CONVERSATION WITH EDWARD BRASWELL RE FULBRIGHT AMENDMENT PROBLEMS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 26
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 29, 2005
• Sequence Number: 54
• Publication Date: October 1, 1970
• Content Type: MFR

Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDPZ,~-00337R000400120054-3
1 October 1970
SUBJECT: Conversation with Edward Braswell re Fulbright
Amendment Problems
1. This afternoon I finally got through to Ed Braswell, Chief
of Staff, Senate Armed Services Committee, who had been tied up on
the floor most of the day in connection with the passage of the Conference
Report on the Military Procurement Authorization bill I told him of
the Director's appreciation for Chairman Stennis' call the other day and
the Director's desire to see Stennis before the Director leaves next week
on an overseas trip.
2. Braswell said he was confused about certain aspects of the
matter. I said I couldn't speak for the Director but assumed he wanted
to make sure that Chairman Stennis knew the effects which the Fulbright
amendment, together with the congressional intent as explained by Stennis,
would have on some going and planned programs in Southeast Asia.
3. Braswell said it was "a little late" to go into this now--that when
the Fulbright amendment came up for consideration the Committee was
unable to find out what programs the Administration had going in Southeast
Asia, so they were in no position to argue against the Fulbright amendment.
Braswell went on to say he must confess some irritation over the fact that
we had provided details to our House Subcommittee but not to the Senate
one, and this "looked like we were trying to split the Committees. " I
took issue with this, reminding Braswell that we had repeatedly made
clear our readiness to appear whenever Stennis could find time for a
hearing, and that the material we had provided Slatinshek on the House
side had been furnished in response to his specific and urgent request
for ammunition to help Chairman Rivers attack the Fulbright amendment
in Conference. I went on to recount the history of our discussions with
Russ Blandford and DOD representatives- -General Lawrence, Maurice
Lanman and later Fred Buzhardt. I said we,had bperl under the distinct
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
SECET
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 rtPIA RI -00337R000400120054-3
impression that DOD was going to raise the Fulbright amendment problems
in their reclama but failed to do so, reportedly as a result of a last
minute high level decision. I said we had had to rely on the DOD to raise
the issue in the reclama because we couldn't afford to "get out in front"
on this issue.
4. I suggested that the Pentagon's failure to go to bat on the
Fulbright amendment might have been due to a top level assumption that
the Agency could "take care of things" under its special authority. Braswell
said he didn't think they were "that naive. "
5. Braswell said he was afraid now that DOD was going to come
up and "ask us to bail them out. " I said I was afraid part of the problem
was that some of the "people across the river" hadn't fully focused on the
problem. Braswell said "some of those people" are not agreed on policy
and are not concerned with legislation.
6. Braswell asked if we had had a "meeting of the minds" with
DOD as to how the Fulbright amendment should be interpreted. I said we
had discussed it but come to the conclusion that its precise effect on
some of our programs in question was at least debatable. I said that for
this very reason the Chairman's call to the Director had been particularly
helpful, since it dispelled any uncertainty as to the congressional intent
behind the amendment.
7. In conclusion Braswell and I agreed to meet tomorrow to
discuss the matter in more detail so that Braswell can brief the Chairman 25X1
prior to his meeting with the Director.
Distribution:
Original - Subject
1 - Ex/Dir
1 - OGC
1 - Legislation file
1- Chrono
JOHN M. MAURY
egislative Counsel
11
Approved For Release 2a0Q : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
October 1, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE
terials. Hazardous materials run the gamut dedication and hard work by the distin-
from explosive gases to poisonous chemicals, guished Senator from Vermont has re-
Whenever an accident occurs involving sulted in the enactment of more mean-
dangerous substances fires often result and
those fires must be put out by local fire de-
partments throughout the country. It is u?n- Surface Transportation Subcommittee,
realistic to assume that every local fire de- on which he is the ranking minority
partment know every aspect of putting out member, than occurred in the entire
chemical fires involving thousands of chemi- decade of the sixties.
cals used in America today. Under this Act Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I
the Secretary of Transportation is directed
to establish a central information center so move the adoption of the conference
that in the event of emergency a local fire report.
department can call a central number to The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
obtain correct information as to the best question is on agreeing to the motion
t
preven
s =s additional explosions. The motion was agreed .
Mr. President. all my emtaa.o?~~ It, +,,o
crenate and the House are to be congratu-
lated on this particular piece of legislation
which indeed represents a meaningful step
forward in our national effort to insure safety
for all Americans.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I want
to echo the remarks of my distinguished
colleague from Vermont, Senator WIN-
STON PROUTY. This measure indeed is a
landmark piece of legislation and truly
represents the most comprehensive and
far reaching piece of surface transporta-
tion safety legislation ever passed by
Congress.
At the beginning of this Congress I,
too, felt that the chances of getting this
worthwhile piece of legislation through
Congress were minimal. However. the
AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIA-
TIONS FOR MILITARY PROCURE-
MENT AND OTHER PURPOSES-
CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I sub-
mit a report of the committee of con-
ference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendments of the
Senate to the bill (H.R. 17123) to au-
thorize appropriations during the fiscal
year 1971 for procurement of aircraft,
missiles, naval vessels, and tracked com-
bat vehicles, and other weapons, and rem
search, development, test, and evalua-
tion for the Armed Forces, and to pre-
scribe the authorized personnel strength
too modest in pointing out why this-Con- component of the Armed Forces, and for
gress has succeeded in enacting the first other purposes.
comprehensive Federal railroad safety I ask unanimous consent for the pres-
legislation in history. The primary lea- ent consideration of the report.
son that we are able to pass this piece of The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. JoR-
legislation today is the skilled and dedi- Present r of Idaho).
the ection t? the
consideration IIs there o of objection
cated work by the distinguished junior report?
Senator from Vermont. There being no objection, the Senate
While many were talking. Senator proceeded to consider the report.
handedly wrote this entire piece of legis-
lation.
Last November, when the various par-
ties interested in this legislation found it
impossible to agree on a sensible rail-
road safety bill, Senator PROUTY called
them together in his office. He called rail-
road labor. He called railroad presidents.
He lit a fire under our own administra-
tion and he worked closely with the pub-
lie utility commissioners in the various
States. Within Several weeks he had
hammered out a piece of legislation
which was far stronger than the bill that
was originally considered by the commit-
tee. He offered it as a substitute to the
bill pending before our committee and
the committee unanimously accepted the
Prouty substitute. In December, with able
floor leadership by Senator PROUTY, the
bill passed the Senate. All spring and
part of the summer the House delib-
erated concerning the merits of the bill.
Some of the Members of the House at-
tempted to weaken the bill. Senator
PROUTY personally persuaded them that
a strong bill was necessary.
Today we can see the results of the
extraordinary legislative skill charac-
teristic of Senator WINSTON PROUTY.
As ranking minority member on the
Senate Commerce Committee, I have a
thorough knowledge of what has been
done in the field of surface transporta-
tion legislation. In this Congress the
oeeuuigs of neptember 28, 1970, pages
H9320-H9322, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.)
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, it is,
likely that this matter will not take very
much time. I have a statement about the
bill, which discusses the main subject
matters and makes reference to some of
the Senate amendments that did not pre-
vail in conference.
As I see the situation now, Mr. Presi-
dent, there will not be any extended de-
bate with reference to the conference
report. I should, however, like to reserve
the right-as any other Senator does,
I am sure-to ask for a roilcall vote if
it seems proper at the end of this dis-
cussion; but as I see it now, it will not
require a roilcall vote.
GENERAL COMMENTS
Mr. President, this conference was
hard fought on the part of both the
House and Senate conferees. The final
product is a bill as a result of the work
of the conferees. The Senate did not pre-
vail in all of its provisions but neither
did the House. This conference report
represents the product of extremely hard
work by both the Senate and House con-
ferees and, in my opinion, provides for
an excellent procurement and research
and development program for fiscal year
1971. I shall discuss the highlights of the
conference action and shall be prepared
to answer any questions members may
have.
S 16921
FUNDING COMPARISONS
The bill as presented to the Congress by
the President totaled $20,605,489,000. The
bill as passed by the House totaled $20,-
571,489,000. The bill as passed by the
Senate totaled $19,242,889,000.
The bill, as agreed to in conference,
totals $19,929,089,000.
The figure arrived at by the conferees
is $642,400,000 less than the bill as It
passed the House, $686,200,000 more than
the bill as it passed the Senate, and
$676,400,000 less than the bill as it was
presented to the Congress by the
President.
SAFEGUARD ADM SYSTEM
Mr. President, the Senate position on
on the Safeguard ABM system prevailed
exactly as it passed the Senate, both in
terms of funds and the restrictive lan-
guage limiting this system to the protec-
tion of our deterrent. I would emphasize
that the House reluctantly accepted this
position after having urged several
changes in the Senate position.
SHIPS
The bill as passed by the House con-
tained lead funds for the nuclear car-
rier, CVAN-70, as well as an additional
authorization of $435 million for new
ship construction not in the Senate ver-
sion. The Senate version did not contain
funds for any of these items. The House
acceded to the Senate position with re-
spect to the carrier. The Senate agreed
to the House position with respect to the
additional ships, all of which are set
forth in the conference report. I would
emphasize that the basis for the final
conference position on the nuclear car-
rier is due to the fact that a firm position
has not been forthcoming from the ex-
ecutive branch on this matter. I should
also like to point out that even though
the new ships listed in the conference
report are not in the budget, they have
the highest priority with respect to Navy
needs. Moreover, the Secretary of De-
fense has indicated that funds for these
ships will be obligated if made avail-
able by the Congress.
M60AIE2 TANK
Mr. President, the Senate bill deleted
the $12.1 million for additional research
funds for the so-called E-2 tank which
has represented an effort over the years
to adapt the Shillelagh missile to the
standard A-1 tank. Even though this
program has encountered great difficul-
ties with respect to time and cost, the
House was insistent that the funds be au-
thorized for one last attempt to solve the
technical problems for this tank.
PRIOR YEAR FUNDS
Mr. President, I would like to note that
the House agreed with the Senate posi-
tion in reducing the new obligational au-
thority in this bill by $334.8 million in
recognition of certain prior year appro-
priations which will not be obligated
during fiscal year 1971 and which will
therefore be available for use in 1971 in
lieu of new financing.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT WEAPONS
Mr. President, i shall not dwell at great
length on the research and development
items since Senator MCINTYRE intends to
discuss these matters in some depth. I
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
S 16922 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE October 1, 1970
would observe that in terms of the mon- tion of overseas pay now being received matter, but it is a problem to get it in
ey differences on R. & D., the House -Ter- by foreign troops out of U.S. funds. such shape that Congress can give it lative
ance, use
lion totaled $7,265.6 million, the Senate TRANSFER Of MILITARY EQUIPMENT To proper legislative surveillance is ~ me
final version version olto $7,016.5 d $7,101.6 m.6ia million. and the The The Senate ameISRAEL ndment on the trans- thing which is more important than the
conference amount was $164 million be- fer of aircraft and related equipment to exact amount we might appropriate for
well disagree as to
low the House version and $164.1 milion the State of Israel under certain condi- items,
amounts, We but can n sall agree that
approved greets that
above the Senate version. lions was accepted by the House with item not to should
Furthermore, with respect to the spe- one slight modification which provides an anave some be l we
om semblance
cific weapons systems in R. & D. the that the transfer authority will expire can h
surveillance a as on-
House was adamant in insisting on the on September 30, 1972. The Congress will able legislative , varying according super-
de-
restoration of the funds for the Cheyenne be in a position at that time to examine able ave vision over matter,
restoration er-
helicopter development in the amount of the need for the extension of this author- vee to got the it, e s bjerand es we could with refer-the 317.6 million which the Senate had de- ity. ence to this research. The conferees did
feted. REOL'IR&MENT FOR ANNUAL AUTHORIZATION
With respect to the B-1 advanced FOR ACTIVE DUTY PERSONNEL e a e: everything Wing ng did they not they House Sommeone ne asked eked
d
nfer
bomber. the final figure was $75 million as Mr. President, the House accepted the agm ree Wore than not did with coferenes
compares to $50 million approved by the Senate provision which will require be- to the amendments?" I am sure they
Senate and $100 million by the House. ginning in fiscal 1972 that the active were as honest and sincere as we were,
There were a number of lesser items duty strength of the Armed Forces be but I remember that our former colleague
which were subject to adjustment on authorized as a condition precedent for from Arizona, Carl Hayden, gave a
both sides all of which are set forth in the appropriation of funds for this pur- mighty good answer here, one time, on a
the conference report, pose. conference report, where he was sharply
LANGUAGE ADJUSTMENTS PREMATURE DISCLOSURE OF DEFENSE questioned by someone as to why the
CONTRACT AWARDS Senate did not get a better agreement
vIr.Presidenh I would now tlike he to die- The House accepted the Senate provi- and specifically why the House Would
the sults of conference rcdjust- with sion which precluded the Secretary of not agree on that point. He said, "Well,
mscuss
pe in some of the language in results
lrespect to the two versions of the bill. Defense from providing advance notifi- they were opposed to it."
cation to any Member of Congress of a I cannot improve on that. They were
ACTION PROWSWNS The House ON bill HOUSE LANGUcontainedAGE five e language defense contract award. Just opposed to-a lot of these provisions.
IMITATION ON PERMANENT CHANGE OF And, as I say, I am sure it was in all
provisions. Three of these relating to the STATION ASSIGNMENTS sincerity.
shipbuilding and conversion program The provision placing limitations on I think it is something that can be
were dropped in conference. The romaine permanent change of station assign- and should be worked on more. We ing pro pctionion rces for g the M rifle
- active merits for military personnel was not should keep on, and we will get a better -16 d sources for acceptable to the House in the form system out of it.
during firing fiscal year 1971 was retained in approved by the Senate. A compromise I am going to insist on the Secretary
the final eport. version was reached which directs the of Defense and Dr. Foster, the Assistant
The ol baer other House provision related Secretary of Defense to initiate new pro- Secretary of Defense in charge of re-
le the barring of R. & D. grants for cal- cedures but omits the explicit limitations search and development, helping to for-
ges where military recruiting is barred contained in the Senate version. mutate a better plan that, regardless
prbthe campus, This provision wthis as Cpro- INDEPENDENT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT of-the amount of money, can be handled
ition with the p l result that military PROVISIONS in such a way as to have this surveillance
develop-
hrbiting is not unless policy of y the re- Mr. President, Senator MCINTYRE will on independent research and develop-
institutionis. barred by the policy o comment at length on the final provi- ment. I fully recognize its importance.
institution. sion with respect to I.R. & D. The key But I think that we must have a better
:vNATE :.ANGUAGE PRUVLS[ONS feature of the Senate provision was the system.
C-5A
Mr. President, the Senate language
provision insuring that the $200 million
appropriated for the C-5A would be
strictly used for C-5A purposes only was
accepted by the House. The House would
not accept in its exact Senate form the
provision requiring approval by the two
Armed Services Committees of the plan
for the use of the $200 million con-
tingency funds for the C-5A. The final
language requires the submission of the
plan by the Secretary of Defense to the
two Armed Services Committees and pro-
hibits any obligation of expenditures
until the expiration of 30 days. It was
the position .of the House that the so-
called committee approval provision was
unconstitutional.
FUNDING SUPPORT FOR FREE WORLD FORCES
IN SOUTHEAST ASIA
Mr. President, the Senate version of
the provision authorizing the use of De-
fense appropriations for the support of
free world forces in Southeast Asia with
two exceptions prevailed in conference.
The exceptions were : First, the raising of
the ceiling from $2.5 billion to $2.8 billion
in order to provide flexibility for Viet-
namization and second, the insertion of
additional language which would exclude
any present agreements from the limita-
!^625 million ceiling which would have SECTION 204-RELEVANCY OF DEFENSE RESEARCH
been imposed on the level of effort in ACTIVITIES
this activity. The House would accept no Mr. President, as the Senate knows,
dollar limitation on this matter. Certain the Senate version of the bill contained
language was agreed to. however, which a provision, also in last year's act, which
does require advance agreements be- required that defense research be con-
tween the Department of Defense and ducted only on work having a direct and
the contractor. apparent relationship to a specific mili-
Mr. President, I greatly respect the po- tary operation or function. The House
sition of the House but at the same time would not accept the language this year
i exceedingly regret that more progress in the form passed by the Senate mainly
could not be made in the control of the on the argument of the great difficulty
so-called I.R. & D. activity. It is MY ob- in applying such standards to basic re-
servation that this program has not been search. A compromise version was agreed
properly managed in the Department of to which limits the use of Department
Defense for the past few years and much of Defense research unless the project
needs to be done to prevent abuse in this has "in the opinion of the Secretary of
program which is now at an estimated Defense, a potential relationship to a
cost of about $700 million a year. military function or operation."
I firmly believe that this entire mat- Mr. President, Senator MCINTYRE will
ter should be kept under continual and discuss this provision in some detail.
intensive oversight by the Congress and SUMMARY
I wish to give notice at this time that I ,fir President, I have outlined the
intend to pursue this course of action. principal provisions of this conference
properly rogram. aged if Important,
managed ged in is such not action and I urge the Senate to approve
ray that managed if this conference report for the atithoriza-
a is effective legislative oversight tion of military procurement and re-
s impossible. search and development for the fiscal
We had some sharp disagreement with
reference to the language that goes to the year 1971.
research problem and the independent Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, will
research problem. it is an important the Senator yield?
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
October 1, 1.978 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S 16923
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I am Mr. FULBRIGHT. The $28 million has why, if they have been unable to use the
glad to yield at this point to the Senator not been used? - $28 million already appropriated, they
from Arkansas. Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is correct. now want to have an additional $30 mil-
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, first Mr. FULBRIGHT. No contract has lion before they let the contract. They
I congratulate the Senator with regard been awarded? have not let the contract or done any-
} to the retention of two of the amend- Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is correct. thing to use the money available.
ments I sponsored. I am very pleased Mr. FULBRIGHT. And the only differ- This project is unprecedented. Never
that those prohibiting the financing of ence was that the Senator says that this before has any previous administration
South Vietnamese or Thai military op- year, while the budget recommended an undertaken to develop a plane specifical-
erations in support of the Cambodian or additional $30 million, the Senate com- ly for foreign countries, a plane that has
Laotian Governments and the payment mittee left it out and the Senate left it no relevance to our own Armed Forces.
of excessive bonuses to mercenary troops out. This kind of authorization should not
were retained. Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is correct. be handled through the Armed Services
The Senator did a great service in Mr. FULBRIGHT. I do not know why Committee. The authorization for giving
maintaining the Senate's position. The if they have not used the $28 million, $30 or selling this plane should be through
principles involved in these amendments million additional is needed? the military aid and sales programs. So
are quite important. I believe that we Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, here this is not only being profligate in the
should make it clear that our Govern- were the facts that we were confronted spending of money, but it also violates
meet's policy is that we are not going to with last week when the report was the jurisdictional rules of the Senate.
underwrite the security of the Lan Nol agreed to. That is the position we took, This is really backdoor foreign aid.
government, that the $28 million was still available That is all it is. It is backdoor foreign
Although the Senate failed to set a and that no contract had been let. We aid to get around the restrictions that
deadline for the termination of our in- went into this question fully with the have been initiated by the Committee on
volvement in the war, it has taken action Department of Defense and found a very Foreign Relations and approved by the
to prevent our being sucked further into strong position there that they were Congress to curb profligate spending on
the conflict in Southeast Asia. planning to let a contract and that they foreign aid. Now a new foreign aid pro-
I do regret that the prohibition on would need this $30 million to carry out gram is being started under the aegis of
payments of bonuses to mercenary troops the plan that had been formulated fol- the House. I regret the Senate is going
was changed so that it does not affect lowing our authorization last year. aloe with that procedure. This
agreements now in effect. However, per- g project
The Senate conferees insisted that that is not only a waste of the taxpayers'
haps the Congress' action will have the figure be reduced, if it was going to be money but it violates the jurisdictional
effect of bringing about a faster liquida- allowed at all. We had not allowed it. rules of the Senate. This matter could
tion of the pay agreements that are out- But we made every effort to get a deter- lead to very serious consequences.
standing. mination of the amount needed. The only The military sales bill is already in
The item I wish to ask the Senator position the Department of Defense ever conference. The House does not show a
about specifically that for $3 million for gave was that they would need that full disposition to go reaching
the International Fighter project which $30 million if they were going to carry an agreement onf that rbill.l o it looks
the Senate Armed Services Committee out the plan they had formulated, now as if under some understanding, at
had not approved. In the final analysis, we agreed to the least, that the Committee on Armed
As the Senator knows, this aircraft is $30 million on that basis. Services is trying to take over foreign
to be built solely for the purpose of giv- I had become convinced in the course military aid. This could lead to unlimited
ing and selling it to foreign countries. It of the consideration that over the course spending for military aid and complete
is the first time, I think, that such a of years we can save considerable money, disregard for the traditional jurisdic-
development project has been under- assuming that we continue this policy of tional rules of the Senate.
taken, aimed solely at markets in foreign backing a plane of lesser cost. It would Mr. STENNIS. We could endlessly
countries. Heretofore, weapons and not be an inferior plane. However, it argue where the line of strict jurisdic-
planes have been developed for our own would be far less complicated, the upkeep tion is between the Committee on For-
defense purposes and if we wished to do would be far simpler and less expensive, eign Relations and the Committee on
so, we could also sell them abroad. and if the Department of Defense can do Armed Services. There are clauses in the
The Committee on Foreign Relations what they now think they can do with it rules that will support either side. I say
is interested in this matter. The Senator moneywise, it would save considerable that frankly.
will recall that when Congress approved money. Militarywise, it would be a sound But at the same time, over the years,
an authorization of $28 million last year investment. the custom was to refer these matters
for the development of this plane, it was We agree to it on that basis. to both committees. I think we had some
justified in the Senate on the grounds Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I do joint hearings on this military aid in
that the plane was needed by the South not understand why, after a year, if they some of the years. I know the bills were
Vietnamese in connection with the Viet- have not been able to use the $28 million, referred to both committees in some of
namization program and to expedite the they need an additional $30 million be- the years that I remember.
withdrawal of our troops. fore letting the contract. We have gotten into arguments about
I would like to ask the Senator from Is it not a fact that the Department these matters. This year-and it is burn-
Mississippi a few specific questions. The of Defense did not originate this? It ing up time just to recall it--on the
conference report states that no final ac- originated in the House committee, spe- Ship Sales Act, the Committee on For-'
tion has yet been taken by the Depart- cifically by Chairman RIVERS, and repre- eign Relations, thinking they had juris-
ment of Defense to go forward on this sents his views on how to supply foreign diction, of course, to do so, sponsored a
project. Does that mean that the $28 mil- military equipment. resolution with respect to the actual con-
lion appropriated last year has not been Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, all the duct of the war, as many of us saw it.
used? way through, the Secretary of Defense That was debated here. It is still a mat-
Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is correct. has given every evidence of strong sup- ter of contention, one might say.
