DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATION BILL, 1971

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 119
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 5, 2001
• Sequence Number: 3
• Publication Date: October 6, 1970
• Content Type: REGULATION

Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA 1WE0fX061'NS&3-8
91ST CONGRESS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES I REPORT
2d Session S No. 91-1570
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATION BILL, 1971
OCTOBER 6, 1970.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. MAHON, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
REPORT
together with
SEPARATE AND ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 195901
The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in
explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for the
Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971.
APPROPRIATIONS AND ESTIMATES
Appropriations for the military functions of the Department of
Defense, including military assistance related to the conflict in
Southeast Asia, are provided for in the accompanying bill for the
fiscal year 1971. This bill does not provide for other military assistance,
military construction, military family housing, or civil defense, which
requirements are considered in connection with other appropriation
bill s.
The new budget (obligational) authority enacted for the fiscal year
1970, the President's budget estimates, and amounts recommended by
the committee for the fiscal year 1971 appear in summary form in the
following table :
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
SUMMARY OF BILL BY MAJOR CATEGORIES
I
al
ar
fi
ti
i
fiscal
et estimate
Bud
ye
on,
sc
Appropr
a
1970 (new budget obli-
j gational authority)
,
g
year 1971 (new budget
obligations] authority)
Appropriation, fiscal
year 1970
Budget estimate, fiscal
year 1971
Title I-Military personnel ----
$23,007,914,493
$21,032,800,000
$20,689,300,000
-$2, 318,
614,
493
Title II-Retired military
personnel ------------------
2, 859, 000, 000
3, 194, 000, 000
3, 194, 000, 000
+ 335,
000,
000
Title III-Operation and
415
000
298
maintenance-------------
21, 534, 995, 495
19, 512, 045, 000
19, 213, 630, 000
-2,321,
365,
495
,
-
,
Title IV-Procurement- - _ _ _ _ _ -
17, 858, 373, 462
-1,114,790, 000
.rl?11.- 1l D.. nl, tln rnlnr,_
11YIO - .Y ~, ~- ~r
and evaluation---
test
ment
7, 406, 748, 694 1
7, 345, 600, 000 1
6, 954, 700, 000
-390, 9UU, UUU
,
,
(Transfer authority) -------
(150, 000, 000)
1 (150, 000, 000)
j (150, 000, 000)
Title VI-Combat readiness,
South Vietnamese Forces - _ _ _
300, 000, 000
358, 500, 000
+ 358,
500,
000
(Transfer authority) ------
(150, 000, 000)
(150, 000, 000)
(-x--150,
000,
000)
Title VII-Special foreign
currency program ------___-_
Title VIII-General Provi-
sions (Additional transfer
authority, Sec. 836)
Total, Department of
Defense--------------I
Transfer authority- - - -
172, 667, 032, 144
(350, 000, 000)
68, 745, 666, 000
(600, 000, 000)
66, 656, 561, 000
(600, 000, 000)
-6, 010, 471, 144 1 -2, 089, 105, 000
(+250, 000, 000)1__________________
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
SUMMARY OF BILL BY MAJOR CATEGORIES-continnea
Distribution by organizational
component: 411, 000
Army _ - _ $23,267,941,402 $20, 210, 665, 000 $19, 592,
21, 681, 703, 671 21,200,70 0, 000 20, 530, 303, 000
Navy --------------------
23, 065, 431, 678 22, 055, 600, 000 21, 280, 386, 000
Air Force------------- 2, 059, 461, 000
Defense agencies/OSD_____ 1, 792, 955, 393 2, 084, 701, 000
Retired military personnel- 2, 859, 000, 000 3, 194, 000, 000 3, 194, 000, 000
Appropriation, fiscal y~ I Budget estimate, fiscal I Committee bill
1970 (new budget obli- lti7onal authority)
Functional title gational authority) bliga
(Transfer authority)--- (3
Appropriation, fiscal
year 1970
68, 745, 666, 000
(600, 000, 000)
-$618, 254, 000
-670, 397, 000 C4
-775, 214, 000
-25, 240, 000
Total, Department of i 72, 667, 032, 144
Defense-------------- 50 000 000)
66, 656, 561, 000
(600, 000, 000)
Budget etiimate, fiscal 1971
- $3, 675, 530, 402
-1, 151, 400, 671
-1, 785, 045, 678
+ 266, 505, 607
+ 335, 000, 000
-2, 089, 105, 000
-6, 010, 471, 144
(+250, 000, 000)
Act
allocated from the lump-sum indefinite appropriation in title III, Se3and Supplemental Appropriation , 1970, for the general 6 percent retroactive pay
Includes $760
',264,144 Increase.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
SCOPE OF THE BILL
The Committee considered budget estimates totaling $68,745,666,000
as presented in the President's Budget for fiscal year 1971.
The accompanying bill recommends appropriations in the total
amount of $66,656,561,000, a decrease of $2,089,105,000 below the esti-
mates and. $6,010,471,144 below the appropriations enacted for fiscal
year 1970.
Congressional action on the authorization bill mandated reductions
from budgeted amounts totaling $776,000,000.
The net reductions recommended are three percent of the estimates.
Ninety-seven percent of the sum requested is recommended for appro-
priation.
The sums recommended, when added to the balances remaining
available on June 30, 1970, will snake a total of $74,000,000,000 avail-
able for obligation and a total of $105,Q00,000,000, including obligated
and unobligated funds, available for expenditure in fiscal year 1971.
The specific transfer authority granted the Secretary of Defense
is recommended to be increased from $350,000,000 to $600,000,000.
The sums recommended for appropriation are considered to be suffi-
cient to maintain adequate military strength in Fiscal Year 1971 and
will provide a basis for carrying that strength forward into subsequent
fiscal years. The reductions recommended can be accommodated with-
out denying programs essential to the basic military strength of the
country. Many of the actions recommended are intended to provide
an increase in military strength through the elimination of practices
which tend to dissipate real military strength.
A brief summary of the major areas in which changes from the
budget are recommended follows :
iELF.CTED MAJOR AREAS OF COMMITTEE ACTION
(1) Procurement funds which failed authorization------------- -532, 600, 000
(2) Research, development test, and evaluation projects not
approved in authorization a.ction----------------------- -244,000,000
(3) Deferral of production of items on which development and
testing is not sufficiently completed---------------------- -500, 000,000
(4) Funding of naval ships not included in the Budget ---------- +417,500,000
(5) Shortfalls in military personnel resulting from decision of
Department not to maintain strength levels proposed in the
Budget ---------------------------------------------- -203,450, 000
(6) Reduction in numbers of personnel. in departmental head-
quarters ----------------------- ----------------------- -59, 500, 000
(7) Civilian personnel reductions ------------------------------ -48,130,000
(8) Reduction in automatic data processing------------------ -43,300,000
(9) Increase for Vletnamization program--------------------- +58, 500, 000
(10) Reduction in permanent change of station travel for the pur-
pose of providing more stability in military assignments-_ -95,200,000
[The details of these and other reductions are described hereafter in this
report. I
BASIS OF CONSIDERATION
The Committee on Appropriations is dedicated to maintaining the
military superiority of the United States. Over the years the Congress
has provided the money to accomplish this and the funds recom-
mended in the accompanying bill are deemed sufficient for fiscal year
1971.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
5
But the competition with the Soviet Union is becoming keener
everyday and there is no room for American bungling in the field of
defense. In order to maintain our capability over the long-pull, a
better job of managing defense dollars must be done. This fact has
been a dominant consideration in the drafting of the bill which accom-
panies this report.
The American people know that the generous outpouring of defense
dollars will not in itself get the job done. It does take money to do the
job, but it takes money wisely spent and based upon down to earth
planning.
The Soviet Union continues to increase its inventory of land-based
intercontinental ballistic missiles and sea-based submarine launched
ballistic missiles. Soviet naval forces are being augmented steadily
and modernized both in surface ships and in submarines.
Although the direct involvement of the United States in the war
in Vietnam is decreasing from the peak when 543,000 American mili-
tary personnel were in the area, we still will have according to the
latest estimates, not more than 284,000 personnel in Vietnam in the
spring of 1971, a reduction of 259,000 or more, about one-half. Spend-
ing for the war in Southeast Asia is expected to decline from a high of
almost $30 billion to a rate of $14.5 billion by the end of fiscal year
1971.
The Strategic Arms Limitations Talks have not as yet become a
significant factor in permitting a major reduction i in defense spending
This is not a time in which we can afford a Business as usual
relaxed approach to the management of defense programs. The best
performance of our best civilian and military personnel is required
for our long range security.
The country has every right to expect that the appropriation of
more than $66,000,000,000 will provide formidable military forces
throughout fiscal year 1971. Military personnel strength at the end of
the fiscal year is estimated to be 2.9 million. The Navy will have 757
commissioned ships in the active fleet including 41 Polaris and Poseidon
submarines carrying 656 ballistic missiles and the Air Force will have
1,054 ICBMs on launchers and an active inventory of 13,352 aircraft.
These forces, which are described in more detail under "Major Military
Programs" later in the report should be adequate to meet the con-
tingencies which may arise.
The effectiveness of the Department of Defense cannot be measured
solely in terms of the dollar level of expenditures. Unlimited re-
sources do not overcome inefficiency and mismanagement. Instead,
excessive funding produces more inefficiency and mismanagement.
What this country needs is more defense for the dollar, not necessarily
MIDDLE EAST
The tense situation in the Middle East is of grave concern to the
committee. The deepening involvement of the Soviet Union and the
danger to world peace resulting from such involvement cannot be
ignored by the United States.
In recognition of this situation, the Congress approved section 501
of H.R. 17123, the defense authorization bill.
Funds for this purpose are handled through the military assistance
program.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
6
STRATEGIC FORCES
Unless there is substantial progress in the current Strategic Arms
Limitation Talks or some other arms limitation agreement, we may
be required to begin another large step forward to buttress our strategic
military strength. More Polaris type submarines and more Minuteman
missiles on launchers may be required.
While statements presented to the Committee expressed alarm over
the growing Soviet strategic power in submarine and land-based inter-
continental missiles on launchers, neither the budget nor the authoriza-
tion bill proposed any funds for additional strategic missiles on
launchers at this time. Our country has not yet crossed this bridge,
but if there is no arms limitation agreement and the Soviet buildup
continues, we must increase our strategic forces or be strategically
outgunned.
DEFENSE DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT
One of the major objectives of many of the reductions which have
been recommended by the Committee in the accompanying bill is to
tighten up the operations of the Department of Defense and make the
Department more efficient for the critical times ahead.
What is said in the report by way of criticism of the Defense
Department should not be construed as special criticism of the present
holders of defense positions. Our concern relates to problems and pro-
cedures of long standing which have been recognized by high Defense
officials.
Too often in the past, funds have been appropriated for weapons
and other objectives when Defense officials said they needed the money,
only to find, during the hearings in the following years, that they
(lid not use the money for the purposes for which it had been appro-
priated. This practice has tended to downgrade the appropriation
process. For example, over the last nine years, Congress has appro-
priated over $1,600,000,000 for 71. new ships and ship conversions
which have been canceled by the Navy and most of the funds have
been diverted to other shipbuilding programs.
Too often, budget estimates have been made without firm
foundations.
This is evidenced by the high level of reprogramming of defense
funds which has taken place. For the past fiscal year, 1970, individual
reprogramming actions for all purposes received by the Committee
involved 299 increases totaling $2,431,763,000 and 422 reductions
totaling $2,31.3,427,000, for a total dollar change of more than $4.7
billion.
Some of these changes were minor. Some merely involved technical
budgetary adjustments. But some involved major programs and major
national defense decisions. All represent changes to Defense Budget
programs presented to Congress and enacted by the Congress. Major
programs changed include the SAFEGUARD ABM, the F-14 and
F-111 aircraft, the DD 963 destroyer program and other ships and
claims for cost overruns in prior year shipbuilding programs, restora-
tion of the USS Guitarro (SSN-666), and Minuteman missiles. In
addition, a number of "below the threshold" reprogramming which,
under present procedures, do not come before the Committee have
App ' l s 2001/11/01: CIA-RDP72-00337R000306140003-8
ie ommittee does not propose to eliminate the reprogramming
process. It fully realizes that some degree of flexibility is necessary.
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
7
But, the Committee does believe that a better job should be done in
defense planning and that better planning would be reflected in fewer
reprogrammings. The volume of reprogrammings is a strong indica-
tion that much defense planning is superficial and without firm
foundation.
DELAY IN REPORTING BILL
The Committee regrets that the Defense Appropriation Bill is being
presented at a late date again this year.
The Defense bill was scheduled to be reported from the Committee
on Appropriations on June 3,1970. The Committee completed the hear-
ings on May 13th, exactly on the schedule laid down early in the year,
and would have been able to meet the reporting schedule. However,
most procurement and all research, development, test, and evaluation
appropriations have, in recent years, required annual authorization.
The annual authorization legislation conference report did not clear
Congress until October 1. The House passed the authorizing legislation
on May 6, the Senate on September 1. The conferees met first on
September 22.
After authorization levels are established on a bill of the magni-
tude, importance, and complexity of the Defense Appropriation bill,
it is desirable that the Appropriations Committee have a reasonable
time in which to review the hearings, reach decisions on the many
items involved in the bill, write an adequate report, and present the
bill to the House of Representatives.
The lateness of the passage of the bill complicates efforts to effec-
tively manage the programs of the Department of Defense. Program
managers cannot firmly plan their efforts. Congress is to some extent
frustrated in efforts to accelerate or reduce programs since spending
for much of the fiscal year is accomplished under continuing resolu-
tions and substantial spending takes place prior to final Congressional
action. Programs which Congress wishes to delete or modify con-
tinue under the Continuing Resolution and savings which should
result from Congressional reductions are diminished. Reductions made
late in the fiscal year give Departmental managers a very short time to
react to and implement Congressional decisions. Congress must make
thorough reviews of Defense budgets, but Congress also needs to im-
prove the timeliness of its actions.
CLOSER CONTROL OF CARRYOVER BALANCES
In its action on the Defense Appropriation Bill for Fiscal Year 1970,
the Committee recommended the enactment of limitations which
would have made appropriations for Procurement and Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation available for- obligation for
specific periods of time rather than available until expended. This
action was recommended as a means of tightening Congressional con-
trol of Defense Department appropriations. The action recommended
would have reduced the unobligated and unexpended balances in De-
fense Appropriations.
When funds remain available until expenditure, financial managers
can recoup sums when contracts are cancelled, contingency funds are
not utilized, programs slip or are changed in scope, or in other ways.
Such funds are held and are applied to other programs as required in
dtEy r e28O4 1 irUA4FDRftM3V'7 89~1klA0003-8
i e tote ommittee on September 24th which "found" un-
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
expended funds from fiscal years 196 1964,1965, and 1966,
primarily from the construction of POLARIS submarines, as a source
of funding. The availability of these funds makes defense planners,
to a limited extent, immune from tight Congressional fiscal control.
The Committees involved with defense funding apply a degree of
control through the reprogramming process. Changing the present
"no-year" appropriations to multiyear appropriations would provide
an additional measure of control to the whole Congress.
The House concurred in the Committee's recommendation last year
and the provisions referred to were included in the bill passed by the
Flouse.
The Senate Committee concurred. in the objectives of the House but,
after appeals made by the Defense Department, substituted an alterna-
tive proposition which continued "no-year" appropriations but re-
quired that future budget submissions identify all old balances and
recommend them for rescission. The House agreed to the Senate
proposition in conference.
The alternate procedure has proven to be difficult and confusing in
operation. The fiscal year 1971 budget repported certain amounts for
rescission, but contrary to the understanding given the House con-
ferees, included like and offsetting amounts in the budget over and
above the program amounts required. This made the proposed rescis-
sion action ineffective in reducing balances in that a rescission or re-
duction in new obligational authority is required in order to reach
the budget authority or "President's Budget' amount.
Thus, as presented in the 1971 Budget, the rescissions recommended
did not reduce balances since they were offset by appropriation requests
in excess of program requirements. The sums appropriated above pro-
gram requirements then become part of the unobligated balance. This
is a fiscal game in which the Committee will not participate.
Further, the amounts estimated. for rescission appear to be based
on very optimistic obligation rates. Probably, considerably larger
amounts should have been reported for rescission.
In order to reduce balances as was anticipated in the enactment of
the alternate legislation last year, in the accompanying bill the commit-
tee has in each instance made an additional reduction in the same
amount as the sum reported for rescission.This second reduction is a
-valid reduction in the new budget authority requested. The author-
izing legislation included similar action.
Additional confusion was created by the way in which the estimates
were presented to the authorizing committees. The submission of the
Defense Department made it appear that a single reduction from the
appropriation estimates would be a reduction in the budget request
and erroneously ignored the rescission requirement entirely.
The Committee feels that the language proposed in the accompany-
ing bill is more straightforward and clear and will effectively reduce
unobligated balances. The language is the same, except that the dates
are changed to reflect the passage of a year, as the language adopted
by the House last year.
Appropriations for most major procurements will be available for
only three fiscal years, shipbuilding appropriations will be available
for only five fiscal years, and research, development, test, and evalua-
tion a pro riations will be available for only two fiscal years. The
Approl r]Wg"&j 00Wdg i g f}al eRfe]Rr 2a~ 0a1 1 3-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
9
spend-out periods and in its internal operations requires that the mili-
tar departments reut lizat on of obtain balance available beyond these time periods.
SAFEGUARD
The Committee fully supports the SAFEGUARD system as
authorized by Congress and recommends an appropriation of
$1,079,900,000, a reduction of $13,100,000, for SAFEGUARD includ-
ing the full amount authorized applicable to the Defense Appropria-
tion Bill. The funds appropriated in this bill will provide for the con-
tinuation of the Phase I sites at Malmstrom and Grand Forks, as well
as full deployment at Whiteman and advanced preparation at War-
ren Air Force Base.
The bill does not provide funds for the four SAFEGUARD sites
related to deployment of an area defense against a Chinese Communist
ICBM attack which failed Congressional authorization.
The $1,079,900,000 included in the bill for SAFEGUARD, is dis-
tributed by appropriation as follows : $365,000,000 for RDT&E,
$651,000,000 for Procurement, $49,900,000 for Operation and Mainte-
nance, and $14,000,000 for Military Personnel. The budget request for
Operation and Maintenance was $53,000,000 which the Committee re-
duced to $49,900,000, a reduction of $3,100,000. The basis for this
reduction is discussed on page 39. The total appropriated in this bill
does not include $357,000,000 for Military Construction or $8,800,000
for Family Housing for SAFEGUARD which are carried in the
Military Construction Appropriation bill passed by the House.
APPROVED SAFEGUARD PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 1971
tin millions of dollars]
Phase 1
Added
Sprints GF Whiteman Warren
and Malm site Site Other
Total
& E
T
R
D
$365.0
--
--------- ---
15
0
$365.0
651.0
.
.
.
rocurement---------------------
P rocur
458.0
------------
.
?------------- $178.0 $
0
$11.
49.9
inn and maintenance--------
n-rat
38.9
-------------------------------------- 2
0
14.0
12.0
--------------------------------------
873.9
-------------- 178.0 15.0 13.0
11,079.9
I In addition $357,0001000 for military construction and $8,000,000 for family housing are contained in the House
passed military construction appropriation bill.
REQUIREMENT FOR ADDITIONAL BUDGET INFORMATION
Under present procedures, the Committee must spend a great deal
of time in the hearings requesting information that is readily available
in the Department of Defense. Many of the requests are repetitive in
that similar information must be obtained separately as it relates to
many individual programs and projects. The Department could fur-
nish much of such information in the formal justifications, in the
statements of various witnesses, or in additional supporting material
so that it would be available without the Committee s having to spend
valuable hearing time requesting that such information be submitted.
In order that the hearing record in the future may be as complete as
reasonably possible, it is r nested that the justification material be
~k~~~ at as much un-
Ap ITT 9~c P s~ ' ~~ n GTA- I 4.00 37R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
10
classified :material as possible may be placed in the public record. The
Committee has no desire to publish material which should remain
classified but feels that more of the supporting material could be
properly placed in the record without specific timetaking interroga-
tion by the Committee.
For Military Personnel the Committee requests that the budget
submission include an explanatory table setting forth the major in-
creases and decreases for the budget year as compared with the current
year. Cost data appearing in the budget submission should be on a
three year rather than a two year basis in order to permit a comparison
of budget year and current year estimates with actual year costs.
Supporting material should be provided as back-up data for the
budget submission for such items as the distribution of forces by geo-
graphical area; combat versus non-combat forces; individuals assigned
to activities outside the service; and individuals assigned to such ac-
tivities as communications, intelligence, ADP, headquarters and other
areas of special interest to the Committee.
The witness statements for Military Personnel should present a
detailed discussion of how the requirements were developed, where the
resources will be used, and why they will be required.
For operation and maintenance, information should be provided
showing the total estimated cost of such operations or programs as
automatic data processing; communications; intelligence; headquar-
ters operations and administration service support contracts; and the
status of the repair and overhaul of aircraft, engines, ships, etc. Details
on civilian personnel should include the number of new employees, the
operations involved and the types of positions for which funds are
being requested. Other information on civilian personnel should in-
clude the estimated beginning and ending man-year strengths and
the number of full time permanent employees. Details on other per-
sonnel compensation should also be included. New programs and opera-
tions should be specifically identified. All special study programs
should also be identified, specifying the cost and nature of the study
and the accomplishments to date for those of a continuing nature.
