directed to the target.
An American source said that German of-
ficials were now talking about the possibility
of two Versions of the MBT-70, one having a
gun only and the other a gun-missile capa-
bility.
The Germans have also developed an alter-
nate engine for the tank, but American and
German sources tend to agree that the United
States engine will probably be used by both. DIS, LAY IN WASHINGTON
With development well along, the two WASHINGTO October 9.?The United
countries are negotiating an agreement to States Array also displayed today the MBT-
cover the production of the tank in each 70, which it fieures is the world's fastest and
country. Other allies, including Britain, Italy most sophisticated tank.
and the Netherlands, have expressed interest "I don't really know what the Russians
and are viewed as potential customers, have," said Maj. Gen. Edwin H. Burba, the
A year-long test program is about to get top American officer on the two-nation team
?on'er way in Germany and the United that has guided development, "but I'd like to
States, also on a joint basis. Each country place a bet ior a month's pay that this is
will use eight pilot models in the tests, better."
ble for the nineteen-seventies.
According to German estimates, the MET-
70 will cost $550,000 to $580,000 each, based
on a production run of 1,500 tanks.
The West German estimates of the devel-
opment costs ran as high as $750-million,
figure that ineludes. the production of a
number of vehicles.
Some members of the German Government
have expresser: dismay over the development
costs, observine that they are two to three
times the d.eveloginent costs of the new West
German Leopard tank. which is being phased
into the Bundeswehr.
Some militlilY experts here have said that
the Leopard cando the military job required
in the seventies and thus makes the expense
of the MBT-70 unnecessary.
The West etermans are reported to have
disagreed with the Americans on armaments
for the tank, preferring conventional weap-
ons to a missi le system. The result was a two-
turret system, one turret mounted with a
Shillelagh missile launcher and the other
with a rapid-ere cannon.
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
A message from the House of Repre-
sentatives, by Mr. Bartlett, one of its
reading clerks, informed the Senate that
the Speaker had appointed Mr. STOKES of
Ohio, Mr. ASHBROOK of Ohio, and Mr.
BELL of California vice, Mr. STEIGER of
Wisconsin, excused, as additional man-
agers on the part of the House at the
conference asked by the House on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on
the bill (S. 3016) to provide for the con-
tinuation of programs auhorized under
the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964,
to authorize advance funding of such
programs, and for other purposes.
The message announced that the
House had passed, without amendment,
the bill (S. 1108) to waive the acreage
limitations of section 1(b) of the act of
June 14, 1926, as amended, with respect
to conveyance of lands to the State of
Nevada for inclusion in the Valley of Fire
State Park.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPRO-
PRIATIONS, 1970
The Senate continued with the consid-
eration of the bill (H.R. 15090) making
appropriations for the Department of
Defense for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1970; and for other purposes.
Mrs. SMITH of Maine. Mr. President,
on behalf of myself, the Senator from
Kentucky (Mr. COOPER) and the Sena-
tor from Michigan (Mr. HART) I send
to the desk an amendment, and ask
that it be stated.
The legislative clerk read the amend-
ment, as follows:
On page 6, line 25, strike out "$7,185,-
841,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$7,-
162,641,000."
On page 16, line 4, strike out "$4,254,-
400,000" anti insert in lieu thereof "$3,-
908,900,000."
On page 22, lines 9- and 10, strike out
"$1,600,820,000" and insert in lieu there-
of" $1,199,920,000."
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the
Senator ask unanimous consent that
her amendments be considered en bloc?
Mrs. SMITH of Maine. I ask unani-
mous consent that the amendments be
considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield for the purpose of my
asking for the yeas and nays?
Mrs. SMITH of Maine. I am happy
to yield.
Mr. HART. I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mrs. SMITH of Maine. Mr. President,
I shall be very brief in speaking in sup-
port of this amendment. The issue is
clear. The amendment would strike all
funds for the Safeguard anti-ballistic-
missile system except the funds for mili-
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
December 15, 1theRroved FcEcRale 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
SSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
the investment of any further funds ca
bring Positive benefit.
Mr. President, I wish to raise one othe
consideration regarding this tank. This
joint venture with the Federal Republl
of Germany was signed in August of 1963
Conrad Adenauer headed the West Ger
man Government, the cold war had been
intensified by the Berlin Wall, and John
P. Kennedy had completed his dramatic
visit to West Berlin. No one was think-
ink about a European Security Confer-
ence, and few questionod the viability of
NATO. Above all, relations between the
East and the West?and between Moscow
and Bonn?were frigid.
Now we are moving into a new diplo-
matic ere. Willy Brancit, during his in-
itial weeks as the new leader of the
country, has already opened up innova-
tive foreign policy options in Europe.
Bonn and Moscow are having cordial
conversations, and even Ulbricht is
speaking about new terms for some kind
of understanding between the two Ger-
manies. All of Europe is in a period of
diplomatic flexibility that may possibly
mark the cold war's last days on that
continent.
Now, of course, I am aware that
changes in the international climate
come suddenly and are not always de-
pendable. But I wish to point out how
radically the present European situation
differs from the past. This, of course, is
likely to continue into the decade
ahead?the decade for which we are
building the MBT-70 in partnership with
West Germany.
There are some reasons to believe that
West Germans have had serious misgiv-
ings in the past regarding this project.
Newspaper articles from as early as 1967
hint to such developments. I ask unami-
mous consent they be inserted in the
RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.
In today's world, they may have even
more reason to doubt the wisdom of this
joint project.
These comments are made only to un-
derscore the fact that our defense pos-
ture must always be responsive to the
atmosphere of international relations.
This is particularly true in such joint
projects as the MBT-70. These circum-
stances only further point out the wis-
dom of reexamining the future of this
program, I trust that such a reexamina-
tion, initiated by the debate and agree-
ment last August, will now be intensified
by our action today.
There be_ng no objection, the articles
were order to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
(Prom the Washington Post, Oct. 10. 19671
NEW TANS: SHOWN; HELD WORLD'S BEST
(By George C. Wilson)
The Army yesterday unveiled the new tank
it has been building with West Germany and
predicted it will be the best In the world "for
the next 15 years."
The tank, designated the Main Battle'
Tank 70, re,eresents the Pentagon's most
ambitious attempt yet to Inspire a common
market of weaponry among NATO allies.
But the political roadbloclu In front of the
tank look more menacing right now than any t
natural obstailes the 51-ton vehicle will con-
front once I:. becomes operational in the u
1970s.
Germany, In revamping its military budg- c
et, is expectel to trim some of the money
n earmarked for the tank. Any cutback on tha
aide of the Atlantic threatens to slow dow
? the whole program because it is a 50-5
project.
The United States so far has spent 1180
? million on developing 16 prototypes of th
? Main Battle Tank. Germany has not yet con
- tributed as much?the Army would not be
specific yesterday?but is obligated to kick in
an equal share eventually.
The development costs of the tank have
outrun original estimates to the point wiser
some German leaders claim the vehicle is
taking an inordinate share of the military
dollar.
Army project chiefs are hopeful that the
technical advances in the tank will overcome
such objections. The Pentagon also may work
out a delayed payment arrangement with
Germany to soften the financial impact.
An actual prototype of the tank is the star
attraction at the Association of the U.S.
Army three-day meeting, which opened yes-
terday at the Sheraton Park.
Maj. Gen. Edwin IL Burba, U.S. project
manager for the tank, said it will be ahead of
any of its competitors in Russia or elsewhere
"for the next 15 years." The Army credits the
tank with these five major technical
advances:
A suspension system that raises or lowers
the treads to enable the tank to adjust to
the terrain and lower its silhouette; a crew
compartment that protects the three men
against nuclear radiation and germ warfare
poisons: a 152-mm. cannon for ammunition
or missiles?the most accurate of any tank;
a transmission that enables the tank to go
forward or backward at four different speeds,
with reverse just as fast as forward* unex-
celled armor protection plus kits that en-
able the tank to run under water.
Allison Division of General Motors is head-
ing the U.S. industry team while its counter-
part Is the German Development Corp.
Gen. Barba said the Main Battle Tank
will replace the M-48 medium tank but will
not take over the role of the heavy M-60
tank.
Flanking the Main Battle Tank yesterday
were new weapons. which dramatize the im-
petus the Vietnam war has provided to Army
hardware development.
Two of these weapons are helicopters?the
AH-1 Huey-Cobra and the AH-56A Cheyenne.
The Huey-Cobra is a rework of the U11-1,,
or Huey, which is the helicopter used now
In Vietnam as both a troop carrier and gun
ship. The Huey-Cobra has been streamlined
and armed with a coordinated weapons sys-
tem. It will see action in Vietnam this year.
The Cheyenne Is the first helicopter built
from scratch as a weapons platform. /t is
now being flight tested, with a production
contract expected to be awarded soon. The
Cheyenne is designed to fly over 200 miles
an hour?faster than any existing hellcop-
ter?and carry 16,000 pounds of rockets and
other armament. This payload is as much as
that of the later B-17 bombers of World
War II.
S 16769
t der which the two nations have been pro-
ceeding on the project.
O But American tank experts who are close
to the program insist that, despite its prob-
lems, the MBT-70 will be the fastest, dead-
e nest and most advanced armored combat ve-
- hide ever devised and promises the allies a
decided edge over Soviet armor.
The American pilot model, produced in
Cleveland by the General Motors Corporation,
will go on display outside the Sheraton Park
e Hotel here during the annual meeting of
the States Army, an organization that sup-
ports Army Interests.
Germany is expected to show its model.
built by a consortium of nine companies, to-
morrow as well
The MBT-70 is regarded with more than
usual interest by top Government officials
because it represents the most ambitious ef-
fort to date by two nations to share equally
the costs, technical know/edge and manage-
ment decisions in developing a major new
weapons system.
U the experiment ultimately succeeds, it
may well establish the pattern for other big
joint development programs, Administration
officials say.
With the differences in language, indus-
trial organization, tank doctrine and finan-
cial resources. "It's a wonder things have
gone as smoothly as they have," one Ameri-
can planner says.
A particularly ticklish problem, for ex-
ample. developed because American and Ger-
man industry use a different screw thread in
their nuts and bolts.
After considerable negotiation, the two
parties agreed in the summer of 1965 that
each would use its own screw thread in-
ternally on all components designed for the
tank. They decided that each component
would be interconnected using the metric, or
European, screw thread.
The MBT-70, with a maximum speed ef
about 40 miles an hour, is about a third faster
than the United States' principal battle tank,
the M-60. It uses an automatic amu
mnition
loader, thus cutting the crew size from four
to three.
Its chassis can be raised and lowered about
18 inches, giving it better traction in mud
and snow. Infrared and starlight viewing de-
vices enable the gunner to see the enemy at
night and in bad weather.
ALL-NEW DEVELOPMENT
An advanced firing computer gives it better
kill capability with either Its conventional
152-millimeter artillery shells or with its
Shillelagh guided missiles.
It has stronger armor, as well as special
shielding and ventilation to allow it to move
through a nuclear or chemical warfare en-
vironment. A new suspension system enables
it to absorb shock and to fire more accur-
ately at the enemy while moving over bumpy
terrain.
'In the past, we merely added a few im-
provements over the existing tank and called
it a new one," one Army officer said. "This
represents the first instance in which we
have developed every component from the
ground up."
American and Cterman sources agree there
Is no doubt that the MBT-70 offers signifi-
cant advanes over present tanks. But certain
differences remain.
There is the matter of costs, for example.
When the program got under way in August
of 1963. a rough estimate of the development
cost, to be shared equally, was $80-million.
Later, after careful analysis, the estimate
was raised to ?l:16-million. But technical
problems in each country led to costly de-
lays, and earlier this year the estimate was
again raised, this time to $200-million.
PACT CHANGES SEEN
Sources say that German officials insisted
this was too much of a burden for Germany
to shoulder, coming at a time when its budget
(From the New York Times, Oct. 9, 19671
U.S-GERMAN TANK ON DISPLAY TODAY?PAST
Mrsartz-Pnurra MBT-70, CALLED DEADLIEST'
ARMORED VEHICLE, IN WASHLNGTON
(By William Beecher)
WASHINGTON, October 8.?A futuristic tank
with a low, fiat silhouette and a gun capable
of firing missiles and artillery shells is to be
unveiled tomorrow in the United States and
West Germany after four years of joint de-
eloprnent by the two countries.
Called the Main Battle Tank of the nine-
eels-seventies,the MBT-70, the armored ve-
hicle has fallen about a year behind ached-
le and is experiencing serious troubles with
is principal weapons system. Development
oats have risen so high that Germany is
seeking modifications in the agreement un-
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
S 16768
-Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE December 15, 11969
And finally, the study summarized
the more recent OASD (SA) study of
the MBT-70's cost effectiveness, and
came to conclusions?classified "secret."
Essentially, as the MBT-70 is now
constituted, it is amazing that it is seri-
ously considered a viable alternative to
meet a partially self-created threat?
especially in light of the GAO report
and various Pentagon studies.
On September 9 of this year, Deputy
Secretary of Defense Packard took the
first hopeful step toward bringing this
stange episode on weapons develop-
ment and procurement to an end.
He announced he had asked his de-
sign people "to make a complete review
of this program to identify what fea-
tures could be eliminated while still re-
taining adequate capability, to deter-
mine whether further duplicate devel-
opments could be eliminated, to assess
the remaining technical uncertainties,
and to undertake to have this study
completed by December of this year.
He then stated:
At that time I will have the opportunity
to review the entire program and make a
deoLsion on whether we should go ahead,
and if so, how.
I have further directed that the expendi-
tures between now and the December re-
view decision date be kept at an absolute
minimum consistent with getting the data
needed for the decision.
He specified that minimum as $12
million for R. & D. and promised to
put a hold on the $20 million authorized
for production-based support.
Promising to report to the Congress,
Packard concluded:
I am not here today to defend the way this
program has been handled in the past. I am
here to ask you for the opportunity to re-
organize this program in a manner which
will give our army a superior tank at a cost
which can be justified. I will, of course, keep
you informed as my review progresses and
of the decision we make in December.
Mr. President, based on the foregoing
analysis of the trials and tribulations of
the MBT-70, it is my frank opinion that
the funding of this program should be
significantly cut.
I realize, even if the Defense Depart-
ment were to decide today to terminate
the MBT-70, that some funds would be
necessary to cover termination costs, and
so forth.
The September 2, 1969, GAO study
previously referred to says in part:
If decision is made to terminate the MBT-
70 program, . . . funds would be required to
cover termination costs and development ef-
fort on other programs. The $30 million
EDT & E funding level could be used for this
purpose.
However, I can find little or no justifi-
cation for the appropriation of $20,-
000,000 for production based support.
This item, which would provide funds
among other things for additional proto-
type models, would be throwing good
money after bad.
I realize that at this point in time,
while we are still awaiting Deputy De-
fense Secretary Packard's December re-
view, I would perhaps be assuming too
great a burden of persuasion to ask the
Senate te cut the entire $20,000,000 for
production based support.
Therefore, Mr. President, I send to the
desk an amendment on behalf of myself
and Senator Hatfield which would cut
one-half of the 320,000,000, that is
$10,000,000, from the budget.
I realize that when considered against
the totality of the Defense appropria-
tions bill, $10,000,000 may seem incon-
sequential.
But it is not.
Early this session the Congress was
asked to fund the MBT-70 at $44.9 mil-
lion dollars for R. & D. and $25.4 million
for production based support.
The Senate Armed Services Committee
reduced R. & D. authorization to $30 mil-
lion, and the Senate House Conference
reduced production based support to $20
million.
The amendnieet which I along with
Senator HATFIELD offer today will reduce
production based support by another $10
million, bringing the total reductions for
the MBT-70 program this year to more
than $30 million?a 40-percent reduction
from the original request.
Speaking for myself and I think also
for Senator HATFTELE, who was the prin-
cipal cosponsor with me of the original
MBT-70 amendment, and is the co-
sponsor of the instant amendment, I be-
lieve Congress will have acquitted itself
well if this amendment is adopted.
I would hope that the distinguished
acting chairman, Senator ELLENDER,
could see fit to accept this amendment as
a sound one under the circumstances in
which we currently find ourselves.
Mr. ELLEN:DER. Mr. President, there
is a parliamentaty problem we have to
deal with:here. The distinguished Sena-
tors from Missouri and Oregon are pro-
posing to reduce an amount that is now
In the bill, and f ()flowing the disposition
of that amendment there will be an
amendment offered by the distinguished
Senator from Maine (Mrs. SMITE) af-
fecting the same figure.
I ask unanimous consent that agree-
ing to the amendment now being con-
sidered will not affect the right of the
Senator from Maine (Mrs. Spann) to
amend the same figure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. ELLENDER. With reference to the
amendment offered by the Senator from
Missouri, I wish to say that this matter
was considered by the committee, and in
a letter from Me. Packard to the chair-
man of the committee, dated December
15, 1969, concerning the NBT-70 tank, in
the closing paragraph of the letter, Sec-
retary Packard states:
Of the total tc--ids authorized of $50 mil-
lion in the FY-70 Defense authorization ($39
million for R.DTotE and $20 million for pro-
duction base support) it is now clear that
in any event I wt,1 not authorize funding in
excess of $40 million.
The amendment offered by the dis-
tinguished Senator from Missouri would
reduce that amount from $50 million to
$40 million. Beca-tnee of the letter from
which I have just quoted, the committee
is willing to accept the amendment of the
Senator from Oregon.
Mr. EAGLE :row. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous coneent that the entire letter
of the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Mr.
Packard, addressed to the chairman of
the Committee on Appropriations (Mr.
RUSSELL), be printed in the RECORD at
this point.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
Washington, D.C., December 15, 1969.
Hon. RICHARD B. RUSSELL,
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,
U.S. Senate.
DEAR SENATOR RUSSELL: I am responding to
your Inquiry concerning my review of /VIBT-
70. Both the Department of the Army and De-
partment of Defense staffs are analyzing in
depth the 1vTBT-70 and alternative solutions.
I am scheduled to receive their findings by
the 18th of December.
Based on Information to date, I have con-
cluded that I will not approve development
of MBT-70 under the current design.. By 15
January 1970, I will have made a decision
between a new austere version bf MBT-70
and other options that are available and
should by that date have a report in the
hands of your Committee.
It should be noted that this is a joint pro-
gram under a basic agreement between the
governments of the United States and the
Federal Republic of Germany. The agreement
prescribes that unilateral termination by
either nation must be preceded by a 60 day
notice of intent to terminate.
Of the total funds authorized of $50 mil-
lion in the FY 70 Defense authorization ($30
million for RDT&E and $20 million for pro-
duction base support) it is now clear that in
any event I will not authorize funding in
excess of $40 million,
DAVID PACHARD,
Deputy.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I am
pleased to cosponsor this amendment
with the Senator from Missouri to cut
$10 million from the procurement budget
of the Main battle tank. The Senator
from Missouri has demonstrated extra-
ordinary commitment, zeal, and deter-
mination in his continual expression of
concern regarding this expenditure of
the taxpayers' money. It has been a priv-
ilege to work with him as the principle
cosponsor of the amendment to the au-
thorization bill and now this amendment
regarding the MBT-70.
At the conclusion of the debate on the
authorization bill, I stated, regarding the
agreement we had reached:
It is our hope that the report will be de-
cisive, so that we can all agree to it; and if
it is negative, we hope that we will then be
able to reach seine agreement as to what our
next action should be; but it would not
prejudice any of the sponsors of the amend-
ment from taking future action on the ap-
propriation bill.
As the Senator from Missouri has
pointed out, the GAO study was nega-
tive, confirming our doubts and suspi-
cions. And we have now reached agree-
ment regarding our next action: to cut
$10 million from the procurement budget
of the MBT-70, and to then await fur-
ther review by Secretary Packard.
I, like the Senator from Missouri, re-
main convinced that the investment of
any funds in this program is a mistake,
but have agreed to this measure as the
most practical action to take at present.
Of course, we will continue to watch the
future of this tank with the greatest in-
terest, remaining deeply skeptical that
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
December 15, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SE.NATI:
design configurations into which they put
in the best eciantific engineering knowl2ow,
The "designers" referred to in the in-
terview' according to the DOD, are the
contractors on both sides, plus the joint
engineering agency groups not known to
be overly concerned with cost.
General Betts, Army Director of Re-
search and Development, explained the
spectacular rise in R. & D. costs in these
terms:
For the first estimate we did not have a
design. We did not hale any really detailed
idea of what would go into the tanks so the
early estimates were very summary In na-
ture.
The most summary kind of cost esti-
mates have become tie hallmark of the
MBT-70.
As a recent GAO report on the MBT-
70 states:
In 1265 the joint 1,333T-70 program was es-
timated to cost else million. The 1968 esti-
mate was 1303 million,
Estimated research, development, test and
evaluaticn (RDT&E) costs for the United
States participation increased from $83.7
million In 1965 to $178.3 minion in 1968, or
an increi-se of 113 per cent. Additional oosta,
such as turbine development. MST salary
support, and Advance Production Engineer-
ing (APE), were not included in the orig-
inal joint estimate. These costa will be in-
curred before production starts and will in-
crease the total coat of the MBT-70 devel-
opment, Including RDT&E and APE, by $440
million (to a total of $524 million 1, an in-
crease of 325 per cent.
In addition, $204.1 millon of this amount
Is programed for development of the second
and third generation MST pilot models and
for ancillary vehicles, advanced component
development, and a trainer, none of which
were included under the joint program.
The House report also warns of ex-
cessive "gold plating." It states:
Designe2s have placed far more emphasis
on high performance than on the need for
durable and damage resistant equipment. A
continuously high percentage of inoperable
weapons has become accepted as routine. The
specifications for new weapons too often call
for the selantifically possible rather than the
militarily practical. Exce&dve "gold plating"
has too of .en been the prtictice under which
the last Lye per cent of the performance
specified for a new weapon accounts for fifty
per cent of the complexity and cost of the
weapon.
After a 525-percent increase in R. & D.
cost in just 4 years?an increase which
has driven the projected per-unit cost
of the M13T-70 from $420,000 to $720,-
000?and after continuous technical dif-
ficulties that have pushed the production
date back at least 5 years from late 1969
to 1974 or 1975, almost everyone recog-
nizes that something is wrong. And most
agree that "gold plating- is a major fac-
tor.
General Betts describes the line that
the Army .aas been unable to draw in re-
gards to the IvLBT-70 in an interview in
the July 1969 issue of Government Ex-
ecutive:
The most important prcblena is that we
have given it a great deal of capability and
that means a very expensive vehicle. The
problem is whether we have put more in this
vehicle than we require. The toughest ques-
tion is whether we really need everything
that's in this tank.
In an exclusive interview with George
Wilson of the Washington Post, Secre-
tary of Defense Laird expressed dismay
at the amount of gadgetry which has re-
sulted in expensive breakdowns and re-
pairs on the MBT-70. He wondered if we
need all these extravagant MBT-70 de-
vices when the Russians get along well
with simpler equipment.
On September 9, 1969, Deputy Secre-
tary David Packard expressed similar
doubts, conceding that?
Clearly, insufficient attention had been
given to the problems Involved: specifically.
a number of possible trade-offs and cost ef-
fectiveness factors had not been adequately
considered.
The House Defense appropriations re-
port is even more specific. In appropriat-
ing $30 million for continued research
and development It admonishes:
In its present design, the MST-70 tank is
overly sophisticated, unnecessarily complex
and too expensive for a main battle tank. The
Committee feels strongly that when this pro-
gram Is re-evaluated in December 1960 seri-
ous consideration should be given to the pos-
sibility of terminating the International as-
pect of this Joint development program. The
most prudent use of the funds provided for
the MHT-70 this year could be for the U.S.
to design a tank with far less sophistication,
a tank that can be produced at about a third
of the cost now estimated for the current de-
sign.
Mr. President, even if these basic?al-
mast classic?mistakes can be corrected,
there Is still substantial doubt about the
tank's strategic rationale.
As we have seen, the M.BT-70 was ap-
proved on the basis of expenditure
projections far below those which have
occurred, and time schedules far better
than those met. Once approved, the
project gained momentum. It achieved a
sort of self-perpetuating justification as
the Army deemphaslzed alternative sys-
tems, thus creating a greater need and
urgency for a new system than would
otherwise have existed.
The Army now justifies the MBT-70
because of the quantitative superiority of
tank forces in the Warsaw Pact as com-
pared with NATO And yet this year's
House Armed Services Subcommittee re-
port indicates that the M60A1 tank,
which is recognized to be equal or
superior to the Soviet tank, is not being
produced in quantity. The result is fewer
tanks at higher cost?about $220,000 per
unit. Another House Armed Services
Subcommittee report states in part:
Since 1959 the M60A1 main battle tank has
been the mainstay of the Army armored units
In Europe and the Army currently considers
this tank equal to or superior to Soviet-
designed tanks. . .
Not only did the Army fall to maintain an
adequate production rate of B160A1's during
the 1960s. but they slowed down the produc-
tion line and even closed it in 196'1 to produce
the M60A1E2, which still cannot be deployed
because of deficiencies.
U.S. armored capability was further de-
graded by the sale of 1460A1 's to countries
other than NATO allies between fiscal year
1964 and fiscal year 1969.
This year the Senate Appropriations
Committee concurred in the House re-
duction of $20,000,000 for procurement
for the M60A1 while recommending $20,-
S 16767
000,000 fto prototypes of the MBT-70?
which at very best is 5 years away from
production.
If the threat is as grave as some would
have us believe, this reduction is hardly
responsible action.
Antitank weapons, which are presum-
ably an important part of our response
to the Soviet tank threat, have been
downeraded in U.S. defense planning and
given low priority in the past.
In the fiscal year 1969 Defense Appro-
priations hearing, General Miley, Assist-
ant Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics?
Programs and Budget?stated:
The Secretary of the Army postponed the
fiscal year 1968 procurement of TOW anti-
tank weapons for higher priority Items.
The Dragon antitank weapon was sim-
ilarly downgraded.
So while the Army failed to produce
enough M60A1's, it also failed to push for
antitank weapons?a curious pattern of
priorities which leads one to question the
seriousness of the Soviet tank threat, a
threat which is evaluated on pages 29 and
30 of the 'secret" portion of the GAO
study of the MBT-70.
It is entirely pertinent to ask whether
the MBT-70 is truly a necessary and ef-
fective means of countering the tank
threat in Europe?however that threat
is evaluated.
Certainly the GAO raises some rele-
vant questions. Its report points out:
The need for and role of the complex, large,
expensive tank in future warfare would ap-
pear to warrant assessment.
In the full text of the GAO report, be-
ginning on page 24 of the "secret" mate-
rial, there is an interesting discussion
of the role of the tank which I commend
to my colleagues for careful attention.