That amount has not been used. port to this project. Here is a matter where these planes
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Has the contract Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, ac- are becoming much more expensive, and
been awarded? tually if the chairman of the House com-
a cheaper uat simpler plane
n thought
Mr. STENNIS. No, there has been no mittee committed himself to the project, be ad
contract award, it would be most unusual for the Secre- what any individual ygindi I am not interested r,
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Did the administra- tary to disagree with him. I am tol wants to snot in-
tion budget this year request any funds This project did not originate with the am not a party a it pra I am not r,
for this project? terested in it. But as a .practical matter,
Department of Defense. It is a special I was impressed with some of these facts
Mr. STENNIS. No. The $28 million was project that was initiated in the House about less cost and less upkeep and less
not in the budget last year. It was au- committee. The facts about this matter involvement. We have to send men to
thorized by the Congress. But there was have been publicized. There is 'no secret these countries to keep these sophisti-
a $30 million recommendation this year. about them. cated The Senate committee left that out. In view of that, I do not understand we madenin South Vietnam were Air
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
S 16924 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE October 1, 1970
Force mechanics going in there to main- Mr. STENNIS. Let me finish, please. things where we could delay with profit.
tain these planes we had loaned them. But under conditions as they are now I If we were going to proceed with the pro-
I think as a practical matter if we can do not see how we can split hairs over gram, we decided they need that much
get one of these knockdown planes lust where the line may be. money.
cheaper it would be justified. If the Senator wants to, really wants to Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, will
I do not meticulously hew the line actually restrict this to any country, he the Senator yield?
about this jurisdictional matter. still has the high prerogative to do it, the Mr. STENNIS. Yes; I yield to the Sen-
;tfr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will power to consider it, and bring in any bill, ator from Arizona.
the Senator yield so that I may inter- anything of that nature he may desire. Mr. GOLDWATER. I will try to clear
polate there? But my concept of this matter is not this up a bit. I might say that I can see
%,Ir. STENNIS. Yes, but first I wish to necessarily limited to Southeast Asia. the point of the Senator from Arkansas.
finish my statement. I have concepts . The Secretary of Defense may consider I can understand the point of the com-
about jurisdiction. I wish we could scru- it in that light, but he has not made me rinittee. eached Ithe puce yedwnot tthie nit has
pulously maintain them but as a practi- any promise to that effect.
cal matter it is impossible to do it. Mr. FULBRIGHT. The military sales Relations Committee would even want to
Mr. MANSFIELD. Just as a historical bill, passed by the Senate. contains pro- take jurisdiction.
footnote. I recall at the time they sent visions which says that Department of But let me go back a bit and try to
those mechanics in, the Senator from Defense funds cannot be used to give this trace the development of this matter.
Mississippi rose on his "hind legs," so to plane to any country other than South When the U.S. Air Force stopped the pur-
speak, and protested and foretold then ? Vietnam. It now looks as if, with the chase of the F-104, we, in effect, stopped
what would happen if this thing was reluctance of the House to proceed with the purchase of any interceptor aircraft.
carried through; and it has come to . that bill, and the action of the conference Today we do not, in truth, have a plane
pass. The record should show that. committee in this instance, and also the that can successfully compete for air
Mr. S'PENNIS. I thank the Senator. action of the Senate and the committee superiority against any sophisticated
We want to lessen the occurrences un- on the Jackson amendment, which gives equipment of the Soviets, or even what
der which we will send mechanics in. We open ended, unlimited authority for the French are producing. We did give
want a simpler plane, with which we military assistance to Israel. that a the F-5, which is a single-place version
will not nave to help in the mainteance process is developing where the Com- of the T-38 trainer to the South Viet-
and upkeep. mittee on Armed Services is beginning to namese as their interceptor aircraft-in
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I say to the Senator ' try to take over all foreign military as- fact. tactical support aircraft. It was not
that under the foreign military aid pro- sistance programs. I assume they are do- successful at firs'. It is now.
grans it is not customary to send in men trig that because the administration and I do not remember exactly when it
to keep them in operation. If you give the Committee on Armed Services are was-it must have been about 3 years,
them plans, you give them planes, but impatient with the fact that the Com- ago the Air Force, I believe, consulted
sued
the only ign countries,
they are responsible for their mainte- mittee on Foreign Relations has, in re- with other foreign
in the world to
nance and operation. cent yea, shown a disposition to try
Does the Senator contend there is any to cut down on and give Congress better say ho are edmaking what one would call
authorization for giving these planes to control over military assistance, and would
any country other than South Vietnam foreign aid In general, for that matter. be the Soviets, unless the French Mystere
not
think be able
in the existing law? I think this approach, if pursued. might
could tonthis te-w h ch I do noof it particular field.
Mr. STENNIS. I think this one may would represent a very serious change in decided be wise
be-this one is not limited to any one ap- = policy. I think the Senate should be was to encourage deidou d then then tea that that it it wo would be
to Amer plication. aware of what is taking place; that this compete with a lerican manufact r that
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Just by virtue of attempt should not be allowed to develop
this bill. If we ignore existing jurisdic- piecemeal, a little at a time, where it could ld realize the be sold that foreign ai o ones s can be
tion and authority under the Foreign ends In the Armed Services Committee
Military Sales Act, Aid and Sales Acts, having taken over foreign military aid. given
ng known but it is MY for ders and ng.
and the Senate rules and practices with This has been one of the areas which of this some ,
regard -,o jurisdiction-if that happens has been very controversial. There has that the competition was to provide an
to be convenient-the Senator seems to been much progress in cutting back on interceptor ircrafvee aasy nd the maintain,
think it is all right for the Committee on foreign aid. But now an attempt is being
Armed Services to take jurisdiction. made to revive it in this disguised form. tion, if I am correct, was completed some in June
and the Mr. dn my should not I wdo not think many people are hat is taking place and what it means, cision eihather
not been made to whomdto
put words s in my mouth. contract Mr. FULBRIGHT. Under all practices or that what it will lead to is very bad award the
money that is in question is money,
prior to this year, until this issue came for the country.
up, the Foreign Relations Committee has I cannot support this move at all, not as the Senator from Mississippi has said,
had jurisdiction over all military aid and only because of jurisdiction, but because for preproduction costs, for allowing the
away of taxpayers or thefone that nies that are successful,
sales matters: the Senator now says I sego aped, in
successful, to go ahead
jurisdiction is not significant funds on an unrestricted basis, especially with production of a prototype of this in-
ohMr. ed it wI did not say that I ems as proposed in this bill. terceptor aircraft, which would then be
raw etant. Isaid it is
often n difficult was o difficult to o draw exact fines. I think In this case $28 million has already offered for sale to different countries in
the Senator finds it difficult himself been appropriated. You want $30 million the world which might want to buy it. I
sometimes to draw exact lines. more and that will give you $58 million must say that if we want to give it away,
Mr. FULBRIGHT, That is true but not before you turn a tap. I cannot support we can.
that. I think at that point, when the proto-this m nyare case. marginal. Many This are ccl and
Mr. STENNIS. The Senator's words type has been finished and we have de-
afly stretch n imagination. It margin . It is s clear ar were "You want $30 million." I am not cided it is successful and we go ahead
you u s have authority of the i to use Department of particularly wanting anything. with an actual procurement contract, the
yo
Defense funds to pay for assistance to Mr. FULBRIGHT. I am talking about Foreign Relations Committee would have ace in it, at that
south Vietnam. You do not have author- the conference report. I did not mean ai~eryi defioni e plume under cau Foreign the
ity, do you, to give away these planes, say, the Senator personally.
to Pakistan, India, Turkey. Greece, or Mr. STENNIS. We looked into the Military Sales Act. But at the present
Korea Honey part. The $30 million is provided time we are actually talking about some-
Mr. Those countries are be- in order to let them proceed. This gives thing which comes under research and
development.
yond the ordinary concept of military them what we call preproduction money I think it was unfortunate that state-
aid, as has been handled by our for the manufacture of this product,
committee. whoever gets the contract. That has not ments were made to the effect that it
Mr. FULBRIGHT. The Senator is- been decided. So it is not one of those was to be given to South Vietnam. The
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
October 1, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE
impression was left that only South Viet-
nam would get the aircraft. The truth of
the matter is that we want to get into
the foreign market and see.if we cannot
compete with the Russians in the field of
air superiority.
I might say, in closing, inasmuch as
we do not have today in our ? inventory a
strictly termed interceptor aircraft, this
might provide us with something that our
Air Force is in very bad need of at this
time and that we are not producing.
? That is my understanding of the whole
matter.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, may
I say, in reply, that last year this was all
justified on the basis of Vietnamization.
We did not need the plane for our own
defense. If we needed it, it would be
funded in the regular defense appropri-
ation, and the question would never have
arisen. But this is a peculiar way of
changing the justification. It was for
Vietnamization; nothing was said in the
authorization about selling it around the
world. If that is the purpose of develop-
ing it, the Government has no business
developing it. Let McDonnell-Douglas, or
whoever it is, go ahead and pay for the
development costs. This is a strange mix-
ture of socialism and private enterprise.
We have no business developing some-
thing for McDonnell-Douglas-using it
as a symbol for the whole industry; it
would be any one of them-when they
could make money out of selling it. Other
countries, I assume, do this on a private
enterprise basis.
This change in the justification for
the project is virtually the same as what
happened with ABM. One never can
come to grips with the arguments for it.
Every time one argument is made, we
come up against another justification.
The justification in this case was said to
be giving it to South Vietnam to aid in
the Vietnamization program. That was
the reason for this authority. Now there
is another $30 million, and that totals
$58 million, and they want to give it to
anybody, anywhere, as they see fit.
This is an invasion of the jurisdiction
of the Foreign Relations Committee. It
goes against all the practices and rules
of the Senate. I do not think it ought to
be in this 'bill.
In reply to the Senator from Arizona,
I know very well that if this item goes
through and later another followup pro-
posal comes up, we will certainly be met
with the argument, "Well, look, the
precedent has already been made. This
project is already in Defense. What are
you talking about? You lost your juris-
diction last year."
We are met with that kind of argu-
ment in treaties. Once we lose jurisdic-
tion, there is little chance of regaining
it.
For that reason, I am not about to be
a party to this loose interpretation of
our rules and jurisdiction.
This action is based upon the fact that
the Foreign Relations Committee has
not been sympathetic to giving away all
the money of this country. I am not
going to support such a policy. Just as
soon as Congress begins to be more pru-
dent and careful with military and-i
think it should have been long ago-there
is an attempt to make an end run around
us. The same principle was involved in
the Jackson amendment. I made the
same points then. My amendment was
voted down. I do not think it was under-
stood, but it was defeated by a number
of votes. I did not have the votes to do
anything about it. But it is still a bad
practice.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Mississippi yield for a
clarification?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, I
might say that these companies have
proceeded under their own funds. I can-
not name all of them. McDonnell-Doug-
las had a version of the F-4. Lockheed
has a later version of the F-104. The par-
ticular participant is Northrup, with a
new version of the F-5. So they are ready
to go. Why the Air Force has not made
the contract, I cannot understand. I
have asked the officials for the last 2 or
3 months why they did not make it
when it was manifest that it would be
made the next week, either in June or
early July. I have not received a satis-
factory answer as to why they have not
proceeded with the contract, but the
contract is awardable right now, and
the money the Senator is concerned
about would be spent by the Air Force
when the firm that is to build the air-
plane is decided on. The company would
build this aircraft, and, I would assume
from discussions I have had, although
they said it could definitely become a
part of our inventory, the intention is to
give it or to sell it. At that point I think
the committee of the Senator from Ar-
kansas would have definite jurisdiction.
But right now the money is for prepro-
duction costs necessary to build the air-
plane.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Does the Senator
from Mississippi agree with what the
Senator from Arizona said?
Mr. STENNIS. Had the Senator from
Arizona finished?
Mr. GOLDWATER. I have finished.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Does the Senator
from Mississippi agree with the Senator
from Arizona?
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I do not
yield now. Let me make a statement
here.
In the first place, Mr. President, this
bill does not authorize any planes to go
to any country. There is not a thing like
that in the bill. This is just money to
produce a new plane, the prospective use
of which can be for South Vietnam, or
any of those countries in Southeast Asia,
or any other country.
There is no money in the bill to pay
for a plane that is going to South Viet-
nam or anywhere in Southeast Asia-
this type of plane, I mean-or any other
country. This is just money to build a
new plane. And it cannot be built this
fiscal year. At very best, I am advised, it
would take 18 to 24 months before we
could produce a plane of this type.
So this is just money for preproduc-
tion effort. It is the beginning of pro-
curement.
Mr. MAGNUSON. It is just authori-
zation; it is not money.
Mr. STENNIS. Yes; authorization. So
S 16925
hereafter, if some planes like this are
going to be given to any Southeast Asian
country, it will have to be approved right
here on this floor, and if that is done-
Mr. FULBRIGH T. Is this-
Mr. STENNIS. May I finish?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I thought the Sen-
ator had finished.
Mr. STENNIS. I am just stating facts.
If there are any hereafter authorized
for South Vietnam, as I say, it would
have to be done here on this floor, pre-
sumably in a bill like this for some
future fiscal year.
Then, if there are to be any planes
authorized for Kakistan, it would have
to be done on this floor, too; and I as-
sume the Senator from Arkansas would
claim that his committee had jurisdic-
tion, and he would have a very strong
point; perhaps it would not even be con-
tested by the Committee on Armed
Services.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. The Senator from
Arizona, as I understood, said that is
where he thought it would be.
Mr. STENNIS. I am just trying to
bring this into focus here, that the Sen-
ator from Arkansas is not surrendering
anything now. This is a continuation of
what we passed last year, and this plane
may be used by any country. There are
no restrictions on it. When it comes to
authorizing the sale of planes, it will
have to be done by legislation from one
committee or the other. We are not want-
ing to get into anything more right now,
but I would not want to waive jurisdic-
tion; it depends on the circumstances.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. The Senator wants
to postpone that argument.
Mr. STENNIS. No; that is just the
fact. That is as far as this authorization
goes.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is true.
Mr. STENNIS. That will come up some
year in the future.
Mr. FULBRIGH.T. Having appropri-
ated this money to spend, they will want
to go ahead with the contract. Of course,
the Senator knows there will be estab-
lished a precedent which will probably
operate in his favor:
Mr. STENNIS. I think not.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. As the Senator from
Arizona suggested a moment ago, there
are four or five companies interested in
this plane, and he did not understand
why they had not let the contract. Does
not the Senator think perhaps they ought
to wait until after the elections, and not
alienate any of those companies?
Mr. GOLDWATER. Oh, no. I do not
think that enters into it at all.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. That does not enter
into it?
Mr. GOLDWATER. No; I do not think
any contract for that amount of money
is going to get political. I think if we
were talking about another C-5 or some-
thing like that, perhaps.
I might say we do not make any of
these planes in my State of Arizona, and
none of them are made in the State of
Arkansas, nor in the State of Missis-
sippi.
The terminology used to describe this
fighter, I think, is the disturbing point.
It-is called the International Fighter.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
 S 16926
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE October 1, 1970
Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is correct, the
International Fighter.
Mr. GOLDWATER. It was intended for
that purpose, to build a plane in this
country we could supply to NATO coun-
tries. In fact, the NATO countries were
among those who asked for such a proj-
ect to be initiated in this country, because
about the only other place they can go
today for this type of aircraft is the
Soviet Union.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Does not Sweden
make a very good interceptor?
Mr. GOLDWATER. Sweden has made
a little Saab which was a good intercep-
tor. but the NATO countries did not buy
it. The French have made several good
tactical fighters, but none that can climb
fast enough or high enough, or carry
enough cannon to gain air superiority.
This is what we are talking about. We
do not even have this type aircraft in
our inventory today. We have been for-
tunate in Vietnam in that the enemy has
had an extremely limited number of So-
viet-made Mig's; otherwise we would
have been in real trouble over there.
But I think the term "International
Fighter" is what has gotten us into this
squabble.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Representative
RIVERS was reputed in the press last year
to have originated this idea and pro-
posal.
But I want to go on to one further item.
On this matter of the ships. the Sen-
ator made the statement. "The House
gave up a nuclear aircraft carrier," and
then be substituted-I think It was-$435
million worth ofships that the Depart-
ment of Defense had not asked for; Is
this correct?
Mr. STENNIS. That is correct. That is
not all the story, though.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Was that just to
soften the blow to the House of Repre-
sentatives because they gave up a nu-
clear aircraft carrier, that the conferees
gave them these other ships?
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President. I do not
think it is necessary to answer that kind
of question. But I say to the Senator
from Arkansas that if there should be
someone here who would give it such a
sectional interpretation. Our position
was announced earlier this year on the
carrier. I liked the carrier idea. myself,
but there had not been a firm enough
request from the executive branch.
But these ships are altogether in a dif-
ferent category. These are one of the
modern. fast submarines that are coming
up next year in the budget request. and
a destroyer tender, and also a submarine
tender and two small oceanographic
ships. There are also some smaller serv-
ice and landing craft for a very small
amount.
They were agreed to as a part of the
conference. It was before us in the House
bill, and was agreed to as a part of com-
posite matters before us.
I do not know whether funds will be
appropriated or not. But the Department
said if they got the money, they would
go on with the building of the ships. The
Secretary of Defense has indicated that
funds for these ships will be obligated
if made available by Congress.
So if leaves no doubt about the need
for them, or about their being a part
of the Department of Defense program.
I did not agree to this, myself, until I
had checked it out fully with the Navy
and with the Department of Defense.
So these are firm requirements, and we
recommend their approval
Mr. FULBRIGHT. While sitting on the
appropriations conference with the
House of Representatives on State and
Justice, my senior colleague from Arkan-
sas (Mr. MCCLELLAN), the chairman of
that subcommittee. sat there all day
trying to persuade the House conferees
to accept a small item, in terms of dol-
lars-which incidentally, I think, affects
the Senator's State of Mississippi, and it
certainly affects Arkansas-for regional
development funds.
What really confounded me was that
Senator MCCLELLAN fought all day to
agree to provide $8 million-more for
this program, which is basic to the de-
velopment of States like those of the
Senator from Mississippi and the Sena-
tor from Arkansas. He wanted them to
recede and accept the full $16 million
voted by the Senate.
No, they were hard-nosed: they were
so concerned about the solvency of this
country that they would not think of
providing any more money for that pur-
pose, and they fought and fought.
Senator MCCLZLLAN is a very stubborn
man when it comes to defending Ar-
kansas' interests, as Senators know. He
was committed, as I was also, to getting
tie full $16 million. We could only get
$10 million. But what disturbs me is the
difference in attitude on something that
goes for the economic development of the
underdeveloped areas of this country,
where they are so careful and so parsim-
oitious; but yet here the conferees came
up an item of $435 million for ships that
were not in the budget. I congratulate
the Senator on the nuclear carrier; the
committee was absolutely correct on
that. They are utterly obsolete and use-
less-
But why in the world Is not the com-
mittee concerned about saving a little
money in this area? Here is $435 million.
in contrast to $16 million which went
to the economic development of this
country. What shocks me and distresses
u.t is that whenever it is associated with
anything military, we can anticipate
what will happen. Here is a program
they were not even wanting until next
y-car. The Defense Department had not
,:-. en asked for it, and $435 million is
given for this kind of project. Yet, Mem-
bers of the House Appropriations Com-
mittee in conference, f-ght like tigers
a;;ainst a little item for economic de-
;' 'lopment.
This is what bothers me. It is not just
tidy specific thing. It is an attitude on
i.ize part of both Houses that whenever
it is for the military. the sky Is the limit.
If the Defense Department says, "We
call use it. if you insist on giving it to
as." it is given to them. That is what
happened here. They had not asked for
it.
Mr. President, I am about at the end of
in y rope when it comes to voting on bills
of this kind. I do not think I can con-
tinue to vote for this bill, when It is so
profligate and so out of consonance with
the real needs of this country.
The Senator from Mississippi, person-
ally, has done a good job. He is not re-
sponsible for this attitude of the Con-
gress as 'a whole.
This is the general attitude that has
prevailed in the Congress for a long
time. I certainly mean no criticism di-
rectly of the chairman of the commit-
tee. He has already said that the other
House does not agree. I know that he
cannot get his way. My criticism goes
to the general attitude about these mat-
ters that is prevalent in Congress, not to
anything that the Senator from Missis-
sippi has done. I have no reason to believe
that he has not done the best he possi-
bly can in his position. But I cannot vote
for this bill.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, the
conference report contains language
with respect to section 204 which reads:
None of the funds authorized to be ap-
propriated to the Department of Defense
by this or any other Act.
Although I believe the language is
clear, I would like, for the purpose of
legislative history, so that there will be
no misunderstanding as to application
of this language, to ask the chairman
of the committee to state the intention of
the conference committee with respect
of the scope of the prohibition. In partic-
ular. I hope the chairman can state
whether it acts only prospectively for
funds to be appropriated by future acts
of Congress and will have no effect
on funds heretofore appropriated, but un-
expended. I ask this question because
the Senate-passed bill contained a pro-
hibition that applied solely to funds to
be appropriated by Congress this year,
whereas the House bill contained no
prohibition whatsoever.
Is my understanding correct, that this
prohibition is prospective only, and in
no way retroactive to upset the stand-
ards required last year in the funding
of research?
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I was
already familiar with the substance of
the Senator's inquiry and had looked in-
to the matter myself. I think that un-
questionably the language in the bill
before the Senate acts prospectively on-
ly and will not affect funds for fiscal year
1970, the fiscal year just closed, funds
that have not been expended.
The entire discussion in conference
was about the prospective funds for fis-
cal 1971. It was agreed, of course, as was
the law, that the Senator's amendment
of last year was the law, and there was
no discussion about repealing that as it
applied to fiscal 1970 funds. But I think
it is very clear that this language applies
only to funds in this bill and not to those
of the fiscal year that is closed. To have
made it apply to fiscal year 1970, for ex-
ample, we would have had to use the
word "heretofore" or something talking
about funds to be appropriated, or
"heretofore appropriated." If those
words had been used, it would have ap-
plied to fiscal 1970. Without their use,
it applies to 1971.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Presiden;, I ap-
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
 October 1, 1g' Rproved For F~e~ e 20RL8NAL :RECORD 72SENATE 0400120054-3
RES S 16927
preciate the answer given by the distin- came out of conference and contained in Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. President, I thank
guished chairman of the committee, and this bill is not likely to continue that re- the senator from Mississippi. I should
I am most appreciative that Congress alignment of research sponsorship. The like to have the attention of the Senator
has regained a little of its sovereignty, final version contained in this bill reads from Montana-
a little of its equality, in its relationship as follows: Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes, indeed. I am
with the executive branch. None of the funds authorized to be ap- delighted.