For Procurement, the Committee requests that the military depart-
ments submit supporting documents similar to the Congressional Au-
thorization Data Sheets now available. This supporting data should
include, where appropriate, the mission and characteristics of the item
or weapon system, a photograph of the item or weapon system,
authorized inventory objectives versus numbers on hand, cost data,
including original program cost compared with current program cost,
procurement unit costs, program unit costs, cost increases subsequent
to the last hearings, and so forth. The Committee will also require the
dates each contractor and various military tests are to begin and end,
and the status of the testing program, including the number of flight
tests or test firings, where appropriate, the number of successes and
failures, and any deficiencies identified, as well as an estimate of the
cost to correct such deficiencies. Information should be provided on
the number of such items stored in mobilization reserve, stocks.
In the Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation appropria-
tions, information should be made available as to cost and schedule
changes, test results, status of test programs, development or testing
failures, delays or difficulties, funds obligated or deferral of obliga-
Approvvedc' or b'~ ~~ ~i~~P Y 4A P lOI( t3 flti QS}fAQ0D3-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
11
eluding the dates and estimated costs of reaching the milestones. Such
information would, of course, be in addition to the information pres-
ently being furnished. The Committee should also be furnished infor-
mation on the introduction of new weapons and equipments into the
inventories of the Services.
In the areas of research and exploratory development, more specific
information should be submitted as to the requirements and results
of various areas of effort, the contractors or in-house facilities in-
volved, the numbers of personnel involved, the estimated length of
time required to complete various efforts, an identification of new
programs initiated and old efforts terminated, and information as to
the direct and indirect cost of specific major projects.
The Committee reiterates its belief that the work of the Appropria-
tions Committee is most effectively accomplished through the Con-
troller and Budget Office organizations of the Department of Defense
and the Military Services rather than through other channels, in-
cluding legislative liaison offices. From time to time efforts are made
to fragment this responsibility within the Department. Such efforts
only serve to complicate and delay the business of the Committee.
Any such changes should be initiated by the Committee and not by the
Department.
MAJOR MILITARY PROGRAMS
This section of the report describes briefly U.S. military forces in
terms of their principal military missions rather than the budget
categories for which appropriations are made.
The table below lists the major military forces programs in the
fiscal year 1971 Department of Defense budget request for the titles
contained in the bill. The Committee's proposed changes are sum-
marized in a single entry at the bottom of the table.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
MAJOR MILITARY PROGRAMS AS APPLICABLE TO TITLES I, II, III, IV, V, VI, AND VII
[In millions of dollars[
Major military program budget eitimates i
Strategic forces -----------------------------------------------------------------------$7,371
General purpose forces------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 24,139
Intelligence and communications---------------------------------------------------------------------- 5,217
Airlift and sealift------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1,415
Guard and reserve forces----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2,433
Research and development--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5,302
Central supply and maintenance---------------------------------------------------------------------- 8,206
Training, medical and other general personnel activities------------------------------------------------- 9,025
Retired pay:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 194
Administration and associated activities---------------------------------------------------------------- 1,317
Military assistance funded by Department of Defense---------------------------------------------------- 2,424
Totalobligationalauthority --------------------------------------------------------------------- 70,042
Deduct: Financing adjustments----------------------------------------------------------------------- -1,296
Estimate, new budget (obligational) authority----------------------------------------------------- 68,746
Changes recommended by Appropriations Committee---------------------------------------------------- -2,089
New appropriations in accompanying bill--------------------------------------------------------- 66,657
r President's fiscal year 1971 budget.
Note.-Detail may not add to total due to rounding.
The next table shows the fiscal year 1971 budget request by both
major military program and budget title with the total Committee
changes shown at the bottom of the table'. hese changes are discussed
elsewhere in the report.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-DISTRIBUTION OF PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 1971 BUDGET ESTIMATES FOR TITLES I, 11, III, IV, V, VI, AND VII BY MAJOR MILITARY PROGRAM
Its millions of dollars]
Title VI-combat
Title II Title III readiness, SVN
Title I retired operation forces and Title
military military VII-special Total title I
ry rY and Title IV Title V foreign currency 11,111, IV, V,
personnel personnel maintenance procurement R.D.T. & E. program VI, and VII
Strategic orces-------------------------------------------------- $1,556 $1,395 $3,323 $1,097 ------------------ $7,371
General purpose forces-------------------------------------- 8.712 ----------- ---- 4.779 0 ova
. _..a ,,o- I CaH r
Airlift ., and ndre ----------- 1.337 ---------------- 1,528 1: 832 520 --------- - ------ 1,.415
5217
Guard Airli and reserve erve------ forces ------------------------------------------- 406 ---------------- 229 768 12
---------------------------
Research and development---------------------------------------- 1,267 1,011 306 155 ------------------------------- - 5,302
14 --------------- -------------------------------- 4.993 $3 5,302
Central supp p and maintenance------------------------------------ 314 ------------ _ 6,839 1,048 ___-__---__--_-- 5 8,206
Training, medical and other general personnel activities ---------------- 6,387 __-----__--,___ _ 2,228 410 ___________________________-_ 8 025
Retired pay (funded)----------------------------------------------- i3 194 -------------- 3,
,194
Administration and associated activities------------------------------ 415 ---------------- 846 -55 ------------- assistance funded by Department of Defense__________________ 332 ---------------- 658 1,133 1 1 424
300 2,424
Total obligationalauthority ----------------------------------- 21,033 3,194 19,512 18,649 7,346
Deduct: Financing adjustments----------------------------------------------------------- 308 70,042
-1,291 5 -1,296
Appropriations______________________________________________ 21,033 3,194 19,512 17,359 7,346 303 68,746
Changes recommended by Appropriations Committee__________________ -344 ------_ -_--3-_--- -298 -1,115 -391 5 -2089
New appropriations in accompanying bill_____________________________ 20,689 ,194 19,214 16,244 6,955 361 66,657
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
13
The following discussion focuses principally on the more significant
programs included in the budget requests. Detailed explanations and
justifications of the various programs can be found in the Committee's
published hearings.
STRATEGIC FORCES
This major military program comprises both offensive and defensive
strategic forces as well as the Civil Defense effort. (Funding for Civil
Defense is not included in this bill nor in the preceding tables.) These
general nuclear war forces are designed to provide a posture which en-
sures a sufficiency of strategic power.
The overriding purpose of our strategic posture is political and de-
fensive : to deny other countries the ability to impose their will on
the United States and its allies under the weight of strategic military
superiority. To have sufficiency of strategic power, we must have a
force large and capable enough to be certain that all potential aggres-
sors see unacceptable risk in contemplating a nuclear attack, or nuclear
blackmail, or acts that could escalate to strategic nuclear war.
The offensive elements of the strategic forces consist of a mix of
manned bombers and missiles (both land-based and sea-based) along
with the necessary reconnaissance and command and control systems.
We expect that our forces will continue to include these three elements
for as far into the future as we are presently planning.
A number of programs to strengthen our strategic offensive forces
will be continued in FY 1971. The Budget includes funds for procure-
ment of additional quantities of the new MIRV'ed MINUTEMAN III
missiles and conversion of six more fleet ballistic missile submarines
to the MIRV'ed POSEIDON configuration. Both of these programs
were initiated several years ago. No increase in the total number of
ICBM and SLBM launchers is proposed this year. These forces con-
tinue to include 1000 MINUTEMAN ICBM's 54 TITAN II ICBM's,
and 656 POLARIS and POSEIDON SLB] i's, however, the MIRV
programs funded in this budget will provide a substantial increase in
the number of available strategic warheads. This increase will help to
ensure that our nuclear deterrent forces remain sufficient in the future
-+ regardless of what actions our opponents might take.
In order to enhance the capability of our bombs to penetrate air de-
fenses in the futureprocurement will be initiated of the Short Range
Attack Missile (SR, AM), designed for use against terminal defenses,
and development will be continued of the Subsonic Cruise Armed
Decoy (SCAD), an advanced penetration aid designed to counter area
defenses. Funds are also included in the FY 1971 Budget to continue
engineering development of the Advanced Manned Strategic Aircraft
now known as the B-1. The first of these planes could become available
to replace the B-52s in the late 1970s.
Because of uncertainty about the invulnerability of the strategic
forces in the future, the strategic forces program includes the initia-
tion of detailed design studies on a new system, the Undersea Long
Range Missile System (ULMS). This system could become available
in the late 1970s if a decision is made to deploy it, and it would serve
to enhance significantly our strategic deterrent.
The strategic defensive forces also contribute substantially to our
strategic posture of sufficiency. The SAFEGUARD Anti-Ballistic
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
Missile (ABM) program supported in the Bill will provide additional
protection for the MINUTEMAN missile force. The full SAFE-
GUARD system is designed to provide protection for the MINUTE-
MAN forces against Soviet ICBM attacks. Funds are included for
both the first phase of this system, and the modified Phase 2 increment,
which includes deployment of one additional site in the MINUTE-
MA N fields and added SPRINT interceptors at the two Phase I sites
With respect to air defense, extensive revisions are being made in
the existing system, including changes in the warning and control sys-
tems and a phasedown in manned interceptors and surface-to-air mis-
siles. Coverage of the most important threat corridors will still be pro-
vided pending the modernization of this system. In connection with
this modernization, funds are included in the FY 1971 Budget for the
continuation of development of AWACS, a new airborne warning and
control aircraft that would operate along with a new over-the-horizon
radar and an improved interceptor. Research effort and study of both
the radar and interceptor will also be continued in FY 1971.
The cost of the Strategic Forces in fiscal year 1971, for the accounts
covered in this bill, is estimated at $7.4 billion.
GENERAL PURPOSE FORCES
The General Purpose Forces include most of the Army's combat, and
combat support units, nearly all Navy units, all Marine Corps units,
and the tactical units of the Air Force. These forces are designed to
perform the entire range of combat operations short of general nu-
clear war.
Although funding for these forces has been reduced somewhat dur-
ing the past years, the bill recommended by the Committee will pro-
vide for further improvements in the firepower, mobility and readiness
of our general purpose forces and for the replacement of supplies and
equipment consumed in the Southeast Asia conflict.
As U.S. troops are withdrawn from Southeast Asia in connection
with the Vietnamization program, some of the units that were ac-
tivated specifically for that conflict are being deactivated. The active
Army will decline from 192/3 Division Force Equivalents at end FY
1969 to 171/3 at end FY 1970, a total reduction of 21/3 Division Force
Equivalents. The active Marine Corps is being reduced from four di-
visions at end FY 1969 to three by end FY 1970. The force reductions
made possible by the Vietnamization program, as well as other reduc-
tions in general purpose forces, have brought the costs of these forces
in FY 1971 down to $24.1 billion for the accounts covered in this bill.
Further discussion of the specific forces, equipment procurement
programs and financing will be found in subsequent sections of this
report.
AIRLIFT AND SEALTFT
Tncluded in this program are: the Military Airlift Command's
strategic airlift aircraft; the tactical airlift aircraft assigned to the
Tactical Air Command and the Unified Commands; the transport and
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
15
troop carrier aircraft in the reserve components; and the troop ships,
cargo ships, tankers and "forward floating depot" ships of the Military
Sea Transportation Service.
The procurement of the fourth and final squadron of the very large
payload C-5A transport aircraft was completed in FY 1970, however,
$544 million is included in the bill to finance prior year unfunded defi-
ciencies and to provide for contingencies in this program.
For the accounts covered in this bill, the cost of the Airlift/Sealift
forces in fiscal year 1971 is estimated in the Budget gat $1.4 billion.
GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES
While reductions are being made in the active land forces, the re-
serve forces will be maintained at the present level-eight Army Di-
visions and one Marine Corps Division.
Our existing reserve airlift capabilities will be strengthened during
the next few years as the C-130A and C-130B aircraft currently in
the active forces are transferred to the reserve components, and as
additional C-141 associate units are formed.
The cost of the Reserve and Guard Forces in fiscal year 1971 (for
the accounts covered by this bill) is estimated at $2.4 billion.
The research and development program comprises all research and
development effort not directly identified with elements of other pro-
grams and in 1971 is estimated (for the accounts covered in this bill)
at $5.3 billion. The Committee's recommendations for this program
are discussed elsewhere in the report.
This category covers the remaining major defense programs : In-
telligence and Communications; Central Supply and Maintenance;
Training, Medical and Other General Personnel Activities; Admin
istration and Associated Activities; and Military Assistance funded
by the Deartment of Defense. Included in the Intelligence and Com-
munications are such activities as intelligence operations; communica-
p
tions, weather service, air rescue and recovery, and the National Mili-
tary Command System. Training, Medical and Other General Per-
sonnel Activities includes such functions as recruiting, transporta-
tion, housing, retirement pay, etc., of the serviceman and his family,
except for those costs which can be directly attributed to another major
program. Retired pay, the only item included for which a separate ap-
propriation is made, will cost $3.2 billion in fiscal year 1971, reflecting
the continued rise in the number of military personnel on the retired
rolls. Central Supply and Maintenance encompasses the wide variety
of centralized supply and logistics activities including the purchasing,
storing and inspection of materiel and the major rebuild and overhaul
of common stock items. Military Assistance funded by the Department
of Defense covers the cost of aid furnished our Free World allies in
Vietnam. For fiscal year 1971 the cost of all these other activities cov-
ered by the accounts in this bill is estimated in the budget at $29.4 bil-
lion.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
FORCES To BE Su-PPORTED BY ORGANIZATION
In this section of the report, the military forces and programs con-
sidered by the Committee are discussed by organizational component.
As shown in the following table., the Budget projects a total active
duty military personnel strength of 2,908,127 at the end of fiscal year
1-971. This represents a reduction in the number of military personnel
of about 16% during the two-year period from the end of FY 1969 to
the end of FY 1971. The details supporting this reduction appear in
the discussion under Title I.
ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS
(In thousands]
June 30,
De,:. 31.
6
1
Fiscal year 1970 estimate
Fiscal year 1971 estimate
Army:
1969
actual
9
9
actual
Average
End
Average
End
OtOcers________________________
172.4
167.3
167.0
165.2
156.9
150.5
Enlisted________________________
1,337.0
1, 260.5
1,272.6
1,194.2
1,115.9
1,085.0
Cadets, USMA__________________
2.5
3.8
3.7
3.9
3.9
4.1
Total, Army__________________
1,511.9
1,431.6
1,403.4
1,363.2
1,276.7
1,239.6
Navy:
Officers ----------------------
85.0
81.0
82.7
81.0
78.6
76.6
Enlisted__________________
686.2
636.4
648.2
608.4
585.3
562.9
Midshipmen, USNA_____
4.4
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
Total, Navy___________________
775.6
'21.5
735.1
693.7
668.0
643.8
Marine Corps:
Officers________________________
25.7
25.2
25.5
24.6
23.6
23.0
Enlisted________________________
284.1
276.5
279.8
269.5
241.2
218.2
Total, Marine Corps -----------
309.8
:101.7
305.3
294.1
264.8
241.2
Air Force:
---------------------
-
Officers
135.2
133.7
133.0
130.0
129.1
127.8
-
-
_______________________
Enlisted
722.9
704.9
701.0
675.5
662.6
651.3
_
Cadets, USAFA_________________
3.9
3.8
3.7
4.2
4.0
4.4
Total, Air Force:_______________
862.1
1342.4
837.7
809.6
795.7
783.5
Total, Department of Defense:
400
8
388
2
377
9
Officers________________________
418.2
407.2
408.3
.
.
.
Enlisted______________
3,030.3
2,818.3
2,901.7
2,747.6
2,604.9
2,517.5
Academy cadets and midshipmen-
10.9
11.7
11.6
1?.3
12.0
12.8
Grand total___________________
3,459.4
3,297.2
3,321.6
3,160.6
3,005.2
2,908.1
For fiscal year 1970, the fiscal year 1971 Budget proposes active
.Army forces of 152/3 divisions and. 5 independent brigades. Although
it is not possible to project the detailed force structure of the Army
forces for FY 1971 because of the uncertainties surrounding our de-
ployments to Southeast Asia, the reductions between FY 1969 and FY
1970 in the division and brigade forces as well as the supporting forces
reflect the first three increments of withdrawals from Southeast Asia
(completed in April 1970) and a reevaluation of land forces
requirements.
The FY 1971 Budget provides for the procurement of 814 aircraft,
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
including large quantities of UH-111 IROQUOIS utility helicopters
and OH-6/58 light observation helicopters. This total represents a
decrease of about 20% from the number of aircraft procured in FY
1970, and a drop of about 40% from the quantity procured in FY 1969.
The number of missiles being procured in FY 1971 declines by almost
50%, principally because the final procurement of SHILLELAGH
anti-tank missiles was made in FY 1970. The FY 1971 program in-
cludes TOW anti-tank missiles, CHAPARRAL and HAWK air de-
fense missiles, and SPARTAN and SPRINT missiles for the SAFE-
GUARD ABM system. A wide variety of ground munitions would be
procured in order to support the projected levels of combat activity in
Southeast Asia. Procurement of communications equipment, combat
and support vehicles and weapons will again be reduced in FY 1971.
The Committee's recommendations on Army procurement are dis-
cussed in Title IV of this report.
One item of special significance is the revision of the Army's main
battle tank program. The revised program will make maximum use of
components already available from the MBT-70 program, but it has
been reoriented toward development of a new tank, now designated the
XM/803, that will meet the Army's requirements at a considerably
lower unit cost, which will be approximately $600,000 when procured
in the quantity now contemplated.
A summary of major active army forces, as projected in the Budget,
follows :
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY-SUMMARY OF MAJOR ACTIVE FORCES, FISCAL YEARS 1969-71
Divisions:
Airborne -----------------------------------------------------
1
1 --------------
Infantry------------------------------------------------------
Mechanized-------------------------------------------------
4
4 --------------
Armored------------------- ---------------------------------
4
4 ------------
Airmobile----------------------------------------------------
2
2 --------------
Total------------------------------------------------------
18
153'x--------------
Independent brigades_____________________________________________
--------------
Active-duty military personnel______________________________________
1,511,946
1,363,210 1,239,582
Reserve component personnel (paid-drill training)_____________________
(650,276)
(660,000) (660,000)
Army National Guard__________________________________________
388,954
400,000 400,000
Army Reserve------------------------------------------------
261,322
260,000 260,000
I Reflects the President's fiscal year 1971 budget.
2 Because of uncertainties surrounding deployments in Southeast Asia the detailed force structure of Army units Is not
available.
The proposed budget would support an active fleet of 757 ships at
the end of fiscal year 1971, compared with 761 at the end of fiscal
year 1970 and 886 at the end of fiscal year 1969, and an active aircraft
inventory (Navy and Marine Corps) of 7,759 at the end of fiscal
year 1971, somewhat reduced from fiscal year 1970. The forces
would include 19 attack and ASW support carriers, 242 ASW and
air defense escort ships, and 95 amphibious assault ships at the end
of fiscal year 1971, as well as 1,989 Navy and Marine Corps tactical
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
18
aircraft and 538 ASW aircraft. A number of new ships will join the
fleet during fiscal year 1971, including 8 nuclear attack submarines,
14 escort ships and 14 amphibious assault ships.
The proposed budget provides for construction of three nuclear
attach submarines, one nuclear-powered guided missile frigate, six
destroyers and two general purpose assault ships. It also includes
advanced procurement funds for a fourth nuclear-powered attack
carrier, two nuclear attack submarines, two nuclear-powered missile
frigates and two more general purpose assault ships. A total of 261
aircraft would be procured, including A-6 all-weather bombers, EA-
613 electronic countermeasures aircraft, E-2C early warning aircraft,
AV-6B HARRIER aircraft, A-7 and A-4 attack aircraft and P-3
patrol aircraft. The budget also includes funds for the initial procure-
ment of the Navy's new F-14A multi-purpose fighter and the new
carrier-based ASW aircraft, the S-3, as well as for the development
of a new fleet air defense missile system called AEGIS. Funds are
included for substantial quantities of missiles, ammunition, and other
types of supplies, weapons, and equipment.
A summary of major Navy forces follows:
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
SUMMARY OF MAJOR ACTIVE FORCES, FISCAL YEARS 1969-71
Planned r-
Actual
June 30, 1964
June 30, 1970
June 30, 1971
Commissioned ships in Active Fleet_________________________________
886
761
757
Warships-----------------------------------------------------
452
418
426
Other-------------------------------------------------------
434
343
331
Submarine-launched ballistic missile launchers-----------------------
656
Attack and ASW support carriers____________________________________
22
19
19
ASW and air defense escort ships- ________________-
274
236
242
Amphibious assault ships------------------------------------------
150
97
95
Aircraft inventory (active)__________________________________________
8, 513
8,128
7, 759
Tactical aircraft (Navy and Marine Corps)________________________
2, 349
2,240
1,989
ASW aircraft------------------------------------------------------
755
527
Marine divisions----_ ___________________________________
4
3
3
Active duly /nilitary personnel_____________________________________
(1,085,415)
(987,810)
(885, 025)
Navy..______---------------------------------------
309,771
294,105
241,185
Reserve components personnel (paid drill training) --------------------
(181,788)
(175,813)
(177 000)
Naval Reserve --------------------------------------------------
132,710
129,000
129,000
Marine Corps Reserve -------------------------------------- .----
49,078
46,813
48,000
I Reflects the President's fiscal year 1971 budget.
For the end of fiscal year 1971, the Air Force budget provides an
active force structure of 84 tactical fighter and attack squadrons orga-
nized into 23 combat wings, 14 air defense interceptor squadrons, and 33
strategic bomber squadrons. Also provided for in this budget are 52
strategic and tactical airlift squadrons. The MINUTEMAN missile
force will be kept at its current stren oth of 1,0001-aunchers but its capa-
bility will continue to increase as the new MIRVed MINUTEMAN
III replaces the older MINUTEMAN I and as additional improve-
ments are made in the MINUTEMAN II force.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
19
About 800, including over 200 for the support of allies, new aircraft
will be delivered during fiscal year 1971, including F-4s, A-7s, A-37s,
C-5s, F-ills, and UH-is. A number of older model aircraft are
scheduled to phase out during the year as the newer planes are
delivered.