And yet, in view of the overwhelming
doubt, the MBT-70 rolls on. It was fund-
ed up to authorized levels by both the
House and Senate.
On August 8, Senator HATFIELD and I
were joined by Senators McGovaeis, MON-
DALE, MOSS, PROXMIRE, and YARBOROUGH
in introducing an amendment which
would have temporarily delayed further
development on the Main battle tank
until the Comptroller General had an
opportunity to report to the Congress on
the practicability and cost effectiveness
of the highly complex MBT-70.
A comproniise was reached with the
distinguished Senator from Mississippi,
Senator STENNIS, the chairman of the
Armed Services Committee. Our amend-
ment was withdrawn, the chairman re-
quested a study by the GAO, and the
committee met again after the comple-
tion of the study to decide the future of
the tank.
The full GAO report was very useful,
and in my opinion, highly critical. It
cast doubt over the future role of tanks
generally, much less one so expensive
and complex as the MI3T-70.
The GAO study also discussed an in-
telligence estimate, dated August 15,
1969, an estimate not available at the
time of the first debate, which in my
opinion cast further doubts about the
future of the threat and the need for
an MBT-70 to meet it.
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
S 16766 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE December 15, 1969
Looking over the shoulders of Pentagon
officials, Stennis cautioned, will be members
of his staff, and "where the situation requires
a more extensive analysis, the General Ac-
counting Office has been requested to review
the data and accumulate such information
as may be reel,' nixed."
He feels this in part may force the Defense
Department to exercise better stewardship
over public funds.
Already scrutinized by GAO, Stennis men-
tioned, are the SRAM, Condor and Cheyenne
programs. Under review are the Fill, Posei-
don, P3C and Minuteman procurement pro-
jects.
The Defense Department has been asked
by the committee to improve the quality and
scope of its reports. Noting that "growing
pains" in the reports were anticipated, Sten-
nis said;
"The Defense Department agreed that
there is room for improvement in the reports
and were working towards a complete pre-
sentation of meaningful data to the com-
mittee."
Meanwhile, Proxmire said he believes the
"exorbitant" profits contractors are realizing
on small purchase contracts, taken in total,
"could result in excessive profits exceeding
those on major weapons systems."
"The difficulty," Proxmire said, "Is that
contracts and subcontracts under $100,000
are not subject to the requirement of the
Truth in Negotiations Law for submission
of cost or pricing data. The rationale is that
on small purchases involving common small
items, the government procurement unit can
easily keep track of prevailing prices on the
item."
He said the GAO report which he received
indicated that Lionel-Pacific Inc. of Ana-
heim, Calif., was awarded 22 contracts from
OCAMA between 1967 to 1968. It suffered
losses 0/1 two contracts but for the rest net-
ted profits ranging from 12.9 to 1,403 per
cent.
"The total dollar amount of the 22 con-
tracts was $88,547 but of that amount only
$25,612 rePresented costs incurred. All the
rest, -a total of $62,935, was profit for an aver-
age of 245.7 per cent."
Proxmire said the Renegotiation Board,
"which -could do much to correct abuses like
this, is barred from initiating proceedings on
contracts of less than $1 million.'
GAO called the high profits garnered by
Lionel Pacific "on some of the procurements
we reviewed" largely the fault of "govern-
ment and prime contract procurement offi-
cials" who simply failed to get a realistic
price.
It said, "Similar findings were brought to
the attention of DoD in a report of the sub-
committee for special investigations, House
Arineed Services Committee, in January, 1968,
resulting froin its review' of small purchases
at several procurement activities on the mili-
tary departments, including the Defense
Supply Agency (DSA)."
And GAO told Proxmire that OCAMA is
not "effectively" heeding instructions to im-
prove buying practices.
"In our opinion, this demonstrates the
continuing need for management officials in
DoD and the military services to closely mon-
itor the procurernerit pre:races of the military
buying activities and to, -take steps to insure
that buyers make every effort to obtain
reasonable prices."
Elmer' 31. -stdiat,s, Comptroller General of
the 'United States, Said GAO was pursuing its
Investigations into the "award and admin-
istration of contresets for small purchases in
Dora, and will examine Into the purchases by
OCAMA to determine what further action
should - be taken to achieve reasonable con-
tract prices."
PROJ ECM/ COST OVERRUNS
Cost
Overruns
Sheridan armored vehicle
548.0
141.6
Shillelelagh antitank missit,
380.3
192.9
Lance XRL missile
421.9
50.4
Safeguard ABM
4,185.0
(1)
Cheyenne helicopter (R, & 0. only)_
125.9
78.0
SSN-688 attack submarine
4,192.4
277.8
00-963 destroyer
1,737.6
1,684.5
CVAN-68 nuclear carrier.
427.5
116.7
CVAN-69 nuclear carrier.
519.0
(5)
LI-IA landing helicopter ass, tdi ship _
1,385.5
39.7
DXGN nuclear frigate.
3,335.0
1,539.9
Poseidon missile
4,272.0
1,379.0
Phoenix air-to-air missile. _
903.4
595.5
Sparrow air-to-air missile
265.6
(2.9)
Sparrow-F air-to-air _
246.3
179.6
Walleye II TV-guided gill& _
340.7
8.0
F14 A/B Navy fighter plane.
6,166.0
207.0
P30 land-based antistibma,,,e
plane
2,265.3
(3.6)
S3A carrier-based antisubmarine
plane
7,891.1
(1)
A7E Navy attack plane
1,432.8
484.8
Mark-48, Mod 0 torpedo. ___ _
655.2
2,585.6
Mark-48, Mod I torpedo
63.8
69.0
Condor missile (R. & 0. wdy)
126.0
56.2
SRAM missile
421.0
1,049.1
Maverick m isslle_
382.1
(15.1)
Minuteman II ICBM
4,519.1
208.4
Minuteman III ICBM_
4,375.9
760.7
C5A Air Foice transport
3,413.2
1,590.7
870 Air Force attack pia;
2,012.1
(1)
51 Air Force bomber__
8,954.5
312.8
F15 Air Force fighter
6,039.0
1,661.0
AWACS airborne warning ond
control system
3,266.6
4,011.0
F111 A/DICJE (fighter)
738.2
468.9
FB111 (fighter-bomber)
579.4
161.0
RF111 (reconnaissance pone)
74,240.1
19,888.2
f From ti-is Washington Post]
DEFENSE DEL,ITES "COST OVERRUN"
(By Bernard Nossiter)
The Pentagon is banishing the term cost
overrun from the language.
In an unpublicieed memo of Nov. 26, David
Packard, Deputy Secretary of Defense, pro-
poses that "cost growth" be substituted in
every instance in which the services now use
the familiar phrase, -cost overrun."
The memo, a copy of which has been ob-
tained by The Washington Post, was ad-
dressed to the sec,etart as of the three services
and six other high officials involved with
procurement.
According to Packard, the term "cost over-
run" creates "confusion in the minds of
many" and "cael,(11) -improper reflection on
the true status of events,"
His memo recalls that a "task force" was
set to work on the problem. "The committee
started with a general and imprecise term,
coat overrun,' sold discarded it as unwork-
able, and replaced it -with the term 'cost
'grovith," including a Structured set of defini-
tions related to it, which are workable."
"I would like to have your views," Packard
concludes, "plata to taking further action to
incorporate 'his set of terms in those direc-
tives, instructions and regulations which re-
quire reporting of cost growth, When
adopted, the offsn misunderstood term 'cost
overrun' will appear from use within the
Department."
Procurement specialists pointed out that
the substitution will save the Pentagon from
considerable embarassment. The term Pack-
ard would obliterate has now becolne so
much a part of the language that the House
Appropriations Committee, explaining its
85.3-billion cut in the military budget, called
this "the year of the cost overrun."
The project to build more 0-5A airplanes
ran into its first deep difficulties when it was
discovered that high Air Force officials had
suppressed from monthly reports the amount
of the "cost overrun.' 'rho Air Force has now
cut this prograiss back from 120 to 81 planes.
Attached to the Packard memo is a list of
nine causes for "cost growth." Like the term
itself, they sugcest nothing that could be at-
tributed to faulty or venal performance by
the military or its suppliers.
Among the nine "events causing 'cost
growth'" are changes in the required per-
formance of a weapon, changes in the de-
livery date, changes In the economy and "acts
of God."
Procurement experts observed that the list
did not include: poor estimating of original
costs; "buying-in," the technique of deliber-
ately under-estimating costs to sell a project
to the Secretary of Defense and Congress;
and inefficient management and control.
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, the
Congress, too, is now cognizant of the
enormous waste that goes on in the De-
partment of Defense. .
The report of the House Appropria-
tions Committee on the Department of
Defense appropriation bill, 1970, states:
Whether it is termed cost overrun, or cost
growth, or cost increase, fiscal year 1969 can
well be characterized as the "Year of the
Cost Overrun." While the Committee has
consistently inquired into cost overruns
from year to year, no single year stands out
in which inordinate escalations in costs for
Defense weapon system developments and
procurements have been surfaced to the ex-
tent they have been this year during the
hearings . . ? This situation greatly disturbed
the Committee and It most certainly has an
unfavorable impact upon the American tax-
payer.
The main battle tank-MBT-70----has
the dubious distinction of exemplifying
most of the committee criticisms.
The House discusses two of the major
factors in cost increases-failure to plan
adequately when a project is undertaken
and the tendency to "gold plate" a weap-
on system with many qualitative im-
provements which add little to the over-
all effectiveness.
The House report states:
Changes made in weapon system programs
are a major contributor to cost Increases. En-
gineering changes, system performance
changes, and schedule changes during both
the development and production phases have
accounted for 39.4 per cent of the cost in-
creases cited, according to figures provided
by the Secretary of Defense. This practice
points up the need for better definition of
requirements. After such definition, "nice to
have" or desirable changes cannot be made
without pyramiding of cost increases. Engi-
neering changes and system performance
changes are not only costly in and of them-
selves, but they may well cause a slippage
or change in schedule which also results in
added costs.
Mr. President, the MBT-70 was started
in 1963 as a joint venture with the Fed-
eral Republic of Germany with few spe-
cific requirements at all.
It began as a quest for a "dream" tank,
rather than as a weapon designed to ful-
fill a specific mission or a specific threat.
Indeed, the Army had no clear idea of
what the configuration of the MBT-70
would be until R.D.T. & E. was well un-
derway.
According to Maj. Gen. Edwin H.
Burba-former head of the 1VLBT-'70
project-as reported in an interview
which appeared in the September 1967
issue of Armed Forces Management
magazine:
For the first time in the history of modern
tank design, the designers of the MBT-70
were given carte blanche to optimize basio
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
Auroved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
December 15, 19 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
I further announce that the Senator
from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) is
absent on official business.
I also announced that the Senator from
Washington (Mr. Jameson) is absence be-
cause of a death in his family.
I further announce that, If present and
voting, the Senator from West Virginia
(Mr. RANDOLPH), the Senator from Ala-
bama (Mr. SPARKSIAN , the Senator from
New J3rsey (Mr. WILLIAMS), and the
Senatos from Washington (Mr. JacksoN)
would each vote "yea."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Iowa (Mr. MILLER) is nec-
essarily absent.
The Senator from Kentucky (Mr.
COOPER is absent because of illness in
his family.
The Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
MUNDT) is absent because of illness.
If present and voting, the Senator from
Iowa (Mr. Mrtesai and the Senator from
Kentucky (Mr. COOPER) would each vote
"yea."
The result was announced?yeas 80,
nays 9. as follows:
[No. 234 Leg.)
YEAS- -80
Aiken
Allott
Baker
Bayh
Bennett
Bible
Boggs
Brooke
Burdick
Byrd, Va.
Byrd, W. 17a.
Cannon
Case
Church
Cook
Cotton
Cranston
Curtis
Dodd
Dole
Dominick
Eagleton
Fannin
Fong
Fulbright
Goldwater
Goodell
Allen
Bellmon
Eastland
Gore
Gravel
Griffin
Gurney
Hansen
Harris
Hart
Hartke
Hatfield
Holland
Hollings
Ifiruska.
Hughes
Inouye
Javits
Jordan, N.C.
Jordan, Ids.ho
Kennedy
Magnuson
Mansfield
Mathias
McCarthy
McClellan
McGee
McGovern
McIntyre
Metcalf
NAYS--9
Ellender
Ervin
Long
Mondale
Montoya
Moss
Murphy
Muakie
Nelson
Packwood
Pastore
Pearson
Pell
Percy
Prouty
Proxmire
Ribicoff
Bathe
8thweiker
Scott
Smith, Maine
Smith, n)
Spong
Stevens
Talmadge
Williams, Del,
Yarborough
Young, N. Dak.
Young, Ohio
Stennis
Thurmond
Tower
NOT VOTING-11
Anderson Mundt Symington
Cooper Randolph Tydings
Jackson Russell Williams. N.J.
Miller Sparkman
So the Cooper-Manslield amendment,
as amended, was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OlstuCER. The bill is
open to further amendment.
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, I call
up my, amendment, which I offer on be-
half of myself and the Senator from
Oregon (Mr. HATFIELD).
The PRESIDING OFI'ICER. The clerk
will state the amendment.
The AS:;ISTANT Lease/erns CLERK. It is
proposed, on page 16, line 4, to strike out
"$4,264,400,000" and insert in lieu there-
of "$4,254,400,000".
THE MET-10
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, this
year the Congress of the United States
has begun to reassert its right, and in-
deed its duty, to scrutinize spending on
defense as carefully as it does 0th
smaller, but no less important, programs
In this vein, I wish to commend, as I
sure the American taxpayer does, t.h
Senate Appropriations Committee und
its distinguished chairman, Senator Ru
SELL, for cutting much of the fat fro
Department of Defense requests.
H.R. 15090 as reported by the Sena
Appropriations Committee is $8,407,544
000 less than the original budget r
quest; $5,945,544,000 less than the re
vLsed budget request, a_nd $627,392,00
under the amount allowed by the Hous
Conflicting pressures and reasons con
verged this year to make these cuts, an
even deeper ones, Possible
The overriding need to control ramp
ant inflation?causing prices to rise a
more than 5 percent per year?at tins
at 6.4 percent, the highest rate in
years?and interest rates to climb to 8.
percent?driving many young Americans
out of the housing market and man
senior citizens to the brink of despair?
certainly was an important factor in de
fense cuts.
The need to exercise prudence in gov-
ernmental spending of all public moneys
especially the least economically produc-
tive type?military spending?has never
been more clear.
Reasonable and responsible cuts, such
as those recommended by the Appropria-
tions Committee, will assist in curbing
inflation?and should be hailed by every
taxpayer.
And yet the need for increased spend-
ing in some domestic areas has never
been more clear. Recognition of urgent
domestic needs, so long untended, and
domestic challenges so long unmet, make
the redirection of Federal moneys all the
more imperative.
The Commission on Violence recently
argued that $20 billion per year must be
found to reconstruct American society
If we are to avoid disaster. It cannot all
be found in one year, but a start must
be made now?and an important step
toward that goal is the restoration of
sanity to our search for security.
We, as legislators, need only to reread
the all-too-familler litany of pressing,
recognized, and still unmet domestic
needs to understand the urgency for ac-
tion and the danger of continued inac-
tion. And the citizen driving in polluted
air on crowded, unsafe, often antiquated
thoroughfares which run through the
poverty-bound slums of our dilapidated
cities to the fear-bound suburbs under-
stands it, too.
The time to channel public moneys to
meet the domestic challenges of the lat-
ter third of this century is now. And de-
creased defense spending is necessary if
funds are to be forthcoming.
But perhaps the most important fac-
tor in 1969 was the discovery that the De-
partment of Defense is pursuing research
and development of new weapons systems
as well as their procurement in a manner
that can charitably be described as often
haphazard and sloppy.
Taxpayers find themselves saddled
with $20 billion in cost overruns on 35
weapons systems currently under devel-
opment?and they are angry. They
S 16'16'5
er recognize that substituting the term "cost
. growth" for "cost overrun," as the De-
am partment of Defense apparently plans to
e do, is not enough. Waste is not a rose
er by any other name and no amount of
"Pentagons" can make it one.
m Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
that the following article from the De-
te cember 17, 1969, edition of the Federal
,- Times be entered in the RECORD at this
e- time along with a recent article entitled
- "Defense Deletes 'Cost Overrun,'" by
0 Bernard D. Nossiter of the Washington
e. Post.
- There being no objection, the articles
d were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
- [From the Federal Times, Dec. 17, 1969J
t COST OVERRUNS OF $20 BILL/ON SEEN FOR 35
es CURRENT WEAPONS SYSTEMS
8 WASHINGTON.?A Defense Department re-
5 port indicates taxpayers are to be saddled
with about $10.9 billion in cost overruns on
y 35 weapons systems currently under devel-
opment
The quarterly reports, which cover only
major procurement projects, are the first to
be received by the Senate Armed Services
Committee, And, Sen. John Stennis, fl-Miss.,
chairman, said be is not very happy with the
way the reports are prepared.
Just before Stennis announced the massive
overruns. Sen. William Proxmire, D-Wis.,
said a Government Accounting Office in-
vestigation revealed massive profit margins
In smaller defense contracts.
Citing one example, Proxmire said GAO
had found that an "Air Force procurement
unit, the Oklahoma City Air Materiel Area
(OCAMA), has been so lax in keeping track
of prevailing prices in the market that a
California contractor realized a 1,403 per cent
profit on one small-item contract negotiated
by OCAMA."
Stennis said programs covered In his re-
ports are "estimated to coat a total of $94
billion with additional programs to be added
In future periods."
He said the largest overruns occurred in
eight project areas.
61.379 billion Ils the Poseidon submarine-
launched ballistic missile program.
$4.011 billion in the Fill series aircraft
program.
$1.661 billion in the F15 aircraft program
91.049 billion In the SRAM missile pro-
gram.
$2.586 billion in the Mark-48 torpedo pro-
gram.
$1.540 billion in the DXGN nuclear frigate
program.
$1.685 billion in the DD963 destroyer pro-
gram.
$1.591 billion for the C5A program, which
does not include 81 planes dropped by the
Air Force.
Stennis pointed out that the Navy's Mark-
48 torpedo project experienced the greatest
overrun, rts costs have grown 395 per cent
over the initial estimate.
Prediction of cost growth over original
estimates. Stennis said, is difficult. He said,
"One factor is that both the original and cur-
rent estimates are projections into the future
which is a challenging and not very exact
science."
Factors with which Pentagon cost experts
must content include inflationary factors,
technological improvements to weapons sys-
terns, increase of the initial estimate cost
baseline and program delays.
He did not arbitrarily excuse overruns es-
pecially those "which are due in whole or in
part to poor or inadequate managment or
fiscal control."
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
S 16764 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE December 15, 1969
tee headed 'by Sen. Stuart Symington (D-
M0.), show that the United States is "enor-
mously over-committed" in Laos, Fulbright
said, and "I don't think there is any author-
ity for it."
Symington declined to make any direct
comment at this time on his Laos inquiry,
except to say, "I've never -known him (Ful-
bright) to make a misstatement in this field."
In Rogers' testimony yesterday, Fulbright
said, "There was no effort whatever to deny
what was in the papers" about U.S. clandes-
tine operations in Laos, and Pulbright's com-
ments on them.
The Symington subcommittee now has
finished taking testimony on Laos. The ques-
tion is how much of a struggle there will
be between the subcommittee and the Nixon
administration over making the testimony
public. 4 ipajor witness 1 the_infroiry on,,
Tuesday was CIA Director Richard Helms.
There is disagreement about the degree tb
which Congress has been aware of the clan-
destine U.S. operations in Laos in support of
anti-Cominunist forces there. Senate Demo-
cratic leader Mike Mansfield (Mont.), a spe-
cialist on Southeast Asia, was quoted yester-
day as saying that "I've really found noth-
ing new in the (Laos) hearings that I didn't
know,"
But Fulbright and other senators said they
had no indication that covert U.S. activity
in Laos was more than what Fulbright called
"very minor, peripheral," apart from "the
bombing of the Ho Chi-Minh trails." With
the present administration's contention that
it thought Congress "understood" what was
going on in Laos, pressure is now likely to
mount for official disclosure of the details of
the IA- n operation there.
Mr. ELLEN-DER. Mr. President, it will
be recalled that before we went into ex-
ecutive session, I suggested that the
amendment be taken to conference, and
it seems that this amendment places the
Senate in a very confusing position.
I note that this amendment is based on
a contingency which is legislative. I
make the point of order that this amend-
ment is not in order, in that it is legis-
lation on an appropriation bill.
The PRESIDING OrriCER ,(Mr.
HUGHES M the chair). The Chair sus-
tains the point of order.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I suggest
the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OnICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr, President, it is the
understanding of the Senator from
Idaho that the inclusion of the phrase
"without the prior consent of Congress"
at the very end of the proposed amend-
ment renders it legislative in character
and therefore subject to the point of
order.
The PRESIDING OreICER. The Sen-
ator is correct.
Mr. cittrACH. I invite the attention of
the Senate to the fact that the final
phrase is not necessary, in any way, to
carrying out the full intent of the Senate
In regard to the real question before us.
The defect in the amendment, as it is
pre,sently, written, can be cured simply
by striking this final phrase.
Mr. JAVITS. The Senator is correct
abont that, because this must be read
with the commitments resolution, which
does call for the way in which Congress
may consent to such a situation.
Mr. CHURCH That is correct. I ap-
preciate the conMent by the Senator
from New York.
Therefore, I offer the amendment in
new form, striking the words "without
prior consent of Congress" from the text.
So that the revised amendment would
read:
SEC. 643. In line with the expressed inten-
tion of the President of the United States,
none of the funds appropriated by this Act
shall be used to rinaride the introduction of
American ground ,i;ombat troops into Laos or
Thailand.
I ask for the year; and nays on the
amendment, Mn President.
The yeas and 'Lays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agree: ag to the amendment of
the Senator from Idaho (Mr. CHURCH).
On this question, the yeas and nays have
been ordered, and the clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant, legt-lative clerk called
the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. I announce that the
Senator from 'New Mexico (Mr. ANDER-
SON) , the Senator from Georgia (Mr.
RUSSELL) , the Senator from Missouri
(Mr. SYMINGToN),, the Senator from
Maryland (Mr, T'T DINGS) , and the Sen-
ator from New Jersey (Mr. WILLIAMS)
are necessarily ebSent.
I further announce that the Senator
from West Virginia' (Mr. RANDOLPH) is
absent on officiat business.
I also armounce that the Senator from
Washington (Mr. JACKSON) is absent be-
cause of a death inhis family.
I further announce that, if present and
voting the Senator from West Virginia
(Mr. RANDOLPIO , the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. WILLIAMS), and the Senator
from Washingt(h (Mr. JACKSON) would
each vote "yea."
Mr. GRIFFIN. 1 announce that the
Senator from Iowa (Mr. MILLER) is
necessarily absent.
The Senator from Kentucky (Mr.
COOPER) is absent because of illness in his
family.
The Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
MUNDT) is absent because of illness.
If present and voting, the Senator from
Iowa (Mr. MILleR> yvhild vote "yea."
,
The result t. as announced?yeas 73,
nays 17, as folIcws:
I :eo. 233 Leg.]
FBAS --73
Allott Do ,e Javits
Baker Dvininick Jordan, N.C.
Ilayh Ea: idton Jordan, Idaho
Hellman Fpairtin Magnuson
Bennett Fong,_ McClellan
Bible McGovern
Boggs McIntyre
Brooke Ce,vel Metcalf
Burdick Griffin Mondale
Syrd, Va. Grney Montoya
Byrd, W. Va. Ilaesin Moss
Cannon lIe ris Murphy
Case EL,,,tke Nelson
Church IV Maid Packwood
Cook Pastore
Cotton Ho-lings Pearson
Cranston lin 'ski% Pell
Curtis fighes Percy
Dodd irIUye Prouty
Proxmire
Ribicoff
Saxbe
Schweiker
Scott
Smith, Maine
Aiken
Allen
Eastland
Ellender
Ervin
Fulbright
Smith; m.
Sparkman
Spong
Stevens
Talmadge
Thurmond
NAYS-17
Gore
Hart
Kennedy
Long
Mansfield
Mathias
Tower
Williams, Del.
Yarborough
Young, N. Dell.
McCarthy
McGee
Muskie
Stennis
Young, Ohio
NOT VOTING-10
Anderson Mundt Tydings
Cooper Randolph Williams, N.J.
Jackson Russell
Miller Symington
So Mr. CHURCH'S amendment was
agreed to.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I move
to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. ALLOTT. I move to lay that mo-
tion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask for the yeas and nays on the Cooper
amendment, as amended.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
a sufficient second? There is a sufficient
second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, before
we proceed with the vote on the amend-
ment, I would like to announce that we
shall try to complete action on the bill
this evening. As far as I know there are
only two more amendments. One of them
Is sponsored by the Senator from Mis-
souri (Mr. EAGLETON) , and deals with the
main battle tank '70. The committee is
willing to accept this amendment because
of a letter received from the Deputy Sec-
retary of Defense in respect to a cutback
of $20 million from the $50 million rec-
ommended for this tank.
The next amendment will be offered
by the Senator from Maine (Mrs.
SMITH), and it deals with the ABM. Since
there has been so much discussion on
the ABM heretofore, I am very hopeful
that we can get through with these two
amendments this evening. I understand
the distinguished Senator from Maine
(Mrs. Smrrn) has a speech which she will
make.
I hope other Senators will not take too
much time in discussing this matter in-
asmuch as we had this matter before us
for 2 months.
Mr. ALLOTT. I have one short matter,
not an amendment but a legislative clari-
fication.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the Cooper-Mans-
field amendment, as amended. On this
question the yeas and nays have been
ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called
the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. I announce that the
Senator from New Mexico (Mr. ANDER-
SON) , the Senator from Georgia (Mr.
RUSSELL) , the Senator from Alabama
(Mr. SPARKMAN) , the Senator from Mis-
souri (Mr. SYMINGTON) , the Senator from
Maryland (Mr. TYDINGS), and the Sena-
tor from New Jersey (Mr. WILLIAMS) are
necessarily absent.
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
December 15, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE S 16763
whose son was killed flying a combat
mission over Laos:
On May 23, 1969 we buried an unopened
casket in Arlington Natienal Cemetery.
We hava written repeatedly inquiring more
detailed i iformation We would like to know
who recovered our sons aody, Americans or
Laotians er whoever it was. We also under-
stand that they were losing CIA pilots like
flies in that particular area. We would like
to know why they tend ora planes unarm
(like the one our son piloted to his death)
in heavily entrenched entiny territory"
We have written to our congressman, bu
he has been unable to receive much informs
tion excest that its classified inforanatiOn.
There seems to be an awful lot of hush, h
about Laos and I would like to see it co
out in the open.