I am greatly distressed by the change propriated to the Department of Defense by Mr. McINTYRE. Regarding sections
made in this conference to section 204, this or any other Act may be used to finance 204, 205, and 207, the conferees had a
the prohibition on the sponsorship by any research project or study unless such
Defense Dof research in project or study has, in the opinion of the great deal of difficulty with the distin-
way related to Department
the th ISecretary of Defense- guished conferees from the House. One
its military function
the questions operation. I understand fully the dif- I emphasize there, "in the opinion of wdid d not that to have plagued us,
goo td
ficulties that the Senate conferees ex- the Secretary of Defense"- which seem a d
answer, , was: How do to we apply ply a rele-
perienced in attempting to uphold Sen- a potential relationship to a military func- vancy test to basic research? Everyone
ate positions at variance with the House Lion or operation. agreed that a relevancy test was quite
during this joint conference between the In my opinion, the modified language proper for applied research.
two bodies. I understand fully the ex- is worse than would be the elimination Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, if the
traordinary price that the Senate con- of the amendment totally. The amend- Senator will yield briefily to me, let me
ferees had to pay to maintain the modest ment last year emerged from a congres- suggest that we wait until the distin-
restriction on the expansion of the Safe- sional realization that for 25 years it had guished Senator from Montana has a
guard ABM. omitted the establishment of any guide- chance to listen to the Senator from
However important and significant lines with respect to the sponsorship of New Hampshire.
that restriction was strategically, the research by the Department of Defense. Mr. McINTYRE. I think the Senator
price seems inordinate. I say this not as In the absence of Congress' fulfilling its from Montana realizes how long and
a reflection upon Senate conferees, but responsibility oof establishing policy, the how hard the Subcommittee on Research
rather the unreasonableness of the con- Department of Defense made the deter- and Development took a look at the
ferees of the other body. Congress as a minations an its own, as well it should problem of relevancy-
coequal branch of Government will ex- under those circumstances. Last year's Mr. MANSFIELD. If I may interject
ercise its equality as a branch only if it amendment attempted to reestablish there, not only do I realize it, but I
is willing to accept the responsibility of some congressional guidelines for the deeply appreciate it.
hard decisions on questions of policy. The sponsorship of this research. The lan- Mr. MCINTYRE. But we found great
notion of deterring the difficulty of the guagecontained in this conference re- difficulty in the conference on the sub-
hard decisions to the executive branch port, in my opinion, regresses beyond the ject of basic research which, by its very
on matters of policy and procedure is a mere failure to impose guidelines. It af- nature, is a program that is started with
total abdication of congressional respon- firmatively states that the Department no one quite knowing where or how it
sibility. The notion of representing a of Defense will solely determine what re- will come out.
client-namely, an executive branch of search is beneficial to it. This language, I wonder whether the Senator from
the Government-by Members of Con- in my opinion, is a legislative act of Montana would have any good answer to
gress in their committees, is going to abdication to the Secretary of Defense the question raised to us by the House
have tQ be abandoned and the burden by Congress of the Congress constitu- conferees; namely, how can we apply a
of independent factfinding and judg- tional obligation to establish basic policy. relevancy test to basic research?
mentmaking assumed, for Congress to I am pleased, at least, by the fact that Someone said it is like fishing in a
make the type of contribution the Con- the language of this amendment will not pool. We throw in the line but we do not
stitution envisioned. affect funds heretofore appropriated, as know whether we are going to catch a
I believe that what took place with re- the distinguished Chairman, the Sena- trout or what.
spect to section 204, although a very tor from Mississippi has so indicated in Mr. MANSFIELD. It should be brought
small part of this bill, is very indicative response to a question, and its applica- out and made apparent in the RECORD
of the general malaise to which I refer. tion, if any, will be under the terms laid that the distinguished Senator from New
The language of last year's act incoT- down by future appropriations acts. Hampshire, chairman of the subcommit-
porated by the Senate into the bill which I thank the distinguished chairman tee dealing in research and develop-
ultimately became a part of the law mead for allowing me this opportunity to get ment, did make a very reasonable pro-
as follows: something off my mind and to state that posal in the conference which would
None of the funds authorized to be ap- the fight is far from ended. As a matter have been quite acceptable, and which
propriated by this Act may be used to carry of fact, it has begun again. would have defined the areas and which
out any research project or study unless
such project or study has a direct and ap- Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I appre- would have applied a proper standard
parent relationship to a specific military ciate the remarks of the Senator from to each category.
function or operation. Montana. I do not altogether agree with Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, the Sen-
some Senate amendment was elim- some of the points he has made. I do ate is not in order. Could we have quiet
inatha this year by tHouse Armed not think that this is an entire abdica- so that we can hear what the Senator is
inat des Committee. the h vote e Armed tion of any legislative responsibility with saying?
tServic by the full House of vote was ever reference to this question. I think it The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
t es b that issue when tRe be ell was means something to require the Secre- ate will please be in order.
considered in the House. When this mils- tary of Defense, for instance, to make a Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
tary dered in Chet au se Whenthis o it 1971 special finding with reference to these have no fault to find with any Senators
was considered this year on the Senate matters, projects, and studies, and that who sat in on the committee, certainly.
the voted to floor, considered Senate this back its Armed it at least has a potential relationship not the chairman of the subcommittee
Services Committee's decision to retain to a military function. who has personally developed an interest
last year's language. The Senate vote this We tried to get the word "relevance" in this, and certainly not the chairman
year to reinstate this amendment was kept in. That was in the original amend- of the full committee, nor any Members
unanimous, 68 to 0. ment of the Senator from Montana. We on either side.
In my Opinion, the language of this were not able to do that. But, why was not the formula which
amendment has stimulated a much- As I said, they were against it. We had the Senator offered in good faith, found
needed focus on establishing a coherent, plenty of discussion on it. acceptable?
national science policy. It has inhibited Mr. President, now I should like to In the face of a unanimous Senate rec-
during the past year to some degree the yield to the distinguished Senator from ommendation and without any indica-
heretofore unlimited jurisdiction of the New Hampshire (Mr. MCINT'YRE), who tion of a contrary view by the other body
Defense Department in the sponsorship is mighty well versed in this subject, and it appears a bit out of the ordinary to,
of research, research that should more has done a tremendous amount of work have such a reasonable proposal as was
aptly be sponsored by a civilian agency and made a significant contribution to tendered by the distinguished Senator
of the Government. The version that the Senate and the conference. from New Hampshire rejected.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054- 3
S 16928 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE October 1, 1970
it is time to face up to one's responsi- a point that was not agreed to by the Mr. McINTYRE. That $625 million
bility, instead of kowtowing and giving House, they felt, on pure research, there was overall. That is gone.
in to the Department of Defense without was no way in which we could get the Mr. PROXMIRE. It is my understand-
ing that the $625 million referred to 50
question, as has been done year after reievancy-
year after year? Mr. McINTYRE. What does the Sen- large contractors.
Is Congress going to abdicate its re- ator mean by "pure research"? Re- Mr. McINTYRE. The Senator is cor-
sponsibilities? search covers a wide ground. rect.
Is the military going to tell us what Mr. PROXMIRE. One reason I am Mr. PROXMIRE. That is gone?
raising it is that the Mansfield amend- Mr. McINTYRE. That is gone, the
to do?
Is the civilian segment of this Govern- ment, plus the independent research and overall ceiling.
merit going to stand up and assert its development amendments which the Mr. PROXMIRE, But there is a ceiling
responsibility and its authority. committee put in, were affected by this with respect to certain contractors.
I think it is about time. I think it is decision on the part of the conference Which contractors are thQy'
a ceiling to
long overdue. I thought we were taking to agree to the relevancy question and Mr. IUIthose contractors is s who are sub-
steps in that direction, but every now and left it in the hands of the Secretary of establish McINTYRE.
s to
again something happens which makes Defense to act pretty much within his ject to those contractors advance agreements. It
more esao
again
us regress own discretion. My reference to pure
All I can say is, steps will continue to research, or fundamental or basic re- $2 million from DOD for independent
be taken because the Constitution of the search, was that it could be done better research and development or bid and
United States will be observed. It is the by the National Science Foundation. It proposal.
OXMIRE. But there is no over-
Constitution of the United States that is my understanding that is what the all dMr. ollar ceiling. Bthe ut See se coover-
counts. not the whims of any department National Science Foundation was created a a in on the relevancy factor,
or the whims of any man-and I am not for. ees
leaving gave tjudgment to va Secretary
speaking of the Secretary of Defense or Let me get a little further into the leaving the h and ghey tlito the the dol-
any the President of the United States or independent research. This was, in my of Defense, on independent aced ed the and research
any Member of the House or Senate. view, gutted by the action of the con- dlar ceiling evelopment.
Mr. McINTYRE. I thank the distin- Terence committee. The bill as it emerged Mr. McINTYRE. The Senator is cor-
continue Senator from Montana. We will from the Senate Armed Services Corn- rec .
continue the struggle because I think it is mittee, and as it passed the Senate, es-
important. tablished a ceiling of $625 million on Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, once
Let me Just make clear for the record independent research. That represented again I pay tribute, as I have so often, to
the nature of the proposal we offered to a reduction from 1969 when there was the Senator from New Hampshire. I
the House. It was a proposal which tried a $759 million expenditure on research think that he did a marvelous job in the
to distinguish between applied and basic and development. That was one distinct committee and on the floor on this mat-
research, using a strict relevancy test on contribution to limit independent re- ter. However, I am greatly disappointed
the former and a test of "clear potential search and development. and depressed that the conference com-
relivancy" on the latter. in the second place, the Senate re- mittee did not stand hard and fast on
I think that test should have been quired the Defense Department to nego- this matter.
acceptable to the House conferees. tiate an advance agreement with inde- It seems to me that we never get a
Mr. MANSFIELD. May I say that I pendent contractors with respect to re- satisfactory explanation, and neither
have nothing but a feeling of gratitude search and development. does the public as to this enormous
and thankfulness towards all the Senate Third was the attempt by the Senate amount of money that the Federal Gov-
conferees, including the chairman of the to close loopholes whereby funds disal- ernment pays every year for something
subcommittee and the chairman of the lowed for one category could be used in vaguely called independent research and
development. It has never been defined.
full committee, and those who sat on both another category. We find that contractors are :,pending
sides of the aisle, because I am certain Is it correct that the conference cem have
that the Senate, with what time limita- mittee eliminated the ceiling? this not money vt various ous things to that military
find that reference
tions it had at its disposal, did everything Mr. MCINTTYRE. The Senator is cor- thalgon on
are spend-
that could be done to achieve the unani- rect, expenditures. ot ing some of
We it c strictly commercial
mous will of the Senate which passed the Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, is the es.
amendment offered by the distinguished Defense Department required to negoti- acttivioiiviti le with the big corpo-
Senator from New Hampshire and my- ate advanced agreements with contrac- What these people
are these pro l having the Federal
self by a vote of 68 to 0. I want to empha- tors? Government provide the money to mainl
size that zero because it Is more signifi- Mr. McINTYRE. The Defense Depart- a Government r v de the money they can
cant than the 68. ment is required under the conference Gain in any way they wish. It is they can
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will report to negotiate advanced agree- use when they are competing Its very un
the Senator from Mississippi yield on the ments. The second part makes certain fair fair when firms they a have the ad other
same subject the Senator from Montana that the technical evaluation is per- page to having a defense not contract.
is talking on? formed. That is not a cursory matter as I am happy that the Senator from
Mr. STENNIS. I am happy to yield to we have seen in the past, but is an in- New Hampshire has assured ir, that he
the Senator from Wisconsin, and to any telligent searching through the bro- is not giving up and that he will attempt
other Senator, to ask any questions they chures so that we will know as best we the future to get a clear definition
have, and then to yield the floor. I hope can what the particular company is and have some definite understanding on
that the Senator from New Hampshire doing on ongoing research, the part of Congress as to what is done
can get the floor at that time. However, I Mr. PROXMIRE. How about the ca with the money of the taxpayers of this
previously promised to yield to the Sena- pacity to shift funds from one category country
tor from Illinois (Mr. PsRCY) first. to another? let me
Mr. PERCY. I am happy to yield to Mr. McINTYRE. Funds may be iden- Mr. McINTYRE from Wisconsin, President, i, since
the Senator from Wisconsin. Please go tilled as I.R. & D. or B. & P?, as appro- say this the a since
on Senator a the committee Senator . brought Mr. rommittee last yI batieve,
right ahead. priate but, under the language as agreed the
Mr. PROXMIRE. I thank the Senator in conference, the category of OTE was ton of feel even with the year, , disappoint-
Mississippi. Illinois and the Senator from eliminated. to abandon this and
Mississippi Mr. PROXMIRE. It was my under- ment it watered having down, we are neverth and
Mr. President, I should like to call at- standing that the ceiling that the Senate having of on the right track.
tention to a related matter on this same adopted of $625 million was left out and less subject that the Senator from Mississippi no ceiling was included by the conference The Department of Defense has ad-
and the Senator from Montana are dis- committee. mitted to some of their failings. They
cussing, and that is, as I understand Mr. McINTYRE. That is correct. are hard at work trying to get the mat-
it, the Senator from New Hampshire, in Mr. PROXMIRE. That was the ceiling ter under control.
referring to the question of relevancy, we agreed on. We got a feeling of mutuality from the
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
October 1, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE
House Committee when it came to tech-
nical evaluation.
Our committee will try to keep a sharp
eye on it. We are making some progress
along the lines that my friend, the Sena-
tor from Wisconsin, had hoped for when
he brought this matter to our attention.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I
have some other questions to ask on the
C-5A. However, I will defer them at this
time because the Senator from Illinois
was kind enough to defer to me.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I shall be
very brief. I would like to comment on
three particular sections of the confer-
ence report.
The first is with respect to the ABM.
I congratulate the Senate conferees.
Even though the conference report goes
further on the Safeguard than I feel rea-
sonable at this time, considering the pos-
sibility of an agreement in the SALT
talks, I am pleased that the conferees
have accepted the Senate provision on
construction authority and the Senate
language on limitation of deployment.
I commend them for prevailing in this
area.
Second, I would like to comment on
the action of the conference report deal-
ing with chemical and biological agents
and their disposal. The conference re-
port is very clear. The conference has
accepted the amendment of the Sen-
ate that I had the pleasure of introduc-
ing. It had the general support of the
chairman of the Armed Services Com-
mittee and the minority members of
that committee as well.
I think we made a fine step, forward
here. Even though Secretary Laird has
pledged that he would not dispose of
chemical agents in the future without
first detoxifying them, administrations
do change. It is important to put this
provision in the law.
I have a question with respect to sec-
tion 508, on page 9 of the conference
report. This section indicates that the
Secretary of Defense is directed to initi-
ate promptly new procedures with respect
to domestic and foreign permanent
change of station assignments for mili-
tary personnel under which the length
of permanent change of station assign-
ments will, whenever practicable and
consistent with national' security, be
made for longer periods of time.
The original amendment I intro-
duced-which was agreed to by a vote of
69 to nothing-called for a 25 percent re-
duction or approximately a $140 million
reduction in fiscal year 1972.
The question I would like to direct to
the distinguished chairman is asked be-
cause I have had since passage of the
amendment such an overwhelming re-
sponse from servicemen. Some have said
that if we had instituted this procedure
earlier, they would not have had to re-
sign from the service and could have
maintained a stable situation with their
families.
S 16929
greater than this figure and that the lems would be created. So it is one of
Secretary of Defense might not look on those things everyone is for until they
this as a limitation at all, but might try get down to the nuts and bolts and see
to achieve even greater permanency of how it works. I hope the Secretary of
duty stations so that the end result Defense will push this matter and I
might be to reduce the budget by even think he will. We have a basis to make
more than the $140 million the Senate a contribution that is worthwhile.
amendment would have provided for? Mr. PERCY. Last week I talked to the
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, the Sen- Secretary of Defense and he indicated
ator's exact question now is whether I one of the great problems is that 54 per-
think the Secretary of Defense's efforts cent of the military budget goes for per-
here, as set forth, might even exceed the sonnel costs and only 15 percent is avail-
25 percent reduction.
Mr. PERCY. The Senator is correct.
Mr. STENNIS. That involves a brief
discussion of what we had before us in
conference. There was considerable sym-
pathy with the Senator's amendment.
There were two things that mitigated
against its being adopted, though, as
hard law.
The first was the changes due to the
situation in South Vietnam and the
winding down of the program and flow
long it would take.
Frankly, I do not want to think about
sending troops, but as the Senator knows,
there is the Mideast matter. There is
smoke there. The main thing was how
sound was the figure of 25 percent. Be-
fore writing it into law the House con-
ferees would not yield at all on that point
but they did make the agreement I have
reflected here, and it was thought that
hearings diligently pursued would pro-
vide a sound basis for something specific,
if that proved to be necessary. How far
the Secretary of Defense can go or will
go I canot say, but certainly we made a
start on this matter and I think we will
be able to continue it.
I thank the Senator again for his in-
terest in this matter and the contribu-
tion he made here in presenting his
amendment.
Mr. PERCY. Can the senior Senator
from Illinois expect that the committee
will follow this matter closely and ask
the Secretary of Defense for detailed pro-
posals on how to implement more eco-
nomical change of duty station practices
and insure that we will have sufficient
followup. We are deeply interested. This
amendment was agreed to in the Senate
by a vote of 69 to nothing. I think the
evidence was overwhelming, not only the
evidence I presented, but there was the
Fitzhugh report which corroborates this.
It had made a study over many months.
I have not found anyone in the military
who disagreed with me. It seems a small
change with respect to military assign-
ments. This relates only to areas outside
of Vietnam and combat areas.
able for strategic weapons system.
Mr. STENNIS. Yes.
Mr. PERCY. I am trying to find ways
to reduce this tremendous cost where you
cannot tangibly see an end result. If
we can put the pressure on these items
I think we can find better ways to spend
our defense dollars.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I wish
to ask the Senator from Mississippi about
the C-5A. But first I would like to ask
an independent research and develop-
ment whether he thinks it would be prac-
tical and possible to move toward mak-
ing independent research and develop-
ment a line item in the budget. One of
the, reasons we have not been able to get
at it is that nobody knew there was this
huge amount for independent research
and development. We cannot get control
over something that is this big-it is
hundreds of millions of dollars-unless
we have it designated in the budget
specifically.
Mr. STENNIS. That concerns me, too.
I shall read to the Senator the few
words I said with respect to that point:
I firmly believe this entire matter should
be kept under continual and intensive over-
sight by the Congress and I wish to give
notice at this time that I intend to pursue
this course of action.
I am trying to get to the point that
we can have effective legislative over-
sight. I think that is more important
than the dollars we spend. But I must
say at this stage I do not think we could
write in. a line item requirement until
we know more about the situation.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Certainly one way to
get effective oversight is to have line
items. Then we have testimony on it as
to whether it should be higher or lower.
We can demand and secure specific
justification.
Mr. STENNIS. We discussed that and
I think the Senator from New Hampshire
will discuss it.
,Mr. PROXMIRE. With regard to the
C-5A, the Senator is well aware of the
debate we had in the Senate on the C-5A
Mr. STENNIS. I Promise the Sen- and the fact that there would have been
ator continued interest in this matter an overrun, in the judgment of the Air
and to do what we can. We have already Force, of $2 billion; if we had gone ahead
had a lot of large outstanding promises, - with the originally intended 120 C-5A's.
though. I have found that a year is a It has become a matter of scandalous
mightly short time to redeem a great proportions in the eyes of many persons.
many promises, especially in the reform Even Assistant Secretary of Defense
area. But I am interested in this matter Packard referred to it as badly handled
and I think we will continue our efforts procurement.
and hope for more results and certainly, The Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr
.
we will continue our efforts. SCHWEIKER) and I offered an amend-
The Senator mentioned the 69-to-0 went which was rejected b
the S
t
y
ena
e,
In view of the favorable reaction I vote. That is very true, but it was a 69- largely on the grounds the committee
have received, does the Senator feel that to-0 vote without any real tangible evi- had written in very tough language,
by leaving out the specific 25-percent tar- dente on the effect of these matters and which provided the $200 million to be
get, we could actually achieve a target how it would operate and what prob- given Lockheed over and above what was
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
16930 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE October 1, 1970
I the contract would not be obligated vent this from the present contract they of this portion of the defense budget. let
until the Secretary of Defense had pre- have into cost plus contract. me summarize the actions taken by he
.;ented a plan to the senate committee This, of course, would result in an conferees in this area.
and the House committee and they had enormous loss to the taxpayer and would The Department of Defense requested
had an opportunity to discuss and con- be a very, very bad precedent. It would $7,401,600,000 for R.D.T. & E. The House
cider the plan and give their advice and mean in the future that if any defense reduced this request by $136 million. The
Lake whatever position they wished to contractor got into difficulty, he would Senate reduced it by $464 million. In con-
with respect to that plan. be bailed out. The Defense Department, ference, a reduction of $300 million, hilf-
I understand that particular require- if that contractor got into trouble, be- way between the House and Senate re-
rnent has been dropped and the Secre- cause he bought in with a low bid could ductions, was finally agreed on, resulting
Lary of Defense now simply has to an- convert the contract into a cost-plus in an authorization of $7,101,600,000. At
pounce what he is going to do, and in 30 proposition. the insistence of the Senate, each of the
daps put it into effect. I wonder, in view of the record that reductions made was in the form of spec-
There is no consultation with the the Air Force has with respect to the Ified dollar cuts in individual programs,
Armed Services Committee of the Sell- C-5A. if the Senator from Mississippi not In the form of the discretionary over-
ate or of the House. In view of the make could assure the Senate that when this all cuts favored by the House.
up of these committees and the highly plan comes before the Congress and 30 Measured in terms of the total dollars
competent Congressmen and Senators days are allowed before action by the Air involved, the Senate got an even bargain.
who are members of them, I think it is Force, public hearings could be held so When this bill was first reported to the
a reasonable provision that the appro- that some confidence could be estab- floor over 2 months ago, I attempted to
priate committees have a chance to look lished that the contract is a fair and highlight the major actions taken by the
at these things. In light of the history of honest one and is not to be at the ex- committee in the research and develop-
the C-5A it seems most unfortunate. pense of the taxpayer. went area. I cited eight budgetary cuts
Mr. STENNIS. There are two amend- Mr. STENNIS. Until a showing can be and three legislative provisions as worthy
meats on the C-5A funds. One just tied made on this matter, I do not think I of individual treatment.
the money down exclusively to use on should be promising public hearings. A number of these actions were indeed
the C-5A itself and no other projects in Certainly, the committee has some re- preserved in conference:
which the Government could be involved. sponsibility to look into this matter and First. We eliminated the $15.7 million
That restriction was kept; every word of use its judgment. requested by the Army and Air Force for
it. Two things the Senator should rernem- Project Mallard, thus terminating this
Mr. PROXMIRE. On that provision, ber: first, we have Mr. Packard in on this terribly expensive and overly ambitious
how do we have any control if the plan matter: and, second, the Defense De- international communications program.