The budget also provides for continuation of development of the
F-15, the Air Force's new air superiority fighter, development of the
new advanced manned strategic aircraft, the B-1, a new interconti-
nental bomber which could be available by the late 1970s, and work on
the A-X, 'a new close air support aircraft.
With respect to new procurement, the budget requests funds for
350 aircraft, down somewhat from the number procured in fiscal year
1970. The planes to be procured include A-7s and F-4s, as well as
a new international fighter. Funds are also requested to pay for
deficiencies on C-5 aircraft purchased through FY 1970, and to pro-
vide for possible contingencies. The budget includes funds for the
purchase of additional tactical F-111 aircraft. In the area of missile
procurement, funds are requested for additional MINUTEMAN III
strategic missiles, for the first procurement of the new short-range
attack missile (SRAM), and for such tactical missiles as the anti-
radar Shrike and the air-to-air Sparrow.
A summary of the major active Air Forces follows :
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
SUMMARY OF MAJOR ACTIVE FORCES, FISCAL YEARS 1969-71
Actual,
J
ne 30
Planned I
u
1960
June 30, 1970
June 30, 1971
USAF tactical fighter and attack squadrons___________________________
90
86
84
USAF Air Defense interceptor squadrons_____________________________
19
14
14
Strategic bomber squadrons 2_______________________________________
40
33
33
ICBM launchers___________________________________________________
1,054
1,054
1,054
USAF airlift squadrons_____________________________________________
53
52
52
Aircraft inventory-active ------------------------------------------
14,406
13,338
13,352
Active duty military personnel______________________________________
862,062
809,627
783,520
Reserve Components personnel (paid drill training)___________________
(128,340)
(137,591)
(134,710)
Air National Guard____________________________________________
83,414
88,646
87,110
Air Force Reserve_____________________________________________
44,926
48,945
47,600
I Reflects the President's fiscal year 1971 budget.
2 In fiscal year 1969, includes 4 squadron equivalents of B-52s not organized Into units.
The amounts requested for the various activities funded in the "De-
fense Agencies" category and the Committee's recommendations are
discussed in connection with the specific appropriation accounts cov-
ered later in this report.
UNEXPENDED AND UNOBLIGATED BALANCES
The following tables compare the unexpended and unobligated
balances for the military functions of the Department of Defense over
the past several years, for both the entire Defense Budget and for
the accounts covered by this bill. The unobligated balances associated
with the accounts in the bill are projected in the budget to decrease
between end fiscal year 1969 and end fiscal year 1971, from $12.0
billion to $6.2 billion; the unexpended balances during this period are
A p p r o a3 F ~6 it-, C11 8I~ f 19( lil Ao-AB071D160 937R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
l
UNOBLIGATED BALANCES, FISCAL YEARS 1957-71
[In millions of dollars]
Total Pertaining to
unobligated appropriations
balance in the bill
At the end of fiscal year-
1957-------------------------------------------------------------------
$10,869
$10,103
1958-------------------------------------------------------------------
7,904
6,690
1959------------------------------------------------------------------
7, 513
6,626
1960-------------------------------------------------------------------
8,638
7,734
1961-------------------------------------------------------------------
7,167
6,483
1962--------------------------------------------------------------------
7,120
6,584
1963-------------------------------------------------------------------
9,170
8,150
1964----------- ----------------------------
9,961
9,008
1965-------------------------------------------------------------------
11,029
10,103
1966-------------------------------------------------------------------
13,854
11,830
1967-------------------------------------------------------------------
13,725
12,244
1968-------------------------------------------------------------------
13,494
11,666
1969---------------------------------------------.--------_-------------
13,668
12,022
1970 .(estimate)---------------------------------------------------------
9,092
7,575
1.971 (estimate)---------------------------------------------------------
17,371
16,233
UNEXPENDED BALANCES, FISCAL YEARS 1957-71
[In millions of dollars[
Total unex-
pended balance
Pertaining to
appropriations
in the bill2
At end of fiscal year-
1957-------------------------------------------------------------------
$34,660
$31,955
1958.--------------------------------------- -------------------------
32,086
29,044
1959-------------------------------------------------------------------
31,635
29,139
1960-------------------------------------------------------------------
30,660
28,415
1961-------------------------------------------------------------------
28,606
26,888
1962..------------------------------------------------------------------
28,697
27,161
1963..------------------- -----------------------------------------------
30,019
28,237
1964 -------------------------------------------------------------------
29,966
28,211
1965..------------------- ----------------------------------
32,943
31,148
1966..------------------------------------------------------------------
41,210
38,111
1967--------------------------------------------------------------------
45,227
42,626
1968-------------------------------------------------------------------
44,016
40,902
1969-------------------------------------------------------------------
41,769
38,970
1970 (estimate)-------------------------------------------------------
38,741
36,139
1911 (estimate)---------------------------------------------------------
238,344
235,383
Includes balances of Department of Defense revolving and management funds.
2These amounts do not reflect the reductions recommended in the accompanying bill.
As shown above, an estimated total of $36,139,000,000 of unexpended
balances of funds is to be carried into fiscal year 1971 pertaining to
the appropriation accounts provided for in the accompanying bill.
Of this amount, about $28,564,000,000 (unliquidated obligations) rep-
resents legally binding documents calling for ultimate cash payment
such as contracts for ship, aircraft, or missile construction. Such major
weapons systems are normally funded even though deliveries may not
occur for 2 or 3 years, or 5 years in the case of capital ships.
Approximately $7,575,000,000 of the carryover (unobligated) bal-
ances represent amounts which are made available to fund authorized
programs, but which are not yet obligated in the technical legal sense.
By and large these funds are committed to the programs for which
initially appropriated awaiting the completion of contracting or other
legal prerequisite of obligation.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
TITLE I
MILITARY PERSONNEL
ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATIONS SUMMARY
The accompanying bill includes appropriations totaling $20,689,-
300,000 for fiscal year 1971 for military personnel, a decrease of $343,-
500,000 below the budget estimate of 211 ,032,800,000. The amounts
appropriated for fiscal year 1970 totals $23,007,914,493 and the
amounts recommended herein for fiscal year 1971 represent a decrease
below the previous year of $2,318,614,493.
Appropriations made under this title finance the programs identi-
fied briefly below :
Pay and allowances.-Funds are provided for the pay and allow-
ances of active duty officers and enlisted personnel, and cadets at the
military academies. Included in these are basic pay; incentive pay;
special pay to physicians, dentists, veterinarians, divers, and others;
basic allowances for quarters and subsistence; station allowances over-
seas; uniform and clothing allowances; separation payments; social
security contributions; and reenlistment bonuses.
Subsistence of enlisted personnel.-Funds are provided for the feed-
ing of enlisted personnel, including both the basic allowance for sub-
sistence and subsistence in kind.
Permanent change of station travel.-Funding is included to pro-
vide for permanent change of station travel for military personnel,
either as individuals or as organizational units. Transportation; per
diem allowances ? travel of dependents; transportation of household
goods; port handling charges; dislocation allowances; nontempora.ry
storage of household goods; minor supplies and services incident to
organizational movement; expenses of separation travel; and tempo-
rary duty directly related to permanent change of station are all
included in this item.
Other military personnel costs.-Funds are also provided for other
military personnel costs which include apprehension of military de-
serters, interest on personnel deposits, and death gratuities.
SIZE OF HEADQUARTERS STAFFS
In the Report on the Defense Appropriations Bill for fiscal year
1970, the Committee made the following statement with respect to
the number of personnel assigned to headquarters staffs : ".:. the
organization appears to be considerably overstaffed. The sheer weight
of numbers of administrators and managers and supporting person-
nel cannot help but introduce cumbersomeness and impinge upon the
decisionmaking process up and down the line." The Committee there-
fore, made significant reductions to the fiscal year 1970 funding for
headquarters staffs, in terms of military as well as civilian personnel.
(21)
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
However, in reviewing the budget estimates for fiscal year 1971,
the Committee was distressed to note that the reductions applied to
headquarters staffs by the Services were primarily to civilian person-
nel. The following table clearly illustrates the trend in the number of
military personnel to be assigned to headquarters functions.
MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZED IN HEADQUARTERS ACTIVITIES
Fiscal year
Army:
Washington-------
-------------------------------------------- 4,224
Field------------
-------------------------------------------- 7,626
Unified commands -
------------------------------------- _------ 14,744
Total----------
-------------------------------------------- 26,594
Navy:
Washington-------
-------------------------------------------- 3,748
Field------------
-------------------------------------------- 1,206
Unified commands -
-------------------------------------------- 2,472
Total------------------------------------------------------
7,426
Marine Corps:
Washington---------------------------------------------------
1,567
Field--------------------------------------------------------
3,444
Unified commands-------------------------?------------------
160
Total------------------------------------------------------
5,171
Air Force:
Washington ---------------------------------------------------
4,631
Field --------------------------------------------------------
11,515
Unified commands ---------------------------------------------
4,347
Total--------------------------------------------------------
20,493
Fiscal nvor
Fiscal 1971
4,187
4,145
7,530
7,530
15,030
15,058
26,747
26,733
3,661
3,661
1,252
1,196
2, 827
4,324
7,740
9,181
1,567
1,451
3,445
2,063
149
149
5,161
3,663
4,331
4,233
11,122
11,665
5,075
4,712
20,528
20,610
As can be seen from the above table, during fiscal year 1970 the
following changes in the number of military personnel assigned to
headquarters staffs occurred :
Washington
Field
Unified
Commands
Total
Array----------------------------------------------
-37
-96
+286
+153
Navy----------------------------------------------
-87
+46
+355
+314
Marine Corps---------------------------------------
0
+1
-11
-10
Air Force------------------------------------------
-300
-393
+728
+35
-424
-442
+1,358
+492
From all indications, as the Services were required to reduce their
Washington headquarters staffs, they more than made up for the
reduction by increasing the size of their unified commands. Further-
111ore, they plan to continue this same trend in fiscal year 1971. The
Committee is of the opinion that as the total strength of the Armed
Forces decreases, there should be decreases and not increases in the
size of the headquarters staffs.
The Blue Ribbon Defense Panel also supports the opinion that the
ii,imber of personnel assigned to headquarters staffs is excessive. In
their report they state :
All evidence indicates that the size of Headquarters' staffs
in the Military Departments are excessive to what is required
for efficient performance of assigned functions. Functional
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
23
analysis of these staffs reveals an astonishing lack of organi-
zational focus and a highly excessive degree of "coordina-
tion," a substantial portion of which entails the writing of
memoranda back and forth between lower echelons of parallel
organizational elements and which serves no apparent useful
or productive purpose.
A similar position was taken by Admiral Rickover in his testimony
before the Committee. He stated :
What do you do when you have large numbers of relatively
intelligent people who do not know what they are doing.
Their only choice is to deal in paper work. There is one solu-
tion. Immediately and drastically reduce the amount of money
you have for the headquarters' staff.
The above statements add further support to the Committee's long
held belief that headquarters are overstaffed to the extent that gross
inefficiency exists.
The Committee, in an effort to correct this situation, recommends
major reductions to all headquarters staffs of the Department of De-
fense, both military and civilian, and to other funds for headquarters
operations. Furthermore, the Committee intends to monitor closely
these activities during fiscal year 1971. It is the intention of the Com-
mittee that these reductions actually be made. Merely redesignating
various organizations as line functions rather than eliminating them
is unacceptable. The Committee expects that these reductions will be
accomplished to the greatest extent possible by eliminating organiza-
tions or activities of low or marginal productivity.
Although at least some reductions in all headquarters staffs are in
order, the Committee directs that across-the-board percentage reduc-
tions are not to be made. Some programs could be seriously hampered
by such arbitrary directives, whereas reductions imposed on activities
of low or marginal importance would have little or no impact on the
total defense effort.
INCOME TAX EXEMPTION FOR VIETNAM DIITY
Unfortunately, situations sometimes develop whereby legislation
providing benefits for service personnel is sufficiently liberal in pro-
vision, so that the intent of the law is subject to circumvention.
Such is the case with the law exempting income of service personnel
in Vietnam from Federal income tax. During the course of the hear-
ings on the 1971 budget, the Committee questioned representatives of
the services regarding abuses of this law that had come to the atten-
tion of the Committee. Numerous examples were cited of questionable
interpretations of the intent of the law.
The Committee strongly supports the concept that American service-
men risking their lives in Vietnam should be exempt from Federal
income tax, but feels that the law should be interpreted in keeping
with Congressional intent.
Because of the Committee's efforts in bringing these abuses to
light, it can be reported that effective August 5, 1970, the Internal
Revenue Service, working with the Department of Defense, revised
the tax exclusion regulations and tightened up the administration of
Approvedlor Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
24
PUBLIO AFFAIRS
In 1968, the Committee was advised that $9,108,000 was included in
the fiscal year 1969 Defense budget for Public Affairs, Public Informa-
tion, and Public Relations activities. This year, the Committee was
advised that the Department's best estimate of actual obligations for
fiscal year 1969 was $44,062,000, an increase of $34,954,000 over the
original estimate.
For fiscal year 1970, the budget estimate included $34,164,000 for
these activities. Based on this estimate, the Committee applied a reduc-
tion of $4,955,000. The Committee was informed this year, however,
that the Department estimated it would obligate $40,447,000 for this
activity during fiscal year 1970, or $11,238,000 more than the amount
allowed by the Committee.
For fiscal year 1971, the Department's estimate for these activities is
$37,675,000. Based on the testimony of Department of Defense wit-
nesses, the Committee stated in its report on the Department of Defense
Appropriation Bill for 1970, that 11... management changes are being
initiated and operational improvements should be forthcoming in the
very near future." The Committee feels that adequate improvements
have not been forthcoming.
The Committee is determined to establish a fixed limitation on the
amount of funds the Department of Defense will be allowed to ex-
pend for public affairs, public information and public relations. The
limitation for such activities is based on a level of $28,000,000, or
approximately severity-five percent of the budget estimate. However,
since approximately one-fourth of the fiscal year is already over, the
Committee has taken this into account and provided $30,590,000. This
will, in effect, require the Department of Defense to operate such activ-
ities at the $28,000,000 annual level for the balance of the fiscal year.
The limitation is distributed as follows:
Limitation
Budget Military Operation and
Agency request personnel maintenance Total
Department of the Army ------------------------------ 112,312 $6,182 '$4,262 $10,444
Department of the Navy ------------------------------ 12,186 8,017 2,468 110,485
Department of the Air Force__________________________ 9,650 5,677 2,513 8,190
Defense agenciesJOSD-------------- ____________-___ 3,527 0 1,471 31,471
Total-_ _____________________________ 37,675 19,876 10,714 30,590
I Includes $250,000 for the Army National Guard.
'- Includes $3,148,000 for the Marine Corps; $2.999,000 in military personnel and $149,000 in operation and maintenance.
3 Military personnel funds are incorporated in the appropriate limitation of the military departments.
PERMANENT CIIANIIE 01' STATION TRAVEL
The Committee has long been critical of the frequency with which
the services move their people from assignment to assignment. It has
been a common practice of the Committee for many years to apply
reductions to this area. However, even though the reductions have
been made, the services have shown only modest improvement in
this area.
During this year's hearings many pages of testimony were devoted
Appn to the very serious retention r bled ~~ef
003-8
Ue~ ~g ~ V O N r Al u
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
25
personnel to resign from the service is the frequency with which they
are shuffled from assignment to assignment. Yet the rotation policies
of the military departments continue unabated.
The Blue Ribbon Defense Panel in their Report to the President and
to the Secretary of Defense was highly critical of current rotation
policies. The Panel in their report stated :
Officers and enlisted men are rotated among assignments at
much too frequent intervals.
It is clear from the evidence that the rotation practices
which have been followed result in (a) excessive and wasteful
cost, (b) inefficiencies in management, and (c) difficulty in
fixing responsibility.
A staff study of Army, Navy and Air Force promotions to
General Officer and Flag rank in 1969 revealed this situation :
there were 174 officers in the group and their average service
was 24 years; these officers had been given 3,695 assignments,
or an average of 21 per man ; the average duration per assign-
ment was 14 months.
Looked at another way, the average officers had spent: 8
years in Operational assignments, 5 years in Service Schools
and other educational assignments, and 11 years in Staff
Assignments.
For fiscal year 1971 the budgets of all branches of the service reflect
a reduction in Permanent Change of Station Travel below their 1970
budgeted level. However, this reduction results from decreases in troop
strength and not from any improvements in rotation policy. These
reductions are reflected in the following table.
PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION TRAVEL
Army --------
Navy----------------- -------------- --------
----
Air Force---------
$613,441,000 $524,691,000 -$88,750,000
264,898,000 229,965,000 -34,933,000
106, 860,000 105, 125, 000 -1,735,000
418,150,000 414,760,000 -3,390,000
While the Committee applauds the above reductions it must be re-
emphasized that these reductions do not reflect improvements in rota,
tion policy. Therefore, the Committee has applied an additional reduc-
tion of 10 percent to each service. However, because of the fact that the
fiscal year is now one-fourth over, a 10 percent reduction applied to
three-fourths of the year will result in a dollar savings of 7.5 percent.
This additional reduction totals $95,175,000.
The Committee appreciates the problems faced by the Military De-
partments in connection with the high volume of personnel movement
necessitated by our commitments in Southeast Asia. This has been
taken into account in determining the appropriate reduction and the
Committee's action in no way interferes with the funds required to
support our withdrawal plans or any permanent change of station
moves that will result from such plans.
The current rotation policies of the Military Departments are un-
realistic and must be revised. The Committee expects the Department
of Defense to thoroughly review existing policy and procedures and
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
to initiate the necessary changes. The "Department of Defense is di-
rected to report to the Committee the changes in the permanent change
of station assignment regulations as developed. The Committee like-
wise intends to closely scrutinize the budget request for fiscal year
1972 for Permanent Change of Station Travel and will expect to see
a budget request that reflects meaningful changes in existing rotation
policy.
TEMPORARY PROMOTION OF OFFICERS
During the course of the hearings, the. Committee reviewed in-depth
the temporary promotion practices of the Armed Services. The Com-
mittee has become concerned that, because of the temporary promotion
policy of the services, the military services have obviously become over-
staffed in the higher officer grades. For example, the Army reported
712 officers in the grade of Major or above who are serving and being
paid two grades above their permanent ranks. The Air Force reported
442, the Marine Corps reported 3, and the Navy reported 4 in the rank
of Lt. Commander or above. During periods of rapid buildup of the
officer corps, such as the buildup for Vietnam, temporary promotions
are justified to fill the large number of vacancies in higher grades that
result.
however, as has happened in the past, most notably after World
War II and Korea, the services, because of these temporary promotion
practices, find that as the reduction in force. levels occur, the officer
corps becomes significantly overstaffed in the higher grades. The Viet-
nam conflict is now in the process of being scaled back and the total
strength levels of the services are being reduced accordingly.
Therefore, the Committee places the services On notice that it ex-
pects the officer force for Majors or Lt. Commanders and above to be
reduced in line with the total strength reductions. During the hearings
on the Department of Defense Appropriations for fiscal year 1972, the
Committee expects the Services to present for review plans for bring-
ing the officer grade structure back in line with permanent grade levels.
This must be done. The Committee expects the initiative to come from
within the services so as to avoid the necessity for the imposition of
limitations by appropriations.
TRAINING GENERALS AND Co:LONELS To FLY HELICOPrERs
The Committee, during the course of its investigations, discovered
that the Army has implemented plans to train generals and colonels to
fly helicopters.
A general officer or a colonel is a top executive of the military. His
time is valuable and can best be spent in attending to his executive
responsibilities. To train a general or a, colonel to fly a helicopter re-
quires up to 32 weeks of training time. In addition, for the balance of
his career, he must spend a certain amount of time flying each month to
maintain his proficiency. Flying helicopters would not appear to be.
the most efficient use of executive time and talent.
The cost, of generals and colonels flyiing helicopters is also a matter
of concern to the Committee. The cost to train a senior officer to fly a
helicopter is $24,210. This would exclude the pay of the individual
while in training as well as the pay of the instructors. In addition
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
27
to the initial training cost, out-year costs will be incurred 'to maintain
the helicopters required for proficiency flying. Not to be overlooked
is the fact that once an officer learns to fly a helicopter he will draw
flight pay for the balance of his military career. Flight pay is $1,980
per year for a general and $2,940 per year for a colonel. The flight pay
benefit alone offers a significant attraction to the program.
During the course of the hearings the committee queried the other
services regardings their intentions with respect to training generals
and colonels to fly helicopters. The Navy, Marine Corps, and Air
Force all emphatically stated that they have no plans to train generals
or colonels to fly helicopters. The position of the other services is per-
haps best expressed in testimony received during the Marine Corps
Military Personnel Hearing.
In a similar vein (to) the Army programs, all we plan is
that an officer who is designated as a commanding general
of one of our divisions or assistant division commander of one
of our divisions would go to Pensacola for 2 weeks of heli-
copter flight training. Then he would go to a helicopter
training group for less than a week. The intent of this pro-
gram is to provide him with more familiarity with the actual
capabilities of the helicopter and to give him a certain
proficiency to land that helicopter when he is in the front left
seat in an emergency.
The Committee supports the concept of indoctrination type training
in the capabilities, limitations and emergency procedures of helicopter
operations.
The Committee interposes no objection to a qualified aviator com-
manding an aviation brigade or an airmobile division. In fact, many
qualified aviators are now serving in such positions. However, the
Committee does not feel it is necessary that every general or colonel
involved in helicopter operations have his wings. Therefore, the Com-
mittee recommends deletion of all funds from the bill related to this
training as well as the related funds for flight pay. The Committee
directs the Army to cease training generals" and colonels to fly rotary
wing aircraft.