Or take the dilemma of this worn
whose hi.sband was lost over Laos,
missing road perhaps captured:
Do you see how all of this secrecy help
ardIsee any chance of ever hearing about
these men? They are no doubt rotting (if
still alive) in some Jungle stockade prob-
ably tended by Pathet La. Can you imagine
what tbeil is? It Is enough to send men off
to thee questionable "commitment" in Viet-
nam, but for a military man to then end up
missing in a country in which we do not
admit to activities, loses him all his rights.
To who :n can we turn to beg for informa-
tion and mercy for the men missing in
Leos? My husband has been. ill still alive)
captured for Ws years. How much longer
can he live? When will someone admit to
the truth of the war in Laos? Can we send
men to Wiz and then disclaim reeponsibillty
for them once they are taken by the w-
eaned enemy?
Mr. PresMent, we are not an Asian
kingdom Nb President is a king or
prime minister, entitled to make secret
arrangements and send American men
into war with the understanding their
activities will not be publicly acknowl-
edged.
?4Lr._24eaddral,...thr?Accma_sacr_01x
-IBI921U1Ittptlejf.inantirtipas inane_orajzio
kIng
tEREISCtta...121,,..tlag...SZMIBSICiLLAULICan:
znitzteta detailed 4earinas on Laos would
liaIrgagin released Dv now nermitting
tha?Seellitt?filladatlatalilibUre?Ans=9r-
b.C.46111e.
The&en ration, however has re-
ro...m to .
And the .311.0
Wsaa=osicir.?-eat
Therel ore, because I deeply believe
that Members of this body should be
aware?as I am?of what they are vot-
ing on when they approve the bill we
have before us, I have sought to have
the administration?through the man-
agers of the bill--proxide basic factual
Information on our aolvities in Laos.
? - : - w uld
join ? ? 3 km k
jinn to provirip the inieoLmation. fl X-
Pantlye eerodann CRD- he eglipti?ji so
elPqrPa?.443.4a0214 th iZclis,sion of that
wmfeortol nainicfraffort rein-
ed.
I believe the public has a right to
know eversthing it can. But Z mor
strongly believe the Senate and each of
Its Members has a personal responsi-
bility to his constituents to learn the
facts on this matter before he votes.
PrisAions.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECOR.D.
as follows:
DICEESSER 12, 1969.
Hon. Rieseetio B t:
rrn< om tee an A ppropr Lotions,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC
DEAR Ma. Cnaraman: During the past few
weeks some members of the Committee on
Foreign Relations have examined in depth
the nature of American military involve-
ment in Southeast halm with particular
emphasis on Laos arid Thailand. It had been
our impression that American supported mil-
itary activities there were directly related
to the war in Vietnam and it was with deep-
ening concern that we learned that the
United States is becoming directly involved
in escalating military activities in Laos.
Furthermore. what once night have been
viewed as a small, secret intelligence-type
operation has now become of such magnitude
that I feel strongly that, the Senate should
be aware of its size and possible future costs
in men and money.
Under these circumstances, I would appre-
ciate it very much if. during Senate discus-
sion of the Defense Appropriation Act, the
managers of the bill would provide Mem-
bers of the Senate who must act on the
legislation with answers from the Adminis-
tration to the questions which I have at-
saehed. 11 the only way this information can
be raade available to the Senate would be
a an executive session, I would hope this
could be arranged.
I am sending a copy of this Letter and
enelosure to Senator Milton Young as rank-
ling minority member of the Defense Appro-
priations Subcommittee.
Sincerely yours,
J. W. Felaeucirr.
..g.I.PREPINNwn.s.ORMOM,
Chairman.
Wrra
ErtrAllig
1. What treatleit agreements or declare-
provide the basis for our defenae com-
mitment and military assistance to the Royal
Laotian Government?
2. What comraltment, written or implied,
exists between the United States or its agen-
cies and the present Royal Laotion Govern-
ment or its Prime Minister, Souvanna
Phouxna?
3. What military assistance. Including man-
power, material and training, is the United
States providing through thi.s bill?
4. As of today, what is the total number
of United States military personnel in Laos
and describe the manner in which the
operate.
5. Describe hi detail activities over Laos o
the united States Air Force, including both
than) activities, If any, based in Laos and
those. if any, based in Thailand.
If pertinent, include:
a. What, if any, is the current monthly
sortie rate over northern Laos for the
United States Air Force aircraft?
b. How does that rate, if any, compared to a
year ego and two years ago?
a The contemplated sortie rate, if any, over
northern Laos in the corning 12 months.
d. How these sortie rates, if any, compare
to United States Air Force sorties directed to-
ward the Ho Chi Minh trail.
6. What, if any, have been the total num-
ber of United States military personnel
killed, wounded, and missing in northern
Laos since 1962?
7. How does this total compare to personnel
lost in operations solely against the Ho Chi
Minh trail?
S. What is the amount of personnel, oper-
Ong and maintenance and military assist-
funds included in this bill for Laos and
elated activities?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent to have printed in
the RECORD an article entitled, "Rogers
Admits Laos Arms Role."
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
_ giefirrw AliThErra LAOS ARMS ROLE
(Ba Murrey izerder)
Secretary of State William P. Rogers in-
directly conceded yesterday that for years
the United States has financed, armed and
trained a clanciestine army of 36,000 guerril-
la Laos.
In the first acknowledgement ever made
on the public record, Rogers treated the U.S.
involvement in the semi-secret war in Laos
as a matter of common knowledge. But
Rogers avoided explicitly stating precisely
what he was acknowledging, and said there
are no plans to stop or change present opera-
tions in Laos.
"I had thought that the Congress was fa-
miliar with the developments In Laos,,"
Rogers said. "Certainly they are familiar with
them now . . . I thought Congress under-
stood it."
"This is reily quite extraordinary," said
Ben. J. W. Fulbright (D-Ark.). Both were
commenting after Rogers testified behind
closed doors for three and a half hours be-
fore the Senate Foreign Relations Commit-
tee, which Fulbright heads.
"It is quite ordinary for a dictatorship."
said Fuibright, "but to be conducting quite
aa large a war as this (in Laos) without
authorization is quite unusual,"
Pultaight said in an interview Tuesday
through the Central Intelligence
nay. the United States, under three ad-
tzations. has been supplying, arming.
raining and transporting the clandestine
Ian army of Meo tribesman headed by
is yang Pao.
Tres cost to the United States for military
nee to Laos. Fulbright said, is be-
sea $50 and $160 million this year. Other
ces said yesterday that about half this
cunt is used to LinAnn. the Meo guerrilla
mac and the rest goes to other military
eeds in Laos. But uncounted in the $160
Mien total this year, these sources said.
are the costs of tr.a bombing support from
Thailand for operations ha Laos.
Rogers, when newsmen put Falbright's
specific statements to him said:
"Well, the operations in Laos. as you know,
were started in the time of President Ken-
nedy" and continued through the Johnson
and Nixon administrations. When he was
asked if they win be halted now, Rogers re-
sponded, "No. I don't think there is going to
be a change in policy. not now."
There are no U.S. "ground ferees in Laos."
Rogers reiterated, but there are still "45,000
North Vietnamese forces in Laos." It con-
tinues to be the United States' hope, he said,
that an end to the war in Vietnam will solve
the problems of Communist penetrations
into Laos and Cambodia as well.
Newsmen asked Rogerrs for comment on
Fulbright's charge Tuesday that the extent
of the U.S. Involvement in Laos may be un-
constitutional. "I doubt very much if it is
unconatitutIonal," replied Rogers.
"What about the public's 'right to know?'"
asked a reporter. Said Rogers, "Well, I think
the public, if they have been reading the
papers, know."
Fuessight, when told later that Rogers said
he expects no change In U.S. policy in Laos.
said: "I regret it, if that's what he said."
Hearings on Laos, which have been con-
ducted in executive session by a subcommit-
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
Approved For Release 20Q6/0J/30 ? ClArRDP71R003itili000100151pA7A
S 16762 CONGREsSioN Rilwitu
"Mr, MUSKIE. Let me put this proposi-
tion. It seems to me that by being silent
on the question of possible enlargement
of our land activity in Laos or Thailand,
the Senator's amendment may, in effect,
approve that kind of enlargement of our
activity in Laos or Thailand.
Mr. CHURCH. I think that the ex-
change between the Senator from New
York and myself negates such an inter-
pretation.
The legislative history is being written
right here on the floor.
It would not be practical to attempt to
legislate in a way that would unduly
hamper the President in relation to the
delicate problems he faces in Thailand
and Laos.
We have only one objective of saying,
at this time, that we do not intend any
of the funds we vote in this bill to be
used for the purpose of introducing
American ground combat troops in Laos
or Thailand.
There are many other things we might
do, but they are not covered here.
Mr. IVILISKIE. That indicates one rea-
son why the distinguished majority
leader prefers the ambiguity of his lan-
guage rather than the language offered
In. the closed session.
Mr. CHURCH. No one was certain of
what the other language meant.
If we are going to act, we should act
with sufficient certitude that the Govern-
ment and the people of the country know
what we mean.
Mr. MUSKIE. We all respect, and I re-
spect, the intention on that point. I do
not challenge it.
I think this colloquy and the other col-
loquy has suggested the difficulty of
reaching an absolute decision.
Mr. CHURCH. There is that difficulty
in any action we take. We have tried to
draft the language that expresses pre-
cisely the intent we have in mind.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. touLBRIGHT. Mr. President, this
evening, with great public fanfare, the
President of the United States is sched-
uled to make a statement in which?
according to all the reports I have seen?
he will announce further withdrawal of
troops from South Vietnam.
Similar widely publicized announce-
ments have been made concerning earlier
cutbacks in troop levels not only in South
Vietnam but also in Thailand.
This administration's announced pol-
icy of a lessening direct military involve-
ment in Asia has also been given a good
deal of publicity.
It is against this chorus of administra-
tion public announcements of a policy in
one direction that I voice my apprehen-
sion over continuing administration
silence over policy in Laos where our
military Involvement appears to be grow-
ing rather than declining.
As in Vietnam, the Nixon administra-
tion inherited a Laotian policy. Unlike
Vietnam, where some changes appear
underway, the new administration seems
to have accepted everything we have
done and are doing in Laos.
Id im ortant for us in the Congress,
hi.- -r t e .resent : !rims ra
date seems ?M,4Atimt:a? ? con nue
potentially ? . ? ! 8 Dart of tha po -
icy?the official _see-ITU _ill which our
military activities are wrapped?insti-
LIAM a/1ring -MO -1C-enngrig=intiaStra
tion_astd_continued daring--th.e-..T.cdanson
years.
*Mr. President. at Ws late date. isjj
tcua_much Ao..ask_iliat__ the administra-
tion come forword_toint5enate a t_laant,
and give to-the ropjority of the Mernhera
There-the mei .edriti
lis-voinmoppro r_actiiat isanvistieAscitn bLeafo:re?
us._thienees_thopc activities This money
hill ia the nnly opportunity the Senate
will _have to din-ass and in any way effect
theseantiviti PS j') 1.12,0F.
To my knowledge there is no treaty
or joint resolution granting any Presi-
dent authority to send military air or
ground forces into. Laos. We have been
told by the State, Department there are
no executive agreements or written
commitments of any kind which have
led to our involvement.
Why then are we there and what are
we doing?
These questiez,3 are not unique to me.
For almost 2 months--since the ques-
tion of Laos was first raised in the Sen-
ate Foreign Relations Committee?I and
other members of the committee have
received a steady flow of letters from peo-
ple asking the :same question. Most of
them are concerned because of what they
read in the newspapers. But a few are
worried because of their direct personal
knowledge.
Last week, far example, I received the
following from a young man in the
Army:
I recently completed a course at Ft. Hua-
chuca, Ariz., called_ [deleted]. This is a classi-
fied course dealing with a new method of
electronic war f an to combat guerilla (sic)
warfare.
During this co-arse. I asked an instructor,
Lt. [deleted], if there was a good chance
we would get sent to Laos or Carnbodia. He
said there was.
Now, my question Is this, "What is our
relationship to Iaos and C,ambodla?" and
"Are we ,allowed to., have combat troops in
either Laos or canibodt??"
If the Army's action is illegal, I hope that
you will expose -a the American people the
dangers of spreadirg. the war in S. Vietnam
to all of Indochina.
Or, take these words from an Air Force
officer in Thailand:
In the last few :months we have had dozens
of Laotian Army las,tile casualties in our
USAF hospital here. In the last few months,
I have looked an.I listened: I have seen and
heard much.
Although I do not have a top secret se-
curity clearance abd most of what goes on
here requires thet). any airman can count
the numbers oi jet fighter-bombers taking
off fully loaded with ordinance. Anyone here
can pass the runway and see dozens of
unmarked Micro irt parked at the Air America
and Continental Airlines ramp. Any drunk-
en pilot will tell Of the fighting, bombing,
and killing for Whibli we, here at Udorn, are
responsible. Not in Vietnam, not in an open
war, but in Laos, 35 miles to the north.
There are Many things which I have
learned to accept here_ The censorship of our
radio and TV station: the application of arbi-
trary curfews; ortiiizary rules and regula-
tions, so that we may not badly impress this
foreign country from which we wage war.
These I can ac::ept, though I think them
regulations of Unsteady minds.
Wha.taLha-aa-bnialLitifficulty accepting is a
secret mar_in vit tab lion."111Ititiry CIA soon-
er 15, 1969
anreafigLita.LII ay the groundworkator HS.
military destructiou.
I appeal to you and your fellow congress-
men to stop the foolishness of the American
involvement in Southeast Asia. Stop the
secrecy, stop the fighting, stop the death.
In a few short months, my presence in
Thailand has assured me of the wrongness
of our position here. We will never win by
supplying arms and soldiers. We will only
win by destroying the corrupt governments
that we now support and by getting our
wealth into the mouths of the people instead
of into the hands of dishonest leaders of
indigent countries.
Or the following from a Navy man
aboard a carrier off Vietnam:
It would be conservative to say that at
least half or perhaps three-quarters of our
sorties, expended ordnance and time for the
past six months has been trained solely on
Laos. Yet, current military and administra-
tion policy forbids the reporting of such ac-
tivities. It seems evident that the attack
aircraft carrier Navy is no longer a force used
against North Vietnam but rather is engaged
in a private but related war in another
country.
The enormous amount of money expended
in keeping these carriers operational plus its
manpower consumption obligates the mili-
tary to make public Its mission. But of more
importance is the long range effects of be-
coming more deeply committed in Southeast
Asia and perhaps the loss of more American
lives in the future. Thus, I encourage you to
bring these activities before the public as
soon as possible.
Or the following from an AID con-
tract employee in Laos who freely dis-
cusses the mercenary Lao Army teams
that call in U.S. Air Force bombing
and concludes:
All of this, although it seems to be more
or less common knowledge here, is denied by
the Embassy. They have "no comment" on
the bombing which is apparently "free"
throughout the territory held by the Pathet
Lao and North Vietnamese, directed at any-
thing they can see, whether military or not.
It appea.ks that once again the U.S. is involved
in something of which it has reason to be
ashamed, which it does not want the world
or its own people to know.
I do not like to see an agency of our gov-
ernment maintaining its own mercenary
army in Laos, not subject to the public con-
trol intended by our Constitution.
I wish to help the people here, and I be-
lieve the U.S. should help them. But if we
cannot find any way to help them that does
not also require indiscriminate bombing at
them and maintaining a mercenary army in
their midst, then I do not believe we should
be here.
Or the following from another AID
contract employee who finished his tour
and remained in Laos:
While military activity has de-escalated to
some extent in South Vietnam over the last
year, it has greatly intensified here in Laos.Restraints which were in force on both sides
since 1964 have been lifted. The future pres-
ages continued escalation and increased
American involvement. The recent investiga-
tion of your committee could not have been
more timely, and I wish to contribute in any
way possible to them.
There is another group of letter writ-
ers, women who have a different type of
firsthand experience with Laos. They
are wives and mothers whose loved ones
have been killed or are missing in a war
they never knew existed.
The following came from a woman
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
December 15, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE S 16761
than that some substitute has been sug-
gested for the idea they presented to the
Senate. I am confident that my col-
league would agree with me in that.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I cer-
tainly concur in what the Senator from
New York has said.
This amendment was really offered
reluctantly. 1:31e...aenate has made itsa
ecisio to sneak_ out in YPieding_tjae
.na_ga_to table. It Is ncw
intend to take a Position-ou-thiLYITY
. : ? :
4
-131. al-.1211.4.1filge-that-PositianallzuaLga
precise
P..res_ident a ? a a e ad-
ia.Ainfilla ? u erican peop
? -
stai?a..? We should avoid a repetition of
Th?istake we made in the Gulf of Ton-
kin resolution, when we carelessly
drafted it, only to discover later that it
was much broader than many who voted
for it intended.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. CHURCH. I yield,
Mr. FULI3RIGHT. That one having
been broader than we thought, we ought
to be careful lest the one that restricts it
be broader than we thought. Is the Sen-
ator's proposal to be ',.nterpreted as an
authorization for continued bombing, or
expansion of the bombing, in the north?
Mr. CHURCH. No. I would say, after
the debate we had in the Senate during
the closed session, that no one was quite
certain what the original amendment
meant.
This substitute amendment is purely
limiting in its terms. The bill provides
money for local forces both in Laos and
Thailand. All my amendment does is to
make it clear that none of the money in
the bill is to be used for the purpose of
financing the introduction of American
ground combat troops into Laos or
Thailand.
As such, it is a limitation in the bill. It
Is in line with our constitutional respon-
sibility. I think it avoids the flaw in the
Tonkin Gulf joint resolution which was
drafted in much broader language than
intended at the time Congress voted in
such haste.
Mr. FIJLBRIGHT. Mi. President, to me
the important significance is that that
was assumed to be a grant of authority.
This is a restriction. I am not at all sure
that there is, and I do not believe there
is, really authority for doing what we
are doing now in north Laos. There is a
very great question as to whether there
Is authority.
I wonder what the effect of this will be
on the granting of authority by having
only a restricted application to ground;
that is, the combat troops only.
Mr. CHURCH. No. Nothing in this
amendramt grants any new authority
to the Government.
The question the Senator raises is a
separate one. All this amendment does
is to limit the use of the money in the
bill to make certain it is not employed for
the very purpose the Senator from Ar-
kansas does not want.
Mr. FITLBRIGHT. There may be other
activities in addition to using ground
troops for which I do not want them to
employ it.
The Senator from Mississippi said a
moment ago that he thought the amend-
ment of the majority leader would re-
strict bombing disconnected or not di-
rectly connected with Vietnam.
I do not know as between the two
amendments. I do not wish to authorize
the President to use ground troops or air-
power in a local war in northern Laos
which is not directly connected with the
Ho Chi Minh Trail and the war in Viet-
nam.
Mr. CHURCH. I think the Senate
should speak plainly or not at all.
The substitute amendment is intended
to make our purpose plain. The amend-
ment offered by the distinguished ma-
jority leader. I think, is ambiguous and
unclear.
If we are to act at all, we should act-
in a way that is understandable to the
Government and to the American peo-
ple. For that reason, I would hope that
the Senate would adopt the substitute
amendment.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, to be
precise and clear, does the amendment
say ground troops or ground combat
troops? I am trying to get to the point
of the Senator from Texas.
Mr. CHURCH. It says ground combat
troops.
Mr. HOLLINGS. It says only "ground
troops" here. Could the Senator by unan-
imous consent change that to read
"ground combat troops"?
Mr. CHURCH. Yes, that is how my
amendment reads. In line with the ex-
pressed intention, the pertinent part
should read:
None of the funds appropriated by this
Act shall be used to finance the introduc-
tion of American round combat troops into
Laos or Thailand without the prior con-
sent of Congress.
If the text of the amendment at the
desk does not conform with my read-
ing of the amendment. I ask unanimous
consent that it so conform.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. CHURCH. I yield.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, I hope this
is not repetitious. We say that the
moneys shall not be used to finance the
introduction of American ground combat
troops. What about American aircraft
and American ships? Are we saying that
is all right?
Mr. CHURCH. We are simply not un-
dertaking to make any changes in the
status quo. The limiting language is pre-
cise. And it does not undertake to repeal
the past or roll back the present. It looks
to the future.
Mr. HART. Is the existing status quo
Inclusive of the action by air, ground,
and ships, and are we saying now we
should cut out the ground forces?
Mr.
th tent
we re striving tot...woven} Lana Ana
Thailand from hpparnitiw nu Viptrinisks
ThaL-is_tjagjaignase-of...the-amendment.
And f thtnk it is wall riraftari carve
tiatiLilitrPose.
Ur. HART. We could make it more
explicit by eliminating the other features
of American might.
Mr. GOODFT.L. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, how
much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Idaho has 2 minutes remain-
ing.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I would
prefer not to yield the remainder of my
time. Could the other side yield some
time?
Mr. FrJENDER. Mr. President, I yield
2 minutes to the Senator from New York.
The PRESIDING OFrICER. The Sen-
ator from New York is recognized for
2 minutes.
Mr. GOODv.14, Mr. President, would
the Senator agree that his amendment
grants no authority, that it in no way
approves or disapproves of what is going
on, but that it is simply directed toward
making sure that in the future no ground
combat troops will be introduced into
Laos or Thailand?
Mr. CHURCH. Without the prior con-
sent of Congress.
Mr. GOODELL. That is correct, That
will not be done without the prior con-
sent of Congress.
Mr. CHURCH. The Senator is correct.
That is the intent.
Mr. GOODELL. That is vital. The im-
plication has been raised that we are
giving some kind of approval to the
status quo of what is going on. This is
a prohibition against the future occur-
rence of what is now going on. This
grants no authority or approves nothing
that is going on.
Mr. CHURCH. The Senator is cor-
rect. There is nothing in the text of the
amendment itself, or the debate upon it,
that could give any basis for such an
Interpretation. The Senator has correctly
construed the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time
of the Senator has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President. will the
Senator yield?
Mr. Ent .F.NDER. Mr. President, I yield
2 minutes to the Senator from Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Maine is recognized for 2
minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, is it the
intent of the amendment to prohibit or.
at least, to inhibit the introduction of
any additional elements of American mil-
itary strength in Laos beyond the present
level of military support for our allies in
Laos and Thailand?
Mr. CHURCH. The intent of the
amendment conforms with the language
used. And the language used, the opera-
tive language used, is as follows:
None of the funds appropriated by the Act
shall be used to finance the introduction of
American ground combat troops into Laos
or Thailand without the prior consent of
Congress.
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
S 16760
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE December 15, 1969
NAYS-48
Aiken Hart Moss
Bayh Henke Muskie
Boggs Hatfield Nelson
Brooke Hughes Packwood
Burdick Inouye Pastore
Byrd, Va. Javits Pell
Byrd, W.Va. Jordan, Idaho Percy
Case Kennedy Prouty
Church Magnuson Proxmire
Cranston Mansfield. Ribicoff
Eagleton Mathias Saxbe
Fulbright McGovern Schweiker
Goodell McIntyre Spong
Gore Metcalf Yarborough
Gravel Mondale Young, N. Dak.
Harris Montoya Young, Ohio
NOT VOTING-11
Anderson Miller Symington
Cooper Mundt Tydings
Jackson Randolph Williams, N.J.
McCarthy Russell
So Mr. McGEE's motion to lay on the
table was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question now recurs on agreeing to the
amendment of the Senator from Ken-
tucky and the Senator from Montana.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, on behalf
of the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Aza
eon') , the Senator from California (Mr.
CRANSTON), the Senator from New York
(Mr. JAVITS) , and myself, I send to the
desk a substitute amendment, which
reads as follows -
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
Mr. CHURCH. I ask unanimous con-
sent that I may read the amendment to
the Senate instead of the clerk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? The Chair hears none, and it
is so ordered.
Mr. CHURCH. The amendment reads
as follows:
On page 46, between lines 8 and 9, insert
a new section as follows:
"DEC. 643. In line with the expressed in-
--tellierealgentaLki e United States,
Jutat,..211, a ? ro ? riatiTS?Thirret
shall b.e,..ligecl to financ then r..n.c on of
American ronncLtroops into Laos or-Thai-
land withoat_tnt of ConEress."
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the name of the distinguished
senior Senathr from Arkansas (Mr. Me-
CLELLAN) be added as a cosponsor of
the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CHURCH. I ask for the yeas and
nays on the substitute amendment.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. CHURCH. I ask unanimous con-
sent also that the name of the Sena-
tor from Tennessee, (Mr. BAKER) be
added ai a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield for a question?
Mr. CHURCH. I am happy to yield.
Mr. TOWER. Does the amendment
mean that we would have to immediate-
ly withdraw all ground troops we now
have in Thailand? Because we do have
Ariny troops and pre-positioned equip-
ment in Thailand. The way the substitute
amendment is written, it would seem
to meafi the troops We have there now
would no longer be permitted.
' Mr. CHURCH. I think the answer to
the Senator's question is clearly con-
tained in the language of the proposed
substitute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the
Senator suspend, so that we may have
order?
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield another half minute?
I hope the members of the Appropri-
ations Committee, if we are going to
have a discussion on the substitute, will
see if they cannot cane down to the
committee room, end we can come back
for the rollcall.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
wonder if it would not be possible to
vote on this question in 5 minutes. It
should not take much discussion. Would
that be sufficient, :he time to be equally
divided?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection?
Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, re-
serving the right to object, we should
extend it a little longer than 5 minutes.
Mr. CHURCH. E ask unanimous con-
sent for 15 minutes on each side.
Mr. MANSFIELD. One-half hour, to be
equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? The :hair hears none, and
it is so ordered.
Mr. CHURCH Now. Mr. President, I
ask for order.
The PRESIDING ototileER. The Sen-
ate will be in ordt
Mr. CHURCH. tn response to the ques-
tion of the Senator from Texas (Mr.
TOWER), the pertinent part of the
amendment reams:
None of the fitqcls appropriated by this
Act shall be used so butt oce the introduction
of American grc,trid troops into Laos or
Thailand.
It is true that, we have personnel there.
But the amendment conforms to the ex-
pressed intention of the President; it
reinforces the presidential position; and
yet it asserts the constitutional right of
the Senate, in in appropriation bill, to
determine how public funds will be used,
and makes it Near that the Senate is
opposed to the introduction of ground
combat troops into either country, un-
less we first haee an opportunity to pass
judgment on that question.
Mr. TOWER. Will the Senator yield
for a further question?
Mr. CHURCH. I am happy to yield.
Mr. TOWER. The term "ground com-
bat troops" still could include those that
are there, because those that we have
there are capa ole of engaging in combat.
They are trained for combat. They are
not actually in combat, true, and it is not
anticipated that thee ever will be. We
hope they will eot be. But they are com-
petent to engaee in combat.
Mr. CHURCH. As the Senator knows,
we presently rave no ground troops in
Laos engaging in com bat.