with respect to spending this money is partrnent and Lockheed know they are Second. We effected a $20 million re-
not submitted to the committee? going to come back here next year for duetion in the budget of the Advanced
Mr. STENNIS. it is the duty of the more money right along this line. I think Ballistic Missile Defense Agency, thus
Department of Defense to follow that that is a very practical part of it. I am insuring that our research on programs
money in the way the law says it shall expecting a very reasonable plan of some at the frontiers of ABM technology will
be expended. I will answer that in a kind that will certainly protect the $200 be concentrated on high-priority proj-
moment. million. cots, with special emphasis on hardsite
The second amendment said the plan Mr. PROXMIRE. At any rate, the con- development.
had to be submitted back to the Com- ference report provides that the $200 Third. We brought back our full reduc-
inittees on Armed Services of the two million will be provided to the Lockheed tion in the foreign area research pro-
Houses. It was discovered by the House Corp. if the Defense Department thinks grams of the Department of Defense,
conferees that a similar provision had it should be; and there is no veto Pow- thus completing the 2-year restructuring
been vetoed by the late President Eisen- er on our part. The only action we will of this portion of the defense budget in
bower on the ground that it was uncon- be able to take is with respect to the $600 which we have been engaged. Now that
stitutional. It was further found that the million necessary to complete the C-5A Department of Defense activities in this
Senator from Mississippi was the author program, and we will have an opportu- area have been rationalized, future ef-
of that amendment that President Eisen- pity to act in the future on that portion forts will have to be directed at enhanc-
hower had vetoed. I had overlooked that. of the C-5A funds. ing the role of the Department of State
in the meantime we had them reporting Mr. STENNIS. Yes; Congress has that instead.
back to the committees. They can only assurance as a minimum. We are not run- Fourth. And we also won conference
report back to Congress and that is the ning out on anything, but I cannot pro- approval of the dollar reductions and new
way it is changed. In the executive mice now what the committee will do curbs which we had placed on the De-
function of the committee, it is rather except to try to use our judgment. Tense Department's chemical and biclog-
clear it cannot be delegated congressional Mr. PROXMIRE. Let me finally urge ical warfare programs.
authority. on tiro distinguished chairman that when In addition to these Senate actions
Mr. PROXMIRE. is it the interpreta- this plan comes to the Congress, In view which were preserved, some other actions
Lion of the chairman of the Committee of the record, in view of what has hap- were compromised, and in such a way
on Armed Services that when this report pened on the C-5A, in view of its fan- that the basic thrust of the Senate posi-
is. made the committee will examine the tastic cost, in view of the fact that it has Lion was not completely lost.
plan of the Department of Defense with become a cause celebre throughout the First. While our reduction of $27 mil-
respect of the C-5A; that the committee, country, the chairman give considera- lion in the Air Force's Minuteman rebas-
if it chooses to do so, will have hearings tion to holding public hearings on the tog program was completely restored. the
on it and consider in hearings whether or proposal made by the Air Force. restoration was made with the clear un-
not the $200 million is going to be spent Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator. derstanding that the money would not
+'otireiy on the C-5A and whether it is Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator be used for the hard-rock silo program,
justified? iroiu New Hampshire is ready to proceed? our opposition to which had been the pri-
Mr. STENNIS. Certainly we will have I yield the floor. mart' grounds for our cut.
n?sponsibility in that field but not a veto Mr. MCINTYRE. Mr. President, I would Second. While our reduction of $15
power unless we initiate something. We like to comment on the actions of the million in the Army SAM-D missile de-
cannot just disapprove it and kill it. We House and Senate conferees as they per- velopment budget was reduced to only
have that responsibility to go into it, but taro to the research, development, test, $6.2 million, this reduction in itself will
not as strong as it was in the original and evaluation portion of the fiscal year serve to make clear the Senate's con-
Senate amendment. 1971 military procurement authorization tinning concern both over the costs and
Mr. PROXMIRE. What bother's me is I bill As you know. I was privileged to act also the ultimate need for this particular
have been trying hard to get the Depart- as enairman of the Armed Services Com- program. It will serve as a prelude to a
merit of Defense to comment on a pro- inittee's Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Re- further in-depth study of the program
basal for a new contract proposed by the search and Development. which con- next year before engineering develop-
Pentagon with Lockheed that would con- ducted extensive and exhaustive reviews meat is approved.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
October 1, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE S 16931
$33.6 million in the Air Force's SCAD,
or Subsonic Cruise Armed Decoy, devel-
opment was reduced to $23.6 million, our
only purpose here had been to take away
from the Air Force a substantial number
of dollars which it was clear to us all
along they would not be able to use dur-
ing fiscal 1971.
But on the four most important issues
facing the conference in the R. & D. area,
decisions were reached which undercut
the original Senate position. Let me em-
phasize that i in no way agree with the
decisions reached by the conference in
these matters, and that I argued very
strongly and at length for the original
Senate position.
First. The Cheyenne helicopter-the
agreement to restore funding for the
Cheyenne opens Pandora's Box. What is
at stake here is far more than the $17.6
million requested by the Army for the
program this year. Far more important
are the $115 million of overall R. & D.
funds still to be sunk in this program,
budget presentation, for $500,000 to pur- ministered and that some action is re-
sue further studies on its new tanker quired to curtail the runaway growth in
needs. This concern was by no means Overall program costs which has occurred
put to rest by the Air Force contention, over the last 5 years.
at the time of floor debate on this bill, - Elimination of the ceiling will give the
that the KC-135's service life would last Defense Department another opportun-
until the late 1980's and that my fears ity to set its own house in order. The
about the need for a new tanker were committee has been told that the serv-
the product of a misunderstanding, ices' estimates of total program costs for
Recent events have only served to calendar year 1970 are $656 million. The
underscore the validity of my earlier committee will watch carefully to deter-
concerns, mine whether this goal is met when 1970
As far as B-1 unit costs are con- figures are reported to it next March.
cerned, the Armed Services Committee The provision passed by the conference
has just received the latest selected ac- is such that a ceiling could be incorpor-
quisition report-SAR--on the aircraft, ated in it next year should such action
dated September 14, 1970. In that re- then appear warranted.
port, issued only 3 months after the In determining whether further legis-
award of -an engineering development lation is warranted in this area next year,
contract on the aircraft to North Ameri- the committee will watch also the prog-
can Rockwell, the Air Force estimate of ress made by the Department of Defense
total program cost has increased from in putting into operation the plan it pro-
$9.3 billion to $10.1 billion, with unit posed during its testimony to Congress
production cost estimates rising from this year. Nothing in the conference-ap-
$29.2 million to $30.8 million. If this is proved legislation is inconsistent with
the product of 3 months work, what is this plan.
going to o
ccur over the remainder of the Fourth. Finally, the conferees made
tary Packard now intends as a result of year, and during the next several yeajs major changes in sections 204, 205, and
Lockheed's failure to develop it under remaining before a production decision is 207 of the Senate bill, all of which were
the present contractual terms, and the required? I deeply fear that this is not designed to influence our national sci-
possible ultimate expenditure of over $1.5 the end, that these are only points on a ence policy.
billion for procurement of an aircraft we steadily rising curve. The relevancy test contained in sec-
simply do not need. This is a helicopter Light has been shed recently on the tion 204 was greatly watered down. While
whose cost will be $4.5 million each, tanker problem also. The Armed Serv- some change in the section's language
whose survivability in the theater of ices Committee, in view of the Air Force might well have been warranted in light
operations for which it is programed is contention that a misunderstanding ex- of the misunderstandings it had occa-questiona
and
whose
avail
isted on
tanker
inated add little to our def nse capababty twhiich the new t tanker study flunem, ds eorig nally sinned over the past cons, change
an b- tually can be as would not be achieved by complementing requested. In its reclama to the con- di ation ofe serious congressional nter-
our, fixed-wing close support aircraft ferees, the Department of Defense asked est in this particular matter.
with Cobras configured with TOW mis- for a restoration of these funds, claim- Perhaps more important is the elim-
siles. I fully intend to continue my op- ing that studies of new tanker possibili- ination of the Interagency Council on
position to this system in the days ahead. ties were essential after all. Domestic Applications of Defense Re-
Second. The B-1 bomber-the restora- The conferees restored these funds for search, provided for in section 205 of the
tion of $25 million of the $50 million tanker studies. I hope that they will pro- Senate bill. This Council could have
cut by the Senate from the Air Force's vide a. more
-v i,urpose or the Senate reduction
was to cause a slowdown in the plane's
development, a slowdown which would
have in no way jeopardized the plane's
presently planned IOC date, but which
would have insured a careful review of
the aircraft's specifications before full-
scale engineering development was ini-
tiated. Such a slowdown and review
were justified, I believe, because the
B-1, as presently configured, simply can
n
t b
o
e built for the $29.0 million estimate
per copy which the Air Force presented
to us during briefings earlier this year.
It was my hope that changes in the
plane's specifications would result from
the intended review and that these
changes, while not affecting the B-i's
ability to perform its mission, would sig-
nificantly reduce its costs. Special atten-
tion needed to be directed, in my
opinion, to the possibilities of reducing
the aircraft's supersonic speed capabil-
ity, increasing its stand-off missile
lauching capability, and decreasing its
presently planned payload capacity.
There was another aspect, also, to the
concer
r A_u __..
n
th
cOst
begins. I hope, too, that the_Air -Force of them languishing amidst the present
will not regard the restoration of $25 budget cutback, to the solution of un-
million of the Senate's $50 million B-1 met domestic needs.
cut as an invitation to proceed full steam And also very disappointing is the
ahead on the aircraft's engineering de- modification of section 207, the NSF re-
velopment. I hope that its attention will search amendment, in such a manner
be focused instead on the $25 million cut that the call for an increased NSF role
which was sust
i
a
ned and that this cut
will lead to a careful program review
while changes in the aircraft's specifica-
tions can still quite easily be made.
The B-1 may well turn out to be an
essential strategic system. We must cer-
tainly proceed now with its orderly de-
velopment. But we must also do all we
can to assure its availability at a cost
within our means.
Third. The conferees also made several Mr. President, i have dwelled at length
changes in the language contained in on these last four issues, on which the
the Senate bill pertaining to Department Senate view did not prevail, because I
of Defense funding of its contractors' regard them as issues which cannot be
independent technical efforts program. allowed to fade into oblivion at this time.
The most significant change made was We will hear more about each of them, I
an elimination of the $625 million overall am sure, during the course of next year's
ceiling contained in the Senate bill, budget cycle.
Whether the elimination of this ceil- The R. & D. subcommittee has focused
ing bodes well or ill, only time will d
t
e- on
hese issues, Mr. President, not
-
e magnitude of the tanker costs termine. I have no doubt that the ceil- solely-or even primarily-out of a desire
s likely to be associated ultimately with ing, had it been retained, would have to effect large dollar reductions in our
the B-1 program. My concern in this saddled the Defense Department with a overall defense spending. If this were
significant new administrative . I the obj regard had been awakened by the re- have no doubt either, however bthat the far moreereadilylandttivithlfarele sachieved
work
quest of the Air Force, in its initial ceiling could have been satisfactorily ad- simply by calling for a broad spending
mandate to the executive branch to~ a
muted statement of an incontestable ba-
sic principle.
Basic scientific research is essential to
the long-range security and prosperity
of our country. Continual concern with
the course of our national science policy
will be required of all Members of Con-
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE October 1, 19','U
lash. its implementation to be discre-
ionary with the Defense Department.
But while our defense spending must
.,e reduced, it must be reduced wisely, in
manner which will assure us an ade-
hate national defense. And the secret
',f such a defense--to a very large de-
?ree-depends less on the amount of
:!ione,N we spend than how we choose to
;pond it. If we choose wisely, I think we
!ii make further reductions in our pres-
rnt defense budget which will not jeop-
ardize one whit our vital national inter-
t'sts. But if we chose poorly, we could
actually endanger our security while in-
(creasing defense spending.
T fear that too much attention has
been focused in recent years on the sire
of our defense budget and too little on
the composition of it. To an extent, this
is the natural aftermath of our frustra-
tion with the Vietnam war and our new-
found tendency to question and even dis-
trust the military.
But understandable as this tendency
may be, it is also dangerous. We still live
in a hostile world environment, as recent
Soviet activities in the Middle East and
Cuba demonstrate only too well. It would
be wishful thinking of the worst sort to
assume that we do not need a strong de-
fense posture in order to meet this threat.
A fully adequate defense posture at
the minimum reasonable cost-this has
been and will be the goal to which the
R. & D. subcommittee is devoted. We
will continue to probe strongly at de-
fense programs of questionable merit,
knowing that hard decisions are neces-
sary and that when their real cost im-
plications are recognized, we cannot hope
to support all the programs now In the
It. & D. pipeline. But we will not hesi-
tate either to defend those pipeline pro-
g;ranms which on their completion we will
badly need.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I would
like to make clear that the disappoint-
ments I have just expressed are In no
way a reflection on the leadership pro-
vided in conference by the distinguished
chairman of our committee I Mr. S'rEN-
vrsa. The Senator from Mississippi had
an arduous and difficult task which. as
always, tie performed quite admirably.
He argued long and hard for the Sen-
ate position on each of the important
issues which I have just discussed. He
could not reasonably hope, any more
than I could, to prevail on all of the
issues on which the Senate had stated
its case. And when the pressures of
time loom large, the advantage always
lies on the side of those who seek a
;,reservation of the status quo. I am sure
that my chairman remains. as I am,
dedicated to the task of an even better
cilor-t in the year ahead.
Mr. MANSFIELD- Mr. President. will
the Senator yield?
Mr. McINTYRE. I yiela.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
cvant to commend the distinguished Sen-
ator from New Hampshire for the out-
tanding work he has done in the sub-
ccanrnittee having to do with research
and development. I know how meticu-
lous, how careful, how conscientious, how
patriotic he has been, and I just want
to state for the RECORD how much I ad-
mire his integrity and his dedication.
I also want to thank the distinguished
chairman of the committee, who has
worked long and hard, who also has been
very meticulous In his application, who
has established new procedures through
the setting up of subcommittees to con-
sider certain importantareas specifically
and in detail.
Under the chairmanship of the distin-
guished Senator from Mississippi since
he has assumed that responsibility, we
have seen decided cuts in the budget
proposals made by the administration
and more time spent in hearing witnesses
and carrying on surveys and making
inquiries.
As far as I am concerned, I am going
to vote for the conference report. Na-
turally, I am disappointed In what hap-
pened on the research and development
amendment. I blame no one for it. The
effort has not ended and I still expect
that we will be more successful and bring
about an alinement not only in what Is
necessary for military and scientific de-
velopment-and a lot of it is-but also
in that which can be allocated to the
National Science Foundation and other
civilian agencies engaged in basic re-
search, in that way carrying out the basic
purposes and intent of Congress, as I am
sure all my colleagues in this Chamber
will agree.
Again, my sincere thanks to the dis-
tinguished Senator from New Hampshire
and also the distinguished Senator from
Mississippi, chairman of the committee,
as well as all members of the commit-
tee. who, I think have worked so dili-
gently on this matter.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. -President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President. the Sen-
ator from New Hampshire has the floor;
has he not?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator relinquished the floor.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, just
one question.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I yield
to the Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. PROXMIRE. This will take only
a minute or two.
Mr. President, I have discussed the
possibility of providing for a line item
authorization for independent research
and development. I realize the difficulty,
but I am very hopeful that the ingenuity
of the Senator from Mississippi and his
committee will find a way to do that.
I ask the Senator if it would be pos-
sible to line-Item the entire bill, weapon
by weapon and item by item. I know that
the chairman of the committee (Mr.
S,YENNIS) inquired of the Defense De-
partment about writing a bill in line-
item fashion some time ago, but the De-
fense Department said that under their
current accounting system, it would cre-
ate a hardship to immediately impose a
line-item bill upon them.
But I wonder if it would be possible to
look forward, perhaps next year, to a
line-item bill, with weapons systems spe-
cified by line-item, similar to every other
authorization bill that we have before
the Senate. It seems to me this would
give us far greater opportunity for effec-
tive oversight, by enabling us to pick ip
the various weapons systems and discuss
what we wanted to do with reference to
specific amounts.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President in
response to the Senator from Wiscon-
sin-and I have to be brief, because oth-
ers want the floor-he has certainly cor-
rectly stated the situation. I wish we
could have a line item system also: but I
am convinced that the line item system
would not be as simplified as it is in the
ordinary bill, or as the Senator from Wis-
consin might think.
The preparation of the bill is tied to
this accounting system, as the Secre-
tary of Defense has now made it clear,
and it would require some time to make a
change. But as a substitute, we de-
liberately set out, in effect, to give every
Senator a line item lead and line item
information in the testimony and in the
committee report; and I think we have
made some considerable headway on
that. This we expect to continue to do,
and will follow it up even further next
year.
Our report this year, just by quick
reference, was 121 pages in length, and
had many, many pages of these itemized,
detailed dollar amounts spelled out, not
only for this year but for last year's pro-
gram.
Mr. PROXMIRE. The report was very
helpful and highly competent, but I, once
again, want to emphasize the fact that
there is no substitute for a line-item
bill. I think this would afford much bet-
ter possibilities for effective oversight,
and I do hope that the Senator will work
with the Defense Department along that
line. I realize they have an accounting
problem, but this is giving them a notice
of 6 or 8 months, and I would think they
could adjust their acounting system in
that length of time and present a line-
item bill, so that Congress can do its
proper job, which is to control the purse.
This is, after all, by far the biggest and
most important authorization bi'.1 we
have.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I am
hopeful something can be done along
that line. It would be helpful to the Sen-
ate, without question.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President. I am
confident that the conference committee
brought in an excellent report. It is not
everything the Senate wanted, and not
everything the House wanted. A con-
ference report is generally a compromise.
Iii order to save time, I ask unanimous
consent that a brief statement by me be
printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the state-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT BY SENATOR STROM THUItMOND
Mr. President, I rise in support of the
Conference Report on H.R. 17123 which au-
thorizes appropriations for Fiscal Year 1971
to cover the costs of military procurement
and research and development.
The conferees selected Rep. L. Mendel
Rivers, Chairman of the House Armed Serv-
ices Committee. as chairman of the con-
ference. The Senate conferees were headed by
our distinguished chairman, Mr. Stennis of
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
October 1, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
S 16933
Mississippi, and fought hard for the pro- a departure from the "full funding" concept ternative programs which might be under-
visions of the bill as approved by the Senate, to the "incremental funding" concept, it taken to make such an aircraft available.
Of course, Mr. President, it was not possible was unable to persuade the conferees that "In particular, we now believe it is desir-
for all of the provisions of the Senate bill this action would adversely affect procure- able to consider an appropriate aircraft the
to be upheld, but in my opinion we have ment or research and development of the South Vietnamese might use, as part of the
brought back to the Senate a good bill. Department. Therefore, the House accepted Vietnamization process, defending against
The bill, as agreed to In conference, totals the Senate action.
the potential North Vietnamese MIG threat."
,119.9 billion. This represents $676 million The various reductions in affected pro- In view of these M
.
1 ass -than the bill as it was presented to the grams had previously been outlined in the gress endorsed the circumstances, the ea t "
n requested the the
C_ngress by the Defense Department. Senate Report, No. 91-1016, and result in a
Mr. President, I urge the Senate to approve reduction in the authorizations provided for Department of Defense and provided the nec-
this legislation. In my opinion it represents departmental programs throughout titles I essary authority for the initiation of this
the bare minimum to preserve the national and II of the bill as agreed to by the vital program in fiscal year 1970. However,
security of this country. Frankly, the Con- conferees. despite the fact that the need for this type
gress is moving perilously close to crippling AIRCRAFT of aircraft has grown more acute, no final
cur military establishment. I just pray that Navy and Marine Co, ps action has yet been taken by the Department
we are doing enough in national defense, For the Navy, the House authorized $79 of Defense to go forward with this procure-
and that generations to come will not suffer ment action.
as the result of any mistakes which may be million for the procurement of the S-3A The c->nferees neither appreciate nor un-
made today in the area of military prepared- ASW aircraft. The Senate deleted all pro- derstaixd the "foot dragging" that is evi-
curement funds for the S-3A but provided dently taking place in both the Department
ness. a corresponding amount, $79 million, for re-
search and develo of Defense and the Air Force on this vital
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President. the pwent on the aircraft.
a rather complete statement setting out million to the procurement account. This It should not be necessary to point out
the then Vel'Siaj points, stating the out matter is discussed further below in the re- that the Nixon Doctrine for providing inde-
the of the conferees' ration on Navy re- pendent nations with the equipment and
tion of the House and the position of the search and development pr' grams, weapons necessary to guarantee their inde-
Senate, the final action taken, and the The Senate recedes, pendence, requires that we have available a
beginning on page 11 and ending on page authorization for appropriations made available at the earliest practicable date
for Fiscal iscal if we are to safely withdraw United States
33, I ask unanimous consent that that Year 1971 for an international fighter air- Forces now operating and maintaining our
portion of the report be printed in the craft. The Senate denied this request. How- own fighter aircraft in Southeast Asia. The
RECORD at this point. ever, after considerable discussion, the Sell- availability of this type of aircraft is, in the
There being no objection, the excerpt ate receded from its position and the con- view of the conferees a matter of the great-
from the conference report was ordered ferees restored the $30,000,000 authorization. eat urgency and should, in our national in-
to be printed confer the RECORD, as follows dere : The Congress, in the fiscal year 1970 weap- terest, be accomplished as expeditiously as
ens authorization law (Public Law 91-121) possible.