BASIS FOR COMMITTEE ACTION
The Committee recommends reductions totaling $343,500,000 below
the budget request primarily as a result of two separate and distinct
type of actions. The first is the identification and elimination from
the budget request of surplus funds, and second, reductions applied
to specific areas or activities that the Committee has identified as
being poorly organized, poorly managed, or overstaffed.
With respect to the elimination of surplus funds, the Committee
recommends a reduction of $168,850,000 because of a shortfall in the
projected total strength. Based on Department of Defense manpower
reports, all four of the military departments currently have fewer
military personnel on-board than were originally projected in the
budget request. This shortfall in military personnel strength resulted
in the budget being overstated by approximately 35,000 man-years.
The Committee, in recommending this reduction, is not in any way
reducing the planned force level for the Armed Services as contained in
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
28
the budget request. The reduction of 5168,850,000 or 3.5,000 man-years is
merely an adjustment of the budget estimate to reflect the actual ex-
perience of the first three months of the fiscal year. If, during the course
of the fiscal year, contingencies should arise requiring additional man-
power that could have been supported by these funds, then the Com-
mittee will work with the Department to arrange for the necessary
funds.
In addition, the Committee recommends reductions in the number of
military personnel assigned to such areas as automatic data processing,
Cornmuinication and intelligence, The budget requests of the services
reflect little or no decrease in these activities below the fiscal year 1970
level even though there will be significant reductions in total personnel
strength. Experts in military organization have long been critical of
the extremely high ratio of support troops to combat troops that exists
within the U.S. force structure. The budget for fiscal year 1971 would
seem to compound that problem. The Committee, therefore recom-
mends reductions to these support activities so that their structure will
remain more in line with the total troop structure of the military.
Reductions have also been applied to the number of military pperson-
nel assigned to headquarters' staffs both in Washington and in the field.
A. reduction has also been applied. to the amount of funds available for
permanent change of station travel. Both of these reductions have been
discussed in considerable detail on preceding pages.
The funds available for such activities as public affairs, public
relations and public information have also been reduced. An ex-
planation of the Committee's recommendation on this item appears
on the preceding pages.
In the ease of the Reserve components, modest reductions were made
in the budget request for the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps, primar-
ily to reflect what appears to be an overstatement in the funding re-
quired to meet the projected drill strength. A reduction was not
applied to the Air Force Reserve since the savings will be required
to fund planned changes in the force structure such as the retention
of the C-130 units. Reductions were not applied to either of the
Guard components since the Army Guard will require the requested
funds to expand their initial training program and the Air Guard will
require the requested funds to provide for the added cost of the Aero-
space Defense Alerts.
MILITARY PERSONNEL, ARMY
Appropriation, 1970------------------------------------------- $8,875,391,000
Estimate, 1971----------------------- ------------------------- eeommended in the bill ---------------------------------------- 7 822, 450, 000
Reduction ----------------------------------------------------- 101,250,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,822,450,000 for
Military Personnel, Army. This represents a decrease of $101,250,000
below the budget estimate of $7,923,700,000. The amount appropriated
for fiscal year 1970 for Military Personnel, Army totals $8,875,391,000
and the amount recommended herein for fiscal year 1971 represents a
decrease below the past year of $1,052,941,000.
The Committee's reductions, as previously discussed are as follows:
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
29
Shortfall in total strength---------------------------------------
$38,200,000
Automatic data processing--------------------------------------
5,000,000
Communications and intelligence--------------------------------
9,400,000
Public affairs -__-___
----------------------------------------__
1,450,000
Helicopter training for senior officers____________________________
400,000
Headquarters staffs--------------------------------------------
7,500,000
Permanent change of station travel-----------------------------
39,300,000
MILITARY PERSONNEL, NAVY
Appropriation, 1970 -----------------------------------------
$4,858,531,000
000
Estimate, 1971 ----------------------------------------------
4, 402, 300,
Recommended in the bill-------------------------------------
4, 360, 100, 000
Reduction --------------------------------------------------
42,200,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,360,100,000 for
Military Personnel, Navy. This represents a decrease of $42,200,000
below the budget estimate of $4,402,300,000. The amount appropriated
for fiscal year 1970 for Military Personnel, Navy totals $4,858,531,000
and the amount recommended herein for fiscal year 1971 represents a
decrease below the past year of $498,431,000.
The Committee's reductions, as previously discussed, are as follows :
Shortfall in total strength--------------------------------------- $7,100,000
Automatic data processing--------------------------------------- 1,000,000
Communications and intelligence--------------------------------- 1, 00,000
Public affairs ------------------------------------------------ 11, 000,000
Headquarters staff ---------------------------------------------
Permanent change of station travel------------------------------- 17, 000, 000
MILITARY PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS
Appropriation, 1970 ----------------------------------------
$1,649,952,000
Estimate, 1971 ---------------------------------------------
1,494,200,000
Recommended in the bill-------------------------------------
1, 422, 700, 000
Reduction --------------------------------------------------
71,500,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,422,700,000 for
Military Personnel Marine Corps. This represents a decrease of $71;
500,000 below the budget estimate of $1,494,200,000. The amount ap-
propriated for fiscal year 1970 for Military Personnel, Marine Corps,
totals $1,649,952,000 and the amount recommended herein for fiscal
year 1971 represents a decrease below the past year of $227,252,000.
The Committee's reductions, as previously discussed, are as follows :
Shortfall in total strength-------------------------------------- $60,300,000
Public affairs-------------------------------------------------- '
Communications and intelligence-------------------------------- 1,100, 000
Permanent change of station travel------------------------------ 7,900, 000
Headquarters staff --------------------------------------------- 1,000,000
Automatic data processing------------------------------------- 500,000
MILITARY PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE
Appropriation, 1970-----------------------------------------
$6,498,189,000
Estimate, 1971----------------------------------------------
6,096,000,000
Recommended in the bill-------------------------------------
5, 973, 350, 000
Reduction --------------------------------------------------
122,650,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,973,350,000 for
Military Personnel, Air Force. This represents a decrease of $122,650,-
000 below the budget estimate of $6,096,000,000. The amount appro-
priated for fiscal year 1970 for Military Personnel, Air Force totals
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
30
$6,498,189,000 and the amount recommended herein for fiscal year
1971 represents a decrease below the past year of $524,839,000.
The Committee's reductions, as previously discussed, are as follows :
Shortfall in total strength -----_-------__--_ - $63,250,000
---------------------
Automatic data processing --------------------------------------- 3,300,000
Communications and intelligence --------------------------------- 16, 750, 000
Public affairs -----------------__---------------- ----__ 1,350,000
Headquarters staff------------- ---------- 7,000,000
Permanent change of station travel------------------------------ 31 000,000
RESERVE PERSONNEL, ARMY
Appropriation, 1970------------------------------------------- $338,725,000
Estimate, 1971------------------------------------------- 336,500,000
Recommended in the bill--------------------------------- ----- 334, 750,000
Reduction --------------------------------- --------- 1,750,000
RESERVE PERSONNEL, NAVY
Appropriation, 1970------------------------------------------- $141,935,000
Estimate, 1971-------------------------------------------------- ecgmtnended in the bill -------------------------------------- 142,100,000
Reduction ----------------------------------------------------- 2,100,000
RESERVE PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS
Appropriation, 1970--------------------------------------------- $49,000,000
Estimate, 1971------------------------------------------------- 54, 100,000
Recommended in the bill ----------------------------------------- 52, 050, 000
Reduction ----------------------- --- 2,050,000
RESERVE PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE
Appropriation, 1970--------------------------------------------- $82, 092, 922
Estimate, 1971-------------------------------------------------- Recommended in the bill ---------------------------------------- 86,200, 000
NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, ARMY
Appropriation, 1970------------------------------------------- $403,403,895
E,stimate, 1971------------------------------------------------ 387, 100, 000 Recommended in the hill --------------------------------------- 387,100, 000
NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE
Appropriation, 1970------------------------------------------- $110,694,676
Estimate, 1971------------------------------------------------ 108,500, 000
Recommended in the bill ---------------------------------------- 108, 500,000
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
TITLE II
RETIRED MILITARY PERSONNEL
RETIRED PAY, DEFENSE
ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATIONS SUMMARY
An appropriation totaling $3,194,000,000 is recommended in the
accompanying bill for Retired Pay. This amount is the same as the
budget request and an increase of $335,000,000 over the $2,859,000,000
appropriated for Retired Pay in fiscal year 1970.
The appropriation made under this title finances (1) pay of retired
military personnel on 'the retired lists of the Army, Nay, Marine
Corps and Air Force; (2) the retainer pay for regular enlisted per-
sonnel of the Navy and Marine Corps Fleet Reserves; and (3) pay-
ments to eligible survivors pursuant to the Retired Servicemen's
Family Protection Plan.
The Committee notes that Retired Pay in fiscal year 1971 will exceed
$3 billion for the first time. Retired Pay is a major item of expense in
the Department of Defense Budget and for this reason the Committee
last year set out Retired Pay as a separate title of the bill. The Com-
mittee did not propose any reductions to the budget request since re-
tirees of the Department of Defense and their survivors must be paid
as provided for by law. In addition, if any surplus funds should de-
velop in this appropriation they would revert to the Treasury at the
end of the fiscal year and can not be diverted to other uses.
The number of personnel eligible for retirement benefits continues
to increase each year. The following tabulation shows the average
number of personnel on the rolls for fiscal year 1969 and the estimated
numbers for 1970 and 1971:
1. Nondisability______________________________________________
447,740
491,731
544,714
2. Temporary disability____________________________________________
17,472
21,925
28,120
3. Permanent disability____________________________________________
111,897
119,348
128,426
4. Fleet reserve___________________________________________________
107,746
111,946
115,347
5. Survivors benefits______________________________________________
6,833
7,626
8,517
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
Because of the fact that the number of personnel receiving Retired
Pay is increasing each year, the Committee asked the Department of
Defense to project the requirenJents for Retired Pay through the year
2000. The projections are as follows :
PROJECTED NUMBER OF MILITARY PERSONNEL RECEIVING RETIRED OR RETAINER PAY, AND ANNUAL DIS-
13URSEMENTS WITH NO ASSUMED PAY, OR CONSUMER PRICE INDEX INCREASES, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
[Number of persons in thousands; dollar amount in millions[
Fiscal year
1975
1980-----------------------
1985------------------------------
1990---------------
1995
2000-----------------
Constant Active Force r
Number receiving No pay or
retired pay price increases
1,065 $4,123
1,255 5,167
1,426 5,942
1,568 6, 588
1,671 7,020
1.738 7,345
Assumes that the Active Force remains unchanged at the June 30, 1968, level.
PROJECTED NUMBER OF MILITARY PERSONNEL RECEIVING RETIRED OR RETAINER PAY, AND ANNUAL DISBURSE-
MENTS WITH ASSUMED PAY AND CONSUMER PRICE INDEX INCREASES, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
[Number of persons in thousands; dollar amount in millions[
Constant Active Forcer
Number receiving Pay and price
Fiscal year retired pay Increases'
1975------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 065 $4,519
1980-------------------------------------------------------------------- 1,255 6,352
1985------------------------------------------------------------------- - 1,426 8,256
1990------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 568 10,399
1995------------------------------------------------------------------- 1,671 12,824
2000------------------------------------------------------------------ 1,738 15,609
I Assumes that the Active Force remains unchanged at the June 30, 1968, level.
2 Pay rates are assumed to increase by 3.5 percent annually and theconsumer price Index by 1.5 percent annually.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
TITLE III
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATIONS SUMMARY
Estimates for the Operation and Maintenance of the military
forces for fiscal year 1971 total $19,512,045,000. The Committee recom-
mends appropriations totaling $19,213,630,000. This is a reduction of
$2,321,365,495 below the appropriations for fiscal year 1970 and a
reduction of $298,415,000 below the budget estimate for fiscal year
1971.
The gross reduction proposed by the Committee amounts to $32+6,-
350,000. However, the Committee recommends adding $27,935,000
above the budget which results in the net reduction of $298,415,000.
There is also a functional transfer of $61,078,000 from Operation and
Maintenance, Navy to Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps.
APPROPRIATION COVERAGE
Funds appropriated for Operation and Maintenance are used to
cover necessary day to day cost involved in support of our military
establishment. These costs are related to (1) the size of the active
forces and the numbers of personnel in the reserve components; (2)
the tempo of operations, readiness, and deployment of the forces;
(3) the training of personnel in the use of weapon systems and equip-
ment; and, (4) the types of military facilities to be operated and
maintained. The appropriations for operation and maintenance are
directly related to the ability of our armed forces to react quickly,
deploy effectively, and to maintain their overall state of readiness.
In addition to financing the operation of force units in training or
in combat, these appropriations provide for the individual training of
military personnel in basic military skills, and especially skills rang-
ing from aircraft pilot to cook; for medical care of the military, their
dependents, and retired military personnel and their dependents,; for
the operation of logistics supply systems; for the complex of command
and control; for communications systems worldwide; for the educa-
tion of dependents overseas; for certain support of free world forces
in Southeast Asia; and for the operation of base establishments in
support of these functions.
Some of the programs and/or activities planned to be supported
by operation and maintenance funds during fiscal year 1971 are (1)
a planned active inventory of about 33,000 aircraft, with fuel and
related cost for about 15,984,000 flying hours, (2) support for 757
active ships having about 1,977,000 programed steaming hours,
(3) 207 service hospitals with an expected patient load of about 36,-
(33)
AppFpy&q)F Release 2001/11/01 :CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
34
500, (4) the operation of 60 major service supply depots, (5) the
support of about 635 active major military installations, and, (6)
the direct-hire on the average of about 778,000 civilian employees.
The budget request for operation and maintenance includes funds
in the amount of $646,300,000 for the maintenance of real property;
$487,000,000 for the travel and transportation cost of both military
and civilian personnel ; $790,,100,000 for the operation and main-
tenance of worlds,wide-defense communication systems; $614,600,000
for the support of forces of the Government of South Vietnam and
other Free World forces in Southeast Asia; $117,000,000 for the mili-
tary-civilian assistance functions in South Vietnam which are being
administered principally by the Department of the Army; $1,164,-
800,0(x) for the transportation of supplies and equipment; $1,822,-
500,000 for depot level maintenance and modernization of aircraft,
engines, and accessories of which $1,157,000,000 will be performed
by service depots and $665,500,000 by contractor operations; $134,-
00,000 for the support of dependents overseas education; and a total
$5,980,600,000 for the payment of civilian salaries and related costs.
MANAGEMENT OF OPERATIONS
The Committee has for the past several years pointed out the need
for management improvements in the Department. The report on
the Department of Defense appropriation bill, 1970, stated that "The
committee believes that streamlining of Defense operations is in order,
but caution must be taken that the streamlined programs are properly
managed. The decision of the Secretary of Defense to appoint a panel
to review departmental operations is a timely move." The Committee,
suggested that the Blue Ribbon Panel should leave no stone unturned
in order to obtain sufficient facts to be able to recommend the necessary
management changes for improved operating procedures.
The Blue Ribbon Panel report made many recommendations re-
garding ways to improve overall management in the Department of
Defense. Such recommendations included, among others, a reorgan-
ization and streamlining of Secretary of Defense Activities, the
Organization of the Joint. Chiefs of Staff, the Defense Agencies, the
Secretriat activities of the services, and the operations thereunder.
The Panel found that :
Effective civilian control is impaired by a generally ex-
cessive centralization of decision-making authority at the
level of the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary's ability to
selectively delegate authority and decentralize management,
While still retaining personal authority on major policy issues
of the Department, is seriously inhibited by the present or-
-anizational structure.
The President and the Secretary of Defense do not pres-
ently have the opportunity to consider all viable options as
background for making major decisions, because differences
of opinion are submerged or compromised at lower levels of
the Department of Defense.
'T'here are too many layers of both military and civilian
staffs, and staffs are too large in the Office of the Secretary of
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
35
Defense, (OSD) the Military Departments extending- down
through the field commands, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the
Unified and Component Commands. The results are exces-
sive paper work and coordination, delay, duplication and
unnecessary expense.
The present arrangement for staffing the military opera-
tions activities for the President and the Secretary of Defense
through the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Military Depart-
ments is awkward and unresponsive; it provides a forum
for inter-Service conflicts to be injected into the decision-
making process for military operations; and it inhibits the
flow of information between the combatant commands and
the President and the Secretary of Defense, often even in
crisis situations.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff could more effectively perform
their important statutory role as principal military advisors
to the President and the Secretary of Defense if they were
relieved of the necessity of performing delegated duties in
the field of military operations and Defense Agency super-
vision.
The present combatant command structure does not fa-
cilitate the solution of many serious problems which mate-
rially affect the security of the nation. For example, recent
advances in technology require much closer coordination in
planning for and employing the forces of the Continental
Air Defense Command and the Strategic Air Command than
can reasonably be expected with two separate commands.
Also, the present Unified Commands do not bring about
unification of the Armed Forces, but rather are layered with
Service component headquarters and large headquarter's
staffs.
There is substantial room for improvement and greater in-
tegration of management throughout the supply, maintenance
and transportation systems of the Department. The most
critical need for improved effectiveness is in the support of
the Unified Commands.
There is no organizational element within OSD with the
capability or the assigned responsibility for objectively mak-
ing net assessments of U.S. and foreign military capabilities.
There is no adequate organizational element within OSD
that is charged with the responsibility for long-range plan-
ing for the structuring and equipping of forces or for other
similar purposes.
No formal mechanism exists within OSD to assure ade-
quate coordination among the various elements of the
Department.
The present functional assignments of Assistant Secretaries
of the Military Departments contribute to duplication be-
tween the efforts of the Military Department Secretariats
and the Service military staffs, and also between the Military
Department Secretariats and OSD. * * * *."
The findings of the Blue Ribbon panel point out many management
problem areas which have been brought to the attention of the De-
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
c "6
partment by the Committee over the years. The Committee will observe
with interest, the actions taken by the Department of Defense to im-
plement the panel's recommendations for management improvement
of Departmental operations. The Committee does not, however, place
itself in the position of an item by item endorsement of the recom-
mendations of the panel.
AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
During the hearings this year, the Committee continued to devote
special attention to several operational areas which prior hearings and
committee studies indicated were in need of in depth management re-
view and evaluation, in order to effectuate better controls and achieve
cost savings. Some of the more important of these areas are intelli-
gence; communications; automatic data processing; management stud-
ies and analyses; headquarters operations and administration; and
public affairs, public relations, and public information.
Most of these operational areas were singled out by the Blue Ribbon
Defense Panel for special consideration. The committee has not had
the opportunity to fully evaluate. all the recommendations, but a
cursory view indicates that many appear to be worthwhile and possibly
should be implemented.
From the Committee's review of these areas during the hearings this
year, it could be generally ascertained that improvements were being
made in the management of these important operations.
One recommendation of the Panel is of some concern to the Com-
mittee. The Panel recommended that the responsibility for Defense
automatic data processing should be placed under the supervision of
the recently established Office of Special Assistant to the Secretary
of Defense for Telecommunications.
It would appear that these are two distinct and separate operational
activities which need close scru.tiny.. While automatic data processing
is used extensively in telecommunications operations, much of the
sophisticated automatic data processing systems in operation or being
installed in the Department of Defense are for the management of
specific types of operations and/or activities unrelated to telecommu-
nications, such as supply operations, accounting, and personnel man-
agement. Therefore, the Committee believes that there is a need for
careful but separate management of these activities.
The Committee plans to delve deeply into the merits of this recom-
mendation during the hearings on the 1972 budget requests.
Although the Committee is pleased with the progress being made in
improving the management of- communications, automatic data proc-
essing, intelligence, and management studies, funds requested for these
operations were in excess of required needs and, accordingly, slight
reductions were made. The nature and amount of these reductions is
outlined in the separate discussion of each Service request.
EXCESS STOCKS
During the hearings this year the Committee again held discussions
concerning the amount of excess stocks in Southeast Asia. By direction
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
of the Department of Defense, the Department of the Army estab-
lished in 1967 in Okinawa the Pacific Utilization and Redistribution
Agency (PURA) for the overview of a project for the utilization and
redistribution of materials in the Pacific area. The primary missions
assigned the agency are : (1) to maintain an inventory of excess
material identified in a specific area; (2) supervise redistribution or
disposal of such material within the specific area; and (3) report the
availability of material. which cannot be utilized in the specific area
to other defense activities in accordance with developed procedures.
For the last couple of years, the Committee has had numerous com-
plaints and received some corroborating evidence concerning the im-
proper means being used to dispose of excess supplies in Southeast
Asia. It is the intent of the Committee to see that the Department of
Defense does not destroy supplies or equipment for the simple expedi-
ent of avoiding transfer to another theatre of operation or shipment
back to the United States. We believe that such stocks should be inven-
toried, controlled, and placed in the supply line for redistribution.
The Army has advised the Committee that as of the end of Febru-
ary 1970, PURA had identified about $929,000,000 of long supply
stocks in the Pacific. The problem, however, is that only a limited
amount of these stocks have been redistributed.
In a report dated August 14, 1970, the General Accounting Office
stated that during fiscal year 1969, $603,000,000 of excesses were
reported to the agency while only $23 million were redistributed to
other users to fill current or future needs. This lack of redistribution
is the problem with which the Committee is concerned.
The General Accounting Office pointed out in its report that
"excesses reported to PURA, which are not used by other services or
which are not requisitioned during the 60-day intra-service screening
period, are reported back to the owning Service for disposition action
in accordance with established Service supply procedures for disposal
locally or for return to the Continental United States. We estimate
that as much as $370 million worth of the excesses reported to PURA,
and for which there are no identified requirements in the Pacific will
be turned over to property disposal activities as surplus to military
needs. As the Government is only obtaining 71/2% return of acquisition
cost on disposal sales, it is imperative that maximum utilization of
excesses be achieved."