Mr. TOWER. That is true.
Mr. CHURCH. The President has said
so. The language conforms to the Presi-
dential position, and if there is any
question concerning our meaning or in-
tent, it should be cleared up by the dis-
cussion we are now having on this floor.
Mr. TOWER. That is all I am trying
to do, establish the legislative intent. -
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. CHURCH. I yield.
Mr. PASTORE. If we have any linger-
ing shadows of doubt, why not use the
words "to support local forces"? Why not
say "the introduction of American com-
bat troops to support local forces"? Then
we will have no ambiguity.
Mr. CHURCH. I respectfully say to the
Senator that the bill authorizes money,
which is now being used, to support local
forces in Thailand and Laos. There is
no question about that. What we are
trying to achieve here is a limitation
on the use of money for the purpose of
financing the introduction of American
ground forces into these two countries.
I think the amendment should be
supported. It is in line with the ex-
pressed intention of the President and
accords with our constitutional respon-
sibilities. Moreover, it puts the President
on notice that, if there is ever a change
of policy that might involve the possible
introduction of American combat forces
into these two countries, then, in accord-
ance with the Constitution, that question
should be brought back to Congress, and
Congress should exercise its will.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. CHURCH. I am happy to yield to
the Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. McCLELLAN. In the executive
session, I raised some questions about
the original resolution. This substitute
amendment, together with the state-
ment by the distinguished majority lead-
er in executive session in response to my
questions, answers the questions that I
had in mind, and I am happy to support
it. I commend the Senator for its word-
ing and its purpose, and for recognizing
that the President has given his pledge,
and that we support the President in
that pledge.
Mr. CHURCH. I thank the Senator
very much, and I appreciate his support.
I now yield to my distinguished co-
sponsor, the Senator from Colorado (Mr.
ALLOTT) .
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I joined
in the cosponsorship of this amendment
because I believe it is preferable to the
very vague, in my judgment, amendment
now pending before the Senate. I think
it says what the Senate would like to say,
?and I sincerely hope that Senators will
support it.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. CHURCH. I yield to the Senator
from New York.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, just 1
minute. I think we are trying hard?
and I hope the majority leader is listen-
ing?to deal with a situation in which,
he, feeling bound by the language of the
Senator from Kentucky?and I do not
blame him?did not want it interfered
with, and yet to express what we sense to
be the will of the Senate. I think that has
been done best by the combined brain-
power of a number of us here, and I
hope very much that the Senator from
Montana (Mr. MANSFIELD) and the Sen-
ator from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER) will
feel they have been successful, rather
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
December 15, Mm
Mr. PULBRIGHT. Then, is it not fol
lowing a pattern very similar to wha
happened in Vietnam?
Mr. MANSFIELD No; because, unde
the Geneva Accords of 1962, all for
eign troops agreed to withdraw exceP
for a small French military mission
which was located partly in Vientiane
and partly around Savanna khet. It is the
only treining mission o: that type which
was allowed under the Geneva Accords
of 1962, but we did withdraw our forces
in 1962 in accordance with the accords.
The North Vietnamese did withdraw
a small contingent of their troops, but
since that time they have not only re-
stored that withdrawal, but increased the
number by, I would say, 150 percent.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I am -not sure in
view of the attitude of the Senator from
Arizona and the manager of the bill.
These questions, I thought, would have
been more properly asked in executive
session, but if they prefer that they be
asked in open session. I suppose we
should proceed.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. FT LBRIGHT. I yield.
Mr. TOWER. Does he not think we
may get into highly sensitive matters
that should not be publicly disclosed?
Mr. FULBR.IGHT. I thought so, but
the Sena;or from Arizona and the Sen-
ator front Louisian.a did not think so. I
understand the Senator from Montana
thought his was a matter better dis-
cussed in open session. I had suggested,
and I thought the majority leader was
of the view, that we should go into execu-
tive session.
Mr. MANSFIELD May I say that all
this information is public. All one has to
do is read the newspapers. All that has
been suggested is carried in public print.
Mr. TOWER. Yes, but a good deal more
could be said that perhaps should be
said in closed session.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is what I said
before. I thought It should be in execu-
tive sessida. Perhaps they have changed
their minds. For example,
the distinguished Senator lf?
this.....bas,fstrssullikELAwaiwaLLAQ_Aue.'
Laiskigtsa,? leen y e on in
BancaLudinthapley. I wonder if i
vz kg
olurualitbffl Is
it for the U.S. Air Force missions in Laos?
Is there any way the Senator can identify
that amount?
Mr. rtJ,ENDER. Xise_190 million is
sexeralausrenriations.
Mr. FULBRIGHT.
isprssie es
Mr. ELLZNDER, gatr...hutsassIsau&-
t
wesgatp nothbsgsislusazipLA ses-
sion_sasst_ssateguk_while ago, as man-
con-
gjp2 jist more
roved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
ONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE S 16759
-t 21ga with t,...x.itja.lia*e.jLtgtit,v.L.t1L_.Li kinct of Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, a
t r v ? to parliamentary inquiry,
tke, they ousht teal-any. The PRESIDING OFFICER, The Seri-
r I have been hornswogg led long ator from Montana will state it.
- enough?ever since the previous admin- Mr. MAN:Us/S.W. What is the pending
t ',titration and its Tonkin Gulf Resolution, motion?
when I did not know the administration The PRESIDING OlerICER. The ques-
was misrepresenting the facts. All I am tion is on the motion to table the amend-
saying is that all Senators should know ment by the Senator from Montana (Mr
Ken-
Vote.
what they are voting for before they Msrqsersser and the Senator from
??? ? ?
est acearditudy, ?
ja_wis at the Dresen thrtL
b,embers of the Senate, aside from the
?erha s who are on ce -
taizuwagrcs_ou ees of the_C-I.A.
_closnotskeuesshettsgeiseag One in this
bill.inzaga.s.1-to-Laoss.t.thinks
in.?
In my view, there is a lot of money
In this bill for activities which bear a
very great probability of involving us in
another full-scale war in Laos, if it is
not already a full-scale war. We are dees-
calating in Vietnam. but I shall read
some letters a little later, which are not
classified, which came from soldiers and
wives of soldiers which I believe con-
clusively prove that we are escalating
the war in Laos just as much as we are
deescalating it In Vietnam.
I think it is a very serious matter; it
Is not something that ought to be pushed
under the rug merely by saying, "I will
accept the amendment and take it to
conference," and then let it be buried
there.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I do not think that
Is what the Senator from Louisiana said.
As I recall, he and the Senator from
North Dakota said they were in favor
of the amendment
uc y (Mr, Cooesa).
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, a point
of order. We should not begin voting
until the Chamber has been made open.
Mr. MANSFIELD. The Chamber is
open. It was opened 2 minutes ago, I
understand.
sla ? ? ? a a : ? -
Blejla&LICIN...Legumed_its japan_sessicw.
The question is on agreeing to the
motion to table the amendment of the
Senator from Montana and the Senator
from Kentucky.
On this question the yeas and nays
have been ordered, and the clerk will
call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called
the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY'. I announce that the
Senator from New Mexico (Mr. ANDER-
SON), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr.
MCCARTHY), the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. RUSSELL), the Senator from Mis-
souri (Mr. SYMINGTON), the Senator from
Mr. F'ULBRIGHT. He said, -I will ac- Maryland (Mr. Tyonsosi , and the Sena-
cent it," meaning that he would take it tor from New Jersey (Mr. WILLIAMS) are
to conference in order to avoid further necessarily absent.
discussion here. I further announce that the Senator
Mr. ELLENDER. Why does not the from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) is
Senator from Arkansas proceed to give absent on official business.
the Senate the information he has heard I also announce that the Senator from
from soldiers? Washington (Mr. JACKSON) is absent be-
Mr. FULI3RIGHT. I submitted a ques- cause of a death in his family.
tionnaire to the chairman and the rank- I further announce that, if present and
ing minority member of the Committee voting, the Senator from New Jersey
on AppropriatSons last week and asked (Mr. WILLIAMS) and the Senator from
questions that related to this activity. West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) would
had linderstood that th &wife woula vote "nay."
?? a - I further announce that, if present and
voting. the Senator from Washington
? It? ,
should come from the sponsors of the
proposed- le: onzors. the
members of the --ConnisiApit,ee -
nrepa,.ed with oil-
desired for. .at is all in the w - am
mi
?1?T'o?propose: t w en tilts...corn-
usInsvote fgr B11110fit billion_ we ought
to.lsomessting for. It is that
SigaPle,
this point, the Senate went into
se fi. ? ?
'oceedi oce
sae
Mr, MANSFIELD Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum, to last
only as long as it will take to ring the
two bells.
The PRESIDING oFFICER The clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD, Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
(Mr. JACKSON) Would vote "yea."
Mr. GRIPrIN. I announce that the
Senator from Iowa (Mr. MILLER ) is nec-
essarily absent.
The Senator from Kentucky f Mr.
COOPER ) is absent because of illness in
his family.
The Senator from South Dakota Mr.
Mutter, is absent because of illness.
The Senator from Iowa (Mr. MILLER )
is paired with the Senator from Ken-
tucky (Mr. Comma). If present and vot-
ing the Senator from Iowa would vote
"yea" and the Senator from Kentucky
would vote "nay."
The result was announced?yeas 41,
nays 48, as follows:
Allen
Allott
Baker
Beilmon
Bennett
Bible
Cannon
Cook
Cotton
Curtis
Dodd
Dole
DOldinick
Fastituid
f NO. 232 Leg.)
YEAS-41
ElletUter
Ervin
Fannin
Fong
Goldwater
Gritlin
Gurney
Hansen
Holland
Hollings
Hrttaka
Jordan, N.C.
Long
McClellan
McGee
Murphy
Pearson
Scott
Smith, Maine
Smith, Ill.
Sparkman
Stennis
Stevens
Talmadge
Thurmond
Tower
Williams. Del.
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
S 16758
-Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SEN
duty or the termination of his civilian em-
ployment, as the case may be.
(7) The date on which he was released
from 'active duty or the termination of his
civilian employment with the Department of
Defense, as the case may be, and the date on
which his employment, as an employee, con-
sultant, or otherwise with the defense con-
tractor began and, if no longer employed ty
such defense contractor, the date on which
such employment with such defense contrac-
tor terminated.
(8) Such other pertinent information as
the Secretary of Defense may require.
(2) Any employee of the Department of
Defense, including consultants or part-time
employees, who was previously employed by
or served as a consultant or otherwise to a
defense contractor in a,ny fiscal year, and
whose salary rate in the Department of De-
fense is equal to or greater than the mini-
Mum salary rate for positions in grade GS-
13, shall file with the Secretary of Defense,
in such form and manner and at such times
as the Secretary may prescribe, a report
containing the following information:
(1) His name and address.
(2) The title of his position with the De-
partment of Defense.
(3) A brief description of his duties with
the Department of Defense.
(4) The name and address of the defense
contractor by whom he was employed or
Whom he served as a consultant or other-
wise.
(5) The title of his position with such de-
fense contractor.
(6) A brief description of his duties and
the work performed by him for the defense
contractor.
(7) The date on which his employment as
a consultant or otherwise with such con-
tractor terminated and the date on which
his employment as a consultant or otherwise
with the Department of Defense began there-
after.
(8) Such other pertinent information as
the Secretary of Defense may require.
(c) (1) No former military officer or former
civilian employee shall be required to file a
report under this section for any fiscal year
In which he was employed by or served as a
consultant or otherwise to a defense contrac-
tor if the total amount of contracts awarded
by the Department of Defense to such con-
tractor during such year was less than $10,-
000,000, and no employee of the Department
Of Defense shall be required to file a report
under this section for any fiscal year in
?rhich he was employed by or served as a
consultant or otherwise to a defense contrac-
tor if the total amount of contracts awarded
to such contractor by the Department of
Defense during such year Was less than
$10,000,000.
(2) No former military officer or former
civilian employee shall be required to file a
report under this section for any fiscal year
on account of active duty performed or em-
ployment with or services performed for the
Department of Defense if such active duty
?or employment was terminated three years
or more prior to the beginning of such fiscal
year; and no employee of the Department of
Defense shall be required to file a report
under this seption for any fiscal year on
account of employment with or services per-
formed for a defense contractor if such em-
ployment FM terminated or such services
were performed three years or more prior
to the effective date of his employment with
the Department of Defense.
(3) No former military officer or former
civilian employee shall be required to file a
report under this section 'for any fiscal year
during which he was employed by or served
as a consUltant or othepyipe to a cieferise
contractor': at a salary rate of less than $15,-
000 per year; and no employee of the De-
partment of Defense, including consultants
or part-time employees, shall be required to
file a report under thii.section for any fiscal
year during which he was employed by or
served as a consultant or otherwise to a de-
fense contractor It a talary rate of less than
$15,000 per year.
(d) The Secretary of Defense shall, not
later than December 31 of each year, file
with the President of the Senate and the
Speaker of the HouSe of Representatives a
report containing, M list of the names of
persons Who htiva filed reports with him for
the preceding r:bal sear pursuant to sub-
sections (b) (1) and ' tb) (2) of this section.
The Secretary sluill include after each name
so much inforrnation as he deems appro-
priate and shall Z1st the names of such per-
sons under the defense contractor for whom
they worked or for whom they performed
services.
(e) Any former military officer or former
civilian employee whore employment with or
services for a defense contractor terminated
during any fisea' year shall be required to
file a report piir::uitnt to subsection (b) (1)
of this section br such year if he would
otherwise be required Lc ille under such sub-
section; and an, person whose employment
with or services for the Department of De-
fense terrninatetl during any fiscal year shall
be required to file a report pursuant to sub-
section (b) (2) o this section for such year
if he would otherwise be required to file
under such subsection.
(f) The Secretary- shall maintain a file
containing the information filed with him
pursuant to subiecticn (b) (1) and (b) (2)
of this section and such file shall be open
for public inspec..ion end at all times during
the regular workcjay.
(g) Any perscai Who fails to comply with
the filing requir((ments of this section shall
be guilty of a irdsderneanor and shall, upon
conviction theref,"be punished by not more
than six months in prison or a fine of not
more than $1,001, br both.
(h) No person shall be required to file a
report pursuant (b -this section for any fiscal
year prior to the fiscal year 1971.
Mr. ELLE;NDER. Mr. President, these
funds are for ihe Support of the Royal
Laotian Army and are comparable to the
funds included es the Military Assistance
Appropriations prior to fiscal year 1968.
In that connection, I may further state
that these funds are made available in
the same manner as they were made
available under the foreign aid bill.
Under the foreign aid bill it was clearly
understood the; it did not involve man-
power but only the materials of war.
Now I have often criticized the Gov-
ernment in the past for having sent to
many countries. where aid is given, peo-
ple to teach the defense departments of
the countries how to use the materials
of war sent to them. This has been done
for many, many years now. Personally,
I see no objection to that, but it is some-
thing which hen e occurred in the past and
I do not beievt that we should go any
further now Wan we have in the past.
The history co the increase in the funds
is significant. During the period of the
fiscal years 1985 through 1967, when the
funds were included in the military as-
sistance program, as I have just said,
the sum recoienneeded in the bill rep-
resents an inc rease of approximately
16.7 percent of the amount included in
the Department of Defense appropriation
amount for fieeal year 1969. As I have
said, the bill ireiludes approximately $90
Million for the support of the Royal
Laotian Army.
ATE December 15, 1969
The purposes for which these funds
will be used are classified, and I cannot
disregard that classification. However,
I have the information at my desk and
will be glad to make it available to any
Senator who desires to see it.
I recognize that I have not answered
all the questions that may have been
raised by the Senator from Arkansas.
However, I feel that I have fulfilled
my responsibilities to the Members of
this body as floor manager of the pend-
ing bill.
As I said, I can see no objection to the
acceptance of this amendment, which, as
I understand, is to be read in context
with section 638 of the present bill.
This will give the conferees an oppor-
tunity to review thoroughly all of the is-
sues invoved and make any perfecting
aniendments that are required.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I
would like to address a question, too, for
the purposes of clarification, to the ma-
jority leader and/or the acting chairman
of the Appropriations Committee.
Would this amendment prohibit the
U.S. aircraft based in Thailand from
flying tactical missions in support of
the Laotian army in Northern Laos,
having nothing whatever to do with the
interdiction of the Ho Chi Minh Trail?
Mr. MANSVIELD. Mr. President, I am
afraid that I am not in a position to give
the kind of definitive answer I would
like to the question raised by the dis-
tinguished chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee.
There is no question that air support
would be allowed to be continued to de-
crease or to stop the infiltration of men
and materiel down the Ho Chi Minh
Trail through the Laotian panhandle.
It is a moot question as to whether or
not the support missions, or the sorties,
as they are called, and which number in
the hundreds, very likely the thousands,
in support of Royal Laotian troops, would
hold. That is another matter.
Those sorties are not so much against
the Pathet Lao as they are against the
North Vietnamese troops, who are the
backbone and support of the Pathet Lao
forces. They outnumber the Pathet Lao
by at least 3 to 1. They are far more vigor-
ous fighters, and they are the ones who
determine what shall be done.
The question is, How do you look at
the North Vietnamese in Laos in relation
to the North Vietnamese along the trail
and in South Vietnam itself?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. If I understand the
Senator, his amendment would prohibit
the use of American Air Force and other
personnel related to flying tactical mis-
sions in support of the Laotian army in
the civil war now taking place in north-
ern Laos. It has nothing to do with the
Ho Chi Minh Trail.
Mr. MANSFIELD. "Civil war" is a term
you have to use with discretion. If it
were a struggle between the Pathet Lao
and the Royal Laotian forces, it would
be a civil war; but when 50,000 North
Vietnamese are backing up and support-
ing the Pathet Lao, then you have to rec-
ognize that a foreign government has in-
tervened in what had become up to that
time a civil war, but what, with this in-
tervention, became other than a civil war.
Approved For Release 2006/01/30,: CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
December 15, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE S 16757
either on a percentage of the cost basis, per-
centage of sales basis, or a return on private
capital employed basis, the Comptroller Gen-
eral and authorized representatives of the
General Accounting Offen are authoriaed to
audit and inspect and tc make copies of any
books. accounts, or other records of any such
contractor or subcontractor.
(d) Upon the request of the Comptroller
General, or any officer or employee designated
by him, lbs Committee cu Armed Services of
the House of Representatives or the Commit-
tee on Armed Services of the Senate may
sign and lame supenas requiring the pro-
duction of such books, accounts, or other
records as may be materal to the study and
review cr riled out by the Comptroller Gen-
eral under this section.
(e) Any disobedience bo a subpena issued
by the Carcunittee on Armed Services of the
House of Representative or the Committee
on Armed Services of the Senate to carry
out the provisions of this section shall be
punishable as provided in section 102 of the
Revised Statutes.
(f) No book, account, or other record, or
copy of any book, account, or record, of any
contractor Or subcontractor obtained by or
for the Camistroller General under authority
of this section which is not pecessay for de-
termining the profitability on any contract,
as defined in subsection (a) of this section,
between such Contractor or subcontractor
and the Department 01 Defense shall be
available for examination, without the con-
sent of such contractor cc subcontractor, by
any individual other than a duly authorized
officer or employee of the General Accounting
Office: and no officer or employee of the Gen-
eral Accounting Office stall disclose, to any
person nat authorized by the Comptroller
General to receive such information, any in-
formation obtained under authority of this
section relating to cost, expense, or profit-
ability or any nondefense business trensac-
tion of any contractor or subcontractor.
(g) The Comptroller General shall not dis-
close in any report made by him to the Con-
gress or to either Committee on Armed Serv-
ices uncles authority of this section any con-
fidential Information resting to the cost,
expense, or profit of any contractor or sub-
contractor on any uonclefense business trans-
action of such contractor or subcontractor.
Sec. 40e (a) The Secretary of Defense shall
submit semiannual reposts to the Congress
on or before January 31 and on or before July
91 of each year setting forth the amounts
spent during the preeedirg six-month period
for research, development, test and evalua-
tion and procurement of all lethal and non-
lethal chemical and bee ogical agents. The
Secretary shall include in each report a feel
explanation of each expenditure, including
the purpose and the necessity therefor.
(b) None of the funds authorized to be ap-
propriated by this Act or any other Act may
be used for the transportation of any lethal
chemical or any biological warfare agent to
or from any military installation In the
United States, or the open air testing of any
such agent within the United States until
the following procedures have been imple-
mented.
(1) the Secretary of Defense (hereafter
referred to in this section as the "Secretay")
has determined that the transportation or
testing proposed to he made is necessary in
the interests of national security;
(2) the Secretary has beought the particu-
lars of the proposed transportation or testing
to the attention of the Secretary of Health.
Education, and Welfare, who in turn may
direct ttui Surgeon General of the Public
Health &nice and other qualified persons
to review such particulars with respect to
any haaards to public health and safety
winch gush transportation or testing may
pose and to recommend what precautionary
measurers are neeeseary tc protect the public
health and safety.
(3) the Secretary has implemented any
precautionary measures recommended in lc-
conlance with paragraph (2) above (includ-
ing, where practicable, the detoxification of
any such agent. if such agent is to be trans-
ported to or from 3. military installation for
disposal): Provided, however. That in the
event the Secretary finds the recommenda-
tion submitted by the Surgeon General
would have the effect of preventing the pro-
posed transportation or testing. the Presi-
dent may determine that overriding consid-
erations of national security require such
transportation or testing be conducted. Any
transportation or testing conducted pur-
suant to such a Presidential determination
shall be carried oat in the safest practicable
/Timmer, and the President shall report his
determination and, an explanation thereof to
the President of the Senate and the Speaker
of the House of Representatives as far in ad-
vance as practicable. and
(4) the Secretary has provided notification
that the transportation or testing will take
place, except where a Presidential determi-
nation has been made: (A) to the President
of the Senate and the Speaker of the House
of Representatives at least 10 days before
any such transportation will be commenced
and at least 90 days before any such test-
ing Will be commenced; (B) to the Gover-
nor of any State through which such agents
will be transported. Such notification to be
provided appropriately in advance of any
such transportation.
(c) ii) None of the funds authorized to
be appropriated by this Act or any other
Act may be used fpr the future deployment,
or storage, or both, at any place outside
the United States of ?
(A) any lethal chemical or any biological
warfare agent, or
(Ii) any delivery system specifically de-
signed to disseminate any such agent,
Unless prior notice of such deployment or
storage has been given to the country exer-
cising jurisdiction over such place. In the
ease of any place outside the United States
which is under the jurisdiction or control of
the US. Government, no such action may
be taken unless the Secretary gives prior
notice of such action to the President of
the Senate and the Speaker of the House
of Representatives. As used in this para-
graph, the term "United States' means the
several States and the District of Columbia.
Cl) None of the funds authorized by this
Act or any other Act shall be used for the
future testing, development, transportation,
storage, or disposal of any lethal chemical or
any biological warfare agent outside the
United States if the Secretary of State. after
appropriate notice by the Secretary whenever
any such action is contemplated, determines
that such testing, development, transporta-
tion, storage, or disposal will violate inter-
national law. The Secretary of State shall
report all determinations made by him under
this paragraph to the President of the Senate
and the Speaker of the House of Represent-
atives, and to all appropriate international
organizations; or organs thereed, in the event
such report is required by treaty or other
international agreement
(d) Unless otherwise indicated, as used in
this section the term "United States" means
the several States, the District of Columbia,
and the territories and possessions of the
United States.
(e) After the effective date of this Act.
the operation of this section, or any portion
thereof, may be suspended by the President
during the period of any war declared by
Congress and during the period of any na-
tional emergency declared by Congress or by
the President.
(t) None of the funds authorized to be
appropriated by this Act may be used for the
procurement of any delivery system specific-
ally designed to disseminate any lethal
chemical or any biological warfare agent, cr
for the procurement of any part or compon-
ent of any such delivery system, unless the
President shail certify to the Congress that
such procureiamit is essential to the safety
and security of the United States.
Sec. 410. (a) As used in this section?
(1) The term "former military officer"
means a former or retired commissioned of-
ficer of the Armed Forces of the United
States who?
(A) served on active duty In the grade
of major (or equivalent) or above, and
(B) served on active duty for a period of
ten years or store
(2) The term "former civilian employee"
means any former civilian ?niece or employee
of the Department of Defense, including
consultants or part-time employees, whose
salary rate at any time during the three-
year period immediately preceding the ter-
mination of his last employment with the
Department of Defense was equal to or
greater than the minimum salary rate at
such time for positions In grade GS-13.
i3) The term "defense contractor" means
any Individual, firm, corporation, partner-
ship, association, or other legal entity, which
provides services and materials to the De-
pertinent of Defense under a contract di-
rectly with the Department of Defense.
(4) The term "services and materials"
means either services or materials or serv-
ices and materials and includes construc-
tion.
(5) The term "Department of Defense"
means all elements of the Department of
Defense and the military departments.
(6) The term "contracts awarded" means
contracts awarded by negotiation and in-
cludes the net amount of modifications ? to,
and the exercise of options under, such con-
tracts. It exeindes all transactions amount-
ing to leas than $10.000 each.
(7) The term "fiscal year" means a year
beginning on 1 July and ending on 30 June
of the next succeeding year.
(b) Under regulations to be prescribed by
the Secretary of Defense:
(1) Any former military officer or former
civilian employee who during any fiscal year,
(A) was employed by or served as a con-
sultant or otherwise to a defense contractor
for any period of time,
(B) represented any defense contractor
at any hearing, trial, appeal, or other action
In which the Urdted States was a party and
which involved services and matreials pro-
vided or to be provided to the Department
of Defense by such contractor, or
(C) represented any such contractor in
any transaction with the Department of De-
fense Involving services or materials pro-
vided or to be provided by such contractor to
the Department of Defense,
shall file with the Secretary of Defense, in
such form and manner as the Secretary may
prescribe, not later than November 15 of the
next succeeding fiscal year, a report con-
taining the following information:
(1) His name and address.
(2) The name and address of the defense
contractor by whom he was employed or
whom he served as a consultant or other-
wise.
(3) The title- of the position held by him
with the defame contractor.
(4) A brief description of his duties and
the work performed by him for the defense
contractor.
(5) His military grade while on active
duty or his gross salary rate while employed
by the Department of Defense, as the case
may be.
(6) A brief description of his duties and
the work performed by him while on active
duty or while employed by the Department
of Defense during the three-year period im-
mediately preceding his release from active
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
S 16756
propriated pursuant to this authorization,
conduct a competition for the aircraft which
Shall be selected on the 'basis of the threat
as eVatuated and determined by the Secretary
of Defense, and (2) be authorized to use a
ttortion of such funds as may be required for
research, development, test, and evaluation.
aerssILES
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDE 110.3.64.10
CONGRESSIONAL R ECORD7-113 0010019nN 99Pietb el. '5,
i 1969
For missiles: for the Army, $880,460,000;
for the Navy, 4851,300,000; for the Marine
Corps, $20,100,000; for the Air Force, $1,486,-
400,000.