STATEMENT OF THE MANAGERS ON THE PART authorized to be appropriated $28,000,000 to
of THE HOUSE initiate procurement of a Free World fighter The conferees, therefore, in authorizing
The managers on the part of the House aircraft. The intention of the Congress was an. additional $30 million for this program,
at the conference on the disagreeing volts to make available a fighter aircraft to meet suggest and urge the Secretary of Defense to
of the two Houses on the amendment of the the needs of the Free World Forces in South- personally resolve whatever remaining prob-
Senate to the bill (H.R. 17123) to authorize east Asia, and to accelerate the withdrawal lems may have heretofore prevented the Air
appropriations during the fiscal year 1971 of United States Forces from South Vietnam Force from going forward with this procure-
for procurement of aircraft, missiles, naval and Thailand. ment action so that these aircraft can be
vessels, and tracked combat vehicles, and The statutory language authorizing the made available to our Free World allies .,
other weapons, and research, development, initiation of this procurement stipulated soon as humanly possible.
test, and evaluation for the Armed Forces, that the Air Force shall "prior to the ob- The conferees are unaware of any lexal or
and to prescribe the authorized personnel ligation of any funds appropriated pursuant procedural problem that would prevent the
strength of the Selected Reserve of each Re- to this authorization, conduct a competition Secretary of Defense from reaching a final
serve component of the Armed Forces and for the aircraft which shall be selected on decision on this procurement action. There-
far other purposes, submit the following the basis of the threat as evaluated and de- fore, it is expected that such a decision will
statement in explanation of the effect of the termined by the Secretary of Defense." be forthcoming from the Secretarv without
action agreed upon by the conferees and rec- The conferees, in taking this action last further delay,
ommended in the accompanying conference year, emphasized their support of the re- MISSILES
report: quest of the Deputy Secretary of Defense
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT that "necessary adjustments" be made in Army
Prior-year funds "the military procurement authorization bill The House bill in its authorization of
Included in the Department of Defense in order to permit the Department of De- funds for procurement of missiles for the
fiscal year de in the at re of D ease fense to proceed expeditiously with the de- Army provided $660.4 million for the SAFE-
velopment of a new Free World fighter air- GUARD antiballistic missile system. The
items Identified as "Prior Programs to be craft by the Air Force."
House authorization included $25 million for
Justified" involving both procurement and R.D.T. & E. accounts for each of the several The Secretary of Defense, at that time, also the advance preparation of five site for the
c Senate
Modified Services and Defense Agencies. emphasized his conviction that this type of bill provided $650.4 II d i l ion for. rroThe
The bill as passed by the House of Repre- aircraft should be made available as quickly for or provided SAFEGUARD and added laprecis enrch
sentatives deleted the $334,800,000 of new as possible to Free World Forces when he prohibits the nd ad addefundg for in-
authorization
authorization requested by the Departments said, Itiating deployment of of funds for in-
these various older programs. The Senate "For some time the Department of De- sale system at s any site f antiballistic man
concurred in the House action in denying fense has been studying the issues incident Air Force Base, an s otth her than xct Whiteman
the Department's new request for new au- to the development of an improved rnterna- Air Kthorizedr, for initiating ad-
could a authorized
an a for llic ode
thorization in the amount of $334,800,000. tional Fighter Aircraft. Such an aircraft vance funds
However, In addition to concurring with the should (a) have adequate capabilities to system preparation site for Francis an Warren antiballistic Force
House action, the Senate was of the view handle the existing threat, (b) be as in- Base, Cheyenne, Wyo. The Senate r Foe
provision
that the Department of Defense had failed expensive as feasible, and (c) be simple to specified that it was was not not to be construed as
to identify or rejustify these various prior maintain and operate. When the military a limitation on further obligation or expen-
year programs for which these amounts had budget was presented to Congress earlier diture of funds in connection with the con-
previously been made available but not yet this year, the Department of Defense con- tinued deployment of the ABM system at
obligated. Further, it was established that sideration of the issues involved had not Grand Forks Air Force Base, N. Dak., or
these unobligated funds would not be used proceeded sufficiently to justify making a Malmstrom Air Force Base, Great Falls,
until some time after Fiscal Year 1971, request for resources to meet the objectives Mont., the two sites where deployment was
In view of these circumstances, the Senate cited. commenced under the authority of the fiscal
in addition to agreeing with the House re- "Our continuing review over the past few 1970 authorization and will be continued
duction, also reduced the requested new ob- months, however, has validated the objec- under the authorization in the present bill.
ligational authority by the same amount in tives, and a draft concept for an Interna- - The Senate language in effect prohibits the
view of the availability of these prior year tional Fighter Aircraft has been completed, advance preparation for four sites as author-
funds for use during fiscal year 1971. The concept highlights, inter alia, the utility ized by the House bill and limits the de-
Although the Department of Defense ob- our allies, particularly in the Asian theater, ployment of the Safeguard system to the
jected to this Senate action as representing might find for a new fighter aircraft and al- protection of strategic missile deterrent, The
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
 S 16934
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE October 1, 1970
senate conferees were adamant in their posi-
tion.
in accepting the Senate amendment, the
House conferees want to make very clear
;rod to emphasize their belief that adequate
protection of the national command and
control funcilon is essential to our security,
and the House conferees Interpret the con-
ference action as not prohibiting follow-on
studies of present and future programs to
assure the survivability of this vital clement
of our national defense.
section 401 of the Senate bill included au-
thorization for military construction in con-
nection with the Safeguard system in the
amount of $334 million, of which $8.8 million
is for 400 units of family housing (200 at
Maimstrom and 200 at Grand Fork:.). $322
million for Safeguard-related construction
at the approved Safeguard sites and other
installations, and $3.2 million for construc-
[ton at Kwalalefn. The House bill contained
no such construction authorization. However
the House has already approved identical
dollar amounts for military construction in
connection with Safeguard in its passage of
the military construction authorization bill,
H.R. 17604. Therefore, the House recedes.
The House bill authorized $90.3 million or
procurement of the Improved Hawk missile.
The Senate bill reduced the authorization
for the Improved Hawk to 853.3 m,lllon. a
reduction of $37 million. The conferees agreed
to an authorization of $81.4 million, a res-o-
ration of $28.1 million of the proposed Sen-
ate reduction.
The Senate reduction would have deleted
all of the funds for procurement of missiles
during fiscal 1971, leaving only the funds
for continued modification of ground-sup-
port equipment and separate engineer-rig
services.
Such action might well have resulted in
a 6-month break in production. with added
program costs. At the urging of the House
conferees. therefore, the Senate agreed to
the restoration of the $28.1 million, which
is consistent with the Army's requirements
under a revised procurement plan which a ills
for a stretchout of the Initial production
rate to reduce concurrency to the minimum.
In agreeing to the restoration of these
funds. it Is the intention of the conferees that
the procurement for the fiscal 1971 buy not
be consummated until the successful com-
pletion of a testing program to ensure the
operational readiness of the missile subject
to the approval of the Secretary of Defense.
In its request for missile funding the
Army Included an amount of $100 million for
the Tow which is one of the Arm'''s heavy
antitank weapons. `Ihe Army has in its
inventory another heavy antitank weapon
sive reevaluation of the Tow and Shillelagh by the President with the exception of the
systems for the infantry and helicopter roles. aforementioned CVAN-70 funds which were
The results of this review established to the deleted by the Senate.
satisfaction of the Army that each of these The additional ship construction items
weapons should be continued in their pros- authorized by the House bill were designated
ently developed modes. Therefore, at the re- by the Secretary of Defense as the first pri-
quest of the Senate conferees, the House re- orlty should additional funds be made avail-
cedes arum its provisional approval of the able by the Congress for the Departmen'. of
$106 million for a heavy antitank weapon Defense.
and agrees to authorize that amount for Tow The House conferees were able to convince
funding. the Senate conferees of the necessity for .his
Nary and Marine Carus additional ship construction program in
The House bill authorized $52.7 million for view of the critical state of the Navy, and
the procurement of the Sparrow missile for this additional $435 million was therefore
the Navy. The Senate bill authorized $46 retained in the bill.
milllon, a reduction of $6.7 million. The Senate recedes.
The House recedes. The House bill Included language which
The House bill authorized $25.6 million for would have required that $600 million of
the arocurement of the Improved Hawk the funds authorized for Naval vessels would
missile for the Marine Corps. The Senate bill be authorized to be appropriated only for
authorized $10.8 million, a reduction of $14.8 expenditure In Naval shipyards. The Senate
million. The missile is procured for the bill contained no such provision. In view of
Marine Corps by the Army. In view of the the fact that the Department of Defense ,-rd
recently revised procurement program under the Navy strongly objected that the limita-
which the Army is proceeding. procurement tion was unworkable. the Conference C 3m-
of the Improved Hawk missiles for the Marine ml*tee agreed to eliminate this provision.
Cos could not be reasonably expected to The House recedes.
p'' The House bill included a provision that
fore. fomm siencence it t appeared u weainto that t monone.ey There - would no funds should be spent for shipbuilding
not actually be required until 1972 for the until the National Security has made itt, re-
Marine Corps the House conferees agreed to port to the President with respect to the nu-
the Senate position. clear attack aircraft carrier CVAN-70. The
Senate bill had no such provision. In view
The Hous recedes. of the elimination of the funds for the art-
Air Force crrc^ procurement for the CVAN-70, there
The House bill eliminated all procurement is no further necessity for this provision.
fund.-, for the Maverick missile and called The House recedes.
for extending the development phase for an- The House bill Included a provision that
other year to allow further development would require the construction of the new
prior to procurement. The Senate restored DD-963 class destroyer at the facilities of at
$3.1 million of the House reduction. The least two different United States shipbuilders.
23.1 million will allow retaining present con- The Senate bill had no such provision. The
tract options and the production price ad- addition of this language was designed to
vantages of the current contract while addi- make the Navy aware of the Congressional
tional testing is performed. Intent that the private shipbuilding Indus-
The House recedes. try be encouraged on the Atlantic Coast, the
Tile House bill authorized $15 million in Gulf Coast and the Pacific Coast. The Senate
procurement funds for modification of the conferees were adamant in their opposition
Falcoih missile. The Senate bill had denied to this provision.
the 415 million. The conferee-,: agreed to a The House recedes.
restoration of $6 million. Tracked combat vehicles
Naval Vessels The M60A1E2 tank is a modification of the
The House included $152 million for the ModAl. This modification consists primarily
advance procurement of the third Nimitz- of a new turret and barrel which permits the
class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier firing of the Shillelagh missile and the 152mm
(CVAN-70). The Senate bill deleted these caseless round. This is the same basic fire-
funds because the President in submitting p.,wer to be Incorporated In the Main Battle
the budget indicated that funds would not Tank presently being developed.
he obligated until completion of a study in The Army has invested more than a quarter
process to assess future requirements fur at- of a billion dollars in the f60A1E2 develop-
tack carriers. The Conference Committee re- nuent and the program has been plagued
affirmed the findings of a Joint House-Senate with prablems of stability and maintaina-
Subrommittee on CVAN-70 that this new biiity for the past five years. However, recent
(the ShillelaRli mlEsile) which, in range and carrier is needed. However, because of the test results suggest that fixes for these prob-
lethality, is equal to or superior to the 'l'ow singular treatment of this carrier in the lens have been found, and that this c.in be
and is presently to production at a price President's budget message by making a finally determined by the Engineering and
less than the Tow. Although the Shillelagh condition of the building of the carrier de- Service Testing which the Army has s-hed-
seas developed to be fired from tanks, It pendent upon the outcome of a study being used for the near future.
The Senate deleted the
32.1 million which
ue of ini.intry troops or to a iieliiwrne ell and because the Administration, despite the Army requested this year to continue the
mode. many pieces, has failed to make a final
deer- Committee felt that if this lion cn the carrier, the Conference decided
c:riaptatlon could be accomplished within a not to include the advance procurement for have ended the program just when there is
reason to believe that it may prove success-
bill
.
reasonable timefranie and at an ,tcceptible the CVAN-70 in tills years authorization
ravings in resent and s is without prejudice to any action in `ul. The House conferees felt that such i?etion
ccst, it would result in an eventual signiricant 'I-hi
future rocuremrnt 7s-Auld result in the loss of almost a quarter
p futrire tears. or a billion dollars plus five years of effort
crf such a weapon. 'i herefore. the e Committee The House recedes. and might deny the Army an Interim missile
:approved an amount of $106 mirilon, not The Huse added on to the Naval vessel
:.pecilically for the 'low, but for a heavy anti- construction request of the President an ad- firing tank which it states It urgently needs
tank weapon, provided the Army (1) con- ditlonal $435 million for new construction pending the deployment of the new Main
ciuc.ed tests to determine the adaptability of for the Navy. These additional funds will Battle Tank during the late seventies and
the Shillelagh to the Infantry and heliborne provide: one fast submarine (SSN-688 early eighties. Therefore, at the request of
modes. and (2) if affirmative results were clash. $166 niilfion: long lead time procure- the House conferees the Senate conferees
,,i)tained. awarded a contract for the Army's merit for an additional such submarine receded from their position and the $12.1
halal requirement for such missiles to the $22.5 million; one submarine tender, $102 million was restored. However, it was the de-
-W bidder in a competition between the pro- trillion: one destroyer tender. 8103 miiion: c-sicn of the conferees that there should be
dicers of the Tow and the producers of the two oceanographic research ships, $7.5 mil- no further funding of the M60AIE2 unless
Shillelagh. lion: and landing crafts. $10 million and the En;'.neering and Service Testing to be
Although the Army did not perform the service craft, $24 million. The Senate bill io.;nipleted in 1971 establishes that the fixes
aforesaid tests, they advised the Committee contained no such additions but approved proposed for this tank meet the needs of
that they had conducted a special :.nd in ten- a Naval construction program as requested the Army.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
October 1, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE
The Army requested $67.6 million for fiscal
1971 for M60A1 procurement. The Senate
reduced that amount by $10.9 million which
represents the cost of 150 tank chasses which
was expected to be recoverable from the
M60A1E2 program which would have been
terminated by the Senate action discussed
above.
With the restoration of the M60A.1E2 pro-
gram by the conferees, the 150 tank chasses
were no longer available,for the M60A1 pro-
gram. Therefore, at the request of the House
conferees, the $10.9 million was.restored.
The Senate recedes.
The House approved a Marine Corps request
in the amount of $1.3 million for a training
device to be used in connection with a new
amphibious vehicle under development. Sub-
sequently, the Marine Corps recommended
deferral of this $1.3 million because develop-
ment of the training device has not been
completed. Therefore, the Senate deleted this
amount and the House conferees agreed to
such deletion for the above-stated reason.
Other weapons
The House bill contained a provision that
none of the funds authorized shall he obli-
gated for the procurement of M-16 rifles until
the Secretary of the Army has certified to
the Congress that at least three active pro-
duction sources will continue to be available
in the United States during fiscal year 1971.
The Senate bill contained no such provision.
The Senate conferees agreed to the posi-
tion of the House with the understanding
that in the coming year, both Houses will
give attention to developing permanent
policy looking beyond fiscal year 1971 on the
question of having an adequate industrial
capacity for meeting procurement require-
ments of this kind, taking into account con-
tingencies that might arise.
TITLE II--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
General
Both the Senate and House modified the
Research and Development budget request
submitted by the Department of Defense.
The original request of the Department of
Defense totaled $7,401,600,000. The conferees
agreed upon $7,101,600,000, or a reduction of
$300 million below the amount requested by
the Department of Defense. The amount
agreed upon is $164 million less than that
previously approved by the House and is
$164.1 million above the amount recom-
mended by the Senate.
ARMY
For the Army, the conferees agreed upon a
total of $1,635,600,000. This reflects a reduc-
tion of $100,300,000 below the departmental
request and is $10 million less than was au-
thorized by the Congress last year.
In its initial consideration, the House re-
duced the Army Research and Development
authorization by $88 million, leaving flexi-
bility with the Department of Defense to ap-
ply the reductions on the basis of military
priorities.
The Senate, in its review, reduced the
Army authorization by $126.7 million, speci-
fying reductions to be taken in some sixteen
projects. The specific program reductions are
spelled out in the Senate Report (No. 91-
1016). The conferees agreed to accept the
Senate reductions on all of these projects ex-
cept the Cheyenne helicopter and the SAM-D
In issile.
In the case of the Cheyenne, the Senate
receded from its po:?ii.ion and restored the
full $17.6 million r?er'uested by the Depart-
ment.
For the Sam-D, the Senate receded on
$8.8 million of the $15 million in disagree-
ment. The conferees authorized appropria-
tions totaling $83.1 million for the Sam-D
program.
Close Air Support--Roles and Missions
During the conference It was brought to
the attention of the conferees that a roles
and missions question has arisen concerning
close air support for the Army. The allega-
tion has been made that there is competition
for this mission between the Harrier air-
craft, the Cheyenne helicopter and the pro-
posed AX aircraft. The House conferees want
to make their position perfectly clear and
state unequivocally that they see no com-
petition among these aircraft. The House
conferees agree with the decision of the
Deputy Secretary of Defense that these
weapon systems are complementary and not
competitive.
Main Battle Tank (MBT-70)
While not an item in disagreement, the
House conferees are concerned about the
austere support proposed by the Army for
the gas turbine engine development for the
Main Battle Tank (MBT-70/XM803). The
proposed engine program for this tank of the
future supports a "derated" diesel engine.
Diesel engines of the type being developed
for this important weapon system are based
on technologies of the 1950's, or early 1960's,
rather than the technology of this decade.
The House conferees question the wisdom
of relying on past technology for weapons
systems of the future rather than capitaliz-
ing on the latest technology available and
that which offers greater growth potential in
the future. For this reason, the House con-
ferees strongly urge the Army to proceed
with the development of the gas turbine
engine for the Main Battle Tank on a basis
at least equal to that of the derated diesel
engine development program.
NAVY AND MARINE. CORPS
The conferees agreed on $2,156,300,000. This
amount is $56 million below the Depart-
mental request and is $41 million below
the amount previously recommended by the
House.
In its report, the Senate identified some
thirteen programs for adjustment. In the
case of the S-3A aircraft, $79 million sub-
mitted in the Procurement authorization re-
quest was transferred to Research and De-
velopment because the two aircraft which
the funds would buy are required initially
for development and test. The Senate ex-
pressed concern that . concurrency of
research and development and procurement
is to be avoided, and that a more orderly
progression is to be achieved to insure that
technical problems have been minimized by
the time production is started."
The conferees agreed to leave the $79 mil-
lion in the Procurement authorization with
the clear understanding that these two air-
craft were to be treated as Research and
Development test aircraft and the action is
no to be interpreted as approval for release
to production of the S-3A aircraft.
The conferees urge that the Secretary of
Defense consider the use of the transfer au-
thority to transfer $79 million for the S-3A
from Procurement to the R.D.T. & E. ap-
propriation consistent with the use of these
funds.
Of the remaining 12 programs adjusted by
the Senate, the conferees agreed to restore
the following amounts to the programs in-
dicated:
Millions
Defense research sciences ----------- -$2.3
Destroyer helicopter system --------- +5. 0
F-14B/C -------------------------- +5.2
Air launched/surface launched anti-
ship missile (Harpoon) ----------- -14.0
Point defense system development__ +3.8
Advanced surface ship sonar develop-
ment --------------------------- +,7
Surface effect ships________________ x-10.0
The funds restored for the F-14 aircraft
program are to support the development of
the advanced technology engine and are not
to be used for the development of the avi-
onics package for the F-14C aircraft,
S 16935
AIR FORCE
For the Air Force, the conferees agreed on
an authorization totaling $2,806,900,000. This
reflects a reduction of $120,800,000 from the
amount requested by the Department of De-
fense. The amount agreed upon by the con-
ferees is $102.8 million below that previously
authorized by the House,
The Senate, in its report, identified six-
teen programs for reduction in authorization
amounts. The conferees agreed to restore all
or portions of the reductions on ten programs
as follows:
Millions
Innovations in education and
training -------------------------
1-$0.2
Advanced fire control/missile tech-
nology --------------------------
+2.8
Subsonic cruise armed decoy (SCAD) _
-1-10. 0
Advanced tanker-------------------
+.5
B-i -------------------------------
-{-25.0
F-111 squadrons____________________
+6.4
Short range air-to-air missile --------
+5. 0
Minuteman rebasing_______________
---27.0
Armament/ordnance development_ _ _
+7. 0
Truck interdiction__________________
+5. 0
During the past year, there has been -wide-
spread criticism, discussion and debate con-
cerning the schedule slippages and cost over-
runs of military hardware contracts. While
some of the criticism has been justified, it is
important for everyone to obtain a better
understanding of some of the reasons why
cost overruns sometimes occur and by rea-
sons beyond the control of the parties im-
mediately concerned.
The contract that best serves both the pub-
lic and contractor interest is that one which
is funded at a rate which produces the maxi-
mum return for each dollar spent. When a
contract is funded at either a greater or
lesser level than the optimum, waste in-
evitably results and that waste is accompa-
nied by schedule slippage. That is the begin-
ning of the cost overrun.
Thus, in the case of the B-i, the House
supported a Defense Department recom-
mended funding level of $100 million for
fiscal year 1971. That sum was reduced to $50
million by the Senate. In spite of urging by
the House conferees, the Senate conferees did
not agree to the restoration of the full sum.
Thus the seeds of cost overrun have now been
sown in this weapons system and the House
conferees, therefore, give fair warning of this
unfortunate fact.
The $6.4 million for the F-111 had been
deleted by the Senate because these funds
had been identified for use on the AIM-70
missile, which was later determined not to
be required in fiscal year 1971. The Senate
agreed to restore these funds to support de-
velopment of the r-111 Aircraft.
In the case of the Short Range Air-to-Air
Missile, a total of $13 million was agreed upon
by the conferees to be authorized. This
amount will enable the Air Force to pursue
three alternatives to meet their requirement
resulting from the recent Air Force cancella-
tion of the AIM-82 program.
The Senate Conferees agreed to the full
restoration of $27 million for Minuteman re-
basing with the understanding that the re-
oriented program would exclude efforts pre-
viously planned for hard rock development.
In the case of Armament/Ordnance Devel-
opment, the Secretary of Defense advised
that technical difficulty has precluded devel-
mopment of the Hard Structure Munition in
Fiscal Year 1971 but that the funds would be
applied to other munitions development. The
Senate conferees agreed to restore these
funds upon the redirection of this program,
DEFENSE AGENCIES
For Defense Agencies, the conferees agreed
on an authorization totaling $452,800,000.
This amount is $22.9 million less than that
requested by the Department of Defense and
is $7.9 million below the amount previously
recommended by the House.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
 S 16936
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE October 1, 1970
In its earlier rcpcr, , the Senate Identified
several program areas for reduction. The
conferees agreed to restore $7.8 million of
these reductions to the Advanced Research
Projects Agency (ARPA1. This restoration of
authorization would be applied to the De-
fense Research Sciences program in the
amount of $4.8 million and to the Advanced
Engineering Program in the amount of $3
million.
Independent Research and Development
The Senate adopted language in Section
203 which provided for the following:
ia) Restricted payments to contractors for
independent research and development
iIR&D). bidding and proposal (S&P) and
other technical effort (OTEI work which is
relevant to Defense functions and operations.
(b) Required negotiation of advance
agreements with all contractors who received
more than i:2 million in IR&D, B&P. or 01'E
In their last preceding year.
i ci Required that negotiations of ad-
vance agreements be based on submitted
plans and a technical evaluation of the
IR&D portion of these agreements.
idj in the event negotiations are held with
any company required to enter into an ad-
vance agreement, but no agreement is
reached, reimbursement would be made in an
amount substantially less than the contrac-
r.or otherwise would have been entitled to
receive.