With this latter conclusion, the Committee completely agrees. The
Government cannot afford to suffer such a large loss on the disposal
of these supplies and materials.
The General Accounting Office report points out further that PURA
only has limited authority and as a result there is incomplete participa-
tion in the identification and redistribution operation. The Committee
believes that when the Department of Defense determined that there
was a need for such an agency, it should have given it the necessary
authority to obtain complete cooperation of all the Services. The
Committee believes that this authority should be granted at once.
The Committee directs that all excesses be identified and redistrib-
uted and requests the Department to furnish it with an accounting of
all the excesses in Vietnam.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
38
The Committee is making specific reductions to the request of the
,Services for supplies and materials. These reductions are identified
herein in the sections on the various Service requests.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY
lpprapriation, 1970------------------------------------------ - $7,467,751,079
Ji]stimate, 1971---------------------------------------- --- 6, 332, 000, 000
6,219, 011, 000
Recommended in thebill -----------?-------------------------
Reduction ------------------- 112,989,000
APPLICATION Or REDUCTION
The recommended reduction of $112,989,000 involves many of the
operations of the Department of the Army and is a very small
percentage of the overall amount requested for the particular
operation and/or activity. An overall reduction of $15,000,000 is pro-
posed because of the man-year shortfall in military personnel strength
as discussed in the writeup on Military Personnel, Army.
It is recommended that budgeted civilian personnel strength be
reduced by 1,889 positions. This will allow the Army an end strength
of 296,200 civilian employees on June 30, 1971.
The Army requested funds for 2,326 new positions. The Committee is
allowing only 1,785 as shown in the following schedule :
New
positions
requested Allowed Disallowed
05 0
SAFEGUARD operations ------------------------------------------ 1, 144 1.130 14
Aviation accident research ----------------------------------------- 535 300 235
Reserve technicians ----__-------------------- ----------------- 589 289
Computer command--------------------------------------------- 83 50
Civiliamzation of food service operation------------------------------ 541
Total -----------------------------------------------------2,326 1,785
In addition to the reduction of 541 new positions, the Committee
proposes a cutback of 1,348 existing positions. All of the latter should
be applied to headquarters operations and administration staffs.
Although the Committee is approving the total new positions
requested in support of SAFEGUARD operations, it is the Com-
mittee's desire that the Army not use the deployment of this system
to build an organizational empire of either military or civilian person-
nel. The management organizational structure of this system should
be kept as simple as possible.
The total dollar value of the reduction in civilian positions would
have been about $16,000,000 for the full year but since a fourth of the
year has already passed the Committee is recommending a net reduc-
tion of $11,000,000.
CONTRACT MANAGEMENT STUDIES
In the hearing this year, the Army stated that it did not know man am
hoNv ount thatowould beaobliigated in 1971. It was state d that the' Army
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
has always had difficulty in knowing in the coming fiscal year just what
management studies might be proposed.
The Committee believes that the Army could better plan its con-
tract management study program. The Army should be capable of pre-
senting a planned program for the year when it appears to present its
budget request, as the other services do. The Committee directs that
the Army obligate no more than $1,000,000 for these studies in fiscal
year 1971 and that specific estimates with supporting documentation
be prepared in support of any request for fuiids in the fiscal year 1072
budget.
For fiscal year 1971, the Army is requesting $16,365,000 for contract
services in support of the Safeguard system. The estimated obligation
for fiscal year 1970 was $3,505,000. Although the Committee recognizes
the increased operational efforts being put forth in the deployment
of the Safeguard system it could not reconcile this effort with the
significant increase in funding requested for these service support con-
tracts. Accordingly, the Committee proposes a reduction of 3,100,000.
This reduction is not intended to slow down deployment of Safe-
guard, but merely to indicate the Committee's concern over the num-
ber, type, and amount of these contracts.
An analysis of the services to be procured indicates coverage of every
possible aspect of management responsibility and operational proce-
dures. Some of the studies also appear to be duplications of studies
in process or of studies which have already been made by other agen-
cies or organizations of the Department of Defense. For example, one
study is to "evaluate integration and interface between the Safeguard
and Minuteman Systems". Testimony before the Committee this year
also indicated that the Joint Continental Defense Systems Integration
Planning Staff (JSIPS) was contracting for a Safeguard/Minuteman
Coordination study. The purpose of this study as stated on page 1019
of Part 5 of the Committee hearings is for "A continuing project to
monitor and promote coordination among the Operational Commands
and Military Services for actions required to insure mutual compati-
bility and optimum interface between Safeguard and Minuteman."
General Salisbury, testifying in defense of the continuation of JSIPS,
stated that "One of the biggest projects we have under way now is the
developing of and assistance in planning for the integration of the
Safeguard system and Minuteman in order that those systems can best
be operated to exploit their full potential without interfering with one
another..."
Another Safeguard support contract is for the development of firing
doctrine requirements, validation of contractor developed firing doc-
trine, and evaluation of other system firing doctrine. It would appear
that information of this nature would be a natural fallout of the
R.D.T. & E. phase of Safeguard system.
The Committee believes that the Secretary of the Army should
promptly evaluate the need for the 17 service support contracts to de-
termine their required need and the extent of duplication. The Com-
mittee wishes to be advised of the result.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
The Committee reviewed in depth the request for funds for the new
line of communications in Europe. The Committee feels that the
establishment of the new line was inadequately planned and inade-
quately coordinated with the other Services. The plans as outlined to
the Committee appear to be based on totally unrealistic assumptions.
The Committee believes that a good deal of further thought and eval-
uation will have to be put forth in order to prepare a more realistic
approach to this matter. Therefore, the Committee's proposal would
deny funds requested for this operation. This reduction amounts to
$4,300,000 in the operation and maintenance budget request.
'T`he Committee recommends other reductions, as follows. The re-
quest of $242,900,000 for automatic data processing operations
is reduced by $15,000,000. This resulted primarily because of the
army's decision to purchase a substantial amount of ADP equipment
in the latter part of fiscal year 1970 for which it had requested lease
funds.
The request for field exercises is reduced by $3,696,000 because a
number of exercises are never carried out. The Committee allowed
$15,000,000 for this operation which was the estimated 1970 level of
fundingg.
Intelligence operations are reduced by $3,058,000; communications
operations by $2,926,000; service support contracts by $5,700,000 in
addition to the reduction for Safeguard contracts; the request for
supplies and materials by $27,758,000; public information, public
relations, and -public affairs by $900,000; and headquarters operations
and administration by $10,851,000, in addition to the civilian personnel
reductions mentioned previously. The request for training operations
is reduced by $1,700,000 of which $600,000 is applicable to the re-
quest for the increase in professional training and $1,100,000 for the
training of senior officers to fly helicopters which was discussed under
the wr?iteup on Military Personnel, Army.
CONVERSION OF HEATING PLANTS IN EUROPE
It has been brought to the. attention of the Committee that the
Army has underway a consolidated. program for the conversion of all
heating plants to oil at defense facilities in Europe. Information pro-
vided the Committee indicates that this program will cost in excess of
S24 million, and is being financed with Operation and Maintenance
funds. Considering the $25,000 limitation on the use of operation and
raintenance funds for construction purposes, it appears to the Com-
mittee that funding of such a large conversion program requires au-
thorization and appropriation in the military construction budget.
The Committee directs that the Department of Defense make a study
of the, legal authority for the Department of the Army to undertake
this program with operation and maintenance funds. The resulting
opinion of the Department shall be furnished the Committee.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
41
The Committee also questions with concern the conversion of
these plants considering the possible withdrawal of United States
forces from Europe. Also, the fact that the oil to be used in the con-
verted plants will be imported from the Middle East is of concern to
the Committee when consideration is given to conditions in that part
of the world at this time. The heating plants involved now use anthra-
cite coal, of which there is no present shortage.
The Committee recommends deletion of $8,000,000 which it is esti-
mated will be obligated for this program in fiscal year 1971.
EMERGENCY AND EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSES
In a classified briefing the Army requested that funds authorized
for emergency and extraordinary expenses be increased by $366,000,
from $3,634,000 to $4,000,000. We were advised that this increase could
be accomplished without any increase in the overall operation and
maintenance budget request. The Committee has approved this request.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY
Appropriation, 1970 -----------------------------------------
$5, 242, 824,000
Estimate, 1971----------------------------------------------
4,804,000,000
Recommended in the bill------------------------------------
4, 681, 910, 000
Reduction --------------------------------------------------
122,090,000
TRANSFER OF FUNDING RESPONSIBILrrY
Traditionally, the operating cost of Marine Corps Air Stations has
been funded through the Navy Operations and Maintenance Budget
requests. The Department of Defense recently made a decision that
seven stations that are solely operated for the benefit of the Marine
Corps would be funded directly by the Corps. This is consistent with
the Fleet Command Management System which had been endorsed by
the Committee. Therefore, the Department of Defense has requested
that the Committee transfer $61,075,000 from Operation and Main-
tenance, Navy, to Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps. The
Committee has agreed to this request. The transfer of these funds also
necessitated a transfer of $9,109,000 in the limitation for the mainte-
nance of real property facilities.
TOTAL REDUCTIONS
The Committee's action proposes a net reduction of $61,012,000 ex-
clusive of the transfer discussed above. This includes a gross reduction
of $65,012,000 which is offset by an increase of $4,000,000 for project
Deepfreeze. Many small reductions are included in the total reduction
recommended for the Navy of $65;012,000. In most instances the
reduction represents a very small percentage of the amount requested.
CIVILIAN PERSONNEL
The Committee is recommending that civilian personnel strength be
reduced by 1,600 positions. This represents a dollar reduction of $15,-
000,000. Of the positions reduced, 432 are new positions and 1,168
are to existing positions. The reduction of 1,168 existing positions
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
42
should be applied to headquarters operations and administrative
staffs. The Navy request for 888 new positions were for the following
activities:
New positions
Activity requested
Financial management improvement program --------------- __________
Professional and other training-------------------------------------
I ntensified management of shipbuilding and conversion program--------
j oint uniform military personnel system_____________________________
509 250 259
157 75 82
131 131 0
91 0 91
888 456 432
The Committee is concerned with the large number of new positions
requested for the "Intensified management of the shipbuilding and
conversion program." While recognizing, the very urgent need for this
program, as discussed under "Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy" on
page 71 of this report, the Committee is also aware of the large num-
bers of both civilian and military personnel working in shipbuilding
and conversion areas. For instance, in the Washington Headquarters
Office of the Navy Ship Systems Command there were on June 30,1.970,
2;038 civilians and 259 military personnel; a total of 2,297. It is esti-
mated that this office will have a total end strength of 2,272 at June 30,
1971.
The committee approves the total number of new positions re-
quested, but directs that the 131 new positions approved are to be
reserved exclusively for this program and any of these positions or the
funds associated therewith that remain unfilled or unused at the end
of fiscal year 1971, shall lapse and shall not be diverted to other
purposes.
VARIOUS REDUCTIONS RECOMMENDED
Information provided the Committee indicates that the Navy will
experience a slight shortfall in military personnel strength. A reduc-
tion of $1,600,000 is applied to this shortfall. The Navy requested
$1,825,000 for contract management studies. The Committee reduced
this request by $125,000, allowing $1,700,000. The Navy requested
$150,800,000 for automatic data processing operations. A reduction of
$3,800,000 is recommended by the Committee because of a cutback in
lease agreements and other operating costs. Intelligence operations are
reduced $5,570,000, and communication operations $4,014,000. Service
support contracts are reduced. $4,253,000. Ship overhauls and repairs
are reduced $7,500,000 because of the usual slippage in this operation
and changes in the activation and deactivation of ships.
A reduction of $2,600,000 is recommender in air operations. This
reduction relates to the Committee"s proposal to allow pilots attending
long-term training programs to receive flight pay without performing
proficiency flying. This change in procedures is discussed on page 102
in connection with the changes in the general provisions of the bill.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01: CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
43
The reduction recommended for headquarters operations and ad-
ministration is $10,000,000. This is in addition to the civilian personnel
reduction mentioned previously. The request for supplies and materials
is reduced by $10,000,000. The request for public affairs, public rela-
tions, and public information activities is reduced $550,000.
ANTARCTIC OPERATION-DEEPFREEZE
Last year the Committee reduced funding for the Deepfreeze proj-
ect by $1,200,000. In April 1970 a reprogramming request was received
from the Department of Defense to restore these funds.
The Committee was advised that responsibility for the program was
in the process of being transferred from the Navy to the National Sci-
ence Foundation and the funds were needed to continue the same level
of effort as provided in prior years. At the time of the reprogramming
request the Committee was also advised that the funding level re-
quested by the Navy for this program for fiscal year 1971 was also
inadequate and an increase of $4,000,000 would be required to secure
the level of effort desired by the National Science Foundation. Since it
was the Committee's desire in the first instance that funds for support
of this operation should be obtained from other government programs
in support of scientific research, the Committee approved the repro-
gramming request and recommends an increase in the Navy's operation
and maintenance request by $4,000,000 for fiscal year 1971.
"ToRA, ToRA, TORA"
In 1967, with approval from the Office of the Secretary of Defense,
the Navy began to assist the Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corpora-
tion in making the movie, "Torn, Tora, Tora". The Navy billed the
film company $319,091. However, a review by the General Accounting
Office disclosed that $196,000 of additional support furnished by the
Navy was not billed the film company. Included in this amount was
$136,500 for operating the USS Yorktown for 21/5,. days. This matter
was also discussed in a Committee report by the House Committee on
Government Operations. Both reports and testimony before the De-
fense Subcommittee indicated that the Department of Defense has only
very broad policy guidelines concerning the cooperation to be fur-
nished by the Services to film and other companies who want assist-
ance from the military services. It appears that as a result of these
very broad guidelines the Navy "overlooked" certain costs incurred
in support of the making of this film. The Committee has no ob-
jection to the Department of Defense assisting, within reason, private
enterprise in various undertakings of this general kind, but believes
that the Department should be reimbursed for all costs incurred in
rendering this assistance. The Committee believes that the Navy should
make a strong effort to collect the $196,000 from the Twentieth
Century-Fox Film Corporation. The Committee directs that the Sec-
retary of Defense provide the Services with specific guidelines on the
furnishing of services to private enterprise and also on the cost
reimbursements required.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
44
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
Appropriation, 1970-------------------------------------------
$428,458,120
Estimate, 1971-------------------------------------------------
356,600,000
Recommended in the bill-------------------------------------
399, 943,000
Increase .-----------------------------------------------------
43,343,000
INCREASE
As previously discussed under Operation and Maintenance, Navy,
a transfer of $61,078,0000 is recommended to Operation and Mainte-
nance, Marine Corps, for the funding of seven Marine Air stations.
REDUCTIONS
The Committee recommends a total reduction of $17,735,000 to the
Marine Corps request for operation and maintenance funds. The Ma-
rines will experience a shortfall of approximately 14,000 man-years
of military personnel strength during fiscal year 1971. Against this
shortfall the Committee proposes a reduction of $1.0,000,000. The Com-
mittee recommends that civilian personnel strength be reduced by 330
positions. On a full year basis this would have amounted to a reduction
of about $2,615,000. However, since a quarter of the fiscal year has al-
ready passed, the Committee applied a reduction of $2,000,000. A re-
duction of $1,500,00 is applied to Marine Headquarters operations and
administration. Public Affairs, Public Relations, and Public Informa-
tion activities are reduced $35,000.
Late in fiscal year 1970, the Marine Corps purchase a sizable amount
of automatic data processing equipment which they had planned to
lease in fiscal year 1971 with operation and maintenance funds. This
allowed the Committee to apply a reduction of $4,200,000 to funds
requested for automatic data processing operations.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
Appropriation, 1970 -----------------------------------------
$6.530,100,000
Estimate, 1971 ----------------------------------------------
6, 176, 500, 000
Recommended in the bill------------------------------------
6, 117, 136, 000
Reduction --------------------------------------------------
59,364,000
VARIOUS REDUCTIONS
The Committee's recommended reduction to the Air Force request
totals $83,264,000 offset by an increase of $23,900,000 for a net reduc-
tion of $59,364,000. The gross reduction of $83,264,000 affects many
operations and/or activities supported with operation and maintenance
funds. For shortfalls in military personnel man-year strength the
Committee a plied a reduction of $8,000,000. Intelligence operations
are reduced $6,925,000 and communications by $7,565,000. The C-5A
crew training program is reduced $2,000,000 because of the slippage
in the 0-5A production program. A reduction of $6,700,000 is recom-
mended in the operational cost of the F-111 fleet because of its being
grounded. Headquarters operations and administration was reduced
by $5,624,000, excluding reduction :in civilian personnel strengths. The
request for supplies and materials was reduced $13,000,000. Support
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
45
service contracts were reduced $5,700,000. Public Affairs, Public Rela-
tions, and Public Information activities were reduced $600,000. A re-
duction of $750,000 was made in air operations as a result of the
Committee's decision to allow pilots attending long term programs to
receive flight pay without performing proficiency flying.
CIvrr IAN EMPLOYEES
The Committee reduced the Air Force budgeted civilian personnel
strength by 1,100 positions. This reduction amounts to $9,000,000.
The full year amount of this reduction would have been $12,000,000,
but because one quarter of the fiscal year has already passed, the reduc-
tion had to be lapsed. The request for 27 new positions is denied.
A sizable reduction can be made in headquarters operations and
administrative staff. Also a reduction should be applied against the
civilian personnel strength at the Air Force Academy. Air Force wit-
nesses advised the Committee that during fiscal year 1971, the total
supporting staff at the Academy will be 4,343, of which 2,194 will be
civilian and 2,149 military. This staffing will exceed the number of
cadets by 192. The Committee believes that in addition to an immedi-
ate cutback in civilian and military staffing, the Secretary of Defense
should make a comprehensive evaluation of the staffing requirements
at the Air Force and the other two service academies. The Secretary
should report his findings to the Committee in conjunction with the
1972 budget request.
AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING
The Air Force requested $200.300,000 for automatic data processing
operations in fiscal year 1971. This was an increase of $10,400,000 over
the estimated operating cost for fiscal year 1970. The Air Force volun-
teered a reduction of $4,200,000 as a result of a cut back in the imple-
mentation of the Phase II Base Level Data System. The Com-
mittee however did not believe there was sufficient justification for
increasing operating funds above the 1970 level and therefore denied
all of the increase.
Of concern to the Committee is the planned implementation of the
new Advanced Logistics System. The Air Force has stated that there
are no funds in the fiscal year 1971 request for the leasing of this sys-
tem but at the same time advised the Committee that the contract for
this system is expected to be awarded in December, 1970, or January,
1971, and the first system is to be ordered in the last quarter of fiscal
year 1971, for installation during the first quarter of fiscal year 1972.
The Committee questions how a purchase order could be issued for the
installation of a system without incurring an obligation of funds.
The Committee in its report on the Department of Defense Appro-
priation Bill for 1970 expressed the desire that the Department
proceed with caution in the implementation of this system. The Com-
mittee also directed the General Accounting Office to make a compre-
hensive review of the need, requirements, and implementation features
of the system. The General Accounting Office has not completed its
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
46
study but a report is to be furnished the Committee prior to the begin-
ning of hearings on the fiscal year 1972 budget request. The Committee
recommends that the Air Force defer awarding the contract until after
the Committee has had an opportunity to consider the General Ac-
counting Office report and discuss it with the Air Force. The Commit-
tee believes that it should fully review any system that is estimated to
cost $817,226,000.
PILOT TRAINING
On June 19, 1970, the Air Force announced that undergraduate pilot
training would be shortened. from 53 weeks to 48 weeks beginning
July 1, 1970. The Air Force advised the Committee that this cutback in
training would result in a savings of $7,000,000 in fiscal year 1971,
which has been deleted from this bill.
RmmNTIoN OF RESERVE UNITS
The budget for fiscal year 1971 proposed the deactivation of five Air
Force Reserve Units. However, on July 13, 1970, the Air Force
announced that these units would. be retained and re-equipped with
C-130 aircraft. The Air Force has informed the Committee that the
retention of these units would require $23,900,000 of additional opera-
tion and maintenance funds. The Committee has agreed to this increase.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE AGENCIES
Appropriation, 1970----------------------------------------- $1,160,866,907
.Estimate, 1971---------------------------------------------- 1,162,100,000
Recommended in the bill-------------------------------------- 1,125, 750,000
Reduction ------------------------------------------------- 36,350,000
The Committee recommends total reductions of $36,350,000 be ap-
plied to all Defense Agencies and/or activities. The effect is a slight
reduction in each request.
SEORETARY of DEFENSE AOTIVITIES
The budget request was $t2,395,000'for activities of the Secretary
of Defense. The Committee recommends a reduction of $2,411,000.
The Secretary's activities had a staff of 2,556 at June 30, 1970. The
budget request planned to retain the same staffing during fiscal year
1971. In line with the Committee's position of reducing all headquar-
ters operation and. administrative activities -a reduction of 156 posi-
tions was made. This action amounted to a reduction of $1,700,000. The
total reduction for a full year would have been $2,500,000 but a quarter
of the fiscal year has already passed and the reduction had to be lapsed.
Of the $1,346,000 requested for management studies, $1,300,000 is for
support of the Logistics Management Institute. The Committee is of
the firm opinion that the use of the Logistics Management Institute
should be cut back immediately and the contract eventually termi-
nated. The study effort, if need be, could be done in-house by the
Department of Defense. The Committee reduced the request for man-
agement studies by $300,000. The Committee would have reduced this
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
47
request more but because of the passage of one quarter of the fiscal
year, decided that the $300,000 reduction was sufficient.