? NAVAL VESSELS
For natal vessels: for the Navy, $2,983,-
200,000.
? TRACT-me COMBAT VEHICLES
'For tracked combat Vehicles: for the Army,
$228,000,000; for the Marine Corps, $37,700,-
000; Provided, That none of the funds au-
thorized_ herein shall be utilized for the
procuternent of Sheridan Assault vehicles
(M-551) under any new or additional con-
tra-a.
TITLE II---RESEARCH, DEVELOriVIENT,
TEST, AND EVALUATION
SEC. 201. Funds are hereby authorized to
be appropriated during the fiscal year 1970
for the use of the Armed Forces of the United
States for research, development, test, and
evaluation, as atithorized by law, in amounts
as foTiows:
For the Army, $1,646,055,000;
For the Navy (including the Marine
Corps), $1,968,235,000;
For the Air-Force, $3,156,552,000; and
For the Defense Agencies, $450,200,000.
SEC. 2d2. There is hereby authorized to be
appropriated to the Department of Defense
during fiscal year 1970 for use as an emer-
gency fund for research, development, test,
end evaluation or procurement or produc-
tion related thereto, $75,000,000.
Sze. 203. None of the funds authorized to
be appropriated by this Act may be used to
carry out any research project or study un-
less such project or study has a direct and
apparent relationship to a specific military
function or operation.
SEC. 204. Construction of research, develop-
ment and test facilities at the Kwajalein
MtSailelange is authorized in the amount of under contraer.. entered Into subsequent to
$12,700, 00, and funds are hereby authorized the effective da .,e of his Act for any amount
in excess of per centum of the total
to be apPropriated for this purpose.
amount cool emplated for use for such pur-
'TITLE' ITT?RESERVE FORCE'S
pose out of I nd.s authorized for procure-
SEC. 301. For the fiscal year beginning JulY ment and he reeeereh, development, test,
1, 1969, and ending June 30, 1970, 'the Se- and evaluate( It. The foregoing limitation
Reserve component of the case of (1) formally
increased by the totiSauthorized strength of States for any research, development,- test or
such units and be the total number of such evaluation, or after December 31, 1965, to
individual member& or for the use of any armed force of the
SEC. 303. Subseetion (e) of section 264 of United States for the procurement of tracked
title 10, United etates Code, is amended as combat vehicles, or after December 31, 1969, .
follows: to or for the use of any armed force of the
In the last One of the last sentence of sub- United States for the procurement of other
section (c) after the werd "within", change weapons unless the appropriation of such
the figures "60" o, *Ire". e- funds has been authorized by legislation
TITLE ENNeati., PROVISIONS enacted after such dates."
SEC. 401. Sube( ction (a) of section 401 of SEC. 406. Section 2 of the Act of August 3,
Public Law 89,-00 approved March 15, 1966 1950 (64 Stat. 408), as amended, is further
(80 Stat. 37) as .3rnentied, is hereby amended amended to read as follows:
to read as fonov :
"SEC. 2. After July 1, 1970, the active duty
e,
. "(a) Not to exceed $2,500,000,000 of the personnel strength of the Armed Forces, ex-
funds anthori zs'd for appropriation for the elusive of personnel of the Coast Guard, per-
use of the Armed Purees of the United States sonnel of the Reserve components on active
under this or are other Act are authorized to duty for training purposes only, and person-
be made available for their stated purposes to, nel of the Armed Forces employed in the
support: (1) Vietnamese and other Free Selective Service System, shall not exceed a
World Forces ib Vietnam, (2) local forces in total of 31285,000 persons at any time during
Laos and Thalia od; and for related costs, dur- the period of suspension prescribed in the
ing the fiscalymr 1170 on such terms and first section of this Act except when the Pres-
conditions as the Secretary of Defense may ident of the United States determines that
determine." - ' - the application of this ceiling will seriously
SEC. 402. (a) Prior to April 30, 1970, the jeopardize the national security interests of
Committees on armed Services of -the House the United States and informs the Congress
of Representate qes end the Senate shall of the basis for such determination."
jointly conduct and complete a comprehen- ' ' SEC. 407. (a) After December 31, 1969,
sive study and .-J.vestigation of the past and none of the funds authorized for appropria-
projected erste and effectiveness of attack tion by this or any other Act for the use of
aircraft carriers and ,-,heir task forces and a the Armed Forces shall be used for payments
thorough review of the considerations which out of such funds under contracts or agree-
went into the Ctt-Ci. n Lo to maintain the pres- merits with Federal contract research centers
- ent number of t ttack carriers. The result of if the annual compensation of any officer
this consprehel,eive al sty shall be considered or employee of such center paid out of any
prior to any authorization or appropriation Federal funds exceeds $45,000 except with
for the produce ion ' or procurement of the the approval of the Secretary of Defense
nuclear aircraf ,-, carrier designated as CVAN- under regulations prescribed by the Presi-
70. dent.
(b) In carryi,7g out such study and investi- (b) The Secretary of Defense shall notify
gation the Ceenmittees on Armed Services the President of the Senate and the Speaker
of the Souse ol Representatives and the Sen- of the House of Representatives promptly
ate are authoneed to call on all Government of any approvals authorized under subsec-
agencies and such outside consultants as 'Linn (a), together with a detailed statement
such committees mass deem necessary. of the reasons therefor.
a
SEC. 403. Fu ds authorized for appropria- SEC. 408. (a) The Comptroller General of
tion under the, provisions of this Act shall the United States (hereinafter in this section
not be avaitabit, fur payment of independent referred to as the "Comptroller General")
research and ervelaprnent, bid and proposal, is authorized and directed, as soon as pra,c-
and other tee'inicif effort costs incurred ticable after the date of enactment of this
section, to conduct a study and review on
a selective representative basis of the profits
made by contractors and subcontractors on
contracts on which there is no formally ad-
vertised competitive bidding entered into by
the Department of the Army, the Depart-
ment of the navy, the Department of the
lected Reserve 'of each shall not apple in

Air Force the Coast Guard, and the National
- the Arrned Forbes will be programed to at- advertised coteracts, (2) other firmly fixed Aeronautics and Space Administration under
- fain an, average strength of not less than contracts comdetittvely awarded, or (3) con- the authority of chapter 137 of title 10,
- the fojlowing: . tracts Under $',110,-000. ' - United. States Code, and on contracts en-
, (1) the ' Army Natibnal Guard of the
SEC. 404. (a) Section 136 of title 10. United tered into by the Atomic Energy Commission
United States, 393,298. States Code, a (mended-- to meet requirements of the Department of
(2) The Army Reserve, 255,591. (1) by Beni, Mg out "seven" in subsection Defense. The results of such study and re-
(3) The Naval Reserve, 129,000. (a) and insert mg in lieu thereof "eight"; and view shall be submitted 1,0 the Congress as
(4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 49,189. (2)
(5) The Air National Guard of the United . by Insetting after the first sentence
, . ?
in sulasectdh (b.) else lollowing new sera
-
States, 8 6,624.
soon as practicable, but in no event later
than December 31, 1970.
tences: "One of tee Assistant Secretaries (b) Any contractor or subcontractor re-
(6) The Air Force Reserve, 50,775. shall be the 4.94,2tent Secretary of Defense ferred to in subsection (a) of this section
(7) The Coast Guard Reserve, 17,500. for Health Affaira re shall have as his prin- shall, upon the request of the Comptroller
SEC. 302, The average strength prescribed cipal duty the. overall supervision of health General, prepare and submit to the General
_ _
by section 101 of this title for the 'Selected affairs of the Deparment of Denfense." Accounting Office such information main-
Reserve of any Reserve component shall be (b) Section 5315 of title 5, United States tattled in the normal course of business by
proportionately reduced by (1) the total au- Code, is amer. ,led bq striking out item (13) such contractor as the Comptroller General
thorized strength of units organized to serve and ineertng n lieu thereof the following: determines necessary or appropriate in con-
es units of the Selected Reserve of such com- "(13) A.5Si Si : nt Si cretaries of Defense (8). ducting any study and review authorized by
ponerie SEc. 405. Section 412(b) of Public Law 86-
which are on active duty (other than subsection (a) of this section. Information
for training) at any time during the fiscal required under this subsection shall be sub-
year, arid (2) the total-num-tier of individual
149, as erne) 'led, is amended, to read as mitted by a contractor or subcontractor in
follows:
Menabers nelt in units organized to serve as response to a 'written request made by the
units Of the teleCted Reserve of stich corn- "(b) No fu, ,ds may be appropriated after Comptroller General and shall be submitted
ponent, vqhe are on active duty (other than December 31, LOCO, to or for the use of any in such form and detail as the Comptroller
, for training or for unsatisfactory particips- armed force n - the United States for the pro- General may prescribe and shall be submitted
tion in: training) without their consent at curement oi mreraft, missiles, or naval ves- within a reasonable porhx1 of time.
any tiMe during the fiscalyear. Whenever eels, or alter Dee,emoer 31, 1932, to or for (e) In order to determine the costs, includ-
any tuah tfhitii or such individual members the use of any armed force of the United ing all types of direct 'and indirect costs, of
? are related from native duty during any States for till research, development, test, performing any contract or subcontract re-
? fiscal Year,- the riverage strength 'for suCh or evaluation of aircraft, missiles, or naval ferred to in subsection (a) of this section,
fiscal Year ' for' the Selected Reserve of such vessels, or afler December 31, 1963, to or for and to determine the profit, if any, realized
Reserve component shill be proportionately the use of any armed force of the United under any such contract, or subcontract,
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000100190067-4
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
December 15, 1909 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 16755
That means congressional con.Sultation
before an action is taken which would
go beyond what they are doing now.
Mr. JAVITS. If it is of any major char-
acter necessitating congressional action,
whatever that may mean?
Mr. MANSFIELD. That is right, so far
as that is concerted, and under the
SEATO organization we can only be-
come involved, at least it says so, through
the constitutional processes of this coun-
try. That is something which we have
been prone to forget in recent years, and
something which I think we should re-
member constantly from now on.
Mr. JAVITS. I should like to identify
myself with my colleague's Statement on
that score, and also express to him my
support of the amendment.
Mr. President. I ask unanimous con-
sent that a statement prepared for de-
livery by the senior Senator from Ken-
tUcky, Senator Coors, concerning his
amendment regarding Laos and Thai-
land, be printed in the RECORD. Senator
COOPER is not able to be present on the
floor for the debate.
Mr. President, in my Judgment Sena-
tor COOPER?as always?has made a wise
and knowlacigable statement which de-
serves the close attention of the Senate
and the Nation.
As my colleagues will recall from the
RECORD of the debate on Senator COOP-
ER'S amendment to the Defense procure-
ment authorization bill, I find myself in
great agreement with my colleague on
this vital matter.
There being no objection the state-
ment by 'Senator Coopea was ordered
to be printed In the RECORD, as follows:
azazzgiarr DT jralATOR CI:nese
On August 12, I introduced an amend-
Ment to the Military Procurement Authori-
zation Sill Itch would have prohibited the
use of funds to support US. personnel
Laos or T:ialland in support of 1
forces engaged in the local war there.
amendment provided that supplies, m
'banal% equipment and facilities, inclu
Ing mainteaance thereof and training,
could be given to local forces in Laos or
Thailand. Or. September 17. the amendment
was adopted 86-0, and although its pur-
pose was clearly understood, the Chairman
of the Armed Services Committee, Senator
Stennis, manager of the bill, was of the
opinion that my amendment did not cover
all the funds available for programs in Laos
and Thailand. The AmenelMent was de-
leted in conference,
have offered once again an amendment
to the pending Appropriations bill for the
Department af Defense which reads as fol-
lows: "None of the funds appropriated by
this Act Mall be used for the support of
local forces n Laos or Thailand except to
provide supplies, material, equipment, and
facilities, Inc: wing maintenance thereof, or
to provide training for such local forces."
The purpose `of the amendment is again
the same, to prevent the United States from
backing into a war that has not been con-
sidered or approved by Congress. It is evi-
dent from newspaper reports and from the
testimony given on the Symington Subcom-
mittee that there is a serious danger of
becoming more deeply involved in the situ-
ation In Lam. My amendment would pro-
hibit all actions not already approved by
the Congress that are now 'Akins place in
Laos and Thailand. The situation in Laos
Is very complex. insofar as the bombing In
Laos affects the war In Vietnam, such opera-
tions as the intertUction of the Ho Chi
Minh Trail would not be affected by
amendment. Our military personnel w
of course have the right of self-dete
The other bombing operations that are
taking place, however, are of such a na-
ture and magnitude that the Senate should
fully understand from the Ariminlatration
why such operations are being undertaken
before approval is given and funds appro-
priated. There are dangers of escalation of
the kind that have taken place in Vietnam
The United States should not be involved
An a widening of the war in South Asia.
Because of the tragic experience of Viet-
nam, I felt it necessary that through full
discussion in closed session, if required, that
the facts essential for sound judgment would
be obtained.
I regret that the serious illness of my
mother has prevented me from being in the
Senate today. My good friend and colleague,
the majority leader. Senator MAtissIELD, has
kindly agreed to introduce the amendment
for me in my absence. There is no better
expert on Asian affairs in the Senate. His
wisdom and knowledge on this issue will give
the Senate a full understanding of the pur-
pose of the amendment introduced today.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Montana yield?
Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield.
Mr. GOLDWATER k the
iu,aJori ? ? - ? 11 ? -1 0
why they feel that any meeting of this
body on ect should be secret?
Mr. MANSFIELD. I just raised' the
question, may I say, to the distinguished
Senator from Arizona, in case the chair-
man and the others of the committee on
both sides felt it would be more applica-
ble. Frankly, I have read about this for
so many years in the public prints that
It is my belief that not much that is
known would be made known.
Mr. GOLDWATER. LinithLarty,113ALI
awashean re
wasmaloing.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President,,am
illIIIMong11._agteenient with the dis
tinguished Senator from Ajlgona on th
liagt mime that if we do
ittlyg session_ in a matter
not hours but minutes, the
it.
So far as I am personally concerne ? I
do not see anything wrong with accept-
ing the amendment.
As I suggested to the distinguished
Senator from Arkansas, this matter can
go to conference and no doubt the con-
ferees could delve into that matter them-
elAnother thing. as I understood the
answers to the questions propounded by
the distinguished Senator from Arkan-
? sas, the Senator from Montana is in
agreement, evidently, with the wording
of section 638(a) on page 43 of the bill
which states:
Sac. 888. (a) Appropriations available to
the Department of Defense during the cur-
rent fiscal year shall be available for their
stated purposes to support; (1) Vietnamese
and other free world forces in Vietnam; (2)
local forces in Laos and Thailand; and for
related costs, on such terms and conditions
as the Secretary of Defense may determine.
Mr. MANSFIFTD. That is right, but
what this does is spell out what the Sec-
retary of Defense may determine in an
area with which we are all In accord.
Mr. ELLENDER. If that ever comes
about, the matter can be brought to the
Senate and to the President, and he can
act upon it.
Mr. MANSFIELD. That is the strength
of the amendment about which there
really should be no discord.
Mr. PrINNDER. It was suggested a
while ago that I give to the Senate a
short resume of the amount of money,
and I now read from the statement:
commendations of he subconamit-
aum., son en Ion er thp
? ? ? ?? ? ? . ? ?
I realize that there are some things.
as there are some matters in all military
operations, that we cannot and should
not talk about but I think that if the
American public is to be informed, we
would be better off talking about it on
the floor, as to what the commitments
are, and why we feel those commitments
to be right, and so forth and so forth.
Frankly, I would be more in favor of
an open hearing than I would be in favor
of a secret hearing, because I think it is
pretty much public property now, with
the exception of testimony that I would
expect would be kept confidential.
Mr. MANSFIELD I would agree with
the distinguished Senator. So far as I
am concerned, I would rather it be out
in the open, but If for some reason mem-
bers of the particular committees affect-
ed?and I refer to the Appropriations
Committees, both subcommittee and full
committee?felt it would be advisable to
have an executive session, I would go
along with it; but, speaking personally.
I agree with the distinguished Senator.
Let it be out in the open and let everyone
know about it.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I thank the Sena-
tor.
nted in
Mellt_of....nefenan_Ecocur.assisist,--attd--Ressasch_
andj2ged2piRttit Act of 1970.
Mr. President, at this point I ask unan-
imous consent to have printed in the
RECORD the entire text of that act.
There being no objection, the act was
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:
DEPARTMENT Or DEFENSE PROCUREMENT AND
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORIZA-
Tkow Acr, 1970 (Ptretic Lew 81-121i
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
SEC. 101. Funds are hereby authorized to
be appropriated during the fiscal year 1970
for the use of the Armed Forces of the United
States for procurement of aircraft, missiles,
naval vessels, and tracked combat vehicles,
as authorized by law, in amounts as follows:
AIRCRAFT
For aircraft: for the Amy $570,400,000; for
the Navy and the Marine Corps, $2,391,200.-
000; for the Air Force, $3,965,700,000: Pro-
vided, That of the funds authorized to be
appropriated for the procurement of aircraft
for the Air Force during fiscal year 1870, not
to exceed $28,000,000 shall be available to
initiate the procurement of a fighter aircraft
to meet the needs of Free World forces In
Southeast Asia, and to accelerate the with-
drawal of United States forces from South
Vietnam and Thailand; the Air Force shall
(1) prior to the obligation of any funds ap-
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP711300364R000100190067-4
S16754
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE December 15, 1969
now going to Laos, it would have fallen a
long time ago; that the Pathet Lao on
paper wOuld have been successful, but in
reality North Vietnam, with its huge con-
centration of troops, would have assumed
actual and physical control; and that if
that happened, we would be confronted
with a situation with the Laotians or
North Vietnamese, whichever group was
In control, at the Mekong.
I would point out that we have a treaty
relationship with Thailand which is a
full-fledged member of the Southeast
Asian Treaty Organization. The head-
quarters are in Bangkok. Unlike the situ-
ation applicable to Laos, Cambodia, and
South Vietnam there is no question but
that we would be involved under the
terms of the Southeast Asian Treaty
Organization, but involved only through
constitutional processes because that is
included toward the ends of the treaty.
So we have a situation there which is
delicate, difficult, dangerous, extremely
hard to explain. It is tied very closely to
the war in Vietnam in which we never
should have become involved. It is not
only" a mistake; it is a tragedy, on the
basis of these complex factors we find
that the situation developing in Laos has
increased our participation and activity
there. It has been responsible for the
questions raised by the chairman of the
Committee on Foreign Relations and
other Members of this body who are fear-
ful of what might happen in the future
if a curb is not established in this body.
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr.
President, like the Senator from Mon-
tana, I was very much opposed to be-
coming involved in a war in Vietnam. I
want to make sure we do not get involved
in any more Vietnams.
I could support the proposal. This
would not prevent assistance to a coun-
try like Indonesia which fought off com-
munisin. We could give them assistance,
such as military or economic, but no
manpower assistance.
Mr. 1VIANSIelkiLD. Yes, in Laos, too.
These items, which are allowable, fit in
very nicely with the Nixon doctrine
which says, in effect, we are primarily a
Pacific power with peripheral interests
on the Asian mainland. The purpose
would be that our friends would receive
logistical help and economic assistance,
but no further use of American man-
power on the Asian mainland, no further
use of American military power unless
there were a nuclear confrontation and
then all bets would be off.
This amendment would strengthen the
President's hand because it says to him
"The executive branch cannot go be-
yond what is now being done; the sit-
uation may have already gone a little
too far but you said that there are no
U.S. combat troops in Laos."
Secretary Rogers, in his appearance
before the National Education Television
commentators, on a television show,
stated that the President did not intend
to become involved in Laos. I am para-
phrasing, but that is what he said.
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. I be-
lieve the acting chairman of the com-
mittee said, regarding the money in this
bill, that it could be used in Laos.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, if it
is agreeable with the Senator, I would
like to yield o the Senator from Ver-
mont briefly.
Mr. AIKEN. VII-. President, as a matter
of fact, I have seen no evidence that this
administration desires to engage in any
more Vietnams in Laos or anywhere
else; and if he administration should
change in the future I am satisfied the
Senate would never approve of any more
Vietnam like conflicts.
However, I ose to speak in reference
to what the majority leader said earlier
in regard to Vietnam. As of December
11, last Thursday, I find that our troop
strength in South Vietnam was 472,500.
That indicated a reduction of 2,700 for
the week of December 4 to December
11. Previous to that, the previous week,
there was a reduction of 4,500. This
means a totai of something over 71,000
troops having been withdrawn from
South Vietnam, largely within the last
3 months, at a rate of about 28,000 a
month. That Yate of withdrawal may not
hold good for each of the months ahead,
but at the present time the withdrawal
program is 11,500 ahead of schedule,
ahead of what was projected for Decem-
ber 15, with 4 days yet to go. It is quite
apparent tha , at anywhere near the
present rate ot withdrawal, 80,000 troops
will be withdrawn before the beginning
of the year; and probably 100,000 by
the first of February and possibly more.
I just do not know, but that is my best
guess at this time.
I thought those figures would be
worthwhile to place in the RECORD at this
time for the benefit of Members of the
Senate, as well as for those who read the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
thank the Senator for performing a com-
mendable service. I am delighted that he
has placed the figures in the RECORD.
I congratulate the President for being
11,500 ahead of schedule, 4 days before
the withdrawal date, December 15, which
is today.
Mr. AIKEN, That is right.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
wish to quote now from the statement
by the distinguished Secretary of State
in a National Education Television net-
work interview. He was asked about
whether or net Laos would develop into
another Vietnam-type conflict. He said:
The Presiden. won't let it happen.
Continuing, he said:
I mean we nave learned one lesson, and
that is we are not going to fight any major
wars in the roAniand of Asia again and we
are not going to send American troops there,
and we certainly aren't going to do it unless
we have the .Americr,n public and the Con-
gress behind
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield very briefly?
Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I think
what I wish to say would fit in before
the explanation by the Senator from
Louisiana (Mr. tLLENDER) as to the
money. I wish to ask a question, which
I arranged to ask on behalf of the Sen-
ator from Kentucky tMr. COOPER) .
It is a fact, when he allows materiel
and training you must contemplate cer-
tain American personnel in the training
or logistical handling of the materiel. Is
that correct?
Mr. MANSFIELD. I did not get the
last part of the question.
Mr. JAVITS. When you assume in
Laos or Thailand we will be giving some
support, actively training, and so forth,
there will be American manpower in-
volved, will there not?
Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes, there would be
American manpower involved; there_ is
American manpef;er7Involveri, There are
the-intelligence activities which the.
tinalitshed chairman of the Committee
on Foreign Relations referred to, and
timid, to be understood",
Mr. JAVITS. Correct.
Mr. MANSFIELD. But as far as the
training is concerned, most of it would
be in Thailand, to observe the concept
of neutrality. We have an extra large
military mission in Laos, and I suppose
in view of the circumstances that may
be understandable.
Mr. JAVITS. One of the questions the
Senator from Kentucky and I want to
clarify is: If our advisory people, who
are military representatives, advisers and
so forth, come under attack, should not
the record be perfectly clear that U.S.
advisory troops are free to defend them-
selves; that is, they have the right of
self-defense but again we should utter
caution that that should not represent
general authorization to engage in com-
bat operations or to draw us in because
U.S. troops have been attacked who are
engaged in some advisory role.
Would the Senator care to give a
response?
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, U.S.
troops in any country in the world would
have very right to protect themselves and
I would hope they would. We do not have
too many?and we really have no troops,
as such, in Laos, but what we do have
is a military mission which represents
the four services, the Marine Corps, the
Navy, the Army, and the Air Force, sta-
tioned at Vientiane. From what I gather,
they attend, pretty much, to their own
knitting.
Mr. JAVITS. The Senator from Ken-
tucky and I wanted to know the effect
on this amendment of the commitment
resolution. Is it not a fact that that is
intended here is an actual implementa-
tion in advance of our being faced with
the issue of the commitment resolution
which has already passed the Senate and
which says that matters that will in-
volve us in any major military respon-
sibility must be referred to the Senate
under the constitutional processes which
relate to Congress.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Without question. I
think that Secretary Rogers made that
tacit recognition when he said in effect?
and I quote it again, because it is a very
important passage from his interview:
I mean we have learned one lesson, and
that is we are not going to fight any major
wars in the mainland of Asia again and we
are not going to send American troops there,
and we certainly aren't going to do it unless
we have the American public and the Con-
gress behind us.
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
December 15, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE S 16753
They ajrryin nn e1ngest me ac-
bits. fnnetion
The impoit thing,- and I believe
this is the intention of the Senate and
the administration, is shat one Korea
Is more than enough, that one Vietnam
Is more than enough, and that this
country dces not want to become involved
in any other area on a basis approximat-
ing that in which we find ourselves in
Vietnam at the present time.
/ do not think anyone would doubt,
or at least very few would doubt, the
fact that it was a miv.-.ake to go into
Vietnam. And it is just as well to state
It publicly.
My view does not agree with that of
some of my colleagues, because I think
the difficulty arose with the assassina-
tion of Nso Dinh Diem in 1963. And
many of my colleagues looked upon Ngo
Dinh Diem as a dictator and as a hard
man.
Well, he may have been hard, but at
least he nanished a timely civilian sta-
bility to that goverrunent which kept us
from going in and which was able to
function on the basis of only a relatively
few American advisors being there.
I use the term relatively few American
advisers in comparison with the figures
today. However, with the assassination
of Ngo Dinh Diem, began a continual
succession of military dictatorships. And
that is what we still have in Vietnam
today, I believe, despite the so-called elec-
tion in Sentember 1966. Under that suc-
cession, we have been ground down in
that area.
We have spent well in excess of $100
billion.
Our total casualties up to December
11, 1969, amounted to 307,242, and of that,
number, 206,420 have been wounded in
battle, 39,742 have died ..n combat, and
7,080 have died in other than combat
situations. The total number as of De-
cember 11 is 307,242. While the figures
are declining, the end is not in sight,
even with the sizable withdrawal of forces
which this administration has under-
taken and which I hope A will speed up
and move as rapidly as is possibly can.
May I say in that respect that I am
delighted that this administration has
brought about a deescalation of the war
and that, rather than a step-up, or a
continuing increase in forces, or a stabil-
ising at the 548.000 or 550,000 level. The
figure now is somewhere, I believe, be-
low 480,000. The move in he right direc-
tion, the acceleration, is rot fast enough.
I wish it could be faster. I I had my way,
it would be. The final responsibility rests
with the President and I am sure he is
doing all he can to bring about a decel-
eration of this war, a deescalation of this
war, and h trying to find a pathway to
peace which will bring about, in time,
a total withdrawal on the part of this
country.