(e) The Department of Defense was- re-
quired to report to Congress with regard to
Iit&D. B&P and OTE expenditures.
if) Established a ceiling of $625 million on
payments to be made pursuant to advance
agreements negotiated under the act, and
(q) Repeal of Section 403 of the fiscal year
1970 act which limited payments for IR&D,
B&P and OTE to 93 percent of the total cost
contemplated by the Department.
The House version of the bill contained no
comparable language.
Early this year a House Armed Services
Subcommittee held hearings and Issued a re-
port on IR&D. The Subcommittee concluded
that the control of defense expenditures for
IR&D, B&P and, OTE could be achieved
through improved administration. coupled
with adequate oversight, rather than through
legislation. The recommendations of the
Subcommittee were similar to the Senate inn-
g cage with the exception of the establish-
ment of a ceiling and the section regarding
relevancy.
The Senate conferees maintained that
greater congressional oversight was necessary
to assure adequate controls over governmen-
tal payments for IR&D, B&P and OTE to de-
fense contractors. The House conferees ac-
ceded to the Senate where the language coin-
cided with its subcommittee recommenda-
tions- However, in the opinion of the House
conferees, specific ceilings on the total DOD
reimbursement and the language with re-
apect to relevancy were not acceptable.
t'ontrol through restrictive congressional
r?'ilings
The provisions of the Senate language es-
tablished a ceiling of $625 million for the
DOD reimbursement of IR&D. B&P and OTE
costs to approximately 50 major contractors
and was applicable to payments under cost
type contracts only. The House conferees
considered this provision as a line Item in
the authorizing procedure. During its hear-
inge, it was established that such a line Item
provision was administratively impractical.
Moreover, upon examination of the computa-
tion of the Senate ceiling amount, in the
view of House conferees, It was found that
it was, at best: an arbitrary amount, and
there were questions as to the relationship
of the ceiling with costs incurred by the
affected contractors and contracts. The Sen-
ate conferees conceded to the House position
and the language related to the establish-
ment of a ceiling was deleted.
Relevancy
The House conferees agreed with the basic
aim of the Senate language which required
that paymente should be made only for
TR&D, B&P and OTE that was related to de-
pertinent functions or operations. However.
with respect to baste research conducted as
IR&D it cannot always be directly related
to a DOD operation or function. Basic re-
search is that type of research which Is di-
rected toward increase of knowledge in aci-
euce rather than an application to a specific
product. The development of such funda-
nieut.,I achievements In science is vital to
niilit:ry research and national interests. The
House conferees were of the opinion that the
relevancy phrase in the Senate language
woufci unduly Inhibit the conduct of needed
basic research. The conferees agreed to delete
the rirference to relevancy and substitute the
words in the opinion of the Secretary of
Defense, a potential relationship to a mili-
tary function or operation" to assure a broad
interpretation of the relationship of basic
re. eax car w military requirements.
Other Technical Effort (OTE)
The conferees agreed to eliminate legisla-
tive references to OTE because of the lack
of anecific definition of this category of cost.
TheeT)enartment in its testimony before the
House Subcommittee on TR&D stated that
OTB as a category of cost would no longer
he used and that greater efforts would be
mute to correctly classify "OTE" costs as
TR&l) or B&P, or otherwise In the negotiation
of soreements or and contracts.
Relevancy of Research to DOD Activities
Section 204 of the Senate 13111 provided
language identical to that contained In the
flees; year 1970 procurement act. It required
that, research would be conducted only on
wJrk having a direct and apparent relation-
ship to a specific military function or oper-
a t ion.
The House version of the bill contained no
comparable provision this year. After consid-
ering the findings in the House Subcommit-
tee Report on R. & D., it was unanimously
concluded that a comparable section should
rr.n ue included because of the adverse im-
p:ict 01 narrow interpretations of relevancy
in the conduct of basic research. Accord-
ingly. House conferees maintained that the
criteria of "direct and apparent relation-
shtpti" should not be used as a determining
factor in the support of basic research efforts
of contractors, universities, or non-profit
institutions. However, the conferees agreed
that applied research should have a demon-
etrable relevance to a military requirement.
The Senate agreed to delete the phrase
"dirt-et and apparent relationship" and sub-
stitute "in the opinion of the Secretary of
Defense, a potential relationship" to offer
greaser assurance that basic research activi-
ties may be conducted to provide the broad-
c:.t bcxiy of scientific knowledge to support
future military needs.
Ititerageiicy Council on Domestic Applies-
Lions of Defense Research
The Senate amendment contained a pro-
vtaton in Section 205 which, If enacted, would
have established an interagency advisory
councii to be known as the Interagency
Advisory Council on Domestic Applications
of Defense Research. The Council was to be
composed of eight members of various gov-
ernmentai departments, which would have
the objective to encourage and support coop-
erative Department of Defense-domestic re-
search Projects.
The house bill contained no comparable
provision.
The House conferees pointed out that there
appears to be no need for a statutory council
of this type in view of the existence of the
reeesarch coordinating mechanisms or the
existing Federal Council for Science and
Technology and, In particular, the Depart-
meat of Defense-domestic agency study
group formed under the Federal Council to
accomplish this particular objective. The
House conferees also pointed out that no
hearings had been conducted by the House
Committee on Armed Services on this par-
ticular provision and therefore were unwill-
ing to accept the Senate language without a
more persuasive justification of a regtdre-
ment for the creation of this new statutory
body.
The Senate therefore reluctantly receded
from its position and agreed to delete Sec-
tion 205.
Permissive Authority for Research on Single
Reentry Systems for Minuteman III and
Poseidon
206 of the Senate bill provided
Section
permissive authority for the Secretary of
Defense to initiate a program of research on
it single reentry vehicle system for Minute-
man III and Poseidon. The section provided
no additional funds but stipulated the funds
would be transferred from other projects,
The House bill contained no such prowls Ion.
The Senate recedes.
Increase in the Level of Domestic Research
Effort
The Senate amendment included a pro-
vision as section 207 expressing the sense of
('nneress that an increase in government
support of basic scientific research Is neces-
sary to preserve and strengthen the Nation's
technology base. which in turn is essential
both to the protection of the national se-
curity and the solution of unmet domestic
requirements.
The resolution further provided ths.t a
larger share of the increased support that
should be forthcoming should be provided
through the National Science Founda'ion.
The language of the Senate provision also
stipulated that the National Science Foun-
dation should be provided with a 20'.;, in-
crease in the amount of research funds
made available to It for the fiscal year be-
ginning July 1, 1971.
The House bill contained no comparable
provision.
The House conferees were generally sym-
pathetic to the objectives reflected in the
sense of Congress provision on domestic, re-
search effort. However, the House conferees
pointed out that this matter had not been
the subject of House Committee hearings,
and therefore was not a matter on which
the House members were prepared to act. The
Hose conferees. however, were sympathetic
to the objectives of this provision, and tl_ere-
fore agreed to accept the Senate language
with an amendment reflecting the House
position.
Reports To Be Submitted on Request to
Senate and -House Committees
Section 208 of the Senate bill contained
language requiring agencies of the Federal
Government to submit to the House and
Senate Committees on Armed Services and
the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and
the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,
a copy of any report, study, or investigftion
requested by such committee if the report,
study, or investigation was financed in whole
or In part with Federal funds and was pre-
pared by a person outside the Federal Gov-
ernment. The only exception provided by
the language of the Senate section would be
with respect to the exercise of Executive
Privilege by the President. The House bill
contained no such provision.
While conferees of both houses agreed that
a greater effort was advisable in the sur-
ve'llance of reports prepared by outside per-
sons or agencies financed by the Department
of Defense, it was agreed that the language
of the section is unnecessary as a means of
obtaining compliance with requests for
c:--pies of reports and studies.
The Senate recedes.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
October 1, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
TITLE III-RESERVE FORCES
The House bill provided that for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1971, the Selected Re-
serve of the Coast Guard Reserve would be
programmed to attain an average strength of
not less than 16,590. The corresponding sec-
tion of the Senate bill provided for an aver-
age strength of the Coast Guard Reserve of
15,000.
The minimum Coast Guard Selected Re=
serve strength required to carry out early
response wartime missions is 16,590, as deter-
mined by the Coast Guard's "Force Analysis
Study" and discussed in detail in House Re-
port No. 91-1022. Budgetary limitations have
forced a reduction in the actual Selected
Reserve strength from approximately 17,000
to a current level of about 15,000. The budget
request of $25.9 million for fiscal year 1971,
and recruiting and training capabilities, will
not permit the Coast Guard to reach a Se-
lected Reserve strength of 16,590 during fiscal
year 1971. In view of this situation, the con-
ferees have agreed on an authorized strength
of 15,000 for fiscal year 1971.
However, it is the belief of the House con-
ferees that Coast Guard Selected Reserve
strength should be adjusted upward next
year to the 16,590 minimum required for
wartime missions, and every effort should be
made by the Coast Guard to plan and fund
for the attainment of that level at the ear-
liest possible date.
The House recedes.
TITLE IV-ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE CONSTRUC-
TION AUTHORIZATION: LIMITS ON DEPLOY-
MENT
The Senate bill contained. a separate title
IV which authorized military construction in
connection with the Safeguard anti-bal-
listic missile system and included language
limiting the deployment of the Safeguard
to specified sites in connection with the de-
fense of our strategic missile deterrent. The
House bill contained no such separate title.
For reasons indicated earlier, the House
agreed to the Senate provisions of construc-
tion authority in the present bill and the
inclusion of Senate language on the limita-
tion of deployment. Therefore, the House re-
cedes on the inclusion of a separate title in
regard to the ABM.
TITLE V-GENERAL PROVISIONS
Authority for the transfer of military equip-
ment to the State of Israel
The Senate amendment to H.R. 17123 In-
cluded a new Section 501 providing the
President with authority to transfer military
equipment to the State of Israel. There was
no comparable position in the House-passed
bill.
The Senate Committee on Armed Services,
in recommending this provision of law, ex-
plained its action in its Committee report as
follows :
"The Committee action arises out of a
recognition of the deteriorating military bal-
ance and the threat to world peace resulting
from the deepening involvement of the So-
Viet Union in the Middle East, particularly
their support of a war of attrition against
Israel.
"The Committee believes that the sale to
Israel of aircraft, and equipment necessary
to use, maintain and protect such aircraft,
should be authorized at once to facilitate
action by the administration consistent with
our policy of support for the security of Is-
rael. The rapidity with which the military
balance in the Middle East is being adversely
affected by direct Soviet intervention calls
for an authority in law that would make pos-
sible the sale of arms necessary to offset any
past, present or future increased military as-
sistance to other countries of the Middle
East.
"In Section 501 the Committee affirms its
view that the restoration and subsequent
maintenance of the military balance in the
Middle East is essential to the security of Is-
rael and to world peace. In recognition of the
severe economic burden presently borne by
Israel in providing for its own defense, the
Committee further provides that the credit
terms upon which the authorized arms
should be transferred be not less favorable
than the terms extended to other countries
receiving the same or similar armaments."
The managers on the part of the House
fully concur in the urgent need for Presi-
dential authority of this kind. However, not-
withstanding the Senate action, it is the
feeling of the Conferees that an expiration
date should be provided in this authoriza-
tion in order that the customary periodic
authorization surveillance by Congress will
be maintained as in other authorizations.
In order to effect this intention of' the
Conferees, language was added to the original
Senate language which now provides that
"the authority contained in the second sen-
tence of this section shall expire September
30, 1972."
The Congress and the Committees respon-
sible for the granting of this authority will
be required to review the need for possible
extension of this authority beyond Septem-
ber 30, 1972.
It is further understood that the Executive
Branch will provide the Congress and the
Committee responsible for this authorization
with a semi-annual report on the implemen-
tation and utilization of the authority pro-
vided by this new section of law.
In order to insure that there is no doubt
as to the interpretation of the Senate lan-
guage, the Managers on the part of the
House, the Senate Conferees concurring,
reiterate their understanding that the lan-
guage of the Senate amendment covers
ground weapons, such as missiles, tanks,
howitzers, armored personnel carriers, ord-
nance, etc., as well as aircraft. Further, it is
intended that the words "equipment appro-
priate to * * * protect such aircraft" in the
original Senate amendment be construed
broadly and that they not be narrowly inter-
preted by the Executive Branch as imposing
a requirement that only those ground weap-
ons which are to be deployed by Israel in
the physical proximity to airfields may be
acquired by Israel under the authority of
this section.
Support of Southeast Asia forces
The House bill contains a provision, Sec-
tion 401, providing that funds authorized
under this or any other act may be used in
support of Vietnamese and other Free World
forces in Vietnam and local forces in Laos
and Thailand and for related costs on such
terms and conditions as the Secretary of
Defense may determine.
The corresponding section of the Senate
bill, Section 502, provides a ceiling of $2,-
500,000,000 on such funds and provides
amendments to:
1. Provide support to Vietnamese and oth-
er Free World forces "in support of Viet-
namese forces." This amendment removed
the geographical limits imposed by the phrase
"in Vietnam" for the purpose of border
sanctuaries and related operations.
2. Provide that no funds may be used in
the form of additional pay for other Free
World forces in Vietnam if the amount of
such payment was greater than the amount
of special pay authorized to be paid, for an
equivalent period of service, to members of
the United States armed forces. The purpose
of this amendment was to insure that funds
provided by the section would not provide
additional pay for other Free World forces in
excess of the $65 per month hostile fire pay
provided for U.S. forces.
3. Prohibit the use of funds authorized in
this section to support Vietnamese or other
Free World forces "in actions designed to
provide military support or assistance to the
governments of Cambodia or Laos."
S 16937
4. Provide that no defense article be fur-
nished to the South Vietnamese or other Free
World forces in Vietnam or local forces in
Laos or Thailand-with funds authorized pur-
suant to this section unless the government
of those forces has agreed that such defense
articles will not be transferred to a third
country without notification to and the con-
sent of the President of the United States.
The House receded from its position and
accepted the amendments of the Senate, with
further amendments to provide a dollar limi-
tation of $2,800,000,000 for fiscal year 1971
and to provide that the restriction on use of
funds for additional pay for other Free World
forces shall not apply "to the continuation of
payments of such additions to regular base
pay provided for in agreements executed
prior to July 1, 1970."
The conferees would like it understood
that the change in the dollar limitation to
$2,800,000,000 from the Senate ceiling is
solely for the purpose of supplying flexibility
to the Department of Defense should it be
determined that additional money, if made
available, would have the effect of speeding
up Vietnamization with the resulting possi-
bility of more rapid withdrawal of U.S.
troops.
The exception provided under the limita-
tion of additional pay to other Free World
forces is to assure that the U.S. will not re-
nege on agreements already signed with the
governments of such forces.
Requirement of certification by the Depart-
ment of Defense on the structural integrity
of the F-111 as a prior consideration for
the obligation of funds
Section 503 of the Senate bill provides that
of the funds authorized for the procurement
of the F-111 aircraft, $283 million may not
be obligated until the Secretary of Defense
has determined that the F-111 has been sub-
jected to and successfully completed a com-
prehensive structural integrity test program
and has approved a program for the procure-
ment of the aircraft and has certified the
approved programs and findings to the Com-
mittees on Armed Services. The House con-
ferees were satisfied that this provision would
in no way delay the further procurement of
this vitally needed aircraft; and, in fact, the
Department of Defense has advised the con-
ferees that it has no objection to this re-
quirement and was prepared to provide the
needed certification as to the readiness of
this aircraft. Therefore, the House recedes.
The House conferees wish to reiterate that
the agreement upon language in the bill in
no way reflects agreement with the position
stated in the Senate report to the effect that
the procurement authorized in the present
bill represents the final increment of the F-
111 procurement.
It is pointed out that the funds available
for the F-111 for fiscal year 1971 will not even
complete the fourth wing. The House con-
ferees are unswerving in their belief that
four full wings of F-ill's should be pro-
cured; and it is clear, as the earlier House
report indicates, that the Air Force believes
six wings are required but such have been
precluded for budgetary reasons. The House
conferees believe that future decisions should
be made in the future, and not made now
on an arbitrary basis. A present decision on
all future requirements for the r-111 is both
unnecessary and unwise.
As the report of the Senate Committee
makes clear, "no other aircraft in the Air
Force inventory can compete with the F-
ill." The House conferees, therefore, will not
accept the imposition of constraint on future
procurement of this aircraft and shall insist
that the Department of Defense consider fur-
ther procurement for fiscal year 1972 if nec-
essary for defense requirements and that no
prohibition should be placed on the Air Force
in planning studies for a fifth or sixth wing.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE October' 1, 1970
LIMITATIONS AND CONTROLS ON THE C-5A
PROGRAM
Section 504 of the Senate amendment con-
.ained language which would prohibit the
obligation or expenditure of p200 million
authorized to be appropriated for the pro-
c llrement of the C-5A aircraft unless the
oiecretarv of Defense submitted a plan for Its
expenditures to the Committees on Armed
Cervices of the Senate and House of Repre-
.-.'ticatives and such Committees approved the
plan_
erne Ho.:se bill contained no coninarable
;traction or prohibition.
Tire conferees on the Dart of the House
pointed out that they share the concern of
the Senate in this matter. However. the ac-
:tots recommended by the Senate raises sert-
aus Constitutional questions in requiring
ha:. the Executive Branch come into acree-
nient with the respective Committees on
Arched Services before going forward with a
iii eretionarv action of this kind. Moreover.
the Senate provision would, if enacted, have
she effect of putting the Armed Services
Committees in a position of acting as loint
program managers on a matter which in the
view of the House conferees should more
properly be the final responsibility of the
Department of Defense.
Tit view of these House reservations. the
e inierees agreed to amend the Senate lan-
guage to require the submission of a pro-
posed plan of expenditure to the Committees
on Armed Services of the Senate and House
of Representatives with the further require-
ment that none of the $200 million could be
ohlleated or expended until after the expira-
tion of 30 days from the date upon which
t.iie plan had been submitted to the Congress.
The balance of the Senate language con-
taining the various prohibitions and res_ric-
l ions remained unchanged. The House, there-
fore. recedes from its position and accepts
,he Senate amendment with an amendment.
Requirement of authorization leaf lation on
naral torpedoes beginning in fiscal tear
..ect.ion 505 of the Senate hill would pro-
side that after December 31, 1970, no funds
will be appropriated for use by the Navv for
the procurement of torpedoes and related
support equipment unless the approprIations
of such funds has been authorized by legis-
lation enn,?ted after such date. The House
hill contained no such provision-
'Pie Senate amendment is consistent with
language adopted by the House last year but
stricken from the conference, rep,art at the
insistence of Senate conferees
The House recedes.
Chemical and biological warfare
The Senate amendment included in Sec-
tion 506. language which reaffirmed the pro-
hibition on the procurement of CBW de-
liverv systems contained in P.L. 91 121 How-
ecer. the Senate amendment contained three
additional nrovisions not previously appear-
ing in the larvilage relating to CBW last
year.
i3rieflv, these three additions are as tol-
l 'w_.
l rubse.'tion 506ibi amended last year's
permanent provisions on CBW activities by
making more rigid the provisions on dis-
pnsai of any biological or lethal chemical
11. Subsection 506(c) of the Senate lan-
guage provided that the Secretary of Defense
shall enter into appropriate arrangements
with the National Academy of Sciences to
conduct a study of the danger inherent in
the use of herbicides and the ecological and
physiological effects of the defoliation pro-
gram in South Vietnam. and
III. Section 506id) barred future disposl-
tion of chemical and biological agents un-
less they have been detoxified or made harm-
less.
There was no comparable House provision.
't'he Department of Defense advised the
Conferees that It had no objection to the
language of the Senate amendment but was
concerned over the possibility that situa-
tions could arise where Immediate disposal
of quantities of CBW agents or munitions
would be required to assure safety to Indi-
viduals. Thus, it was pointed out that the
delays in disposal actions caused by the noti-
dcation requirements In Section 506 could
in such cases jeopardize the safety of indi-
viduals. Additionally. the disposal of small
laboratory quantities of lethal agents is a
daisy recurring action In research and de-
velopment and in such Instances notification
for each action through the Department of
Defense to HEW and the Congress would not
be feasible.
The Conferees concurred in this reserva-
tion of the Department of Defense and.
therefore, agreed to amend the Senate lan-
guage to overcome these problems. The
amended language appears as a new para.
graph (g) and is self-explanatory.
The language Is as follows:
"tg) Nothing contained in this section
shall be deemed to restrict the transporta-
tion or disposal of research quantities of any
lethal chemical or any biological warfare
agent, or to delay or prevent. In emergency
situations either within or outside the
United States, the immediate disposal to-
gether with any necessary associated trans-
por'atlon, of any lethal chemical or any bio-
logical warfare agent when compliance with
the procedures and requirements of this sec-
tion would clearly endanger the health or
safety of any person."
The House. therefore. recedes from its posi-
tloni and accepts the Senate language with
an :tnhendment.
Ore'uilure disclosure of defense contract
awards
n c' ion 507 of the Senate bill precludes
the Secretary of Defense from furnishing in-
formation in advance of any public an-
?loilncement to any Individual concerning
the identity or location of a person or corpo-
ration receiving a Defense contract. The
House bill contained no such provision.
The House recedes.
Em ploy meat priority for persons affected by
red au't ions-in-force
clop 508 of the Senate bill provides a
e of the Congress Resolution that the
various executive departments will give pri-
orlty in filling vacant positions with career
Civil Service employees who are being dis-
placed in the Department of Defense or other
departments through reductions-in-force.
Tin House conferees were in agreement
tha this amendment had no place in the
Military Procurement bill and insisted that
regulations or legislation regarding Civil
Ser'. ice employees was properly the jurisdic-
tion of the Post Office and Civil Service
Committee. Furthermore. It should be noted
that the Executive Branch is already im-
letnenting the policy proposed by the pro-
visrah.
'i'l t x?nate recedes.
eri ri on permanent change of
station assignments
I..c.uded in the Senate language as Secton
1109 was a Senate floor amendment which
directed the Secretary of Decease to Initiate
ile'0. procedures aimed at reducing the ex-
pendi'.ures ui connection with permanent
cha igee of station for military personnel.
'I he language of the Senate amendment
also, directed that there be effected "not less
thwi a 25-percent reduction" In expendi-
tures for permanent changes of station as-
siglimente beginning July 1, 1971, "and In
each fiscal year thereafter."
The Department of Defense. In comment-
ing on this Senate action. maintained that
the enactment of this provision would "pre-
sent extreme administrative and budgetary
problems. as well as problems in manpower
programs, especially considering the short
time allowed for compliance and the turbu-
lent situation with respect to military man-
power."
The Navy advised the conferees that en-
actment of this provision would have a dev-
astating impact on its already austere ship
to shore rotation policy. Among other things,
the Navy pointed out that-
"The Navv is a sea duty oriented force
and must provide a relatively equitable
opportunity for shore assignments because
of the privations associated with duty at
sea. There are approximately 335,00) en-
listed and 37,000 officer sea billets compared
to 151,000 enlisted and 41.000 officer shore
billets. Increasing tour lengths of duty
ashore w.,uld require disproportionate ex-
tensions at sea. There are 36 "deprived" en-
listed ratings, comprising 46% of the en-
listed population. Men in these ratings now
spend 12 to 16 years at sea during a normal
20-year career."