The budget requested $266,000 for consultant services.- The actual
amount expended in fiscal year 1969 was $155,000. The Committee sees
no need for an increase in this activity and therefore applied a
reduction of $111,000.
Other operating costs were reduced by $300,000 because they were
either unnecessary or overstated. This reduction includes $100,000
for the new annual film report on the Department of Defense, $100,000
for automatic data processing operations, and $100,000 for other
support costs.
ORGANIZATION OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
The budget request for the Joint Chiefs of Staff operations was for
$7,130,000. The Committee reduced this request by $330,000.
In line with the Secretary of Defense's policy that all headquarters
staffs be reduced the Committee cut back the request for civilian em-
vloyees by 23 positions. The request for seven additional positions
or support of the World-Wide Military Command and Control Sys-
tem is denied since the Committee is denying funds for the imple-
mentation of the system as discussed on page 85 of the report. The
full annual amount of the reduction of 23 positions is $240,000 but
since one fourth of the fiscal year has already passed, the Committee
applied a reduction of only $180,000.
The requested increase of $275,000 for travel cost was reduced
$75,000. Also the requested increase of $58,000 for building alteration
in connection with a reorganization plan of this office is denied. The
request for supplies and other services was reduced by $17,000.
ARMED FORCES INFORMATION AND EDUCATION
The budget requested $12,145,000 for the Armed Forces Information
and Education operations. The Committee reduced this request by
$838,000.
The Armed Forces Institute requested an increase of $213,000 over
the actual cost for fiscal year 1969 for contract services. These con-
tracts are mostly for the grading of course lessons. In view of the
large cut back in military personnel strength and the additional short-
falls being experienced there should be less courses to be corrected
than when troop strength was higher. Therefore the Committee does
not believe this increase is needed and has deleted the funds.
During the hearings this year, the Committee discussed with repre-
sentatives of the Armed Forces Institute a General Accounting Office
report on the Institute's operations. The report pointed out many
deficiencies among which were, (1) the low course completion rates
experienced by the Institute which had not been evaluated to deter-
mine the causes, (2) the failure of the Institute to require drop-outs to
return course material, such as books and lessons, and (3) the complete
lack of inventory control over educational material. Based upon the
facts presented, the Committee believes that the Secretary of Defense
should institute a complete review of the Institute's operations and
procedures.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
48
The Committee believes that the civilian personnel strength of the
Information and Education activities can be reduced by 30 positions
at a lapsed savings of $250,,000. Because of the Institute's lack of
inventory control the Committee reduced the request for course mate-
rials from $2,275,000 to $2,000,000, a reduction of $275,000. Other
services were reduced $100,000.
DEFENSE SITPPLY AGENCY
For operation of the Defense Supply Agency, the Budget requested
$645,427,000. The Committee has reduced this request by $19,375,000.
The Committee reduced civilian employment by 1,152 positions to a
strength of 50,000. After being lapsed this reduction amounts to
$8,000,000.
The Committee reduction was prompted by the cut back in supply
operations because of the lessening of activities in Southeast Asia and
also, as a result of the Secretary of Defense announced cutback in
headquarters staffs.
AUTOMAITC DATA PROCESSING
Automatic data processing operations were reduced $6,000,000. The
Committee intended a large reduction but lapsed it since the first quar-
ter of the fiscal year has already passed. The major reason for the large
reduction was the intended expansion of the Standard Automated
Material Management System (SAMMS). The Agency intended to
double the expenditures for research on and operation of the system
in fiscal year 1971. This is an increase from $11,982,000 to $23,755,000.
SAMMS has been in difficulty for many years and the Agency has
never been able to implement the system as planned. For the last three
fiscal years, the Agency has received funds in its procurement appro-
priation to purchase equipment for the system, but has always repro-
grammed these funds to other programs. The Director of The Defense
Supply Agency advised that they have not done a very good job of pro-
gramming SAMMS into operation. The Committee believes that in-
stead of doubling expenditures, the Agency should stop where it is
and go back and take a new look at the feasibility of installing such a
sophisticated system. It may be that the Agency is trying to get ahead
of the state-of-the-art in computer operations.
The Committee wants the General Accounting Office to immedi-
ately commence a comprehensive review of this system in line with the
Committee's directive of September 24,1969, and report as soon as pos-
sible. The Committee requests that the Department of Defense assist
the General Accounting Office, in every way possible so that its review
can be expedited.
The Committee disallowed the Agency's request for an increase for
other purchased services of $2,800,000. The $1,000,000 increase re-
quested for travel cost has been reduced by $500,000. The request for
supplies and material was reduced by $2,075,000.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 49CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
DEFENSE COMMUNICATIONS AGENCY
The budget requested $47,730,000 for the operation of the Defense
Communications Agency. This is an increase of $6,805,000 above the
actual Obligations for fiscal year 1969, and $1,553,000 above the esti-
mate for fiscal year 1970. The Committee reduced the Defense Com-
munications Agency request by $4,046,000.
In line with the Committees position to reduce civilian employment
in the Department of Defense and the Secretary's directive to reduce
headquarters staffs the Committee reduced civilian employees by 100
positions. A portion of this reduction should be applied against posi-
tions in support of the National Military Command System. This
reduction in personnel would have resulted in a reduction of about
$1,360,000 but because of the need to lapse for the first quarter the
Committee only applied a reduction of $1,000,000.
The requested increase of $205,000 for travel cost is denied. The
Committee believes that $2,200,000 for this urpose is sufficient. The
request for supplies and materials is reduced $241,000, allowing a total
of $1,400,000.
CONTRACT MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND SERVICE
Within the Defense Communications Agency budget is a request
for $19,800,000 to support the National Military Command System.
The Committee reduced this request by $2,000,000 to the fiscal year
1969 level of $17,800,000. Of this reduction $1,570,000 is applicable to
the request for contract management services. The Committee believes
that sufficient capability should be available in-house at this time to
provide a substantial amount of these services, especially in the com-
puter support area. The Committee fails to see any need for such
contract services as "general analytical and programming support,"
especially in view of all the inhouse automatic data processing equip-
ment and support services which has been provided the Department.
A general reduction of $430,000 is made against the request for the
National Military Command System.
The Defense Communications Agency also requested $1,298,000 foi
contractual services. A list of these contracts appear on pages 887 and
888 of Part 3 of the Committee's hearings. The Committee reduced
this request by $600,000. The Committee would have reduced this re-
quest more but had to consider the expiration of the first quarter of
the fiscal year.
The Committee does not understand the need for several of these con-
tracts. In view of the establishment of the Defense Communications
Agency's Systems Engineering Facility it would appear that some of
the work to be contracted could be performed inhouse.
Neither does the Committee believe it wise for the Defense Com-
munications Agency to spend $500,000 on a study of the "long range
concept task" of the National Communications System. The concept
of this system has been studied many times over the past several
years. The Committee has discussed on various occasions this concept
with representatives of the Department of Defense and the Office of
Emergency Preparedness. Each time there were expressions of hope
that the criteria for this system would be developed and implemented.
Very little as yet has developed. On July 14, 1969, the General Ac-
counting Office issued a report on its review of the status of develop-
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
51-1540-70---4
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
50
merit toward establishment of a unified National Communications Sys-
tem. The General Accounting Office report concluded that-
".Although our study showed that some progress had been made,
it also showed that much remains to be done to achieve a unified NCS
such as the President directed be established in 1963. Our study dis-
closed that significant issues and problems exist within the NCS orga-
nizational structure and management arrangements, which appear to
be impeding the timely achievement of its objectives and goals. Many
of these issues and problems involve the very basic and essential in-
gredients that we believe are needed to achieve greater unifications of
the telecommunications networks that exist within the various agen-
cies of the Government.
"Of particular significance is the absence of any long-range plan or
`blueprint' and centralized policy guidance within the Government
to chart the course over which the telecommunications networks of the
NCS operating agencies are to be developed to best serve the Govern-
rnent as a whole. Without such a blueprint and accompanying guid-
ance, the corresponding and equally significant function of planning
is virtually impossible; and, from a unification point of view, the
operating agencies are not prevented from planning and developing
their individual networks to perform and fulfill solely the mission
needs of the agency."
The General Accounting Office recommended that-
"The President undertake a realignment of the NCS structure and
organzational arrangements and that a single organization or entity
be put in charge of the Government's telecommunications activities.
"We also recommend that, in undertaking this realignment, consid-
eration be given to (1) removing the Office of the DTM as a component
part of the OEP and reconstituting this office as the new organization
or entity and (2) assigning the roles and functions of the Executive
Agent and the Manager, NCS, to the new organization or entity, in
order to avoid any parochial or conflicting roles inherent in the
present organizational arrangement.
"We recommend further that, in addition to the organizational
realignment, the President direct that early attention be given to (1)
clarifying what a `unified' NSC is intended to be * * *, (2) resolv-
ing the question of the establishment of an integrated trunking sys-
tem * * *, and (3) reaching a timely decision on the combination of
the separate voice networks operated by DOD and GSA."
During the hearings this year, the Committee discussed this General
Accounting Office report with the Director, Defense Communication
Agency, who is also Manager of the National Communications System.
The Director agreed with the recommendations of the General Ac-
counting Office. fie also pointed out that suggested changes in the
organizational structure of the System had been made but action has
not been taken to implement them. The Committee does not believe
another long range concept tasks study is needed at this time. What is
really needed is a decision to either reorganize the existing manage-
ment structure of the system and grant it sufficient authority to enforce
policy decisions needed to make the system operate effectively or aban-
don the entire concept. There is no need to spend $500,000 for a concept
task study until it is determined whether the system should continue.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
51
OTHER AGENCY REDUCTIONS
The request of the National Security Agency was reduced $5,000,-
000 and the request of the Defense Intelligence Agency $2,000,000.
The Defense Atomic Support Agency requested $20,200,000 of oper-
ation and maintenance funds. The Committee made a general reduc-
tion of $2,000,000. The Committee noted that the Blue Ribbon Panel
recommended that this agency should be disestablished.
A general reduction of $350,000 was also made in the public affairs,
public relations, and public information activities of the Defense
Agencies.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY NATIONAL
GUARD
Appropriation, 1970 --------------------------------------------
$315,003,601
Estimate, 1971------------------------------------------------
287,400,000
Recommended in the bill--------------------------------------
287,400,000
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR NATIONAL
GUARD
Appropriation, 1970-------------------------------------------
$345, 201,780
Estimate, 1971------------------------------------------------
343,600,000
Recommended in the bill---------------------------------------
337,600,000
Reduction ----------------------------------------------------
6,000,000
The Committee recommends that the request for the Air National
Guard be reduced $6,000,000. Of this reduction $5,000,000 is charge-
able against the flying hour program because the Air Guard requested
an increase of $1,900,000 in fuel cost even though the flying hour pro-
gram was decreased by 8,351 hours. Also, because subsequent to the
budget request 'a fuel price decrease has been announced which resulted
in a savings of $3,100,000. A general reduction of $1,000,000 was applied
against other operating cost because it was felt that the estimates were
generally overstated.
NATIONAL BOARD FOR THE PROMOTION OF RIFLE
PRACTICE, ARMY
Appropriation, 1970------------------------------------------------- $54,008
Estimate, 1971--------------------------------------------------- 65,000
Recommended in the bill-------------------------------------------- 100, 000
Increase ---------------------------------------------------------- 35,000
The Committee believes that this program has been underfunded
for the last two fiscal years. In fiscal year 1968, the Congress provided
$428,000 for this activity. No funds were directly provided for fiscal
year 1969. In that year the funds for support of this activity were
incorporated in the request of the Army for operation and mainte-
nance activities. For fiscal year 1970, the Congress provided $54,008.
The Committee believes that to operate effectively the National Board
requires additional funds and therefore increased the request by
$35,000.
CLAIMS, DEFENSE
Appropriation, 1970-------------------------------------------- $39,000,000
Estimate, 1971------------------------------------------------- 39,000,000
Reco ended in the bill--------------------------------------- 39,000,000
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
52
CONTINGENCIES, DEFENSE
Appropriation, 1970--------------------------------------------
$5,000,000
Estimate, 1971:--------------------------------------------------
10,000
000
Recommended in the bill-----------------------------------------
,
5,000,000
Reduction -------------------------------------------------------
5,000,000
The Department of Defense has obligated only a very small amount
of the funds appropriated for the last five fiscal years. The Commit-
tee believes a level appropriate of $5,000,000 will be sufficient. As a re-
sult the request was reduced $5,000,000.
COURT OF MILITARY APPEALS, DEFENSE
Appropriation, 1970------------------------------------------------
$736,000
,
Estimate, 1971------------------------------------------------
780
000
Recommended in the bill-------------------------------------------
780,000
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
TITLE IV
PROCUREMENT
ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATIONS SUMMARY
The fiscal year 1971 budget authority estimates for the procurement
appropriations total $17,358,600,000, which is $499,773,462 less than
the amount appropriated for this purpose in fiscal year 1970. The Com-
mittee recommends appropriations of $16,243,810,000, a reduction
of $1,114,790,000 below the fiscal year 1971 budget authority estimates
and $1,614,563,462 below the amounts appropriated for fiscal year 1970.
APPROPRIATION COVERAGE
The procurement appropriations of the Department of Defense
finance the acquisition of capital equipment, such as aircraft, missiles,
ships, combat vehicles, weapons, munitions, and communications;
major items for support of the capital equipment when it is in use;
the industrial facilities necessary to produce that equipment, and major
modification of equipment in inventory where modernization can be
achieved without buying new equipment. The capital equipment fi-
nanced by these appropriations is principally procured from private
contractors or produced in Government arsenals, shipyards, and plants.
GENERAL STATEMENT
For years, the Committee has worked to improve Defense procure-
ment methods, eliminate waste, and encourage economies using budget
reductions and specific recommendations as tools. The Committee obvi-
ously cannot operate the Department of Defense, but it does feel
obligated to point out deficiencies in procurement whenever they are
apparent. Changes and improvements, however, must come for the
most part from within the Defense Establishment under the leader-
ship of the Secretary of Defense and his principal civilian and military
staff.
The Blue Ribbon Defense Panel studied various aspects of Defense
procurement policies and management practices and made certain
recommendations for improvements, including a much-needed revision
of the Armed Services Procurement Regulation, which the Panel de-
scribed as "complex and unrealistic to an extent that obscures Defense
procurement policy." It is expected that the recommended changes
to this document will be implemented at an early date.
An important aspect of procurement discussed by the Panel was
formally advertised versus negotiated procurement. Competitive pro-
curement, and more specifically a lack thereof, has been of particular
concern to this Committee for a number of years. The Panel pointed
out that only 10 to 12 percent of the Defense procurement dollars is
(53)
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
54
spent through the method of formally advertised procurement even
though this method is established as a general rule in the Armed
Services Procurement Act of 1947, as amended. There are 17 statutory
exceptions to the general rule and these exceptions constitute the ve-
hicle by which 88 to 90 percent of the dollars involved in Defense
procurement of goods and services are negotiated. The extent of com-
petition obtained in negotiated contracting was not addressed. The
Panel expressed the view, however, ". . . that the overwhelming pro-
portion of Defense procurement actions take the form of negotiated
contracts is a fact of life and should be recognized as such."
While the Committee must agree with this expression to a great ex-
tent, it is also equally clear that the exceptions to the general rule are
used often as an expedient rather than being based on a valid require-
ment to negotiate, because formally advertised procurement is a labor-
ous and time-consuming process for contracting officer personnel.
Nevertheless, formally advertised contracting certainly has a rightful
place in Defense procurement and. it should not be downgraded. Cost
savings resulting from this method of procurement have been realized
and documented over the years. More importantly, the Defense negoti-
ator is at a distinct disadvantage in experience, skills, and salary when
negotiating contracts with industry personnel, a fact recognized by
the Panel. For these and other reasons, any changes planned or con-
templated in this important area should consider fully the significant
advantages offered by the formally advertised method of procurement.
The Committee shares the concern of the Panel that there is a need
for improvement in the acquisition, training, and retention of pro-
curement personnel. The Panel has also made meaningful suggestions
and recommendations with respect to industrial plant equipment and
in. the overall field of logistics, including improvements in the inte-
grated management of procurement. These recommendations should be
implemented as soon as practicable.
Total package procurement is a techmique used to develop, design,
and produce a new weapon system. under a single contract.. This type
of contract extends over many years and the pricing base is usually
optimistic primarily because of the difficulty in predicting costs over
a span of several years. Consequently, final costs almost invariably are
far in excess of original estimated costs, with the result that current
funds have to be used to complete prior year programs.
The experience of the Department of Defense with the total package
procurement technique has been less than salutory, and in many cases
disastrous. This method of contracting effectively commits the Gov-
ernment to a contract for the production of a very expensive weapon
system. before the system has undergone the crucial design and de-
velopment effort that major weapon systems require. When the re-
search and development effort clearly indicates that financial, tech-
nical, or scheduling milestones will not be met, the Government is not
in sufficient control of the contract to amend it to the Government's
advantage. In practice, the dividing line between completion of the
design-development phase and the initiation of production becomes
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 :SIIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
obscured so that production funds are committed prematurely and used
for developmental effort. In some cases, total package procurement con-
tract decisions have been made strictly on calendar milestones instead
of performance milestones. This has resulted in starting the produc-
tion effort long before the system is ready for production. As a con-
sequence, many items are produced which do not meet specifications
and they later require many expensive and time-consuming changes
in order to improve their capability.
It was discouraging, therefore, to hear some Defense witnesses dur-
ing Committee hearings this year justify entering production on major
equipments and systems before adequate testing has been completed,
based partially on the fact that the Government had a favorable price
under a total package procurement contract. In its report of July
1, 1970, the Blue Ribbon Defense Panel recommended that total pack-
age procurement be prohibited. The Committee agrees with the Panel
recommendation that total package procurement as presently con-
stituted should be prohibited. It would appear, however, that some-
thing short of total package procurement, perhaps a middleground
between that concept and the old way of doing business, at least should
be studied before discarding completely some of the advantages the
technique did provide.
In recommending reductions in certain programs, the Committee
was not unduly influenced by the fact that the system in question
was under a total package procurement contract.
AIR-TO-GROUND CONVENTIONAL ORDNANCE
During this past year, the Committee had its investigative staff
conduct a review of military programs for the development of air-to-
ground weapons for delivery of conventional ordnance. This review
disclosed that there has been a costly and unnecessary duplication of
air-to-ground weapons' development among and within the military
departments. These overlapping developments have led to waste of
development resources and inefficient use of production funds. In
addition, this situation has resulted in an inordinate amount of pro-
liferation of such weapons in the inventories of the military services
with the attendant expenditure of logistics resources.
Not counting air-to-ground weapons under development, there are
in the Department of Defense inventories, for example, nine different
general purpose free fall bombs, including two 500-pound and three
separate 1,000-pound varieties; seven different special purpose bombs,
including three separate fire bombs; and 17 various cluster bombs,
consisting of 7 different dispensers and some 14 different bomblet loads.
Of the 17 in the inventory, only four cluster bombs currently receive
joint service use. With respect to general purpose free fall bombs, only
the MK-80 series are jointly used by the Air Force and Navy, and
even these differ as to types of fuzes and explosive fillers used. In
addition, there are three separate weapons designed to clear helicopter
landing zones.
Unfortunately, the cause of such waste-the inability of Defense
officials at u sufficiently high level to actually validate the military
requirements of the respective services against overall defense needs-
remains essentially unsolved.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
56
Our investigative staff found that in late 1964, the Joint Technical
Coordinating Group for Air-Launched Non-Nuclear Ordnance was
established as a joint service organization to preclude such duplication.
From its inception, however, the work of this group has been in-
hibited because the coordination at this level occurs after the respective
services' military requirements are established and often after de-
velopment programs are under way. To be effective, this needed coordi-
nation should occur before these requirements are firmly established
at the service level. While this coordinating group has some de-
cision-making authority, being headed by officers of four-star rank,
this authority does not extend to the area of military requirements.
This group can only proffer recommendations with respect to require-
ments, making the group essentially powerless to prevent duplication
and to require design standardization. sand joint usage.
According to our staff review, in September 1967, the Secretary of
Defense initiated the Development Concept Paper (DCP) and estab-
lished it as a primary Department of Defense decision-making and
implementation vehicle for major ro rams estimated to cost in excess
of $25,000,000 in development and/or 100,000,000 in production. Since
then, three years have elapsed, and a. Defense directive has yet to be
issued for the DCP procedure.. Notwithstanding the evolutionary
status of this procedure, however, the DCP process itself does not re-
quire that the significant and basic issues of possible duplication of
weapons systems, in being or under development, be addressed, nor
does it require that non-initiating services take a formal position
with respect to joint service use.
To complement the DCP procedure, the Defense Systems Acquisition
Review Council was established in May 1969 to review major develop-
ment programs during three evolutionary phases to assure that pro-
grams are ready for transition from one Phase to another. The Council,
however, has no decision-making authority and can only make recom-
mendations.
In February, 1969, the Air Munitions Requirements and Develop-
ment Committee was organized under a one-year charter to assist in
assuring, where practical, joint use requirement and design standard-
ization of air munitions to fulfil] the needs of more than one service.
This Committee directs its activities, however, toward the smaller pro-
grams beneath the development concept paper threshold. The Com-
mittee has had little impact in achieving joint use requirements in-
asmuch as the service representatives do not have the authority to
commit their particular service in the area of requirements.
It, can be seen from the foregoing that these efforts have been more
or less perfunctory in nature and have contributed little in the way
of encouraging joint development, programs.