Nevertheless the black boxes are still
coming horae. Men are still dying in com-
bat, even though the deaths are de-
creasing.
Too many Americans are involved in
a country in which we really have no
vital interest. It is an area in which the
South Vietnamese themselves, of all
kinds and all sorts, will have to make the
final decision as to what kind of goy-
eminent they want, What kind of future
they envisage, and what kind of life
their people will lead. It is not up to us;
It is up to them.
So I hope that this amendment, offered
by the distinguished senior Senator from
Kentucky and myself, will be agreed
to, as a means of indicating that we do
not wish to become involved in another
Vietnam in Laos or Thailand or any-
where else.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MANSFIELD I yield.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I congratulate the
distinguished majority leader for offer-
ing this amendment. I expect to support
It, I should like to ask one or two ques-
tions by way of clarification.
If I correctly understand the amend-
ment, it does not prohibit money in this
bill to provide training for local forces in
Laos. Is that correct?
Mr. MANSFIELD. In Laos or Thailand.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. It does not prevent
supplies, materiel, equipment, and facil-
ities being supplied to those forces?
Mr. MANSFIELD. It does not.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Is there anything
In the hearings or in this bill that indi-
cates to the Members of the Senate what
we are doing by way of providing train-
ing to local forces in Laos?
Mr. MANSFIELD. I would have to refer
that question to the acting chairman of
the committee, who has been called on,
on short notice, to handle this bill.
As I recall, some information was given.
I do not know the details even though I
happen to serve on the particular sub-
committee. It had to do with training
pilots, servicing planes, and other activi-
ties carried on primarily in. Thailand and
not, in Laos itself, because of the Geneva
accords.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. May I ask it in a lit-
tle different way. Does the majority lead-
er believe that Members of the Senate
should be called upon to vote for the
appropriation in this bill, which is just
under $80 billion? Incidentally I want
to congratulate both committees for
having cut what seems tome a reasonable
amount. My question is whether Mem-
bers of the Senate are being called upon
to vote to appropriate money to pay for
a program which they are uninformed.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes, I think we
should, in view of a situation which has
developed over the years. After all, the
United States was responsible in large
part for bringing about the Geneva ac-
cords of 1962, which supposedly divided
Laos into a tripartite kingdom?the so-
called neutralists, the rightist groups,
and the Pathet Lao?who agreed to di-
vide the representation of the country
into three.
Since that time, this fiction has been
kept alive, at least on a theoretical basis,
and one-third of the seats in Vientiane
have been set aside for the Pathet Lao
to occupy, which they are loath to do.
Furthermore, in connection with that,
I think it should be pointed out that
there is stationed permanently in Vienti-
ane a 100-man Pathet Lao company?
for what purpose, I do not know, but
at least it is there. We have involved the
Laotians to such an extent that we have
created an obligation which is most diffi-
cult for us to get out of at the present
time.
What I oppose is the stepup of activi-
ties there which carries with it the threat
of greater participation and which car-
ries with it the possibility that if it gets
out of hand or goes too far, we may be-
come involved in another Vietnam.
Mr, FULBRIGHT. I agree with the
Senator that it might amount to another
Vietnam. not how
than.9gilate?Cala_Eggsclaa_anurnuen.j.tidg-
.mtniU,Isisnsat..aaensanasisamect
as to what is being done AIM') the moneys
In this31nOgnaISI, e o a.se
I know of outside of a s. in e 1-
gence operation in which we are expected
to act without detailed_ information. I
AnLianisaligggaiing_thataza.shaaniseake
arni=k24.14 What.TemsnmzeRthlg
=at, In pw.entivp coccton,
lalOulgUrjujagmed by jjae_spulasiu, of
the4kropased_kolglatinn and hy tnesad-
sninistcationnas?to_adsassaae_aza _wag.
asked in_operat- Asia
. ? : n.rmall call the typical
? - i ? - - ? Ron ... ale mans :
dititanany_me_hale jaatiazumacsuator-
even in ? t se
? ? 1:47'141ff??
L.sisn.sa-
c_all, however, we did have one execu-
essaslings__sancetsmanaCiaaat
But very large sums of money are in-
cluded in this bill. I believe they are con-
cerned with the activities that are men-
tioned in the amendment. But they are
not identified and no Members of the
Senate, or at least very few, know what
they are voting on.
It strikes me that we have come to such
a pass?as we became involved so deeply
in Vietnam?that we are threatened to
become involved in Laos. The Senate
should be informed.
The Senator from Montana congratu-
lated the President on deescalating the
war in Vietnam. But what good is this
going to do if we are escalating the war
in Laos at the same time as much as we
are deescalating in Vietnam?
Mr. MANSFIELD. That is a valid ques-
tion, and the Senator makes a fair com-
parison.
I would be prepared?this may come
as a surprise; I just happened to think
of it?to sugge.q at an appropriate time
that the Senate go into executive session
to listen to this information, and in that
way to educate ourselves to a greater ex-
tent covering this particular matter.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I appreciate that
from the majority leader.
Cln last Satundasn:Isses-
ma
etter asking basic allPstfolla on MOIley
And commiatajsassos.?.nskinpaizisgase
? II ? a .
?
tilt,
ba Ire ran . ? : . he
Committee on .pronriation,s, I think
that the Senate oulci have such infor-
mation before it is called upon to vote.
Mr. MANSFIELD. May I say?if the
chairman will pardon me?that, in my
opinion, without the American assistance
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
S 16752
Approved For ItfteR2M/am: ittgieTtpREANNooi ooi 9q9wegiber 15, 1969
other reductions on the MBT-70 tank
should be made.
Mr. President, there are many other
mental items of military hardware
that have been reduced. Combat opera-
tions in Vietnam have been curtailed
severely during the first 5 months of
this fiscal year. The Secretary of De-
fense ha e cut the fiscal year 1970 pro-
gram by $3 billion. Our nation cannot
expect to make any further cuts in the
foreseeable future.
Efforts have been made to defer the
procurement of the F-14 aircraft for
the Navy, The House disallowed $275
million for this program. In my view,
this is a fatal mistake. Funds have been
restored in the Senate bill to provide for
a total of 12 F-14's for the test pro-
gram. This is a bare minimum. The
_Navy must be permitted to go forward
with this modern fighter for the fleet.
Mr. President, there has been some
talk of not approving the funds for the
ABM which have been authorized. In
view of the extensive previous review
and approval of this program by the
Senate, I strongly recommend that such
ideas be forgotten. Our urgent need for
this defense has been further document-
ed since my distinguished colleagues ap-
proved the minimum deployment of
the ABM to defend against the Soviet
ICBM's. Anyone who proposes to cut
funds for the ABM will face strong op-
position.
The C-5A super transport has been
cut back from 123 aircraft to 81. This
will seriously reduce our flexibility for
response to reinforce our overseas forces
in time of peril.
This bill is already a compromise
which reveals risks to our national se-
curity due to the pressure of domestic
problems. Our present as well as our
future capabilities have been reduced.
Unanticipated requirements in South-
east Asia cannot be met with our re-
duced military capability.
Mr. President, the slowdown of new
weapons development and the critical
reduction of our force structure are
coming at a perilous time in our his-
tory. For the first time, the Soviets are
moving ahead of us in military capa-
bility.
The Russian naval fleet totals 1,575
vessels, as opposed to 894 for the United
States. Moreover, 58 percent of the U.S.
Navy's Combat ships are 20 years old or
more; but only 1 percent of the Soviet
navy is that old.
S have 143 ? tKaeire; the Soviets
xnclre -375. We have 81 nuclear
sowered units; tile nth ave fie, but
the are si..igonebEIM'' Sub -Tr
mon , en may surpass iff-137-the-enid
of 1970, By 1978, they may well have
constructed between 100 and 150.
This year, for the first time, the Soviets
er
nt
eeek..
Mr. President, the security of our Na-
tion must not be exposed to any further
*sks to accommodate domestic needs.
The appropriations bill before us today
n view of pervious reductions is already
a grave risk. I strongly appeal to my col-
leagues not to propose further reductions.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, it was
my intention to offer the Cooper amend-
ment on Laos at this time but, pending
receipt of a copy of it for my own use, I
suggest the absence of a quorum, without
relinquishing my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The bill cleri( proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I call
up the amendment at the desk and ask
that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The BILL CLERK. The Senator from
Kentucky (Mr_ COOPER) and the Senator
from Montana (Mr. MANSFIELD) propose
an amendment as follows:
On page 46, between lines 8 and 9, insert a
new section as rallows:
"SEC. 643. None of the funds appropriated
by this Act shall be used for the support of
local forces in Laos or Thailand except to
provide supplie;, materiel, equipment, and
facilities, including maintenance thereof, or
to provide training for such local forces."
Mr. MANSFIELD_ Mr. President, I join
with the distinguished Senator from
Kentucky, who is absent because of un-
avoidable circumstances, in sponsoring
the amendment.
As this knows, there have been
aoinseekearinge held._ on the situation
whiieiiiifsiil -Laos as_Tifeedatee_te_aig
.4agrtioi
If my memory serVes me correctly, the
number of sorties, so-called, which have
emanated from these bases has increased
considerably in recent months.
We know that the situation in Laos
has developed into a two-sided affair. It
seems that the main factors there are
the North Vietnamese on the one hand,
backing up the Pathet Lao, who number
something in the order of 50,000 and
who have been in constant violation of
the- Geneva accords of 1962 since the
agreement was made. On our part when
the Geneva accords were reached, we
withdrew what uniformed elements we
had in Laos. However, with the passage
of time and the difficulty which beset the
royal Laotian army, we have stepped up
our activity in that unhappy kingdom.
Much of this activity is centering
around the infiltration of men and sup-
plies down the so-called Ho Chi Minh
trail, which goes through the panhandle
of Laos.
There has also been air .suport to- the
Royal Laotian Farces in the carrying out
of activities in the Plaine des Jarres
and elsewhere in that country.
It is safe to say, I believe, that the
Pathet Lao wculd not be able to function
, ?
without the support of the North Viet-
namese on the ;one hand and, on the
other, that the Royal Laotian Army it-
self would be plalced in a very precarious
position without- the air support of the
United States and the training given to
the few pilots which the Laotian king-
dom has.
T think theieeshould be brought out
alaalneaegeneral...desee?sien_at Laos. the
_fasAewhich hes- ben known_f_or some
UT
?
ass
I
US
?
a e -
IiiinitaleillilMf?
a
months now, that the Chinese under an
agreement, tacit or otherwise, with a pre-
vious Laotian Government has been
building a road down from Meng.lien in
Ylinnan Province into Laos itself. And
_ther
Muong oul.
There are shafts in both directions.
The one on the left. IoCkIng south. is an
extenatonavelatela has been begun along
Routel9 toward nien RierepjaueAndethe
one on the right, extending toward Thai-
land, has been exten d ed onlyeasaiarealeort
distance, despite the reetoetaewhichehaye
c.01neeeiit recently that great activity is
underway in that partiCurgir-aler-a-nd
that thPlabagaajaiLeINO divisibirs-The're.
When I was in Laos in The
figure was anywhere from three to 10
battalions of Chinese along the road,
mostly labor troops and antiaircraft
personnel.
The consensus was that a figure of four
or five battalions would be closer to the
truth.
I note in the press recently where
Souvannah Phouma, the Prime Minister
of Laos has indicated that there is no
such thing as two divisions in Laos. And
he sets the number at five Chinese bat-
talions along the road primarily extend-
ing from Menglien in Yunnan down to
Muong Soul in northern Laos.
I was happy to note that the President
on several occasions has stated definitely
and without qualification that there are
no U.S. combat troops in Laos.
I believe that to be a true statement of
fact, if by that we mean the foot soldiers
as such. There are, of course, other types
of activities going on.
Certainly airlines are in operation
there. They are operating, at least in
part?perhaps in large part?on Ameri-
can funds.
.A.uid what I am saying is nothing secret,
beepease it .Eas been careierilis
and itis rmialicienewleate
The fact that the United States has
been carrying on additional sorties
against the North Vietnamese coming
down the Ho Chi Minh trail and is in
support of the Royal Laotians around
the PIaMe des Jarres is, of course, open
knowledge.
The point of the Cooper amendment
is that we do not want to become in-
volved in Laos. We do not want to be-
come involved in another Vietnam, no
matter where it would be. And, while
there is perhaps some justification for
what is going on at the present time,
there certainly is no justification for
this country getting involved deeper and
deeper and, in effect, becoming the
keeper of the keys as far as the King-
dom of Laos is concerned.
Providing supplies, materiel, equip-
ment, and facilities, including the main-
tenance thereof, and the providing of
training for local forces is being under-
taken at the present time. We are pro-
viding supplies. We are providing ma-
teriel. We are providing equipment and
facilities. We are providing training for
local forces, those belonging in the
Royal Laotian Army as well as those
that operate on a small indepedent bas-
is, the Meo and the other tribesmen who
have been supplied by us.
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
December .15, .1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE S 16751
was attempting to get across to the Sen-
ate, about these young men operating as
lawyers and going around in Arizona and
New Mexico and engaging in anything
but legal aetivities.
The letter reads as follows:
DEAR Ma. Eirinuesr: I am wilting to express
my opposition Di the atrongust possible terms
to the patriotism program underway at
Church Rock, as described at tonight's Gal-
lup Independent. You are quoted as saying:
"These kids don't know the Star Spangled
Banner. They ought to have an awareness of
the greatness of their country". This is true.
but they ought to have an awareness of the
faults and errors of their country, as well, of
which there have been, and are, many. It is
especially appalling to realise that these are
Tnrlian children who are being forced to par-
ticipate in this program, when it is their
people who have been treated most shabbily
of all by the United States.
Are you In agreement with the statement
attributed to Mrs. Stanfield--
Mr. President, I digress to say here
that the Mrs. Stanfield referred to is not
Mrs. Stanfield but Mrs. Stafford, who
happens to be a Negro.
Continuing reading:
who is quoted as Baying: "We should indoc-
trinate ever;, child with the Idea of being
loyal to his ?2tatuatry."7 (My emphasis.) II so,
I think that this is a sorry philosophy for a
public school, which should be dedicated to
the concept of free inquiry and exchange of
Ideas, as well as the presentation of all sides
of disputed .ssues.
I find it particularly offensive that you are
apparently associating "patriotism'' with
support of the war in Viet Kam, which is,
unquestionably, the most controversial war
of our time, and, in the opinion of many,
the most brutal and unjustified. Young chil-
dren are subjected to enough pressures from
the media, tJaair parents, churches, etc. to
hold the view "my country, right or wrong".
The least you could do is to refrain from
adding to the imbalance in presentation of
viewpoints.
I note among the pictwes appearing in
the Independent some of drawings of sol-
diers with guns and several with the phrase
"God Bless America". It le, indeed, unfortu-
nate that you are encouraging these children
to glorify war and an its attendant inhu-
manity. Likewise, it is deplorable for you to
stimulate the express of what is, in effect.
a prayer, in wiolation of the Supreme Court's
ruling that ;ohne schools are to refrain from
any such activities. There ts simply no need
to offend the sensibilities of some persons by
indirectly stimulating the establishment of
the Christian (or Jewish) faith among a
people who have traditionally held conflict-
ing religious beliefs. This does not even take
into consideration these people who have no
faith whatso?.ver, or who simply wish to have
the business, of religion and politics kept
out of the schools.
I would ant) suggest that you take a good
hard look tc: the sponsorship of the orga-
nization the Independent says your "Patri-
otism Comm..ttee" is affiliated with, the Free-
dom Foundation. I could be mistaken. but I
believe that this organization is one of the
extreme right, either affiliated with, or simi-
lar to, the Birch Society, Minutemen, or
similar paramilitary and far-right groups.
If you are not willing to demonstrate that
your program is a balanced presentation, and
to remove nay hint of relgious exercises
from the curriculum. I shall take whatever
steps I can to investigate the matter my-
self, and, if necesaary, Institute legal pro-
ceedings.
Kindly show this letter to Mrs. Stanfield?
That is Mrs. Stafford?
and any other interested parties.
Sincemly,
STEPJEZEN B. EterCx.
Mr. President, the program referred
to in the letter was a Veterans' Day pro-
gram held in a school whose enrollment
is 99 percent Indian children, at which
two Vietnam casualty bkrttiliPS were
awarded medals and various patriotic
displays were in the school., Including one
bulletin board display that read "God
Bless America."
/ read this letter into the Reunite to
help to prove that these young lawyers,
engaged against the wishes of the
Navajo tribe, are not practicing law out
there .They are practicing disruption of
the American way of life.
I am amazed that the Republican head
of the Department that controls the
0E0 would allow such things to go on. I
am going to continue to be critical of him,
even though he is a Republican. I believe
that-he has a resPongihiltty to the peo-
ple of this country to consider the feel-
ings of the people of this country long
before he has any obligation to a bunch
of formerly unemployed lawyers.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the
roll.
Mr. THURMOND, Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT
Messages in writing from the President
of the United States submitting nomina-
tions were communicated to the Senate
by Mr. Leonard, one of his secretaries,
EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED
As In executive session, the Presiding
Officer laid before the Senate messages
from the President of the United States
submitting sundry nominations, which
were referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
(For nominations this day received,
see the end of Senate proceedings.)
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
A message from the House of Repre-
sentatives, by Mr. Bartlett, one of its
reading clerks, announced that the
House had passed the bill (S. 3016) to
provide for the continuation of programs
authorized under the Economic Oppor-
tunity Act of 1984, to authorize advance
funding of such programs, and for other
purposes, with amendments, in which it
requested the concurrence of the Senate;
that the House insisted upon its amend-
ments to the bill, asked a conference with
the Senate on the disagreeing votes of
the two Houses thereon, and that Mr.
PERKINS, Mrs. GREMS, Mr. PUCINSKI, Mr.
BRADEMeS, Mr. O'Hane, Mr. Ceagy, Mr,
amities. Mr. Weeenate D. FORD, Mr.
HATHAWAY, Mrs. IS/LINK, Mr. MEWS, Mr.
CLAY, Mr. AYRES, Mr. QUIZ, Mr. REID of
New York, Mr. ERLENBORN, Mr. SCHERLE,
Mr. DELLENBACK, Mr. Ezell, and Mr.
STEIGE.R of Wisconsin were appointed
managers on the part of the House at
the conference.
The message also announced that the
House had disagreed to the amendment
of the Senate to. the bill (H.R. 14580) to
promote the foreign policy, security, and
general welfare of the United States by
assisting peoples of the world to achieve
economic development within a frame-
work of democratic economic, social,
and political institutions, and for other
purposes; agreed to the conference asked
by the Senate on the disagreeing votes
of the two Houses thereon, and that Mr.
MORGAN Mr. ZABLOCKI, Mr. HAYS, Mr.
PASCELL, Mr. ADAIR, Mr. MAILLIARD, and
Mr. PRELINGIWYSEN were appointed
managers on the part of the House at the
conference.
ENROLLED BILLS AND JOINT
RESOLUTION SIGNED
The message further announced that
the Speaker had affixed his signature to
the following enrolled bills and joint
resolution:
S. 2884. An act to amend and extend laws
relating to housing and urban development.
and for other purposes;
}LR. 210. An act to eliminate requirements
for disclosure of construction details on pas-
senger vessels meeting prescribed safety
standards, and for other purposes;
1I.R. 4244. An act to raise the ceiling on
appropriations of the Administrative Con-
ference of the United States; and
H.J. Res. 10. Joint resolution authorizing
the President to proclaim the second week of
March 1970 as Volunteers of America Week.
DEP_ARIMPwr rW-DK;ruEZI.S,E
APPROPRIATIONS ,...1a243.
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 15090) making appro-
priations for the Department of Defense
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970,
and for other purposes.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I
would like to warn my distinguished col-
leagues that funds for national defense
on most items have been cut to the low-
est acceptable risk. In my personal opin-
ion, we have already cut entirely too
much in the face of ever increasing
Soviet military power.
This bill has been reduced by $5.9 bil-
lion from the estimated requirement.
Our worldwide forces are being cut back.
It is reported that President Nixon to-
night will announce further withdrawals
from Vietnam.
Mr. President. we have a very unique
and unusual situation this year in view
of the tremendous reductions already
made in our national defense pro-
grams. The manned orbiting labora-
tery?MOL?program has been termi-
nated. This amounted to a $400 million
reduction. I might point out that this
is one of the Soviet's main experimental
programs.
The Cheyenne helicopter program has
been stopped. This amounted to a reduc-
tion Of $429 million. The Army's main
battle tank program has been cut back
with more than a $20 million reduction.
A letter from Secretary Packard to
Chairman RUSSELL indicates this might
be reduced another $10 million but no
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
Approved For Release 2006/01/30': 'CIA-RDP71B0064R000100190,067-4,
S16750 CONGRESS1ONA L -RECORD - SENATE vecemner 15, 1969
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. That is
correct_ _
Mr. M_ANSFIEL.D. I thank the Senator.
Mr. W./LING of North Dakota. Mr.
President,' as always, it has given me
great pleasure and satisfaction to have
been able to work closely with our es-
teemed chairman. I fully support this de-
fense appropriations bill which makes a
major contribution toward reduction of
our overall 1970 budget, yet will not af-
fect the support of American servicemen
in Vietnam and permits us to make some
progress in the modernization of our
Armed Forces.
Mr. MENDER. Mr. President, I
should like to present the usual motion:
I ask unanimous consent that the com-
mittee amendments be agreed to en bloc
and that the bill as thus amended be
considered as original text and that no
points of order be considered as waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments agreed to en bloc
are as follows:
- On page 2, line 10, after the world "else-
Where," strike out "$8,312,000,000" and insert
"$8,107,600000."
On page 2, line 18, after the word
"cadets," strike out "$4,370,000,000" and in-
sert "$4,368,400,000."
On page 3, line 10, after the word
"cadets," strike out "$5,835,300,000" and in-
sert "$5,821,000,000."
On page-3, line 19, after the word "law",
strike out "$308,000,000" and insert "006,-
700,000".
On page 4, line 2, strike out "$131,4000,000"
and insert "127,900,000".
On page 4, line 2, strike out "$131,400,000"
strike out "03,400,000" and insert "$81,200,-
000".
On page 6, line 25, after the word "GoVern-
ment", strike out "$7,214,417,250" and insert
"$7,185,841,000"; and, on page 7, line 2, after
the word "facilities", insert a colon and "Pro-
vided, That not to exceed $142,165,000, in the
aggregate of the unobligated balances of ap-
propriations made under this head for prior
fiscal years, and subsequently withdrawn un-
der the Act of July 25, 1956 (31 U.S.C. 101) ,
may be restored and transferred to the ap-
propriation account under this head for fiscal
year 1966."
On page 8, line 14, after the word "Gov-
ernment", strike out "$5,037,300,000" and in-
sert "$5,129,200,000"; and, Inline 20, after the
word "stations", insert a colon and "Provided,
That not to exceed $66,000,000, in the aggre-
gate of uriobligated balances of appropria-
tions made under this head for prior fiscal
years, and subsequently withdrawn under the
Act of July 25, 1956 (31 U.S.C. 701), may be
restored and transferred to the appropria-
tion account under this head for the fiscal
year 1966."
On page 9, line 15, after the word "facili-
ties", insert a colon and "Provided, That not
to exceed 0,500,000, in the aggregate of un-
obligated balances of appropriations made
under this head for prior fiscal years, and
Subsequently withdrawn under the Act of
July 25, 1956 (31 U.S.C. 701) , may be re-
stored and transferred to the appropriation
account under this beast tor the fiscal year
1966.".
On page- 10, line 21, after the word "Gov-
ernment" strike out '$6,954,500,000" and
Insert 16;445,900,000".
On page 12, at the beginning of line 1,
strike out :"$1,074,600,000" and insert $1,069,-
400,000".
On page 12, line 9, after t e word "Bu-
reau'', strike out "and services of personnel
rtecesory. to provide reimbursable serviCes for
the military departments"; and, in line 20,
,
after the word "r !reran.", strike out "6300,-
000,000" and nisei1 "8297,800,000".
On page 13 at the eeginning of line 15,
- strike out "servic:es of personnel necessary
to provide reimbiesalelc services for the mili-
tary departments, '.
On page 14, aftii- line strike out:
"NATIONAL BOAT, I FOR THE PROMOTION OF
RIFLE 2RACTICE, ARMY
"For the necessary expenses of construc-
tion, equipment. and maintenance of rifle
ranges, the instimetion of citizens in marks-
manship,_ and prienotion of rifle practice, in
accordance with leAr, including travel of rifle
teams, military oerlionnel, and individyals.
attending regional, national, and interna-
tional competitions, and not to exceed $10,000
for incidental expenses f-d- the National Board;
-$62,750: Provideci , That, travel expenses of
civilian members of the National Board shall
be paid in accordance with the Standard-
ized Government Travel Regulations, as
amended.".
On page 14, inc 24, after the word
"thereof", strike out "811,000,000" and insert
"$37,000,000".
On page 16, a: the beginning of line 4,
-- -strike out "$2,696 e00.000" and insert "62,465,-
400,000"; and, In line 6, after the word
"available", strike out -for obligation until
June 30, 1972' and 4nsert "until expended".
On page 16, line 18, after the word "plants",
strike out '12,696.C:00,000" and insert "62,465,-
500,000"; and, in line 21, after the word
"available", strik e out "for obligation until
June 30, 1972" and insert "until expended".
On page 17, line 8, after the word
"amended", strike out "$2,588,200,000" and
insert "6,2242.771,300"; and, in line 9, after
the word "availalee", rike out "for obliga-
tion until June 30,-1874" and insert "until
expended-.
On page 18, line. 9; after the word "plants",
strike out "81,4t3.800,000" and insert "61,-
524,6011,000"; and, in licm 10, after the word
"available", strik: out -for obligation until
June 30, 1972' and insert "until expended".
On page 18, LIE( 20, slier the word "avail-
able", strike out 'for obligation until June
30, 1972" and inecrt_"until expended".
On page 19, line 12, alter the word "things",
strike out "$3,41 !,700,000" and insert "$3,-
380,800,000"; and, in line 16, after the word
"available", strilic out "for obligation until
June 30, 1972" and insert "until expended".
On page 20, line 9, after the word "things",
strike out "$1,401,000,100" and insert "$1,-
448,100,000"; and, in line 10; after the word
"available", strut: out "for obligation until
June 30, 1972" and insert "until expended".
On page 21, line 4, after the word
"amended", striko cut $1,636,000,000" and
Insert "$1,576,201,000"; and, in line 5, after
the word "avaificole", strike out "for obli-
gation until Jun, 30. 1:372" and insert "until
expended".