The House conferees fully concur In the
general obiectives of the Senate language.
The conferees were unanimous in their
view that the Armed Services frequently
require military members to change duty
assignments without any genuine military
requirement for such transfer. These fre-
quently unnecessary permanent changes of
assignment are essentially due to either out-
moded service policy or poor management,
and simply result in unnecessary expendi-
tures of millions of dollars while at tye
same time causing great inconvenience and
hardship to service families.
On the other hand. the House conferees
concede that lack of stability in the size
of the Military Establishment and the per-
sonnel movements required by our com-
nhitments In Southeast Asia and other parts
of the world make acceptance of the Sen-
ate language impractical at this time. There-
fore, that portion of the Senate language
requiring specified reductions in expendi-
tures was deleted by the conferees.
The House therefore recedes from its ob-
jection to the Senate amendment, wi'.h an
amendment that reflects the sense of Con-
gress that the Department of Defense must
Initiate promptly new procedures with re-
spect to domestic and foreign permanent
change of station assignments for military
personnel.
Requirement for the annual authorica-
tion for the number of active duty
personnel
Section 510 of the Senate bill provides
that beginning on July 1, 1971, an au'shori-
zatiwh for the average annual active duty
s!rength of the Armed Forces would lie re-
quired as a condition precedent to the ap-
propriation of funds for this purpose.
There was no comparable House provision.
The House conferees had no objection to
the Senate language. and therefore :ic-
eented the Senate amendment.
E u'uurageinerit of contractors to u.s'
,.!used iii lilary facilities
Section 511 of the Senate bill requires the
Secretary of Defense to encourage recipients
of defense contracts to use military installa-
tions being closed and to offer employment
to former employees of military installa-
tions who are unemployed as a result of
such closures. House conferees believed that
such a proposed policy would introduce seri-
ous complications to the Department of
Defense procurement program. Most defense
installations are constructed for special-
ised purposes and would require substantial
rearrangement for production purposes,
House conferees insisted on a defection of
this section.
The Senate recedes.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
October 1, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
No change in the command structure of
U.S. Armed Forces
Section 512 of the Senate bill provides
that no modification or change in the com-
mand structure of the United States armed
forces shall be made until the. Senate and
House Committees on Armed Services of the
92nd Congress shall have had 60 days to
examine the document known as the Fitz-
hugh Report. The House bill contained no
such provision.
The House conferees opposed the language
as unnecessary and subject to misinterpre-
tation.
The Senate recedes.
MILITARY RECRUITING AT COLLEGES
The bill as recommended by the Armed
Services Committee and passed by the House
contained language in Section 402 which
would have prohibited the use of funds au-
thorized for appropriation, to be used for
grants to any institution of higher learning
when the Secretary of Defense or his des-
ignee determines that recruiting personnel
of the armed forces were being barred from
the premises or property of such institu-
tion.
The language provided that the prohibi-
tion would not apply under circumstances
in which the Secretary of Defense or his des-
ignee determiens the expenditure is a con-
tinuation or renewal of a previous grant to
such institution which is likely to make a
significant contribution to the defense
effort.
The language of the section also pro-
vided that the Secretaries of the military
services are required to furnish to the
Secretary of Defense the names of any in-
stitutions of higher learning which the
Secretary determines are barring military
recruiters from the campus of the institu-
tion.
The Senate amendment contained no
similar provision.
The Senate conferees expressed support of
the objectives of the House language but
expressed concern that the language of the
provision might, under certain circum-
stances, result in a denial of federal funds
to a college or university despite the fact
that neither the students nor the faculty
were responsible for denying military re-
cruiters the opportunity to be located on
campus.
In view of these reservations, the House
conferees agreed to modify the House lan-
guage to provide that this prohibition
would apply when military recruitment was
"barred by the policy of the institution."
The Senate therefore recedes and accepts
the House position with an amendment.
SUMMARY
The bill as presented to the Congress by
the President totaled $20,605,489,000. The bill
as passed the House totaled $20,571,489,000.
The bill as passed the Senate totaled $19,-
242,889,000.
The bill as agreed to in conference totals
$19,929,089,000.
The figure arrived at by the conferees is
$642,400,000 less than the bill as it passed
the House, $686,200,000 more than the bill as
it passed the Senate, and is $676,400,000 less
than the bill as it was presented to the Con-
gress by the President.
The House recedes from its disagreement
to the amendment of the Senate to the title
of the bill and agrees to the same.
L. MENDEL RIVERS,
PHILIP J. PHILBIN,
F. EDWARD HEBERT,
MELVIN PRICE,
CHARLES E. BENNETT,
SAMUEL S. STRATTON,
LESLIE C. ARENDS,
ALVIN E. O'KONSKI,
WILLIAM G. BRAY,
BOB WILSON,
CHARLES GUBSER,
Managers on the Part of the House.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the conference
report.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I
have already made some points on this
matter. I wish to say that I hope the
Senator from Mississippi will agree about
the line item matter that the Senator
from Wisconsin mentioned. We have dis-
cussed this before. This is the most im-
portant bill that is presented in this
fashion.
It would be much easier for the Senate
and the country to understand what we
are doing if it were presented by line
items, and I hope the Senator from Mis-
sissippi will urge that the Defense De-
partment develop this procedure. It
would be much more understandable. I
doubt that we will ever get any degree
of control over the military appropria-
tions until the bill is reduced to line
items, so that we will know much more
about what is actually being bought, and
how much it costs.
Awhile ago, in his opening remarks,
the distinguished chairman of the com-
mittee stated that he was very much in
favor of legislative supervision. I, too,
am in favor of that. But one item taken
out of the Senate's bill was the provision
concerning access to what are called
"think tank" reports.
The Foreign Relations Committee has
asked the Pentagon for these reports on
a number of occasions-reports made by
such organizations as the Institute for
Defense Analysis, the Rand Corp. and
others. One I specifically had reference
to was requested a long time ago: The
study of the command and control deci-
sions in connection with the Tonkin Gulf
affair, a very sad affair in our history.
That affair happened during in the pre-
vious administration, of course; it had
nothing to do with this administration.
But the Defense Department has ada-
mantly refused to supply that report, al-
though it was not prepared within the
Department, and it was not an internal
working paper. It was prepared by the
Institute for Defense Analysis, a private
organization which gets practically all
its funds from the Defense Department.
I still do not see any valid reason for this
type of study not being made available
to Congress. It was paid for by public
funds.
But they classify everything that does
not suit their current policy line. I mean
if any study casts reflections upon their
current policy, they classify it.
Incidentally, in that connection, I was
very pleased that the Scranton commit-
tee report on students was not classified,
because I understand the recommenda-
tions of that report are not compatible
with Mr. AGNEW'S views on what should
be said today. If anything comparable
happened in the military, they would
classify it.
How does one exercise legislative su-
pervision over agencies of the executive
branch? The Senator says he is for it.
How are we going to do that job, if studies
made under contract by the experts-
such as they are-are not available to
the committees?
Perhaps the Armed Services Commit-
tee can get access to these reports. I am
not sure whether the Senator has ever
been refused or not. But certainly the
S 16939
Committee on Foreign Relations is denied
a report whenever they do not want us
to see it. They will say that it is only
for the eyes of certain people. or give some
such excuse, there is no effective way
that I know of to break that down. I have
thus far been unable to do it, in any
case. The Foreign Relations Committee
has been turned down in a number of in-
stances.
They have been extremely reluctant
to cooperate in furnishing information
in a number of areas. The Senator from
Missouri (Mr. SYMINGTON), for nearly 2
years, has held certain hearings dealing
with our commitments abroad. In some
cases, they have been cooperative, and
in many others they have not. It is a very
capricious business; whenever something
becomes sensitive, for example, concern-
ing nuclear weapons-for reasons that
are not quite clear to me, they are ex-
tremely sensitive about nuclear weap-
ons-they do not.want to testify. They
have testified some; the barrier is not
complete. But if, all of a sudden, they be-
come apprenhensive about something,
they will, without any, to me, reasonable
reason, make a distinction and refuse to
testify.
Of course, I am bound to say that this
is not peculiar to the Pentagon. This also
happens with the State Department. So
I do not mean to say it is only the Mili-
tary Establishment. But it makes legis-
lative supervision extremely difficult,
even impossible to make effective.
I do not know what the Senator from
Mississippi had in mind when he was
speaking about that. He was very en-
thuisastic, and thought it was important
to have effective legislative supervision.
Surely he will agree that unless we have
cooperation by the executive branch, un-
less we have available all the material
relevant to the matters we are respon-
sible for and interested in, it is extremely
difficult, if not impossible, to carry out
proper legislative supervision.
Finally, Mr. President, this is such a
big bill, involving almost $20 billion, that
I am very reluctant to cause any pain to
the majority leader- or any Senator, but,
especially since I am opposed to several
things which I have already mentioned
and shall not repeat, I should like the op-
portunity to vote against this bill, sim-
ply to make positive my disapproval of
a number of the procedures that have
been followed, and some of the substan-
tive changes that have been made-
above all, the one which I have already
belabored or talked about with regard
to the international fighters. It involves
both the jurisdiction of the committee of
which I am a member, and a great deal
of money. There is no precedent for that
kind of action.
I would like to have a record vote on
this matter, if the majority leader feels
that it is not impossible. We have had a
number of record votes recently on bills
of far less consequence than this. This
involves almost $20 billion and is a pecu-
liar bill without line items. Most of the
country does not know what is in it. I
do not know whether the majority leader
feels that we can have a record vote.
Mr. MANSFIELD. We can, if the
Senator desires, and he knows that. But
we have already voted on this bill once,
when it was brought before the Senate.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
 S16940
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE October 1, 19.'0
I am thinking of the schedule that con-
trouts the Senate. I would appreciate it
if there were no roll call vote, but if the
Senator wants one, I would join him in
asking for it.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
'.Tr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
:nanitnous consent that the order for
the yeas and nays be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
%It-. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I do
not want to be arbitrary about it. I ap-
preciate what the Senator says. This bill
has been voted on before. In a different
form. I have no doubt that the position
of the conference committee and the
Senator from Mississippi will be sus-
tained. Therefore, I will not insist upon
a record vote. But I want the RECORD to
show that I do not approve of various
items I have mentioned and others. I do
it not because I criticize the Senator from
Mississippi. I appreciate his position as
chairman. and I know the difficulty with
the House and how difficult they are in
conference.
I just want to make it perfectly clear
that these procedures involve not just
$20 billion-that is this bill-but the
overall Military Establishment, which
follows similar practices in its other ac-
tivities. The total budget for the Defense
Department amounts to well over $70
billion. I think it is high time that we
begin to reform these procedures, and
that we make it possible to exercise legis-
lative oversight along the lines the Sena-
tor has mentioned.
I would hope the Senator from Missis-
sippi would cooperate in bringing some
pressure to bear upon the Pentagon to
make these studies available. It Is my
understanding that the conference re-
port states that the provision voted by
the Senate was not necessary and that
is the reason why they took it out. I think
it is necessary. I do not know why it
can be said not to be necessary, when I
have specific instances in which the
studies from the "think tanks" have been
refused to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
So I would hope that the Senator from
Mississippi would lend his good offices
to requesting the Pentagon to make
available these relevant studies, so that
we can at least be informed upon how
our constituents' money is being spent.
In any case, I will not Insist upon a
rollcall vote for the reasons given, al-
though I want the RECORD to be quite
clear that I vote against this measure
orally.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I want
to emphasize what I have already said.
This report in many ways is better and
more explicit and more informative than
a so-called line item bill could possibly
be. Nothing is withheld. It is all reflected
in this 121-page printed report.
I appreciate the Senator's position on
his amendment. I am sorry to have not
made law. He excepted the executive
privilege point from the amendment.
which I thought was commendable, and
we tried to get agreement on this. I do
not know whether the Senator was in
the Chamber when I quoted our former
colleague Senator Hayden.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. And I have experi-
enced it.
Mr. STENNIS. I yield the floor.
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr, President. the
91st Congress will claim its place in his-
tory, I believe, as the first postwar Con-
gress which scrutinized the military
budget as closely as it did domestic re-
quests.
Although I have argued for an overall
limitation on defense and against certain
provisions. I have generally supported
the action of the Senate Armed Services
Committee. The committee's responsibili-
ties are heavy, yet it managed to prune
$1.329 billion from the Pentagon's
$20.237 billion military procurement re-
quest. As I stated on August 27 of this
year
.ttriough there are some sections of this
bill with which I disagree. I believe that
the Committee's overall efforts are highly
deserving of praise.
Defense appropriations will be acted
on later this month, but in large part
the debate over military spending and
national priorities has centered on the
military procurement authorization bill.
We now have the conference report be-
fore us-
It recommends $686.2 million more
than the original Senate bill-an amount
greater than many of us would have
hoped, but less than it would have been
in times past.
The Senate receded to the House and
added the following amounts for the fol-
lowing items:
Millions
Freedom Fighter ------------------- : 2.3
Hawk missile --------- ------------- -2B.1
Maverick ----------- ------ -:6.0
Cheyenne -- ----------------- -17.6
SAM D --------------------------- i 8.8
Defense research sciences_.._.. __--.- -1-2.3
Deatrnyer helicopter system -------_- -1-5.0
F-14B C -------------------------- -j 5.2
A:r launched surface launched antl-
mi-siie (HARPOON) --------------- ! 14.0
Polar. defense system development--- r3.8
Advanced surface ship sonar devel-
opment ------------------- ----- t.0. 7
S'irf,o'e effect ships----------- ----- - 10.0
Innovations In education and train-
lnv --------------------- -----
` 0.2
Advanced
nology
fire controlrmisslle tech-
-------- ------------ -----
Subsonic
cruise armed decoy
(SCADI ------- ----------------
--10.0
AJvt.nced Linker -.___-------- ------
t-0.5
8-1 -----
.25.0
F-ill squadrons -------------------
46-4
Short-range air-to-air missile- -----
} 6.0
Minuteman rebasing ----------- --
27.0
Armament ordnance development--_
-1 5.0
ARPA ----------------------------
+7.8
And, in addition to motley restorations,
restrictive language pertaining to inde-
pendent research and development was
dropped, as was the spending ceiling for
such efforts which had been rightly im-
posed by the Senate Armed Services
Committee.
The conference also deleted the Sen-
ate provision which required reports,
studies, or investigations financed with
Federal funds and prepared by persons
outside the Federal Government be sup-
plied on request to the House and Sen-
ate Committees on the Armed Services
and the House Committee on Foreign Af-
fairs and the Senate Committee on For-
eign Relations.
Section 502, which provides a ceiling
of $2.5 billion on funds authorized to be
expended under this or any other act in
support of Vietnamese or other free
world forces in Vietnam and local forces
in Laos and Thailand, was raised by $300
million to $2.8 billion in conference.
Further, the Senate provision direct-
ing "not less than a 25-percent reduc-
tion" in expenditures for permanent
changes of station assignments begin-
ning July 1, 1971, was deleted, as was the
congressional committee oversight over
the expenditure of the $200 million
Lockheed "contingency fund."
The most important concession in
terms of dollars came on Chairman
Rivers annual demand that Congress au-
thorize S435 million for shipbuilding-
over and above the President's budget re-
quest. The Rivers booty will be used to
build :
One fast submarine (SSN-688 class), e166
million: long lead time procurement for an
additional such submarine, $22.5 million; one
..ubmarine tender, $102 million; one destroyer
tender, $130 million: two oceanographic re-
.~earch ships, $7.5 million: landing crafts,
$10 million. and service craft, $24 million.
The Senate bill contained no such addit-ons
but approved a Naval construction program
as requested by the President with the ex-
ception of the aforementioned CVAF-70
'unds which were deleted by the Senate.
As we pass on this additional $435 mil-
lion which the administration did not re-
quest, it is interesting to reflect on the
education bill the President vetoed be-
cause it was $453,321,000 over his re-
quest. We can safely predict that the
legislation before us will not be vetoed,
but I trust that the administration will
be prepared to answer to taxpayers and
their children who pay for Mr. RIVERS'
largesse.
The second item with which I take
strenous exception is less costly to the
taxpayer, but it is representative of the
problems we face in controlling military
spending. The Senate receeded, and au-
thorized the expenditure of $12 million
more for the M60AE2 tank. This means
that the $10.9 million the Senate cut for
150 M60A1 chassis which would have
been returned from the parking lots of
Detroit where they have moldered for
years. will also be restored.
The Senate Armed Services Commit-
tee wisely canceled the M60A1E2 pro-
gram this year. As the committee report
states:
The Committee recommends denial a- the
$12.1 million for this tank. Work on the
M60A1E2 started in 1965 and was to be a
product improvement to the M60A1. pri-
marily by adding a new turret and the 152mm
gun SHILI.ELAGH main armament sy::tem.
Funds were provided in 1966 and 1967 for
production. but the tanks were never as-
sembled because of technical problems The
Army has requested $12.1 million to continue
eftnrt toward solution of the problems The
current investment in 300 tanks and 24e tur-
rets total almost $260 million and the Army
estimates that about $110 million more is
required to field 543 of these tanks for an
ultimate cost of about $684,400 each.
In spite of the substantial investment in
the M60AIE2 program and the optimism of
the Army that the fix has been identdfied,
the Committee believes that further funding
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
October 1, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S 16941
of the program is not warranted and the
$12.1 million requested in 1971 Is denied. As
explained under the M60A1 program, $10.9
million of the $57.3 million in recoverable
assets will be used for that program. The
remainder will offset other future require-
ments.
Continuously bungled since 1965, the
M60A1E2 remained to be the object of
unrealistic and persistent optimism by
its project managers when testifying be-
fore Congress.
The "Detroit tank," as Senator ST.EN-
N1s calls it, has never left the parking
lots there where it stands unfinished be-
cause of technical difficulties. It exempli-
fies what Secretary Packard referred to
when he stated earlier this year, "Frank-
ly in defense procurement, we have a real
mess."
This slightly upgraded tank will cost
over three times what our present
M60A1 costs-$684,400 each. It will be
even more expensive than the new super
dream tank, the MBT-70, which is itself
a dubious investment.
How the House Armed Services Com-
mittee managed to foist this tank on the
Senate and the public-even against the
advice of some high military officials in
Europe where it is to be used-is totally
incomprehensive to me.
Obviously, those of us who have fought
what we consider unnecessary military
spending are disappointed that the con-
ference committee brought back a bill
$686.2 million more than, the Senate
passed.
But, in fairness, the conference bill is
$642.4 million less than the bill originally
passed by the House, and $676.4 million
less than the administration request.
The Senate position on the ABM was
upheld. There will be no area defense.
The House agreed to the Jackson
amendment granting authorization to
the President to transfer military equip-
ment to Israel, and defining "aircraft
and equipment necessary to use, main-
tain, and protect such aircraft," broadly.
And, importantly, the provision which
prohibits "the use of funds-to support
Vietnamese or other free world forces in
action designed to provide military sup-
port or assistance to the governments of
Cambodia or Laos" has been retained.
After 2 years of continuous scrutiny
and heated debate, this conference re-
port is not all that many of us would de-
sire. And yet, I believe it reflects a change
in the way Congress views military
spending which this 91st Congress has
spearheaded.
Some provisions in this bill are obnox-
ious to me but on final passage it is nec-
essary to weigh the bill in its entirety.
I have done so, and will vote for final
passage.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, the
Senate will shortly vote to approve the
conference report on the Defense Pro-
curement Act, thus sending to the Presi-
dent for signature a measure which in-
cludes a provision vitally affecting the
security of Israel and the peace of the
Middle East.
Section 501 of the act contains a clear
statement of congressional policy, soon
to be part of our public law, that ex-
presses the grave concern of the Congress
at the deepening involvement of the So-
viet Union in the Middle East. The lan-
guage of section 501 articulates, in a
mere 11 lines, 110 words, the crucial cen-
ter of American policy in the Middle East.
The Congress has said, by its over-
whelming support for section 501, that
the deepening involvement of the Soviet
Union in the Middle East presents a
"clear and present danger to world
peace."
The Congress has said that this in-
volvement "cannot be ignored by the
United States."
The Congress has pledged that the
President shall have the authority to
restore the military balance in the Middle
East.
The Congress has pledged that the
President shall have the authority to
maintain the military balance in the
Middle East.
The Congress has provided for military
credits to Israel to counteract past So-
viet action in providing military assist-
ance to other countries of the Middle
East.
The Congress has provided for mili-
tary credits to Israel to counteract any
present military assistance to other
countries of the Middle East.
The Congress has provided for mili-
tary credits to Israel to counteract any
future increased military assistance to
other countries of the Middle East.
Mr. President, I first drafted section
501 in June of this year and introduced
it in the Senate Committee on Armed
Services on June 17. It seemed to me even
then that the restraint exercised by the
administration, expressed in the decision
to hold in abeyance the sale of jet air-
craft to Israel, might fail to induce simi-
lar restraint on the part of the Soviet
Union. Indeed, I was concerned at the
unrelenting buildup of Soviet forces in
Egypt, and at the dangers arising out of
that buildup in combination with the de-
clared policy of the UAR to wage a war of
attrition against Israel.
My concern was deepened when, in
September, the United States sought to
initiate negotiations in which I felt our
position was seriously prejudiced by ap-
parent doubts as to the sohdity of the
American position resulting from our
prior restraint. Had the provision of an
adequate level of military aid to Israel
preceded the abortive peace initiative,
the calculated and disingenuous viola-
tions of the cease-fire provisions might
not have resulted. But result they did,
and as section 501 came to the floor of
the Senate the fragility of the balance in
the Middle East was more precarious
than ever before. The Soviets and Egyp-
tians had succeeded in accomplishing by
clandestine behavior, under the cover of
darkness and self-imposed Western re-
straint, what they had failed to accom-
plish by overt military means: they had
degraded Israel's first line of defense, the
unchallenged supremacy of her air force
in the skies above the Suez Canal.
To many who read of the agreement of
the House to section 501, a Senate meas-
ure, its Imed that the timing of the Con-
gress in adopting a clear statement of
policy and granting vital legislative au-
thority had been fortuitous indeed.
However, in spite of my obvious pleas-
ure at the affirmative response to this im-
portant congressional initiative, I cannot
help but wonder whether our interests,
and the interests of world peace, might
not have been better served had we rec-
ognized sooner the urgent necessity for
determination in the face of adversity
and, the danger of irresolution under
challenge.