The basic and primary role of supervising all research and en-
gineering activities in the Department of Defense, including the elim-
ination of duplicating programs, rests with the office of the Director
of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E). While it is recog-
nized that parallel development efforts in more than one service are
not always undesirable, and in certain :instances may be even beneficial,
there appears to be little excuse for permitting duplicative weapons
to enter production and be ultimately introduced into the inventories
of the military departments.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/0 CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
For instance, the Army, Navy, and Air Force, with DDR&E con-
currence, were permitted to spend a total of over $18,000,000 on devel-
opment of fuel air explosive weapons. Only the Navy weapon entered
production, but this was due to the fact the Army and Air Force were
unsuccessful in perfecting their weapon developments after a total
expenditure of $10,000,000. As a matter of fact, the Air Force develop-
ment work continues to this day.
In January, 1966, the Deputy Secretary of Defense gave the Army
the responsibility of determining the technical requirements for all
air delivered land mines. Notwithstanding the above decision and an
elapsed time of over four years, a joint operational requirements docu-
ment has not yet been promulgated. The Navy, despite the above deci-
sion, is developing an aerial delivered land mine solely for Marine
Corps application, and the Air Force has continued to independently
develop various aerial delivered mines, maintaining they are used for
interdiction rather than close air support.
Another case in point involved the Navy WALLEYE II and Air
Force HOBO bombs. Each of the two services, with the approval
of DDR&E, chose to respond to the same basic Southeast Asia, re-
quirement with separate but similar weapon development programs
and spent a total of about $12,600,000 in their efforts. In April 1970,
the Deputy Secretary of Defense cancelled the Navy WALLEYE II
production program and eventually the Navy will be required to
utilize the Air Force HOBO weapon. This situation is not only a good
example of the unwillingness of the military departments to get to-
gether mjoint development programs, but the seemingly inability
of DDR&E to bring about joint service development short of a deci
sion by the Deputy Secretary of Defense. Even at the present time, a
joint development program for a new family of general purpose
bombs is being held up until the matter of Air Force and Navy re-
quirements is resolved either willingly at the service level or by direc-
tion at the Secretary of Defense level.
From the foregoing analysis by our investigative staff, it is appar-
ent that nowhere in the Department of Defense does a development
program currently receive an adequate review from the standpoint
of balanced military requirements. For this reason, the Secretary of
Defense is urged to direct his attention to this fundamental problem,
not only with respect to air-to-ground ordnance, but to all weapon
system developments. In the meantime, the Committee has taken steps
to emphasize its concern by making certain reductions in air-to-ground
ordnance programs as highlighted by the review of its Surveys and
Since the submission of the President's budget in January, 1970.
there have been several important innovative concepts and policies
announced by the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense effect-
ing procurement generally. These new approaches have stemmed pri-
marily from the report of the Blue Ribbon Defense Panel published
July 1, 1970. Of particular significance were the Panel recommenda-
tions that (a) total package procurement, previously discussed (see
page 54), should be prohibited; and (b) that there should be "a gen-
eral rule against concurrent development and production efforts, with
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
58,
the production decision deferred until successful demonstration of
developmental prototypes." The Secretary of Defense has publicly
announced that he embraces the "fly before buy" concept, and the total
package procurement technique runs contrary to that concept.
The fiscal year 1971 procurement budget contains funding requests
to enter production on a number of weapons systems and other equip-
ments which are clearly outside the "fly before buy" approach. This
is understandable because the Committee believes that if the Secretary
of Defense had had the benefit of the Blue Ribbon Panel findings and
recommendations at the time the fiscal year 1971 budget was being
formulated, these funding requests to prematurely enter production
would not have been included. In a speech in late August 1970 the
Deputy Secretary of Defense stated emphatically that the Defense
Department no longer would enter production on weapons systems and
other equipment until it had been determined beforehand that such
systems and equipment do in fact work.
The Committee in its report last year strongly advocated the "fly
before buy" approach, and it is gratifying to see its adoption by the
Department of Defense. While the recommended total reduction might
seem severe, a close reading of the report detailing the Committee's
reasons for each reduction will disclose that they are well justified
and in consonance with the new procurement policies of the Defense
Department.
One of the many benefits to be derived from a "fly before buy" ap-
proach is that in the long run it better weapon will reach the troops
sooner. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that too much concur-
rency between development and. production has resulted in weapons
being fielded that either do not meet specifications or do not work. In
many such cases the weapons which were replaced would have been
more effective than the new ones rushed into production prematurely
and fielded. Thus, "fly before buy" does not retard modernization;
rather, it has the opposite effect of enhancing modernization. Of sec-
ondary but of considerable importance is the fact that taxpayer dol-
lars are saved by minimizing the necessity for costly and time-consum-
ing production changes and subsequent modification effort.
CLOSE Ain SUPPORT AIRCRAFT
'_Phis year, the Committee was faced with it Department of Defense
request to fund three close air support aircraft-the Army All-56A
Cheyenne gunship, the Marine Corps AV-8A Harrier aircraft, and
the Air Force A-X aircraft. There is it serious question as to whether
or not future Defense budgets can support the development and/or
procurement of three separate aircraft weapon systems designed to
perform essentially the same mission. The Committee, therefore, re-
viewed closely the close air support requirements of the military de-
partments in approaching the overall three-aircraft funding request.
The National Security Act of 1947 established general policy per-
taining to the functions of the military departments. The Air Force
was directed to furnish close combat support to the Army as well as
provide other types of support. However, missions of close air support
were not stated as exclusively Air Force missions, even though the
Air Force has chosen to make that interpretation.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01: CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
59
The Army, the primary beneficiary of close air support aside: from
Marine Corps ground forces, prefers the helicopter gunship to satisfy
its immediate close air support requirements, primarily because of a
reluctance to depend on the Air Force to provide this needed support in
an effective and timely manner. The Army has been placed in the posi-
tion of competing with other Air Force missions and must depend upon
the typo of aircraft the Air Force selects for the close air support mis-
sion, whether or not it can adequately and completely satisfy the
Army's immediate close air support requirement.
For these reasons, therefore, the Army embarked upon the helicop-
ter gunship concept, first with the Cobra to provide an interim capa-
bility and ultimately with the AH-56A Cheyenne helicopter gunship.
In order to diminish the roles and missions opposition by the Air
Force, the Army described the Cheyenne concept as an "advanced
aerial fire support system" designed to provide the Army with "direct
aerial fire support" as opposed to "close air support," obviously an
artificial distinction even by definition. Rather than help, this compli-
cated the roles and mission problem.
The growing Air Force opposition to the Army's providing its own
immediate close air support focused on the proposed development of
the Cheyenne; therefore, in 1967, the Office of the Secretary of Defense
authorized the Air Force to study the A-X aircraft. It was stipulated
at that time that the A-X requirement and characteristics should be
based on the assumption that Army ground forces will have aviation
fire support capability such as that provided by Cheyenne.
On September 28, 1970, the Secretary of the Army advised the Com-
mittee that "although both the Cheyenne and the A-X are intended to
provide combat air support, they are complementary in that they
have different flight characteristics which influence the degree of suit-
ability for specific missions." He went on to state that he had dis-
cussed this point with the Secretary of the Air Force in depth and
"there are some outstanding questions concerning operational utiliza-
tion," a clear indication of the duplication existing between the A-X
and Cheyenne.
When one considers what the Cheyenne will provide the Army in
the way of close air support, including the night and adverse weather
capability, this leaves little more than an interdiction role for the
A-X, and the military aircraft. inventories are replete with effective
interdiction aircraft.
The Marine Corps does not share the Army's problem in that Marir
forces have a built-in close air support capability. The helicopter, a
particularly the Cobra gunship which was to fill an interim cl, --
air support need until the Cheyenne became operational, has beep.
used quite effectively in Southeast Asia. The Marine Corps, recogniz-
ing the importance of the helicopter for certain close air support mis-
sions, has added helicopter squadrons to its aircraft inventory, and
recently had purchased the AH-1J, a twin-engine version of the
Cobra gunship. In addition, the Marine Corps has added the Harrier
aircraft to its inventory along with the F-4, the A-4, and the Cobra
gunship, all of which have been used by the Marines for various close
air support missions. In certain respects, the Harrier, with its V/STOL
capability and the method of employment envisioned by the Marine
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
60
Corps, would appear to duplicate the Cheyenne in the close air support
role even more than. the A-X does.
The Air Force A-X, to be designed specifically for the close air sup-
port role, is still a "paper" aircraft. It is described as an inexpensive
aircraft; estimated to cost approximately $1,200,000. This is "flyaway"
cost. By comparison, the Secretary of the Army advised the Com-
mittee on September 28, 1970, that the recurring "flyaway" cost of a
Cheyenne, similarly equipped and in the same quantities as the A-X,
would be approximately $1,290,000. The Army claims the current best
estimate of the average unit cost of a Cheyenne fully equipped, based
on the quantity to be procured, is $3,550,000 per aircraft.. From past
experience, the stated unit cost of the A-X is probably grossly under-
estimated. When an adverse weather and night capability is provided
the A-X in order to make it an effective and useful close air support
aircraft, it will in all probability cost close to $3,500,000 each
Also of particular significance: is the Harrier cost, estimated to have
a production unit cost in the United States, for the relatively small
quantity planned, of at least $5,400,000. In addition to the $238,500,000
program cost increase caused by the decision to build Harrier in the
ITnited States, the budget proposal did not in fact fully satisfy the rec-
ommendation of the House Armed Services Committee last year that
Harrier be produced Within the continental limits of the United
States. After completion of the proposed United States build program
in four years, 49 percent of the airframe and all the engines will have
been built in the United Kingdom. For these reasons, the committee
recommended against the expenditure of any funds for the establish-
ment of a Harrier production line in the United States at this time.
This action does not terminate the Harrier program and does not pre-
clude future manufacture of Harrier in the United States. It does pro-
vide the Marine Corps with Harrier at an earlier date, because there is
an active production line in being at the present time, and at a cost of
only about $3,400,000 each. The Committee recommendation will defer
substantial procurement of Harrier until the Secretary of Defense has
had an opportunity to evaluate the fundamental issues involved in the
close air support problem and decide on an optimum aircraft for the
military departments to meet this requirement.
Accordingly, the Department of Defense is directed to reevaluate
the roles and missions and aircraft options available relative to close
air support, including the Air Force's A-X, the Army's A11-56A
Cheyenne, and the Marine Corps' AV-8A Harrier aircraft before
recommending substantial procurement of any close support aircraft.
The Committee does not visualize nor does it believe that a significant
study effort is involved. The close -air support roles and missions prob-
lem has been studied and evaluated for years. Unfortunately, it has
been beclouded with artificial issues, such as fixed-wing versus rotary-
wing, which are not germane, as well as too little attention given to the
large number of extraordinarily fine; attack aircraft in our military
inventory which can satisfy a portion. of the close air support require-
inent. What is needed now is a resolution of the relevant issues, with
full consideration of the need to provide our ground forces with the
most effective and timely close air support possible, followed by it
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
determination of the optimum aircraft to meet this all-important re-
quirement, whether it be fixed-wing V/STOL, rotary-wing, or fixed-
wing STOL.
The Secretary of Defense is requested to provide the appropriate
committees of Congress with the results of his evaluation along with
his decision on the aircraft best suited to meet the close air support
need in sufficient time for the fiscal year 1972 budget to reflect this
determination. In the interim, the Committee has provided sufficient
funds to maintain the Harrier, Cheyenne and A-X aircraft programs
at appropriate levels of effort pending the Secretary of Defense
decision.
PROCUREMENT OF EQUIPMENT AND MISSILES, ARMY
Appropriation, 1970 ------------------------------------------ $4,259,329,911
Estimate, 1971---------------------------------------------- 3,220',000,000
Recommended in the bill------------------------------------- 2, 933, 100, 000
Reduction -------------------------------------------------- 292,900,000
This appropriation provides funds for items of combat and support
equipment for approved Army forces needed to meet both nuclear and
conventional war requirements. Major budget activities under this
appropriation are aircraft, missiles, weapons and combat vehicles,
tactical and support vehicles, communications and electronics equip-
ment, other support equipment, ammunition, and production base
support. The appropriation also provides for the procurement of spares
and repair parts not covered in the Army stock fund as well as pro-
duction engineering, tooling, and facilities in support of current pro-
curement programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,933,100,000, a
reduction of $292,900,000 below the budget authority estimate, and
$1,326,229,911 below the appropriation for fiscal year 1970. The reduc-
tion includes $31,300,000 of the budget authority request which failed
authorization of Congress, and an additional reduction of $,261,600,-
000 recommended by the Committee.
The appropriations pprovided will fund quantities of four different
rotary wmg aircraft, Safeguard ground equipment as well as Sprint
and Spartan missiles, various surface-to-air missiles, over 1,000 ar-
mored personnel carriers, 300 M60A1 tanks, large quantities of trucks,
weapons, communications and electronic equipment, support equip-
ment, and over $1,000,000,000 worth of ammunition.
PRIOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
The $31,300,000 of budget authority request which failed Congres-
sional authorization, includes a $10,000,000 reduction in the SAFE-
GUARD program, $8,900,000 in the improved HAWK missile pro-
gram, and a $12,400,000 reduction in financing adjustments involving
the recoupment of prior year balances brought about by Section 642 of
Public Law 91-171.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
62
(AI-47 CHINOOK IIELICOPTFlt
The request of $41,600,000 for the procurement of 24 CH-47 Chinook
cargo transport helicopters has been reduced by $15,000,000 because of
the favorable total asset position of the Army for these aircraft. The
funds provided are sufficient to maintain the production line at a rate
of one per month.
UII-1 IROQUOIS IIELICOPTER
The ('olnmittee has reduced the request of $37,900,000 for 120 UH-1
Iroquois helicopters by $8,300,000. Since the submission of the fiscal
year 1971 budget request, the Army has decided to utilize existing
engines and other components which are in long supply for new air-
craft production, thereby reducing the total cost of these helicopters
by the amount of the recommended reduction.
All-] COBRA HELICOPTER
The Army requested $37,000,000 for 70 Al-1-1 Cobra gunships. Be-
cause of the Army plan to use engine assets and other components
for new helicopter production, the Committee has recommended a
reduction of $4,400,000 from the amount requested.
1IRCRAFT GROU'VD S1GPPORT AVIONICS
In the area of aircraft ground support avionics, the Committee
does not recommend funding $2;200,000 for the AN/TSQ-71 Land-
ing Control Central because of a slippage in the test program, and
$1,700,000 for the AN/TSQ-70A Air Traffic Facility because the
equipment failed engineering and service tests.
X 1II HI-2 3R IMPROVED I IAWK MISSILE
The Army is requesting $90,300,000 for the XMIM-23B Improved
l hawk surface-to-air missile. In July, 1970 the Senate Armed Services
Committee recommended a reduction of $37,000,000 for procurement
of Improved Hawk missiles in fiscal year 1971 because of develop-
-nent problems, the current status of testing, and the concurrency
that exists between development and production.
On August 31, 1970, the Army entered into a production contract
enontainina fiscal year 1971 production options. The committee believes
the Army contract action was premature and especially untimely in
the face of a Senate Armed Services Committee recommendation for a
lfrogram reduction that had not been resolved in joint House/Senate
committee conference. Until the August, 1970 contract award, a signifi-
oant portion of the fiscal year 1969 and all the fiscal year 1970 funds
appropriated by Congress for these missiles had not been placed on
contract because of serious problems in the development program.
Array engineering and service tests were suspended from December,
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
63
1969 until mid-March, 1970, at which time only 16 missiles had been
fired with limited success. At the present time all the six "core" flight
objectives have not been fully demonstrated thus far in the missile
flight test program remaining. In addition, Arctic and Tropic tests
have not been completed.
Army witnesses were overly optimistic last year concerning this
program and the Committee has not heard or read anything this year
to convince it that this missile is ready for production. A total of
$8,900,000 of the .fiscal year 1971 request has already failed Congres-
sional authorization. Accordingly, the Committee has further reduced
the fiscal year 1971 funding request by $38,200,000, leaving $43,200,000
in the budget to cover costs stretching out the fiscal years 1969 and 1970
programs, and permitting limited fiscal year 1971 production when all
test flight objectives are successfully demonstrated.
The $11,000,000 request for Nike-Hercules modifications has been
reduced by $8,000,000. The Army had scheduled the phase out in fiscal
year 1970 of 23 Nike-Hercules batteries which will not require modifica-
tions. Since Congress provided $19,200,000 for this purpose in fiscal
year 1970, the fiscal year 1971 request can be safely reduced by the
amount recommended by the Committee.
The Army requested $30,800,000 for the initial procurement of
the XMGM-52 Lance surface-to-surface missile. A total of $82,500,000
will be required to complete the Lance research and development
program, including initiation of engineering and service tests, which
will last about one year, as well as completing the development of the
propulsion unit and warhead sections. At the time of our hearings,
the contractor had completed only seven flight tests. The Atomic
Energy Commission advised the Army that it could not support the
nuclear warhead development schedule, and there is no conventional
warhead for Lance in being or under development.
In view of the excessive concurrency in the program as well as
the significant amount of contractor and Army testing to be done,
it is quite apparent this missile is not ready for production. Accord-
ingly, the Committee recomemmends that the $30,800,000 request be
deferred.
In view of the Committee recommendation to defer Lance pro-
duction, the $3,000,000 requested to modify basic Lance launchers to
accept the new extended range Lance can wait until next year. There-
fore, it is recommended that the $3,000,000 for Lance modifications
be deleted from the fiscal year 1971 budget.
The Army request of $12,800,000 for Pershing modifications in-
cluded $2,500,000 to correct unknown deficiencies which "may result
from testing and troop use during fiscal year 1971." Because of the
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
64
nonspecific nature of this request, the Committee believes these funds
will not be required this fiscal year, and it recommended that the
request of $2,500,000 for this purpose be denied.
The Committee recommends deletion of the $28,800,000 requested
to buy additional sets of the Land Combat Support System, which is
used to test guidance and control components of the Shillelagh, TOW,
and Lance missiles, and ultimately the Dragon missile.
The Army has procured over half of its total requirement for these
equipments before completing engineering and service tests. Over
$4,000,000 will now be required through fiscal year 1971 to correct
deficiencies. TOW adaptation tests will not be completed until fiscal
year 1971, and there will be no immediate requirement for Lance.
The Committee action, therefore, is based on the fact there are suffi-
cient assets now on hand to accommodate Shillelagh and TOW.
MISSILE REPAIR PARTS AND SUPPORT MATERIEL
The $38,500,000 requested for missile spares and repair parts is
reduced by $10,800,000 as a result of Committee recommendations
involving the Lance misfile and the Land Combat Support System.
The reduction was applied against the initial provisioning spare
funding requests of $1,100,000 for Lance, and $9,700,000 for the Land
Combat Support System.
WEAPONS AND COMBAT VEHICLES
The Army request of $12,000,000 for 315 additional M577A1
tracked Command Post carriers is reduced by $9,200,000. The fiscal
year 1971 request was a proposed buyout of this item. The Army has
reached a significant percentage of its inventory objective, there are
large quantities stored in mobilization reserve, and these vehicles are
currently in long supply in Southeast Asia. The Committee has pro-
vided $=2,800,000 in the fiscal year 1971 budget for termination costs.
The 5,300,000 requested for M203 40mm grenade launchers is
reduced by $2,000,000, which is the amount that will bsaved by the
Army in awarding a multiyear production contract for this item.
M151 1/4-TON TRUCK (JEEP)
The Army requested $41,300,000 for 11,772 M151 1/4-ton trucks
(Jeeps). Congress has funded 45,000 of these vehicles in the last three
fiscal years. Since 1962, a large percentage of these vehicles were
"washed out" of the inventory in favor of depot overhaul, even when
an engine required repairs beyond the capability of general support
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
65
maintenance facilities. From March 1968 to April 1970, only 702 Jeeps
had been sold as surplus through the General Services Administration.
During 1970, the Army established a new Jeep maintenance over-
haul policy which will increase retention rates to 502000 miles usage
or eight years of age. Fiscal year 1970 ended the existing multiyear
contract, and estimated losses for that fiscal year will be approximately
5,000 less than the fiscal year 1968 and 1969 experience. For these
reasons, the Committee recommends a reduction of $17,300,000 in
the Army request.
XM-705 11/4-TON TRUCK
The Army has requested $28,800,000 for the procurement of 3,452
XM-705 11/4-ton trucks. Congress funded an initial buy in fiscal year
1970 of 473 such trucks, 43 of which will be used for the equivalent
of an Army engineering and service test, to begin in April 1971 and to
be completed in the Fall of 1971. Contractor prototype tests were to
begin in August 1970 and are scheduled to be completed in February
1971. Environmental tests are to be completed in the Spring of 1972.
Since this truck is being developed and produced under a total package
procurement contract, the Army must exercise the option for the fiscal
year 1971 buy in March 1971, one month after contractor prototype
tests and before any Army tests begin.
During 1970, the Army signed a letter contract with another firm
to test a modified M-715 truck the Army had been buying to determine
how well it will meet the qualitative materiel requirement under which
the XM-705 truck is being developed, and whether or not procure-
ment of the modified M-715 truck in lieu of the XM-705 truck would
result in cost savings sufficient to justify a relaxation of the qualitative
materiel requirement. The M-37 truck, which will be replaced by the
XM-705, cost about $3,800 each; the M-715 interim truck will cost ap-
proximately $4,400 each. The XM-705 truck will cost about $5,400 each.
The Committee has requested its investigative staff to review the
overall Army truck program. A preliminary evaluation by our in-
vestigative staff indicates that the XM-705 development represents a
questionable use of significant RDT&E funds when viewed against
certain Army regulations, and there is also a question of whether or not
the contract definition procedure should have been used for this pro-
gram, particularly since only one proposal was received.