On page 22, line 9,- slier the word "law",
strike out "61,5'i. .36n4i)fe0" and insert "$1,-
600,820,000"; anti, in line 10, atter the word
"available", SIZi1:,1 d'-_11 'for obligation until
June 20, '1971" and -invert "until expended".
On page 22; 17, )(ter the word "law",
strike out "$2,041l,400.000" and insert "62,-
193,251,000"; and, in line 18, after the word
"available", strike out "for obligation until
June 30, 1971" and 'insert "until expended".
On page 22, 111.,1 25, after the word "law",
strike out -$3,056,L,06,0,03' and insert "$3,062,-
026,000"; _ and, ()T. page 23, line 1, after the
word "available", strike out "for obligation
until June 30, 3171" end insert "until ex-
pended".
On page 23, 1.1a- 1,2, after the word "avail-
able", strike out 'fpr obligation until June
30, 1971" and insert 'until expended".
On ,page28, after the word "year",
strike out the sen.-cOlelll and "(k) pay and al-
lowarices'ef not :a illiEsed nine persona, in-
cluding Persorinel detailed to International
Military Ileadqu,o tars and Organizations, at
,
rates provided for under section 625(d) (1) of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as
amended".
On page 44, after line 10, strike out:
"Sze. 642. Appropriations heretofore made
available for Procurement of Equipment and
Missiles, Army; Procurement of Aircraft and
Missiles, Navy; Other Pro,',/reMellt, Navy;
Procurement, Marine Corps; Aircraft Pro-
curement, Air Force; Missile Procurement,
Air Force; Other Procurement, Air Force;
and Procurement, Defense Agencies shall
not be available for obligation after June 30,
1972. Appropriations heretofore made avail-
able for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy,
shall not be available for obligation after
June 30, 1974. Appropriations heretofore
made available under the headings Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army;
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation,
Navy; Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation., Air Force; and Research, Devel-
opment, Test, and Evaluation, Defense Agen-
cies shall not be available for obligation after
June 30, 1971.".
And, in lieu thereof, insert:
"SEc. 642. (a) Amounts, as determined by
the Secretary of Defense and approved by
the Director of the Bureau of the Budget,
of any appropriations of the Department of
Defense available for procurement (except
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy) which
(1) will remain unobligated as of the close
of any fiscal year for which estimates are
submitted and (2) which have been avail-
able for obligation for three or more fiscal
years, shall be proposed for rescission.
"(b) Amounts, as determined by the Sec-
retary of Defense and approved by the Di-
rector of the Bureau of the Budget, of any
appropriations of the Department of Defense
available for Shipbuilding which (1) will
remain unobligated as of the close of any
fiscal year for which estimates are submitted
and (2) which have been available for obli-
gation for five or more fiscal years, shall be
proposed for rescission.
"(c) Amounts, as determined by the Sec-
retary of Defense and approved by the Di-
rector of the Bureau of the Budget, of any
appropriations of the Department of Defense
available for research, development, test and
evaluation (except Emergency Fund, De-
fense) which (1) will remain unobligated as
of the close of any fiscal year for which esti-
mates are submitted and (2) which have
been available for obligation for two or more
fiscal years, shall be proposed for rescission.".
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I sug-
gest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING lato.EICER. The Clerk
will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OPTICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
QUESTIONABLE ACTIVITIES OF
- 0E0 LAWYERS
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, dur-
ing debate on the 0E0 bill, I introduced
an amendment which would have al-
lowed the Navaho Tribe to use legal serv-
ices of that office at their choosing. I
pointed OM at the time that 0E0 lawyers
were engaging in highly questionable ac-
tivities and were making themselves
obnoxious to the Navaho Tribe.
In this connection, I wish to read a
letter into the RECORD addressed to
-Claude Hinman, principal of the Church
-Rock Elementary School at Church Rock,
N. Mex., on November 12, 1969, because
it shows how correct I was in what I
Approved For Release 2006/01/30': CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
December 15, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 16749
will earn, effective missiles to do battle
with enemy interceptors at long range
and have the radar to see them at these
long ranges. We strongly hope that the
Air Force and the Department of De-
fense Can bring about its operational
capability at the earliest practicable
date.
Mr. President, we must remember that
our requirements for national defense
are to a large degree determined by our
commitments and obligations to other
nations. I ask unanimous consent to in-
sert at this point in the Ramie an ex-
cerpt from the Department of Defense
hearings before the subcommittee which
Is a checklist of U.S. defense treaties
and other defense arrangements wjth
46 nations.
There being no objection, the excerpt
WM ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
PARTIES TO DEFENSE TREATIES AND OTHER DEFENSE ARRANGEMENTS
Agreements and parties RIO
Multilateral treaties
Bilateral
NATO SEATO ANUS treaties
Bilateral
exeurtIve
agreements
of general
treaty
Argentina X
Australia
Belgium
iris X
Brazil
Canada
Chile X
China X
Colombia X
Costa Rica X
Cuba' X
Denmark
Dominican Ret ublm X
ERuador X
El Salvador
France
Germany, Federal Republic of.
Greece X
Guatemala X
Haiti X
Honduras._ . X
Iceland X
Iran X
Italy X X
Japan
Korea
Liberia X
X
Luxembourg . . X
Mexico X
Netherlands, lb. X
New Zealand
Nicaragua_ X
Norway X
Pakistan_
Panama X
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines, Tin X X . ..... _ ..
Portugal . a. X
Rain X
ailand_ X
Trinidad and lobago X
Turkey X
United Kingdom X X
Uruguay X
Venezuela X
'Cuba was excluded from participation in the Inter-American System by Resolution VII. 8th reeling of Foreign Ministers, Punta
del Este, 1962.
Mr. YOUNG of South Dakota. Mr.
President. we have been able to report a
bill which is $627.4 million under the
House, $5.9 billion under the revised
Nixon administration budget estimate
and $7.2 billion below the outgoing John-
son administration proposed budget. The
military services themselves in present-
ing a budget to the Secietary of Defense
for what they believe would give the
United States full and adequate defense
proposed a budget of approximately $109
billion. Our top military men such as the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, who are charged
with the responsibility of defending our
country against any possible military
threat, naturally would request what they
believed was necessary to meet this ob-
jective. Limitations on cur economy and
resources of every nature made it neces-
sary for the Nixon administration to
sharply reduce these expenditures. The
Joint Chiefs of Staff under all the cir-
cumstances involved agree and approve
of President Nixon's military budget for
the Defense Department.
This is a very austere budget. It would
be a misrepresentation to lead you to be-
lieve that the Congress can make reduc-
tions of this magnitude in future defense
budgets and provide a defense that will
equal or even compare favorably with
that of the Soviet Union. This year we
saw the cancellation of two major pro-
grams subsequent to the budget submis-
sion: the Air Force's manned orbiting
laboratory program was terminated al-
lowing a $400 million reduction, and the
Arm.y s Cheyenne helicopter program was
canceled permitting another reduction
in the amount of $429 million. In addi-
tion to the cancellation of major pro-
grams we have reaized a decline in com-
bat operations in South Vietnam which
Permits the reduction of large sums
vshich were included in the original and
revised 1970 budget estimates for sup-
port of activities in Southeast Asia.
Mr. President, in subsequent remarks
I may discuss the funds in this bill for
the ABM program. Whether or not this
Nation should embark uppn an ABM
program was discussed for nearly 2
months on the Senate floor earlier this
Year. It would seem that further extend-
ed debate would serve no necessary pur-
pose at this time. The House feels very
strongly about the need for embarking
upon a very limited pilot-type ABM pro-
gram such as was contained in this bill.
The Senate itself approved the Safe-
guard ABM system earlier this year.
The total amount in the bill for the
Safeguard is $753.3 million?$400.9 mil-
lion is for research and development and
$352.4 million is for procurement for
the various components. I shall discuss
this part of the defense appropriations
at a greater length later if necessary.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. I yield.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, first
I wish to emphasize again, as I did with
the acting chairman of the committee,
the fact, as has been pointed out by the
distinguished senior Senator from North
Dakota, as well as the senior Senator
from Louisiana, that the present defense
appropriation request before the Senate
marks a decrease of approximately $6
billion below the Nixon budget and ap-
proximately $8 billion below the Johnson
budget. Both budgets were submitted this
year. I think this is a good indication of
how the administration and Congress,
working in tandem, so to speak, can bring
about sizable reductions within the De-
fense Establishment without reducing in
any way the effectiveness of the defense
which is needed for the security of this
country.
Second. I, wish to raise this question.
Is it not tfue that as far as the ABM
construction funds are concerned, ap-
proximately $200 million was available
for use in connection with sites in North
Dakota and Montana this year?
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. From
previously appropriated funds.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes, carried over;
and the figure carried over to the fiscal
year 1970 program is $60 million or more.
Is it not true, regardless of the out-
come of this bill, that activities will be-
gin this winter at the Grand Forks area
and will begin this coming spring in the
Great Falls, Mont. area.
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. The
Senator is correct. There has been con-
siderable activity there already.
Mr. MANSPieLD. I just wanted to
make the record clear that the funds
affected in the pending appropriations
measure will in no way conflict with the
Army's desire and plans to go ahead with
the work which has already been started
at the so-called pilot plants in Mon-
tana and North Dakota. Is that correct?
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. The
Senator is correct. The program would
have to go on in a more limited way if
no funds were appropriated in this bill,
but for both necessary components and
research and development for the first
stages of the program we would have to
have the funds in this bill.
Mr. MANSFIELD. In order to carry on
these programs, it is my understand-
ing, based on the evidence presented by
the senior Senator from North Dakota.
that in excess of $300 million is being
asked for in this year's appropriation bill.
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
S 16748
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE December 15, 1969
special purpose communications for very
low frequency communications during
and after a nuclear attack.
I might state at this point that the
committee does not anticipate any addi-
tional requests from the Department of
Defense for funds during the remainder
of fiscal year 1970 except for those funds
needed to implement increased pay costs.
That is good news, Mr. President.
The bill before the Senate is the result
of the distillation of efforts of two ad-
ministrations, the House of Representa-
tives and the Senate committee. For our
part, we have devoted long weeks to a
detailed examination of the programs
contained in this measure. I believe that
the magnitude of the reduction that we
recommend will certify to our sincerity
of purpose, just as the six volumes of
testimony on the desk of each Senator
will demonstrate the committee's indus-
try of application.
I wish to thank all the members of the
Subcommittee for their devotion to this
task and their guidance in our decision-
making. In particular, I want to thank
the yanking minority member, the senior
Senator from North Dakota (Mr.
YOUNG), and the chairman, the senior
Senator from Georgia (Mr. RUSSELL) for
their earnest participaiton and great
assistance.
Also, Mr. President, I attended vir-
tually all the hearings. We sometimes
have to throw bouquets at ourselves. I am
glad to say that I tried to attend every
Meeting, and I missed very few of them.
That is %vhy I am able to discuss today
some of the many reductions and addi-
tions that we made in this program.
I am very hopeful that the Defense
Department will restudy many of these
programs and try to do a little more re-
search before they come to us for money
in order to build new systems of defense
and ask us to fund expensive military
hardware that may not perform as ex-
pected. It strikes me- that if that had
been done in the past, there would have
been much less money wasted by the
Defense Department.
I hope that the Senate will pass this
bill in its present form, for it represents,
in the opinion of the committee, the best
resolution possible to the multitude of
defense problems with which it deals.
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr.
President, I feel it appropriate to open
My brief remarks with well-deserved
praise for the inherent ability, broad
knowledge, and untiring devotion of the
distinguished chairman of the Commit-
tee on Appropriations, the Senator from
Georgia (Mr. RUSSELL), who also chairs
the Subcommittee on Appropriations for
the Department of Defense. Also, I wish
to pay My respects to the Senator from
Louisiana (Mr. ELLENDER) , who has a
very fertile mind, is a hard worker, and
Is always on the side of economy. It is
due to his efforts that we have effected
,
some real economies in this bill.
Only one week ago today, the House
passed the Defense appropriations bill
for fiscal year 1970; only 6 days ago, the
bill was referred tothe committee. Our
skillful chairman had arranged and con-
ducted hearings and directed the pre-
liminary work of the staff in such Man-
ner that it was possible for the full com-
mittee to report the bill last Friday, a
mere 72 hours after referral.
I completely support the provisions of
the bill as reportedy the committee,
but realize that some Members may de-
sire to increase specific programs while
others may oppose certain programs.
Each of us weft remembers the many
hours of debate which took place during
consideration of the Department of De-
fense procurement and research and de-
velopment authorization 'bill for fiscal
year 1970 last summer. Each issue was
thoroughly explored, and the Senate
worked its will in due legislative process;
thus, I trust we may now continue in the
spirit of prompt, efficient dispatch which
the committee has demonstrated and
pass this bill, go to conference, and send
It to the President before the week is
out?at least, before Christmas.
We started hearings on June 10, when
Secretary Laird appeared before the sub-
committee and concluded these hearings
only last Tuesday, when the Secretary
again appeared. The testimony heard
during these eatensive sessions has only
reinforced my sincere concern over the
minimal efforta that, we have taken to
improve our strategic offensive capa-
bility in the past decade or more. For this
reason, I am gratified to report that we
have included 5100 million in the bill for
the development of an advanced manned
strategic aircraft, the B-1. Development
of this strategic bomber can take ad-
vantage of the many recent improve-
ments in airframe and engine design to
give it the short takeoff and landing
capability needed for dispersal and the
payload, structure, and speed necessary
for penetration.
In reiterating my deep concern over
our lagging strategic offensive capability,
I in no manner intend to cast aspersion
on our strategic intercontinental ballistic
missile and our submarine-launched bal-
listic missile systems; however, these sys-
tems do not afford the opportunity to
train and exercise as a bomber force can.
Minuteman and Polaris is actually in a
wartime postute at any minute of the
day?you e1thr-i7 fire the missile or you
do not fire it. A first-rate strategic
bomber force can be exercised and dis-
persed to provide the additional flexi-
bility required to fulfill our strategic of-
fensive requirements. May I point out
that the Air Porde has yet to be success-
ful in launching a Minuteman II missile
from an operational silo. The funds pro-
vided in this bill for continued advanced
development of the B-1 strategic bomber
are vital to our overall defense posture.
As the distinguished Senator from
Louisiana has pointed out, the bill is
$627.4 million under the House allow-
ance and $358 million of the reduction
results from the committee's recommen-
dation to provide funds in fiscal year
1970 for the conversion of two Polaris
nuclear submatines to the Poseidon con-
figuration instead Of the six as requested
in the budget estimate and approved by
the House: I agree with the commit-
tee recommendation, but wish to clear-
ly express my uriqbalified confidence in
the Polaris program. This weapons sys-
tern has proven to be the most accurate
and dependable strategic delivery system
known and has far exceeded expecta-
tions. For this reason, the committee is
most apprehensive to proceed more
rapidly in converting the proven Po-
laris submarines to the Poseidon sys-
tem until the flight test program of the
Poseidon missile has clearly established
its reliability.
As a continuation of the submarine
launched missile program, the bill con-
tains $10 million for the underwater
long-range missile system?LTLMS. The
committee recommends that the execu-
tive department and Congress give seri-
ous consideration to the development of
a more efficient, survivable, sea-based
strategic offensive system, capable of
launching long-range ballistic missiles
from improved design, quieter subma-
rines.
The Soviet Union has concentrated on
the dynamic expansion of its naval pow-
er with emphasis on the modernization
of their submarine force, making it the
world's largest. Following a period of
large-scale shipyard expansion, new
classes of Soviet ballistic missile sub-
marines and nuclear attack boats are
becoming operational. This threat re-
quires that research and development in
antisubmarine warfare capabilities be
given prominent attention. Only through
the expenditure of research dollars can
we achieve the desired breakthroughs in
target detection, improved torpedos ca-
pable of outrunning and going deeper
than the new Soviet high performance
nuclear submarines, torpedo counter-
measures, and other antisubmarine war-
fare systems.
The F-14 is an aircraft designed to
provide protection for the fleet. This air-
craft will be a tandem-seat fighter in-
corporating the Phoenix missile system
and will be superior to current Soviet
fighters. The missile control system will
also permit the employment of Sparrow
and Sidewinder missiles, guns, and nu-
merous air-to-ground weapons.
The Senate bill provides $450 million,
the full budget estimate, and an increase
of $129 million over the House allow-
ance. This amount will procure nine air-
craft, which together with three aircraft
previously funded will provide the 12 air-
craft which the committee deems re-
quired for an adequate flight test pro-
gram of the aircraft.
We have long been aware of the So-
viet development of high performance
aircraft and only recently has the devel-
opment of a new strategic bomber been
revealed. This caused grave concern par-
ticularly since the previous administra-
tion did not see fit to develop the F-12,
leaving our current air pasture without
an adequate interceptor aircraft. Future
research and development funds must
be provided within this area.
The bill includes the full revised
budget estimate of $175 million to con-
tinue development of the Air Force's F-
15 air superiority fighter aircraft. The
F-15 is the first Air Force airplane de-
signed to achieve very high levels of per-
formance while in turning flight. It is
designed to penetrate enemy skies in
roles such as escorting a strike force and
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
December 15, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 16747
and for which funds are not recom-
mended.
An explanation of Cant can be found
in the report. The mem reason for this
Increase is that we wen able to use modi-
fied exisang planes for the intended pur-
poses, and new purchases were not
needed.
I ask, unanimous con.;ent that the per-
tinent report language be amended at
this point.
There being no objection, the report
language was ordered to be printed in the
RECoRD, as follows:
XA-6D tanker aircraft modifications.?As
indicated above the committee hen recom-
mended concurrence in the House disallow-
ance of $57,600,000 requested for the pro-
curement of KA-6D tanker aircraft. and
$4,800,000 requested for advance procurement
of this aircraft. In recommending the disal-
lowance of these funds the House commit-
tee suggested that existing A-8A aircraft be
modified for the tanker mission, but did not
recommend the funds required for these
modifications. It is the view of the oornmit-
tee that the Navy should modify these air-
craft for the tanker mission and recommends
the allowance of $14,500,000 for this purpose.
Mr. ELLENDER. There is also a resto-
ration of $16.6 million to Navy and Air
Force appropriations in order to main-
tain the production lines for the Shrike
antiradar missile.
A full explanation of the restoration
can be found on pages 36 and 103 of the
committee report.
I ask unanimous consent that these be
Included at this point.
There being no objection, the report
language was ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, as follows:
Department of the Navy:
Shrike antiradar missile.?The House dis-
allowed the request of $9,500.000 for the
procurement of Shrike antradar missiles The
committee htie expressed Its disappointment
with the performance of this missile on pre-
vious occasions. However, it is the view of
the committee that we should maintain an
active production line for this missile, and
restoration of the House reduction of $9.-
500,000 13 recommended. The effect of this
recommendation is to increase the House al-
lowance by $9,500.000. These funds along
with the $7,100,000 recommended for the
procurement of missiles by the Air Force will
provide for minimum sustaining production
rate for the Shrike missile.
Department of the Air Force:
Shrike cntiradar missile. The House dis-
allowed the request of 89,500,000 for the
-Co ntin ua tIon of procurement of the Shrike
antiradar missile. The committee recom-
mends restoration of $7,100,000 for this pur-
pose. The committee's action represents a
reduction of $2,400,000 in the revised budget
estimate.
The recommended appmpriation of $1,-
448.1 million plus $132.4 million estimated to
be made ivallable from other sources will
provide a total program of $1,580.5 Million.
? ? ?
AGlif-454 Shrike antircdar
million is secommended for the procurement
of Shrike antiradar missiles, This is an air-
to-ground nonnuclear missile designed to
home on and destroy and impair enemy radar
installations, It is used on the P-I05 and F-4
aircraft.
? ? ? ? ?
Mr. ELLENDER. There is also a resto-
ration of $27.8 million for Mark-48 tor-
pedo proeurenaent in order to sustain
effective competition, provide an UP-to-
date conventional torpedo at the earliest
Possible date, and to expedite early test-
ing;
An explanation of this restoration can
be found on page 82 of the report.
I ask unanimous consent to include
pertinent report language at this point.
There being no objection, the report
language was ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, as follows:
Ordnance support equipment.?The House
made a reduction of $240,200,000 in the bud-
get activity entitled, "Ordnance support
equipment," oflItthich $75,700,000 was applied
to the request of $174,200,000 for the two
versions of the Mark-48 torpedo. The com-
mittee recommends restoration of $27,800,000
of this reduction. This action represents a re-
duction of $212,400,000 in the revised budget
estimate.
Mr. ELLENDER. There is also a resto-
ration of $10 million for the Air Force's
short-range attack missile (SRAM) for
preproduction funding when and if pend-
ing tests support a decision to proceed
with production of this missile for the
FE-111 and 8-52 aircraft.
The explanation for this restoration
can be found on page 101 of the report.
I ask unanimous consent for inclusion
of pertinent report language at this
point.
There being no objection, the report
language was ordered to be printed in
the Recoae, as follows:
Short-range-attack missile: The House dis-
allowed the request of 820,400.000 for the
short-range-attack missile (SRAM). It is the
view of the committee that funds should be
made available to support a decision to go
into production on this missile, U such a de-
cision is made by the Secretary of Defense.
For this reason, the committee recommends
the allowance of fi10 million for this purpose.
This action represents a reduction of $10,-
400.000 in the revised budget estimate.
? ? ? ? ?
Short-range attack missile (SRAM): 810
million is recommended for the SRAM missile
program. The SRAM is an air-to-ground nu-
clear missile designed for defense suppres-
sion and standoff attacks against soft- to
medium-hard targets, surface-to-air missile
sites, and ground radar facilities. It is to be
carried on the FB-111 and B-52 aircraft. Due
to the development of a number of technical
problems, it has been determined not to ini-
tiate production of the SRAM missile as orig-
inally planned. The funds recommended will
allow for the initiation of production In the
last quarter of fiscal year 1970 if the testing
program indicates that these technical prob-
lems have been solved.
Mr. ELLENDER. Here is also a restora-
tion of $5 million for the Army's Lance
division support missile in order to avoid
a readiness and deployment delay.
There is also a restoration of $5 mil-
lion for the Navy's underwater long-
range missile research?ULAIS?pro-
gram designed as a submarine launched
missile system follow-on to the Polaris/
Poseidon system.
I ask unanimous consent to include
pertinent report language at this point,.
There being no objection, the report
language was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
Underwater, long-range missile system
(ULMS): The revised budget included a re-
quest of $20 million for the initiation of
the underwater long-range missile system.
(ULMS) program. The authorization act
made a reduction of *10 rafillon in this re-
quest, and the House made a further reduc-
tion of $5 million. It is the view of the com-
mittee that this program should be funded at
the authorized amount, and reetoration of
the $5 million reduction is recomemnded.
Mr. ELLENDER. That is what I re-
ferred to a while ago when I said that
moneys were being provided for the de-
velopment of better submarines to suc-
ceed both Polaris and Poseidon models.
It may be that in the future more war-
heads could be added to the Poseidon or
a better system developed. It is my belief
that the research can go on so as to be
able to provide for such other missiles as
may be developed in the future if they
are needed.
It is my sincere belief that more and
more research should be made in that
effort so that we do not again make the
mistake we made when we started to
construct the Polaris several years ago.
As we have seen, it is already being re-
placed by Poseidon, and the submarines
built for Polaris are being adapted to use
this newly developed multiwarhead
missi le.
A restoration of $8 million was ap-
proved for the Navy's Condor air-to-
surface missile program to avoid ter-
mination of the program designed to de-
velop a medium-sized conventional
warhead to be employed on tactical tar-
gets from a stand-off distance out of
range of protective weapons?a descrip-
tion of this missile and the reasons for
the restoration can be found on page 117
of the report.
I ask unanimous consent that the per-
tinent report language be included at
this point.
There being no objection, the extract
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
Condor missile: The House disallowed the
request of $12,900,000 for the continuation of
development of the Condor standoff missile,
and recommended that the project be ter-
minated. The committee shares the concern
expressed by the House committee with re-
spect to the delay and increases in the cost
of the program. However, the committee feels
that there is a valid requirement for a mis-
sile with the capabilities of the Condor, and
restoration of $11 million of the House reduc-
tion is recommended. This action reflects a
decrease of $4,960,000 in the revised estimate.
Mr. ELLENDER. A restoration of $2
million was allowed for the Air Force's
A-X close-air-support aircraft research
to permit relatively early operational ca-
pability?a description of this restora-
tion and the reason for it can be found
on page 124 of the report.
I ask unanimous consent that the per-
tinent language be included at this point.
There being no objection, the report
language was ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, OS follows:
AX close air support aircraft: The revised
budget estimate included a request of $12
million for the development of the AX close
air support aircraft. The authorization act
made a reduction of $4 million in this re-
quest and the House disallowed the balance
of $8 million. It is the view of the committee
that work should proceed on this program.
and restoration 01 32 million is recommended
for this purpose.
Mr. ELLENDER. There was also a res-
toration of $3.6 million for Air Force
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
S 16746
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE December 15, 1969
requested in the revised budget. This matter
Is discussed on page 7 of this report. The
committee recommends an increase of $40
million in this appropriation to cover that
portion of the cost of these four overhauls
that is funded under this appropriation. The
action represents an increase of $40 million
In the revised budget estimate.
Polaris-to-Poseidon conversions.--$92.7
million is recommended for the Polaris-to-
Poseidon conversion of two submarines. The
sum recommended and $61.6 million advance
procurement will provide for a i 1 of $153.8
million for these two conversi . This is a
continuation of the program initiated in
fiscal year 1968 for the conversion of 31 of the
41 Polaris submarines to carry the new Po-
seidon missiles. Two of these conversions
were funded in fiscal year 1968 and two in
fiscal year 1969. These four submarines are
now in the shipyards undergoing the con-
version Work.
?? *
Polaris-to-Poseidon conversion.?The re-
vised budget included $458.9 million for the
Polaris-to-Poseidon conversion of six sub-
marines and advance procurement to support
this program in future years. The committee
has recommended $136.7 for this purpose,
which is based on the conversion of only two
sularnarina during fiscal 1970. This matter is
discussed on page 7 of this report. The com-
mittee actions represent a reduction of
$322.2 million in the revised budget estimate.
OTHER REDUCTIONS
Mr. ELLENDER. Reductions made by
the committee also include the follow-
ing:
A $17 million reduction for the Army's
M-16 rifle as a result of reduced produc-
tion costs.
It will be remembered that 2 or 3 years
ago we had only one manufacturer to
produce the M-16 rifle. And because of
the needs that grew out of the war in
Vietnam, we were able to have two addi-
tional manufacturers produce the M-16
rifle. As a result of that, we were able
to reduce the cost of the manufacture of
the rifle. This cut really represents a
savings in the amount to be paid by the
Government for this weapon.