Final passage of this measure comes
at a time when the Sphinx no longer
can pronounce "Gamal Abdel Nasser"
to the imponderables of the future of the
Arab world. One would have been
tempted, a short week ago, to say of
Nasser's passing, "the center cannot
hold." Whether mere anarchy will be
loosed upon the world of the Middle
East will depend, now more than ever,
on our determination. It will depend
on the success with which we can dis-
courage the Soviets from sharing the
vacuum Nasser has left behind with an
even greater presence than they have
thus far managed to build upon the ex-
ploitation of the tragic conflict between
Arabs and Israelis. Success on this goal-
the discouragement of the Soviet appetite
for further influence in Egypt-will de-
pend upon our capacity to demonstrate
that continued exploitation of local con-
flict in. the Middle East is a dangerous
and unprofitable proposition.
The assistance available to Israel under
the terms of section 501 will be a crucial
element in this endeavor. The authority
is broad, virtually all inclusive, as the
conference report makes clear. The terms
upon which credits will be extended are
generous, including very long periods
of repayment and negligible interest
charges.
The broad authority and generous
terms are an essential element of section
501, sharing with a clear and direct
policy statement in the importance of
the measure as a whole. The provisions
and terms are exceptional because they
are required for an adequate response
to an exceptional situation.
Section 501, Mr. President, repre-
sents more than aid to a brave ally whose
survival is threatened by a Soviet policy
of expansion. It is equally an affirmation
that the United States will act decisively
to assure the security of a progressive
and democratic nation anxious to live in
peace and to survive in freedom.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, we
know that our democratic system is
based upon a complex and interrelated
balance of powers, both between the
branches of Government and within
them. The final decisions which we reach
involve compromises and mitigating in-
fluences which make them never wholly
acceptable to all, yet tolerable to a suffi-
cient number.
The convictions of those who speak
and act in dissent from proposed or pre-
vailing policies find reasonance within
the councils of decisionmaking-at least,
such is the design of our system. Thus,
although the holders of contrary opinion
may not prevail, our structure provides
that they are to be heard and in at least
minimal terms, make some impression.
During the past 2 years, throughout
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE October 1, 1.970
the country and within Congress. a
deepening concern over the extent and
wisdom of our Government's military
expenditures has emerged. In congres-
sional debate that progressively has be-
come more focused, and in public con-
victions which have become more in-
tense, the purpose and degree of our ex-
penditures in the name of defense have
been scrutinized.
A majority of the public, and a signi-
ficant force within Congress, have
grown to believe that our present ex-
penditures. for a mulitude of reasons,
are excessive and not wholly justified
by the leeitimate demands of our Na-
tion's security.
Some believe that the appropriate of-
fices of Government have acknowledced
this concern-that our defense spending
has been reduced and our priorities re-
ordered. Yet, careful examination of our
budget expenditures finds this difficult
to reveal.
Reductions which have been accom-
plished seem largely the result of a low-
ered number of troops in Vietnam, rather
than a decisive choice to reallocate the
thrust of Government spending by cur-
tailing the defense budget. The past 2
years may have yielded certain accom-
plishments. but one is hard pressed to
enthusiastically enumerate them.
However. whatever limited imcact
that might have resulted from those who
have called for rational restraint of mil-
itary spending is nearly disintegrated by
the results of the conference committee
report on the military authorization bill.-
Its substance causes one to wonder
whether 2 years of penetratin'~ debate
have ever been heard-or have ever been
genuine dialog.
Consider briefly the fact.;. The differ-
ence in money between the House and
Senate authorization requests--about
$1.3 billion-was divided about evenly,
as would be expected. Thus. the final bill
is below the original request made by
the Defense Department. Although we
can be certain this is no surprise to the
Pentagon budget planners, who allow
for such contingencies, yet it is a move-
ment in at least the right direc'ion.
However, on issues of procedure and
substance. it seems that the modiflca-
tions made by the Senate were sacrificed
to the House version, with only certain
exceptions-such as-the Senate's posi-
tion on the ABM question. and the de-
cision to withhold funds for the new car-
rier until the National Security Council
completes its review.
Those positions. further, were not con-
trary to the wishes of the administration.
In particular, nearly half of the Senate
believed that the committee's ABM posi-
tion was not justifiable. Yet. the cost of
preservine these positions, it appeals,
was the emasculation of an inordinate
portion of all the other provisions fa-
vored by the Senate.
Others have enumerated their posi-
tions given up in the conference commit-
tee, including a ceiling on Department of
Defense reimbursements to major con-
tractors for independent research and
development, the limitations on nonmil-
itary related research sponsored by the
Department of Defense, the establish-
meat of an Interagency Council on Do-
mestic Applications of Defense Research,
the Brooke amendment relating to a re-
search on a single reentry system for
Minuteman III and Poseidon, and the
provision requiring reports done for Fed-
eral agencies. such as the Department
of Defense, to be submitted to the ap-
propriate House and Senate Committees
if requested-as well as several other
provisions on which the Senate receded
to the House.
But most costly, and most distressing
to me, are the authorizations maintained
in the conference committee report, at
the insistence of the House, that were
not even requested by the Department of
Defense.
Most noticeable is the authorization of
$435 million in new construction for na-
val vessels above the amount requested
by the President and the Department of
Defense.
I have no idea as to how the House
conferees could convince the Senate con-
ferees that the Navy needed $435 mil-
lion more for ship construction than the
Navy themselves requested and the Pres-
ident believed necessary.
Also authorized are funds for the
Cheyenne helicopter, a program which
the Pentagon announced it was canceling
a year ago.
Further. $17.6 million is authorized for
the so-called Freedom Fighter, a plane
which the Air Force has not requested
and sees no need of developing.
It is unbelievable to me that in a time
of inflation, when the President has al-
ready vetoed bills that were above the
President's requests, that the House con-
ferees should Insist. and the Senate
agree, to authorize $480 million for proj-
ects that are not. in the judgment of the
President and the Department of De-
fense. necessary for the security of our
country.
I can only trust that the Appropria-
tions Committee will see fit not to fund
these inflationary and needless authori-
zations.
There has been extensive discussion
about the need to reorder priorities,
and the progress that has been made in
that regard. Yet, the evidence of hte
conference committee's report indicates
that if priorities are to be affected. they
will be tipped in favor of increased, un-
reatilated military spending.
When one considers the total effect of
the actions taken by the conference
committee, examining not only the dif-
ferences in funding, but also the changes
in the substantive and procedural pro-
visions. it is clear that even the most
modest attempts to assert some control
and direction over defense spending have
been almost completely to no avail.
The viability of our system depends
unon its responsiveness to all the voices
that are raised in the final decisions that
are reached.
There must be accommodation in some
manner to these various voices if our
system-if the process of decisionmak-
ing-is to merit. the support of its par-
ticipants.
With regret, I conclude that the action
of the conference committee illustrates
a total unresponsiveness to those who In
any way feel that the requests and washes
of the Defense Department can be if giti-
mately questioned and safely altered.
Thus. I shall vote against acceptance of
the conference committee report, and
do so for two reasons: First, because I
continue to believe that the level of
military spending is not in the best
interests of our Nation and can be safely
reduced. SecDnd. and perhaps more cru-
cial, because the report illustrates a basic
failure of our legislative system to be
responsive and adaptive to the variety
of viewpoints that are reflected and
represented. That, in the long run, is
perhaps the most pressing threat to the
reatI security of our country. It is ironic
that the report authorizing billions for
national defense should be such an illus-
trative symbol of why so many people
believe that our own internal security,
and the faith in our institutions, f.; er-
roding. jeopardizing our future.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I do
not want to delay the Senate, but there
has been much talk about line items. I
do not want the misimpression to go
abroad that these line items are not
looked at. This is an authorization bill;
when the Defense Department budget
cones before the Appropriations Com-
mittee, as members of the Appro'ria-
tions Committee well know, it comes in
line items, and each item is scrutinized
individually. The Appropriations Com-
mittee can get whatever reports it needs,
and we double check each item at that
time. The Appropriations Committee has
not been mentioned much in this di 3cus-
sion.
So I hope the impression will not be
created that Congress does not look at
each of these items, one by one, including
those that are classified. In the latter
case we still get the information, acrd we
determine whether to keep it classified.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. About a month ago
I asked for one of these studies. I got a
letter back saying, "No," and they even
classified the letter that said "No."
Mr. MAGNUSON. They sometimes do
that. The Appropriations Committee gets
classired information, as much as it
wants. There is always an argument on
the Senate floor and in the committee
as to what we should leave classified or
what we should not leave classified. But
the full Appropriations Committee gets
this information, and then we pass on it.
Some of it has to be classified. I have
been very disappointed sometimes, as
has the Senator from Arkansas, about
the way in which the Defense De,)art-
went puts the classified stamp on, and in
the way in which they use the word "re-
stricted." But the point is that every
expenditure is scrutinized in the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the conference
report. [Putting the question.]
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I vote "no."
The conference report was agreed to.
Mr. STENNIS subsequently said' Mr.
President, earlier today the Senate voted
ire adopt the conference report on H.R.
1-123.
I now move that the vote by which the
conference report was agreed to be
reconsidered.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
October 1, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I
move that the motion to reconsider be
laid on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
FORMER SENATOR CARL HAYDEN'S
93D BIRTHDAY
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, inas-
much as the name of our former col-
league, Senator Hayden, has been men-
tioned, I should like to remind Senators
that tomorrow is Senator Hayden's 93d
birthday. I hope that Senators will keep
that in mind and be prepared to pay
their respects in some small way to a
long-time colleague, a great man.
REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 4 OF
1970
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate pro-
ceed to the consideration of Calendar
No. 1261, Senate Resolution 433, to dis-
approve Reorganization Plan No. 4 of
1970.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
ALLOTT). The resolution will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read the
resolution, as follows:
Resolved, That the Senate does not favor
the Reorganization Plan Numbered 4 trans-
mitted to the Congress by the President on
July 9, 1970.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the present consideration of
the resolution?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the resolution.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I am
pleased to speak again in favor of Re-
organization Plan No. 4. I support this
proposal wholeheartedly, and trust that
others will join me in opposing Senate
Resolution 433 disapproving the reorga-
nization plan.
The proposed plan is smaller than I
had hoped the President might recom-
mend. I have expressed on many occa-
sions the desire that the Coast Guard be
placed in any reorganization plan of this
nature and that the oceanic and atmos-
pheric program might well be housed in
an independent agency. But these two
exceptions should not be allowed to de-
tract from the many merits of the pro-
posal, and after waiting 10 years to see
a strong oceans program developed in
the United States, I do not feel that we
can wait any longer.
This is a great step forward. The Sen-
ator from South Carolina is chairman
of a subcommittee of the Committee on
Commerce, and he is in agreement with
this proposal and knows the urgency of it.
The national oceanic and atmospheric
program has been thoroughly studied in
the last 10 years. Rejection of the Presi-
dent's proposal now in order to study
the alternatives would be redundant and
would cause inexcusable delay. The Pres-
ident's proposal has the support from
Dr. Stratton and all of the other mem-
bers of the Commission on Marine Sci-
ence, Engineering and Resources who
originally recommended the creation of
NOAA.
S 16943
I was a congressional adviser to that marine and atmospheric sciences; the
Commission. The Commission put in long capability to monitor and predict
hours and long weeks of work. It has the weather and a growing understanding of
unequivocal support of Dr. Edward Wenk, the problems of weather modification;
the former Executive Secretary of the the biological, economic, legal, and po-
National Council on Marine Resources litical skills not only to rehabilitate our
and Engineering Development. And it has fisheries but also to enhance them; and
my complete support. they will have the experience of the ably
Approval of this plan will provide an managed national sea grant- and college
important first step enabling this Nation program. None of the programs coming
fully and wisely to use and understand into the National Oceanic and Atmos-
the oceans and the atmosphere. Wisely pheric Administration have been ad-
administered, NOAA will greatly enhance. ministered in the past with callous ne-
the quality of our environment, our se- glect of the environment. Just the oppo-
curity, our economy, and our ability to site is true
Most of the leaders of the
.
meet increased demands for food and raw agencies that would comprise NOAA
materials. I am confident that the Secre- were expressing concern for the quality
tary of Commerce will give NOAA the of a marine and atmospheric environ-
support and backing which are abso- ments long before we in the Congress de-
lutely essential if the visions and hopes veloped our environmental awareness.
of the Stratton Commission are to be- There is no reason to believe that the
come a reality for the Nation. mere placement of NOAA in the Depart-
Some of the opponents to the creation ment of Commerce will change that
of a NOAA have objected to the place- awareness or direction.
ment of a resource development function As I mentioned earlier, Mr. President,
and an environmental protection func- we have waited more than 10 years for
tion in the same agency. They have point- this opportunity. No more delay can be
ed out what has happened historically tolerated. The matter has been thor-
when resource development and environ- oughly studied and well thought out both
mental protection are placed in the same with respect to the executive and the
department or agency. The establishment legislative branches of Government. The
of the Environmental Protection Agency time to move is now. I urge that we in the
is an attempt to create a separation of Senate join our colleagues in the House
those two functions, and I think it can in rejecting Senate Resolution 433.
work in that case. But the argument im- Mr
NELSON M P
i
d
.
. r.
res
ent, on July
plies that it is impossible to have both. 28, I introduced Senate Resolution 433,
resource development and environmental which if agreed to by the Senate, would
protection in the same department. If constitute congressional rejection of Ex-
that is the case, we are going to have to ecutive Reorganization Plan 4 which pro-
reorganize the Department of Defense, poses to establish a National Oceanic and
the Department of Health, Education, Atmospheric Administration-NOAA-in
and Welfare, the Department of Agri- the U.S. Department of Commerce.
culture, the Department of Transporta- On July 28, August 11, August 21, and
tion, the Atomic Energy Commission, the September 23, I made Senate floor state-
.Department of the Interior, and every ments regarding my concern with plan 4.
other agency that has developmental as Further, on July 28 and on September 1,
well as environmental protection respon- I testified before the Senate Government
sibilities. The argument also ignores the Operations Subcommittee on Executive
political climate that has been created in Reorganization regarding the NOAA
the last year or so. The political concern, plan.
awareness, and pressure to protect and Thus, today, I will summarize my po-
enhance our environment simply has not sition and comment on what I believe is
been a real political force until the last very significant language in the Govern-
year. But it is a real presence now. ment Operations Committee report on
If history is prolog, then we must the reorganization plan.
learn from the history of those depart- At the outset
l
t
k
,
e
me ma
e clear my
ments and agencies that have developed strong support for plan 3, which creates
resources at the expense of environ- the Environmental Protection Agency,
mental quality. But the real question is This plan clearly demonstrates the Pres-
whether it is desirable in all cases to ident's commitment to restoring the
separate the resource development and quality of the environment and the in-
the environmental protection functions. troduotion of Senate Resolution 433 has
Every serious environmentalist that I in no way been intended to be critical of
know of who has looked at the problems the President's environmental efforts.
has found that we cannot simply stop all Also, the Subcommittee on Executive
development to protect the environment. Reorganization, chaired by Senator
And clearly we cannot tolerate resource ABRAHAM RIBICOFF, and the full Govern-
development at the complete expense of meat Operations Committee have been
environmental quality. Rather, we seek very helpful in hearing and carefully
a proper mixture of the two. And that considering all the various views on the
is what Rene Dubos and other prominent reorganization plans.
ecologists mean.by the term "wise use." My concern with plan 4 is based not
Creation of the National Oceanic and on the question of its merits, but on its
Atmospheric Administration will en- timeliness. For the future of our envi-
hance the possibility that we will use the ronment and of the human race itself,
marine environment wisely. It will have one of the most chilling forecasts imagi
scientific capability; technological skill nable is being made by marine scientists,
to work in the oceans; the experience to who now say that if we continue to pol-
improve international programs in the lute the sea at the present accelerating
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3
CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD- SENAT : October 1, 1., O
pace, all productive ocean life will be
destroyed in 25 to 50 years.
At this late stage in history we are
still ill-prepared to meet the challenge of
properly protecting the marine environ-
nient. In the past 20 years, 900 square
miles of U.S. coastal wet lands, a
vital link in the chain of ocean life,
have been drained and filled for all kinds
of development. But as yet, there is no
meaningful national program to protect
the coastal environment. Each year, tens
of millions of tons of solid wastes-
from garbage and trash to junked auto-
mobiles-are dumped into the sea off
U.S. coasts. Yet, no Federal agency is
setting touch environmental regulations
to halt this ecologically destructive prac-
tice. And though pollution control
standards programs are established for
close-in coastal waters, nowhere in the
Federal Government is there an effort of
any significance for pollution control
beyond the 3-mile zone offshore. It is.
in effect, frontier days on the high seas.
Each year. 3.000 to 5,000 new oil wells
are drilled in the oceans off the U.S.
coast. Yet last Year, reports by the
President's Panel on Oil Spills con-
firmed that we do not have the tech-
nology at present to control a major
marine oil spill, and further estimated
that with foreseeable drilling and ac-
cident rates, we can expect a Santa
Barbara-scale disaster once a year by
1980. Floating airports are being dis-
cused for waters in the Great Lakes and
the oceans off the coast of several of our
inalor cities. Yet, nowhere in the Federal
Government is there a program to de-
velop comprehensive environmental
plans and regulations to protect agaipst
possibly disastrous consequences of these
and other massive intrusions into the
sea.
Reorganization Plan 4 would not re-
solve these questions. Instead, in this
Nation's first major oceans policy step
this decade. it would establish a NOAA
in a department whose mission the 1969-
70 U.S. Government Organization Man-
ual describes as "to promote full de-
velopment of the economic resources of
the United States."
Almost every national conservation
organization has expressed serious reser-
vation about the creation of NOAA by
plan 4 without agreements on where the
responsibilities for protecting the coastal
and marine environments will be placed.
I ask unanimous consent that a list of
the. organizations that have gone on
record in this regard, along with some
of their statements, be printed in the
RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks,
along with other materials pertaining to
this matter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER Mr.
CRANSTON > . Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mfr. NELSON. Mr. President, further,
none of the several very comprehensive
reports that have been done in recent
years on marine affairs have recom-
mended placing a NOAA in the develop-
ment-oriented Department of Com-
merce. The January 1969 report of the
Commission on Marine Science, Engi-
neering, and Resources-the Stratton
Commission-recommended an ind,?- a mr st beef program cf research and d, vsl-
penelent NOAA. The Ash Council, ap- : at.
pointed by the President to study and And the Stratton Commission report,
recommend government reorganiza- from which much of the thinking for
tion, reportedly recommended a new NOAA is derived, stated that the mission
marine environment agency under the of such an agency would be "to inure
Secretary of the Interior. the full and wise use of the marine en-
And, the administration bill intro-
duecd last year would put the coastal
zone management program in the De-
partment of the Interior. 'rho bill by
Senator MUSKIE first proposing an en-
vironmental protection agency would
have transferred the Environmental
Science Services Administration from
the Department of Commerce to EPA.
And legislation I introduced this year
would establish a comprehensive pro-
gram for marine environment protection
in the Department of the Interior.
The implementation of any of these
proposals would represent a more timely
step toward establishing a national
policy on the oceans than plan 4. All
would give much greater emphasis at
this important stage to ocean environ-
mental protection.
Sound arguments can be made for
putting NOAA in Commerce, as plan 4
does. And though many thoughtful peo-
ple would prefer an independent NOAA
or a new marine affairs agency in the
Department of the Interior, NOAA in
Commerce may well prove to be a work-
able step. However, it would have been
even better if we had waited to settle the
very important marine environmental
questions before establishing the Com-
merce Department NOAA.
Titus, it is my position that NOAA
should not be established at this time.
And by introducing Senate Resolution
433. it has been my purpose to create a
constructive dialog about the implica-
tions of plan 4, so that it would not be
given a blanket approval without any
discussion and without a clear under-
standing of what NOAA in Commerce is
vironment in the best interests of the
United States."
Second, the committee report mokes
it clear that NOAA in Commerce would
have to comply fully with the provisions
of the National Environmental Pc-licy
Act, as do all Federal agencies. It said:
Though the primary mission of NOAA will
be oriented toward research. technology and
resource development. the Agency of cc urse
must, as must all Federal agencies, coanply
with all applicable provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
I would expect many of NOAA's as?tiv-
ities to pose major environmental effects
and thus to require section 102 reports
under the act.
Third, the committee report recognized
and strongly concurred in the principle
that programs to protect the environ-
ment should be separated, in separate
departments. from programs for re-
source development. The report sai(,:
As the central question of the hearings,
the committee finds consistency in the )rin-
eiple that in our oceans policies, environ-
mental standard-setting and enforcement
should be kept separate from other Federal
artivitles. As such, the committee fIrmly be-
lieves that Reorganization Plans 3 and 4
preserve this position by placing environ-
mental standard-setting functions In EPA
and marine research technology and Cevel-
opment functions in NOAA.
This very important principle was
cited by President Nixon in proposing
EPA. A major reason for EPA, he said,
would be that-
It will insulate pollution abatement
standard-setting from the promotional In-
terests of other departments.
expected to do and how it is expected to As we haveceen from the sad history
relate to other agencies. of built-in conflicts of interest in many
And I believe that the hearings by the Federal agencies charged with both de-
Senate Government Operations Subcom- velopment and environmental pratec-
mittee on Executive Reorganization, tion, this is a wise and necessary ccurse.
along with those on the House side, have In this testimony before the Senate
carefully delineated the distinctions be- subcommittee on September 1, ?Mr An-
tween development and environmental drew M. Rouse. Executive Director cf the
standard setting and the importance of President's Advisory Council on E.cecu-
keeping these functions separate. tive Reorganization-the Ash Ccuncil
Further. I believe the Government Op- made it clear this principle should apply
erelions Committee has very carefully In our oceans policies as well. He said:
reviewed the implications of establishing Our view is that any authority created by
this new agency now along with EPA Congress that deals with setting pollution
and has clearly spelled out in Its commit- control standards is not to be in a ra;ource
tee report the important principles and using or promoting agency; so that, if Con-
gress creates authority to set standard.; with
conclusions which must be observed if regard to ocean pollution control. that
plan 4 is allowed to go into effect. authority should be placed in the Environ-
F'irst. the Senate committee report mental Protectlon Agency and not in a re-
clearly identifies ocean resource develop- source using agency.
ment as the primary mission of NOAA Responding to a question on whether
in Commerce. It describes NOAA as "an i his same principle should apply in any
agency whose major concern is the de- coastal zone management program, the
velopment of a national oceanic and Ash Council representative said that al-
atrnospheric program of research and though the Council has not studied
de,.eiopment.- coastal zone management proposals be-
'i'lie evidence that this is the design of cause they are now in pending legisla-
NOAA in plan 4 is very convincing. De- tion, his view is that-
scribing the mission of NOAA, President If there is authority in that bill which
Nixon said in his message to Congress: gives standard setting and enforcement
I expect that NOAA would exercise leader- functions, those functions should be in
ship in developing a national oceanic and EPA.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400120054-3