There was also:
A $25.6 million reduction for the Navy's
Standard Arm missile, in view of ade-
quate inventories of this missile;
A $80 million reduction in Navy pro-
curement of aircraft and missiles made
possible through the utilization of prior
year funds;
A further reduction of $5 million in the
Navy's communications and electronics
procurement, made with the acquiescence
of the Department; and
A reduction of approximately $54 mil-
lion as a result of a revision in the plan-
ned buy of the Air Force's F-111 air-
craft.
As we all know, there was quite a bit
of difficulty several years ago concern-
ing the TFX as the F-111 was then
called. It was found that it was impossi-
ble to produce aircraft that could be used
by both the Air Force and the Navy.
I ask unanimous consent that report
language on the Air Force's F-111 pro-
gram be included in the RECORD at this
point.
There being no objection, the report
language was ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, as follows:
F-111D /F A ERCRAET PROGRAM
The revised budget includes requests to-
taling $871.1 miliion for the Air Force's
F-111D aircraft program, of which $797.4
million is included in the procurement ap-
propriation anti qr,:i.7 is included in the re-
search and development appropriation.
The recommendations of the committee
include $817.2 million, of which. $743.5 mil-
lion is in the procurement appropriation and
$73.7 mission is in the research and devel-
opment appropemtiOn. The sum recom-
mended represents a reduction of $53.9 mil-
lion in the revised budget request.
After the submission of the revised budget
the Air Force revised its procurement pro-
gram for this aireraft. The revised budget
was based on the procurement of 68 F-11113
aircraft, and the current plan cans for the
procurement of only eight F-111D's and 60
F-111F's. The F-.1 i1F will be equipped with
a modified version of the Mask NB avionics
system in lieu of the Mark II avionics sys-
tem. The Air Force has advised that this
change will result in a saving of approxi-
mately $1 million per aircraft, and the com-
mittee recommends a reduction of $53.9
million based on these savings.
The total reconimencied by the committee
includes the following:
IDollar amounts in thousands]
Procurement: Recommendation
Program cost_ $583, 200
Less 1969 advance procurement 37, 300
Net requirement
Fiscal year 1069 and prior year
over target cost
Advance procurement to support
fiscal year 1971 buy
545,900
71,400
56,000
Subtotal, .1 rerar t program__ 673, 300
Aircraft spares_ 70, 160
Total procurement '743, 160
73,700
Grand tots! 817,160
Mr. FT JENDER. A further reduction of
$56.8 million was made by the committee
for Air Force munitions and related
equipment.
The reason for that is the reduced
bombing in the Vietnam war. We were
able to make the reduction because of
that.
-145 FIGHTER
The largest and most significant addi-
tion made by the committee is for the
Navy's F-14A fighter aircraft program.
The revised budget included $450 million
for this program; $275 million in pro-
curement and $175 million in the re-
search and development appropriation.
Incorporated in this request were funds
for the procurement of nine test aircraft.
Three aircraft were funded in fiscal year
1969. The House disallowed the procure-
ment funds, but increased the appropria-
tion for research and development by
$146 million for a total appropriation for
six aireraft of $321 million. The commit-
tee recommends $450 million for nine
F-14A aircraft, believing that a total of
12 aircraft are required for the flight test
program.
In other words, instead of funding the
number of ai reran prototypes that the
House recommended, it was felt that we
should increase that number to the 12
included in the budget so as to secure a
proper evaluation of how this new air-
craft would work.
A full explanation of the reasons for
the increase and why the committee
recommended 12 prototypes can be found
in the report of the committee.
I ask unanimous consent to have the
pertinent report language printed at
this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the report
language ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
F-14A FIGHTER AIRCRAFT PROGRAM
The revised budget estimates included a
total of $450 million for the Navy's F-14A
fighter aircraft program, of which $275 mil-
lion was in the procurement appropriation
request and $175 million was in the research,
development, test and evaluation request.
The total included funds for the procure-
ment of nine aircraft that are required for
the test program. Three such aircraft were
funded in fiscal year 1969.
The House disallowed the total of $275
million requested in the procurement appro-
priation and increased the research and de-
velopment appropriation by $146 million to
provide for a total of $321 million for the
procurement of only six aircraft.
The committee recommends appropriations
totaling $450 million for this aircraft, as
follows:
Procurement of aircraft and
missiles, Navy (advance pro-
curement to support the fiscal
1971 procurement plan) _____ $8, 500, 000
Research, development, test,
and evaluation, Navy 441, 500, 000
- The committee's recommendation is based
on the procurement of nine aircraft, as re-
quested in the revised budget. These to-
gether with the three aircraft previously
funded, will provide for the total of 12 air-
craft, which, in the view of the committee,
are required for the flight test program of
this aircraft.
The committee desires to make it clear
that its action does not indicate any dis-
agreement with the position of the -House
committee with respect to the premature
commitment of this aircraft to production.
Furthermore, the committee has been as-
sured by the Secretary of Defense that the
funds provided will not be used for tooling
in excess of that required for the one air-
craft per month rate currently authorized
in the research and development program.
F-14 fighter aircraft?The revised budget
estimate included $275 million in this appro-
priation for the Navy's F-14A fighter aircraft
program, including $14,400,000 for advance
procurement to support the fiscal 1971 pro-
curement of this aircraft. The House dis-
allowed the full request of $275 million and
provided additional funds in the appropri-
ation entitled "Research, development, test,
and evaluation, Navy." This matter is dis-
cussed on page 7 of this report. It is the
view of the committee that funds should be
provided in this appropriation for advance
procurement to support the fiscal 1971 pro-
curement program, and $8,500,000 is recom-
mended for that purpose. The net effect of
this action is a reduction of $266,500,000 in
this appropriation which is offset by a com-
parable increase in the Navy's research and
development appropriation,
OTHER INCREASES
Mr. ELLENDER. Other increases in the
bill include the following:
Fourteen million five hundred thou-
sand dollars for modifications to 12 of
the existing A-GA Navy aircraft to fit
them for the tanker mission previously
designated for the KA-6D tanker aircraft
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
Decor ber 15, 1Aivroved FceMtneshOapa
1/3R0 cCol AR- DR 7s1EBNOA0319E4R000100190067-4
basically in accord with the Authorize
tion Act.
cozirspis ON WHICH COMMITTEE ACTED
Since the bill contains some of th
largest overall reductions in recen
years. I believe it pertinent to review
briefly the fundamental concepts the
influenced the committee's decisions.
the co
Above rriz nittees pdrimi want
contoceern7vas to
iz
this as strongly as words can express?
provide an adequate national defense
transcend this in importance.
Second, despite whatever reservations
individusl members may have about the
war in Vietnam, the committee recog-
nizes the necessity of providing all needed
funds for our troops in Southeast Asia.
7 wish to say that has been done. None
of the reductions in this bill will jeop-
ardize in any manner or way the security
of our men in combat.
Third, the committee also recognized
the national requiremtnt for economy
In Governments a requirement made
pressing by continued inflation and the
demands of an expanding Wan
other nationwide needs. Reductions made
by the committee refieo; this desire, but
let me reemphasize that these reductions
were made only after the most careful
consideration of Defense requirements,
Including testimony and investigation of
the effect of such actions, We have rec-
ommende(I economy?yes--but have not
let down our guard. National defense is
still our first priority. We do not need
to recall the famous dictum attributed
to Jefferson to remind us that eternal
vigilance is the price of liberty.
- Mr. ELLENDER, On August 21, the
Secretary of Defense announced plans to
reduce fiscal 1970 Department of Defense
e expenditures by an additional $3 billion_
t It is estimated that approximately $5
billion of the reduction recommended by
t the committee is the result of actions
taken by the Department of Defense to
effectuate this announced reduction of
$3 billion in expenditures. Most of these
reductions were made in the House bill:
however. approximately $408 million of
the additional reductions recommended
by the committee are the result of these
actions.
usSYORY OF REDUCTIONS
A variety of actions account for the
reductions made. First of all, let us re-
member that the original budget sub-
mitted in January contained $77.7 bil-
lion. This was reduced in the revised
budget to $75.2 billion, a reduction of
$2.5 billion. This reduction is fully ex-
plained on page 1 of the report.
I ask unanimous consent to have in-
serted in the RECORD at this point a sum-
mary of the action on the bill from page
4 of the report.
There being no objection, the summary
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
SUMMARY OF THE BILL
The committee considered revised budget r
estimates fcr the fiscal year 1970 totaling a
a75,278,200,0)0 for the various military de-
partments and other activities of the Depart- b
meat of Defense, exclusive of the regular
military assistance prog,ram, military con- j
ertruction and civil defense. which are in-
cluded in other appropriatioa bills.
The committee recommends appropriations
totaling $69,232,656,000. 0
The new obligations' authority recom-
mended by ,he committee is 58,407,544,000 0
under the en 4.1nel budget requests, $5,945,- P
544,000 under the revised budget requests r
and .627,392 000 under the amount allowed w
by the Rouse.
c0
The bill as it passed the Rouse of s
Repre-
sentatives includes appropriations totaling
S69.960,048,000, a decrease of $5,318.152,000
from the revised estimate.
The appropriations recominended by the
committee are $5,060,593,427 under the total M
appropriation for fiscal year 1969 of 474.402.- WI
249,427.
R ZODMMENDATIONS BY DEPARTS! ENT
By ser vice, the reconun ded appro-
priations are as follows:
For the Department of the Army, ap-
proximately $22.1 billion:
For the Department of the Navy, ap
proximately $20.5 billion:
For the Department of the Air Force,
approximately $22.2 billion: and
For Defense agencies, apprOXiMately
$4.4 billion.
MAJOR REDUCTIONS
The committee has accepted preen
esily all of the reductions offered by th
Department of Defense and most of those
made by the House of Representatives
The Department of Defense requested o
the committee restoration of approxi
matety $427 million of the House reduc
tions and the conunittee reconunends a
restoration of approximately $271 million
of the amount asked by way of reclaina
The most substantial reductions may
be attributed to the lessening of hostili-
ties in Southeast Asia, and the recen
termination of certain major defense
systems?notably the Manned Orbiting
Laboratory, for which $525.3 million had
been requested, and for which $125.3 mil-
lion is recommended for termination
costs, and the Cheyenne helicopter pro-
gram, for which $429 million was asked.
and $88 million reeommended for Cobra
armed helicopter replacements.
Mr. President, the record will show
that several years ago many of us felt
that a good many of these programs
were being carried without a sufficient
amount of research. It was later found
necessary to cut back on sonic of these
programs and reduce the proposed ex-
penditure because of a lack of proper
esearch. I shall cover this a little more
t length when we get to a program in
which one of the reductions was made
the committee.
The committee also reduced the Po-
aris-to-Poseidon conversion program,
econunending the conversion of two
submarines in the 1970 program instead
I the six requested in the budget.. Pro-
sion is made for the overhaul of the
ther four Polaris submarines. Since the
olaris missile system is one of the most
enable in our inventory, the committee
as reluctant to proceed full scale on
nversion until Poseidon tests demon-
trate conclusively reliability equal to
hat of the Polaris system.
Mr. President. I point out at this point
hat about 7 years ago, when the cosn-
ittee met to decide as to the rapidity
th which this Polaris missile program
as to proceed, I raised the question as
S 16745
to whether we should not go a little more
slowly with the construction of these
Polaris missiles and submarines. I
pointed out that we were living in an age
of electronics, where changes are made
almost every 6 months on many of the
programs that we envision. It struck me
that the Poles's missile, although it was
a good one, might, be superseded by a
better one very shortly. Therefore, in
my opinion, it would be better to go a
little slower on such programs than to
go full speed in the construction of the
submarines, and then find that we might
have a better missile to put into those
submarines
The inevitable happened, and the plan
now is to convert 31 of the Polaris sub-
marines for the use of Poseidon missiles.
The Poseidon is a missile which has a
number of heads. In order to accomplish
this change, it will be necessary to make
substantial changes in the submarines in
order to provide for the Poseidon mis-
siles.
It was the position of the committee
at we should go slowly in making these
changes so as to install the new weapons.
A Therefore the committee recommends
that we utilize two of the submarines for
that purpose. Those two submarines
must be replenished with atomic energy
?
cores anyway, and the cost of doing that
job would be about $45 million to $50 mil-
- lion per submarine. By adding about $20
million to $25 million per submarine
more, we shall have the Poseidon missile
? installed in those two submarines and
two that were ordered last year. As to the
t others' the committee recommends that
their conversion to Poseidon be deferred
until reliability is assured. Funds have
been provided, however, for replacing the
atomic cores.
It is my personal belief that the com-
mittee acted wisely In not following the
House recommendation to put on the
docks as many as six of these submarines.
The submarines are effective nuclear
weapons, and it strikes me that we ought
to keep as many operative as possible.
Perhaps it might be wise to consider
having new submarines constructed to
carry this new missile with multiple
heads, if the Pentagon and the President
feels they are needed in the future. How-
ever, we have provided funds for two
conversions, and I hope that the Sen-
ate. as well as the House of Representa-
tives, will go along with the position
taken by the committee.
I may state further that the multipla
warhead missiles are still being tested
and there is doubt in my mind as to
whether or not there has been sufficient
research in that direction. But I do be-
lieve that with the funds we have pro-
vided in this bill, it will be possible for us
to have more research performed.
I ask unanimous consent that report
language dealing with the Polaris,'
Poseidon programs be included in the
RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the report
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
Polaris submarine overhaul.?The
commit-
tee has recommended the overhaul of four
Polaris submarines In lieu of conversion as
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
proved W,,,fatiSSIZ9fIgq,l/AtCateERDPRINA01364R000100190067-4 1-6743
December 15, 19
proved
for storage on Okinawa?" a woman
asked Hatfield in a letter from. send, Ore.
"Deceit and incompetence have character-
ized handling, transportation and storage of
these highly destructive poisons in Utah, in
Denver and elsewhere," she continued. "We
in Oregon are entitled to as much considera-
tion as the Japanese."
Another constituent wrote Hatfield: "If the
stuff is unsafe for the people where it is,
it will be no more safe for Oregonians."
"KEEP POISON GAS OUT"
"Keep poison gas out of Oregon," wired
another constituent. "Recommend returning
to manufacturing state." Oregon is 51st in
the nation in Pentagon contracts?ranking
behind Washington, D.C.
The new regUlation?signed into law Nov.
19?requires the Army to notify Congress in
advance about planned shipment of chemi-
cal warfare agents to and from American
bases, The Oregon shipment is the first dis-
closure under the new law.
The public reaction?Hatfield said yester-
day that only two of 50 letters received on
the issue in the last three days have en-
dorsed the storage of gas in Oregon?has put
Oregon and Washington politicians on the
spot.
? Sen. Warren G. Magnuson (D-Wash.) op-
poses the shipment of the Okinawa nerve
gas through his state of Washington. Sen.
Henry M, Jackson (D-Wash.), an outspoken
hawk on most military issues, is in an un-
comfortable position on the issue.
CONCLUSION OF MORNING
BUSINESS
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. Is there further morning business?
If not, morning business is concluded.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
APPROPRIATIONS, 1970
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate pro-
ceed to the consideration of the un-
fmished business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. The bill will be stated by title.
The ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A
bill (H.R. 15090) making appropriations
for the Department of Defense for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and for
other purposes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. Is there objection to the present
consideration of the bill?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the bill.
ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT UNTIL
9 A,M. TOMORROW
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that when the Senate
completes its business today, it stand in
adjournment until 9 o'clock tomorrow
morning.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I sug-
gest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask Unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OPFICER (Mr. Mc-
INTYRE in the chair). Without objection,
it is so ordered
THE INAUGURATION OF FERDINAND unbroken for longer than any other free
E. MARCOS AS THE SIXTH PRESI- government in the Far East. It has pro-
DENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE vided stimulus and coherent form to the
PHILIPPINES determination of the Filipino people to
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I did evolve their own political life.
not wish the session to end without It seems to me that the unprecedented
reference to an event which will take reelection of President Marcos under-
place while the Senate, I believe, will be scores that determination and indicates
in recess. On December 30, Ferdinand E. that the Philippines will stay on the
Marcos will be inaueurated as the sixth present course which is pointed toward
President of the Republic of the Philip- full national realization. A decisive ad-
pines. e _ ? vance in that direction has already taken
The occasion is a historic significance. place. During the past 4 years, there has
It will be the firsjerime that an incumbent been progress on a broad front, in agri-
will asssume,,, -for a second term, the culture, in industry and trade, in road-
office of PreAdent of the Philippines. This building, and in education. In these
inaugurat years, for example, new school instruc-
n comes, moreover, after an
tion has equalled that of all the pre-
1,vhich President Marcos was
ceding years of the past half century.
to succeed himself by an un-
The experience in modern road con-
nted majority of Filipino voters.
_ struetion is similar. Significant advances
ppened to be in Manila last sum-
have been made, too, in public adminis-
hortly after a. visit of President
tration, in social services to young and
and Secretary of State Rogers. At
old and in the enrichment of cultural
time and throughout the ensuing
life of the islands.
of the Philippine presidential cam- These achievements are important in
I followed President Nixon's ex-
themselves because they relate to the
aleoiding eomment on the p0- themselves
well-being of the Filipino peo-
'on in the Philippines. That,
ple Even more they a,re important as
election
chosen
/to
I h
mer,
Nixo
that
week
paign
ample
litical sitit
I believe, is
appropriate course for
symbols of the creative potential in the
officials of this Niyernment to pursue
Republic. They are the portents of a to-
with respect to an etsction in any free
morrow of self-reliance, dignity, and
nation and President Nam. is to be com-
mended for setting it
equality and of full mutuality in rela-
However, the votes in the PlaWppine tions with this Nation and the rest of
election are now long since in and new the world.
political era is about to begin.I wantl discernible the hand of a firm and pur-
In these achievements, there is clearly
take this occasion, therefore, to spea
nful
out of a long personal acquaintance with\ ose leadership. For 4 years, Presi-
-
the Filipino people, a continuing interest
in the evolution of the Philippine Re-
public, and a high respect for the Presi-
dent who will head its Government for
another 4 years.
I first came to know the Philippines a
long time ago. As a Pfc, in the Marines
I served in what was then a colonial pos-
session of the United States. I developed
an admiration for the Filipino people at
the time and it has grown stronger in fre-
quent renewals of contact with them over
the years.
These have been years in which the
Philippines have had to work through
-maze of adaptation in the changing r -
latienship with the United States. C -
plek' political, cultnral, econom , and
other adjustments have be. olved in
the shift froltirerefir Spain to colony
of the United States, to commonwealth,
to independent republic. The Filipino
people have prevailed with great forti-
tude in this evolution. They have pre-
vailed, notwithstanding the intervention
of World War II, with its devastating se-
quence of abrupt Japanese invasion,
brutal military occupation and fierce
struggle for liberaeion.
That conflict brought widespread hu-
man exharestion and social unrest. It
brought dislocation and stagnation and
a desperate interim dependency on the
continuance of errtain quasi-colonial
economic tics with the United States.
However, in the aft ermath of World War
IT, there also came national independ-
ence under- a d.emoctatic constitutional
structure. Notwithetancling its flaws?
the Philippine system is modeled on our
own and ours, toe, has its flaws?not-
withstanding severe assaults on its
foundations, that :;ystern has persisted
ent Ferdinand E. Marcos has worked
isely and well and with great personal
dication. He has had, in his efforts, the
couragement and support of an intel-
nt, sensitive, and energetic partner,
elda Romualdez Marcos. To both of
m, on the eve of the inauguration, I
end my heartfelt wishes for the fur-
r realization of the promise of prog-
s which the leadership and the labors
o the past 4 years have done so much to
ndle throughout the Republic of the
hilippines.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. MANSFIELD. I suggest the ab-
sence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
THE CALENDAR
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate pro-
ceed to the consideration of Calendar
Nos. 601, 602, and 603.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
HOURS OF SERVICE AMENDMENTS
OF 1969
The Senate proceeded to consider the
bill (H.R. 8449) to amend the act en-
titled "An Act to promote the safety of
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4
S 167-44 Approved For fteildltiggwAR :/ciedipirlia9swooi ooi Ng;
;Ser 15, 1969
employees and travelers upon railroads
by limiting the hours of service of em
ployces thereon," approved March 4
1907 which had been reported from th
Committee on Commerce with amend
meals, On page 2. line 15, after the wor
"the", strike out "operation- and inser
"movement"; on page 4, line 10, after
the Word "device", strike out "directs or
controls the movement of any train o
who by the use of any such means"; on
page 6, line 2, after the word "such"
strike out "district' and insert "United
States"; and at the beginning of line 4
inser. "but no such suit shall be brought
after the expiration of two years from
the date of such violation".
Mr YARBOROUGH. Mr. President. I
take this opportunIty to urge all Sen-
ators to give their full support to HR.
8449, which incorporates S. 1938, of
which I am cosponsor, The bill amends
the 1907 Hours of Service Act so as to
limit the number of hours railroad
workers can be required to work to 12
hours. This amendment has been needed
for a long time. Under the present statute
which was enacted in 1907 and has not
been changed since, railroad workers can
be required to work as long as 16 hours
a day. Not only is this 16-hour day un-
reasonable; it it also dangerous to the
workers and to the public which comes in
contact with the radroad industry.
In :.968, 2,359 perions were killed and
24,608 persons were injured in railroad
accidents. One of the major causes of
these tragic accidents was human errors
in the operation of the equipment. Ex-
perts who have studied the causes of raill
road accidents have found that long
working hours and fatigue contribute
greatly to these errors In operation?
To remedy this problem, it is necea-
sary that the working day of railro4d
workers be shortened to a reasonal4e
number of hours. The bill before us todzy
represents a great step forward toward
bringing working hours and conditions
In the railroad Indus-ay in line with othe
Industries. More specifically, this bill
makes it unlawful for a railroad, first, to
require its workers to work more than 12
hours unless the employee has had at
least 18 consecutive hours off duty; and
second, to make an employee go on duty
or continue on duty when he has not had
at least 8 consecutive hours off duty dur-
ing the preceding 24 hours.
Furthermore, the bill would require
that any suit for a violation of this law
be brought by the appropriate U.S. dis-
trict attorney withir. 2 years of the vio-
lation.
I wish to commend the Senator from
Inciter a (Mr. HARTKE) and all the other
members of the Committee on Com-
merce for their hard work on this Im-
portant bill. I am proud to be a cospon-
sor of this measure, and I urge its prompt
approval.
The amendments were considered and
agreed to en bloc.
The amendments were ordered to be
engrossed and the bill to be read a third
time.
The bill was read the third time, and
passed, raittee also made some reductions. I shall
REVOCATION AND SUSPENSION OF
- MOTOR CARRIER OPERATING AU-
THORITY
The bill (S. 2244) to amend section 212
(a) of the Interstate Commerce Act, as
? amended, and for other purposes was
considered, ordered to be engrossed for a
? third reading, read the third time, and
passed, as follows ?
Be it enacted by the Senate and Rouse of
Representatives a/ the United States of Amer-
inc In Congress assembled, That subsec-
tion a) of section 212 of the Interstate Corn-
Act (49 U.S.C. 312(a)), is amended
as follows:
(1) The second sentence is amended by
Inserting after the phrase "promulgated
thereunder", the words "or undek sections
831-835 of title 18, United States code, as
amended".
(2) The first proviso is amended by insert-
ing immediately after the phrase "or to the
rule or regulation thereunder". the Words
"or under sections 831-835 of title 18, United
States Code, as amended".
(8) The second proviso is amended b/ in-
serting "215", immediately after "2111e)".
AMENDMENT OF SECTION .510 OF
INTERNATIONAL CLAWS SETTLE-
MENT ACT OF 1949
The bill (H.R.,111-11) to amend section
510 of the International Claims Settle-
ment Act, of 1949 to extend the time
within ..which the Foreign Claims Settle-
ment Commission is required to complete
Its affairs in connection with the settle-
nient of claims against the Government
of Cuba was considered, ordered to a
third reading, read the third time, and
passed.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
? Mr. MANSFIELD Mr. President, I ask
% unanimous consent that the order for the
Quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
oNction, it is so ordered.
DEPAY-63/0
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (HR. 15090) making appro-
priations for the Department of Defense
for the fiscal year ending June 30. 1970,
and for other purposes.
Mr. =LENDER Mr _preside/II the
tinguished senier.
time, and he asked me to proceed with
rieEato an the Tlefensa_araprovjation
itnriPrstand that he will be here
bider.
I wish to state that the Senate Appro-
priations Committee gave close consid-
eration to this huge bill. At the outset,
let me state that many of the cuts made
were suggested by the President as well
as the Defense Department. The corn-
be glad to review them in the statment I
shall make.
I wish to add further that the report
that accompanies the bill is very exhaus-
tive. All the reasons given for the actions
taken by the committee are reflected in
the report. / hope Senators will refer to
that document as we go along, because it
explains in detail the various reductions
made and the amounts added to the bill.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. ELLENDER. I yield.
Mr. MANSFIELD, Mr. President, I
think this is a most important question,
and I think it advisable also to get the
answer at the beginning of the debate on
this huge Defense appropriation bill.
My question is, Mr. President, How
much has been cut from the budget re-
quest by the Senate Defense Appropria-
tions Subcornmitte and the full Appro-
priations Committee?
Mr. ELLENDER. As I will state in my
remarks, $5.9 billion from the revised
budget. It is included in the short state-
ment I will make.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I know the Senator
does, but I want that figure put out in
neon lights, because what it means is
that the allowance is approximately $6
billion below the budget request.
Mr. ELLENDER. Almost, The Senator
is correct.
In presenting HR. 15090, the Depart-
ment of Defense appropriation bill for
the fiscal year 1970, I shall speak of the
most important aspects of the bill, and
then be available for such questions as
may arise.
I wish to say that the senior Senator
from North Dakota (Mr. You've), who is
the ranking Republican member on the
committee, took a very active part in
all the deliberations by the committee.
I am sure he has a very important state-
ment to make on the bill. I hope that
both of us will be in a position to an-
swer such questions as may be Pro-
pounded.
The committee report that you have
before you is most comprehensive and
will probably answer many of the ques-
tions that come to mind.
COMMITTEE REDUCTION
Your committee recommends a total
appropriation of $69,332,656,000. This is. _
a reduction of $627,382,000 from the
amount allowed by the House of Repre-
sentatives.
It is a reduction of $5,945,544,000
from the revised budget estimates sub-
mitted in April.
It is a reduction of $8,407,544,000 from
the original budget estimates submitted
In January by former President John-
son.
And it is a reduction of $5,069,593,427
from the total appropriations provided
for fiscal year 1969.
Many of the major programs and proj-
ects for which the committee recom-
mends funds were the subject of ex-
tensive debate during the consideration
of the authorization bill earlier in the
session. The committee's recommenda-
tions with respect to these projects are
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4