The XM-705 development grew out of an original requirementfor
an austere vehicle that was not intended to be organic to units charged
with ground gaining or fire support missions and had an objective
unit cost of $4,200; the presently proposed. XM-705 vehicle is to
achieve a degree of mobility commensurate with that of a combat ve-
hicle in both operational and support missions. An Army official ad-
vised that the modified M-715 should be a proven vehicle that will meet
maintainability, reliability, and durability requirements proposed for
the Army's 11/4-ton truck. The qualitative materiel requirement con-
sidered a unit cost objective of $4,200 as being attainable provided
unnecessary technical features, over-refinement, and excessive dura-
bility are eliminated. The modified M-715 appears to more nearly
approach this objective, whereas the XM-705 truck may be over-
engineered and excessively "gold plated".
For the foregoing reasons, the, Committee recommends deletion
of the $28,800,000 being requested, which will defer the production
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
51-154 0-70-5
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
lib
decision until appropriate Army testing of the XM-705 truck is com-
pleted and the modified M--715 is evaluated.
It is recognized this action may have the effect of terminating the
total package procurement contract, unless the contractor is willing
to provide additional time for the Government to complete these
evaluations. At any rate, since the Army purchased about 30,000 of the
M-715 truck in a relatively short period of time, it would appear that
cost savings realized from going to a more austere truck would more
than offset termination costs.
In the meantime, the Committee will have had an opportunity to
benefit from its overall Army truck study in addressing fiscal year
1972 Army requirements for tactical and support vehicles.
REPAIR PARTS AND SUPPORT VEHICLES
The Committee recommends a reduction of $1,100,000 in initial
provisioning spares for the XM-705 in consonance with the overall
^ecommended reduction to that truck program.
COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONICS EQUIPMENT
SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
The Committee recommends a reduction of $2,700,000 from the
$17,500,000 requested for Satellite Communications ground terminal
equipment due to a realignment of this program.
AN/TD(,)-Tl TRAINER SET-AN/TRR-31 RECEIVER
The Committee has also deleted the $1,600,000 requested for an AN/
1DQ-T1 Large Area Radiation Trainer Set and the $1,900,000 re-
quested for the. AN/TRR-31 All Band Receiver because of slippages
in the test programs for these equipments.
TACTICAL FIRE DIRECTION SYSTEM (TACFIRE)
The Army requested $14,000,000 for production of the Tactical
Fire Direction System (TACFIRE ), plus $3,500,000 in advance pro-
curement funds for the fiscal year 1972 buy. This proposed procure-
ment is motivated to a great extent by the fact that TACFIRE is
being developed under a total package procurement contract. The pro-
duction decision must be made in May 1971 at which time Army engi-
neering and service tests will not be completed.
The Committee envisions serious problems with this contract as
presently constituted. Already there is a dispute with the contractor
over the method used to compute. incentives, and the Army intends to
restructure the contract in order to provide for a production incen-
tive, the elimination of the existing contract penalty for the contrac-
tor's failure to deliver the first production system, plus 13 other items
proposed by the contractor. If the Army intends to restructure the
contract to the contractor's advantage, there is no reason why the
Army cannot trade-off a few months' deferment of the production
decision until completion of the test program and an overall evalua-
tion of the system can be made. Accordingly, the Committee directs
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
67
that production be deferred until fiscal year 1972. Any necessary por-
tion of the $14,000,000 requested for production may be used by the
Army to maintain development continuity until next year.
The Committee denies the requested $4,000,000 to buy eight RATAC
Field Artillery Radar Sets. The Army has already reprogramed
$8,300,000 of fiscal year 1970 funds to buy 16 sets under a letter
contract, and will buy six more sets with $2,800,000 in fiscal year
1971 R.D.T. & E. funds. Army engineering and service tests will not
be completed until fiscal year 1972 and Standard A type classification
is not scheduled until fiscal year 1973. The proposed fiscal year 1971
buy should be deferred until the Army completes its testing program.
The Committee recommends deletion of the $2,400,000 requested to
buy the SU-50 Electronic Binocular because this equipment failed
engineering and service tests. The proposed procurement program will
slip to fiscal year 1972 or 1973.
The Committee recommends deletion of the $1,400,000 requested for
31 ditching machines because the Army has already reprogrammed
fiscal year 1970 funds in order to exercise a contract option in a timely
manner, thereby obtaining a reduced price.
The $9,600,000 requested for LCM and LCU landing craft is denied.
These craft were originally placed in the budget for the LOC/Port
Plan, but they are no longer required for that purpose. In addition, the
Army is in long supply of landing craft in Southeast Asia.
The Committee recommends a reduction of $1,900,000 from the
$8,800,000 requested for calibration set modifications. Subsequent to
the budget submission, the Army increased the fiscal year 1970 pro-
gram by $1,900,000 in order to update equipment previously deferred.
The Committee recommends deferral of the $11,400,000 requested to
buy 37,000 rounds of XM-483 155mm ammunition. This action is based
on the fact this round failed Army engineering and service tests.
Further tests are required to correct fuze malfunctions which caused
erratic ranges.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
68
SECTION 642, PuBLIC LAW 91-171
The Congress failed to authorize $12,400,000 of the budget authority
request. This amount is part of $25,000,000 which was proposed by the
Army for rescission under Section 642 of Public Law 91-171. The en-
tire $25,000,000 was not in the procurement authorization request to
Congress. Consequently, the Committee recommends a reduction of an
additional $12,600,000 to the budget authority request. The Army is
requested to use a like amount; in :prior year balances proposed for
rescission to offset the reduction.
PROCUREMENT OF AIRCRAFT AND MISSILES, NAVY
Appropriation, 1970-----------------------------------------
E
i
$2,621,705,547
st
mate, 1971----------------------------------------------- Recommended in the bill_____________________________________
3, 005, 800,000
Reduction --------------------------------------------------
421,900,000
This appropriation finances the procurement of aircraft, missiles,
and associated support equipment for Navy forces and Marine Corps
air wings. It also provides funds for modification of in-service aircraft
and missiles to eliminate safety hazards and enhance operational ef-
fectiveness. Drones and major flight and maintenance trainers are also
included, as well as repairable spare and repair parts for all end items
procured under this appropriation. Funds are also included to finance
procurement of items in support of the planned subsequent year buy
program. These items must be procured in advance due to production
leadtime considerations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,005,800,000, a
reduction of $421,900,000 below the et authority estimate, and
$384,094,453 above the appropriation Zr fofiscal year 1970. The reduc-
tion includes $78,600,000 which failed authorization of Congress
and an additional reduction of $343,300,000 recommended by the
Committee.
The appropriation provided will fund the procurement of six dif-
ferent fixed-wing combat aircraft, including the new F-14A fighter,
as well ,is the T?H-1N Iroquois helicopter, the P-3C Orion antisub-
marine patrol aircraft, and two separate trainer aircraft, plus modifica-
tions to inventory aircraft. In addition, funds were made available for
significant quantities of seven different missiles, including the
POSEIDON, as well as missile modifications.
PRIOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
The $78,600,000 which failed Congressional authorization includes
reductions of $28,900,000 in the 'Condor missile program, and $6,700;
000 in the planned AIM-7F Sparrow missile buy. The remaining re-
duction of $43,000,000 involved financial adjustments in recoupment
of prior year balances predicated upon Section 642 of Public Law 91-
171.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
69
The budget requested $112,500,000 for 12 A-6E Intruder attack air-
craft, plus $3,600,000 in advance procurement funds for the planned
fiscal year 1972 buy. The Navy will not complete flight testing the new
avionics subsystem for this aircraft until December 1970, and will not
complete the technical/operational evaluation and Board of Inspec-
tion and Survey trials until several months beyond that date. Congress
funded 12 aircraft in fiscal year 1970, and all 12 will not be delivered
until the last five months of 1971. The Committee, therefore, recom-
mends funding only six aircraft in fiscal year 1971 at a cost of
$72,500,000, making a reduction of $40,000,000 in the Navy request.
This action, when combined with the fiscal year 1970 program, will
permit a one-per-month delivery schedule and bring aircraft deliveries
more in line with the avionics subsystem test program.
AV-8A HARRIER V/STCL AIRCRAFT
The budget requested $96,200,000 for procurement in the United
States of 18 AV-8A Harrier V/STOL aircraft, plus $6,900,000 in
advance procurement funds for the proposed fiscal year 1972 buy pro-
gram. As discussed earlier in this report (see page 60), the decision to
produce this aircraft in the United States increased the cost of this
program by $238,500,000, or about 62 percent, making the Harrier less
attractive from a cost standpoint. Of greater significance, however, is
the fact that Harrier is one of three new separate close air support air-
craft in this budget. The Secretary of Defense has been requested to
reevaluate these requests.
In the interim, the Committee directs that the 18 aircraft in the
budget be procured from the United Kingdom, thus providing the
Marines with a full squadron of Harriers at an earlier date, plus a
quantity of aircraft for training and attrition. Because this method
of procurement will require fewer funds and since Congress has al-
ready authorized the reprogramming of $8,000,000 in fiscal year 1970
resources, the Committee recommends a reduction of $32,200,000 in the
fiscal year 1971 request. This action will make available a total of
$72,000,000 for the fiscal year 1971 buy, plus the amount requested
for initial provisioning spares.
The budget requested $79,000,000 for two S-3A carrier-based
antisubmarine aircraft, plus $22,700,000 in advance procurement funds
for the fiscal year 1972 buy. The development contract was signed in
August 1969, and the Navy proposes to enter production one year later.
First flight,by the contractor is not scheduled until 1972. The avionics
and engines for these two aircraft are being developed under the
RDT&E budget, and Navy witnesses admitted in hearings that there
is a risk in the development of the avionics subsystem.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
The Navy production proposal represents concurrency with the de-
velopment program to an unreasonable degree, and is contrary to the
"fl;y before buy" concept embraced by the Secretary of Defense. For
these reasons, the Committee has deleted the $79,000,000 for produc-
tion, maintaining this aircraft in RDT&E. Since the RDT&E pro-
gram need not be fully funded, the Committee recommends an add-on
of only $58,000,000 to the Navy RDT&E budget.
The Navy proposes to initiate production of the E-2C Early Warn-
ing aircraft by requesting $92,300,000 for three such aircraft, plus $20,-
000,000 in advance procurement funds for additional aircraft in fiscal
year 1972. This aircraft development began in June 1968, but the
avionics subsystem development was initiated only during fiscal year
1.970. There is a fiscal year 1971 request for $47,700,000 to continue
work on the latter equipment. A development study of the ASQ equip-
ment was to have been conducted during the last fiscal year. This air-
craft production proposal is another example of excessive concurrency
between development and production.
Currently, 51 E-2A aircraft will be modified to the E-2B configura-
tion, providing them with increased early warning capability. Under
the proposed Navy plan, all the E-2C aircraft would have been deliv-
ered several years before the projected!. useful life of the E-2B aircraft.
There is, therefore, no valid urgency to initiate production of this
aircraft before completing development and testing of the avionics
subsystems. Accordingly, the Committee recommends deferring the
$92,300,000 request until fiscal year 1972. The Navy has recently
reprogrammed funds for three additional EA-6B electronic warfare
aircraft for the fiscal year 1970 program, and for this reason, the
Committee action on the E-2, C, will not cause plant loading
problems at the contractor's facility and thus should not result in
added costs to other aircraft programs.
The Committee recommends deletion of $6,000,000 requested to
modify eight A-6 aircraft for the Condor missile research and devel-
opment test program. This is a requirement which should more
properly be funded with research and development funds, and it is
recommended that this -amount be absorbed in the Navy RDT&E
budget.
F-4 AIRGH:AFT
The $1,100,000 requested to modify the F-4 to accept the AIM-7F
Sparrow III missile is deleted because of the Committee recom-
mendation to defer production of that missile, discussed on page 71
of this report.
Because of reductions made in certain aircraft production programs,
the initial provisioning funds for those aircraft can be reduced a total
of $14,200,000, including a reduction of $5,700,000 for the A-6E, and
Ap%90PJPA5~C2U01/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
71
In view of the reductions recommended in the S-3A and E-2C air-
craft programs, the $43,400,000 for VAST equipment for these air-
craft will not be required. The cut, as applied, was $34,400,000 for the
S-3A sand $9,000,000 for the E-2C.
The budget requested $52,700,000 to buy quantities of both the AIM-
7E and AIM-7F Sparrow III air-to-air missile. Testimony received
this year clearly indicates that the AIM-7F model is not ready for
production.
At the time of our hearings, the funds provided in fiscal year 1970
for the AIM-7F were not yet placed on contract. The contractor had
completed only seven test firings, not all successful, and there are at
least 63 missiles scheduled in the overall contractor/Navy flight test
programs. The Air Force did not consider the AIM-7F to be ready
for procurement and there are none in the Air Force fiscal year 1971
budget.
The Navy has significant quantities of AIM-7Es and AIM-7E-2s in
its inventory and on order at the present time. Accordingly, the Coin-
mittee allows $23,100,000 to buy only the AIM-7E-2 version of
Sparrow this fiscal year, and recommends deferral of the fiscal year
1971 AIM-7F buy, thereby reducing the overall request by $23,300,000,
which is in addition to the $6,700,000 which failed authorization of
Congress. The funds appropriated for the AIM-7F in fiscal year 1970
will provide sufficient quantities for Navy evaluation of the missile.
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING SUPPORT
During the course of Operation and Maintenance hearings (page
418 of Part 3), the Committee was advised that the Navy has a total
of $76,148,000 in the fiscal year 1971 PAMN budget for technical engi-
neering support contracts. This area was the subject of a study by
our investigative staff this year. The fiscal year 1970 level was only
$52,473,000. The Committee considers the total amount of the increase
is not justified. Accordingly, the fiscal year 1971 request is reduced
by $11,800,000 which represents about one-half of the increase.
SECTION 642, PUBLIC LAw 91-171
Congress failed to authorize $43,000,000 which was the same amount
proposed by the Navy in its budget authority request to be rescinded
under Section 642 of Public Law 91-171. The amount proposed for
rescission is to be used by the Navy to offset the amount failing au-
thorization, and requires no specific action by this Committee.
SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY
Appropriation, 1970 ------------------------------------------ $2,495,899,014
Estimate, 1971---------------------------------------------- 2,578,900,000
Recommended in the bill------------------------------------ 2,694,400,000
Increase --------------------------------------------------- 115,500, 000
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
This appropriation finances the construction of new ships and the
conversion of existing ships, including all hull, mechanical and electri-
cal equipment, electronics, guns, torpedo and missile launching systems,
and communications systems. It also finances procurement of long lead-
time items for ships for which authorization will be required in the
1972 and 1973 programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,694,400,000, an
increase of $115,500,000 above the budget authority estimate, and
$198,500,986 above the appropriation. for fiscal year 1970.
For fiscal year 1971, the budget requested funds for 14 new ships,
a quantity of service craft, plus conversion of 15 other ships. The Com-
mittee has recommended an appropriation to fund the entire budget
authority request. In new ship construction, provision has been made
for three SSN-688 class nuclear attack submarines, one DLGN-38
class nuclear frigate, six DD-963 class destroyers, two LHA general
purpose amphibious assault ships, and two AGOR oceanographic re-
search ships. The service craft funding includes 12 large habor tugs
and four fuel barges. In conversions, the Committee has recom-
mended appropriations for six SSBN nuclear submarine conversions
from the POLARIS to the POSEIDON configuration, one DLG-6
class frigate conversion, three DLG-16 class conversions, and five
MSO ocean minesweeper conversions. '
PRIOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
Congress authorized a total of $435,000,000 above the President's
budget authority request for shipbuilding and conversion. However,
another $302,000,000 of the new budget obligational authority in the
President's budget request failed authorization, for a net increase
of $133,000,000.
The total Congressional authorization add-on included $166,000,000
for another SSN-688 class nuclear submarine, $22,500,000 in ad-
vance procurement for a fifth SSN-688 class nuclear submarine next
fiscal year, $102,000,000 for an AS submarine tender, $103,000,000 for
an AD destroyer tender, $7,500,000 for two AGOR oceanographic
research ships, $10,000,000 for 16 LCA assault landing craft, and $24,-
000,000 for various service craft, including two ARDM medium 'auxil-
iary repair drydock conversions, 4 YP patrol craft, and 4 YTB large
harbor tugs. The total failing authorization included $152,000,000 in
advanced procurement funding for the CVAN-70 nuclear attack air-
craft carrier, and financing adjustments of $150,000,000 involving prior
year balances brought about by Section 642 of Public Law 91-171.
CONGRESSIONAI, BUDGET ADD-ONS
The Committee has always been sympathetic to the needs of the
Navy and wholly endorses the absolute necessity to modernize our
aging fleet. It is not completely convinced, however, that the answer
lies in numbers of ships alone. The Committee was advised
this year that the Chief of Naval Operations is committed to a mod-
ern, quality Navy, but not one based solely upon replacing ships on a
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/0173CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
one-for-one basis. And it is not convincingly clear that money alone
will solve the Navy's shipbuilding program dilemma. At the same
time, the needs of the Navy must be balanced against other Defense
priorities and requirements, which is the responsibility of the Pres-
ident.
Congress has not been unmindful of the needs of the fleet, and has
provided significant appropriations over the years to modernize and
replace aging ships. However, not all of those funds have resulted in
the modernization we hoped to achieve. For example, since fiscal year
1961, Congress has authorized and appropriated over $1,600,000,000
for a total of 71 new ships and ship conversions, which the Navy itself
has cancelled for one reason or another. This, of course, has not all been
because of poor management on the part of the Navy. Nevertheless,
ships are continually being delivered to the fleet with spaces left for
some of the equipment originally designed for them. This situation
can be attributed in part to mismanagement and poor planning. There
are or will be over 50 ships falling into this category during the last
seven fiscal years, and this includes ships funded in fiscal year 1970.
Significant cost increases will continue to exist in the foreseeable
future, even for ships in the fiscal year 1970 program, according to
testimony received this year. Congress funded 14 new ships and 15 con-
versions in fiscal year 1970, but the Navy will be able to build only 10
new ships and complete 10 conversions with the appropriations pro-
vided. While inflation has played a major role in contributing to this
problem, there must be improvements made in Navy cost estimating for
shipbuilding programs submitted to Congress. For example, the Navy
is yet unable to estimate for the 'Committee what the nuclear attack car-
riers USS NIMITZ and USS EISENHOWER will ultimately cost,
except that they will cost in excess of the funds already appropriated
by Congress. The Committee regrets to report that it estimates an es-
calation in price for these ships totalling tens of millions of dollars.
The cost of each of these carriers may exceed $600,400,000, based on
the $640,000,000 estimated cost of the CVAN-70 carrier. By compari-
son, the USS NIMITZ was to have cost $427,500,000 and the USS
EISENHOWER was to have cost $519,000,000, according to estimates
originally provided by the Navy.
The requests for appropriations since fiscal year 1969 at an average
of about $200,000,000 a year to fund claims and cost growth, in addi-
tion to the history of canceling new ship construction, are stark re-
minders of why the Navy does not have the degree of fleet moderniza-
tion that Congress had funded. The Committee is firmly convinced
that what is needed, therefore, is an immediate, energetic, and concen-
trated effort to improve the planning and management of the ship
building and conversion program of the Navy, rather than continu-
ing to add funds above the President's budget. Additional money for
more ships does not improve management. The Committee has funded
most of the Congressional add-ons, with the admonition that better
management of ship construction is mandatory. It is expected, there-
fore, that in the immediate future the Navy will clearly demonstrate
to Congress a capability to properly manage the shipbuilding funds
provided.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
74
By the end of fiscal. year 1970, the Navy had an inventory of 761
ships. There are. a total of 159,ships under new construction or con-
version. Of this total, 53 new ships are scheduled for delivery during
fiscal year 1971.
The Committee has recommended the following with respect to the
Congressional Ladd-ons.
The budget requested $430,500,000 for construction of three new
high-speed SSN-688 class nuclear attack submarines, plus $45,000,000
in advance procurement funds for two more. Thus, the Navy will have
advance procurement funds available for 4 new submarines in fiscal
year 1972. Congress authorized $166,000,000 for construction of a
fourth new submarine in fiscal year 1971, plus $22,500,000 in advance
procurement funds for a fifth new submarine in the fiscal year 1972
program. The Committee has always strongly supported the nuclear
attack submarine program, and has recommended an appropriation of
$664,000,000, the total amount authorized by Congress.
Congress authorized $102,000,000 above the President's budget au-
thority request, for construction of a new AS submarine tender. The
Committee supports funding of a new tender and recommends the
appropriation of $102,000,000 for this purpose.
Al) DESTROYER TENDER
Congress additionally authorized $103,000,000 over the President's
budget authority request for the construction of a new AD destroyer
tender. Congress authorized and appropriated funds for a new
destroyer tender in the fiscal year 1966 program and another one
in the fiscal year 1969 program. In both instances, the planned con-
struction of these tenders was cancelled by the Navy and the funds
diverted for other purposes. The Navy will need modern tenders to
complement its latest DD-963 class destroyers. The Committee recom-
mends that the destroyer tender be funded.
The Navy requested $7,300,000 in fiscal year 1971 for two new
AGOR oceanographic research ships, which will be bailed to univer-
sities. In addition, the Congress .authorized an additional $7,500,000
above the President's budget authority request for two other AGORs,
one for the Postgraduate School and one for a Navy laboratory. The
Navy currently has 37 other oceanographic research ships in its in-
ventory, under construction, or under conversion, in addition to vari-
ous submersibles being ]eased. While the, Committee has continually
supported a strong Navy oceanographic research program, it fails to
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
75
see the urgency to fund four oceanographic ships this year. The post-
ponement of construction of the two unbudgeted AGORs appears to be
appropriate. Therefore, the Committee has decided not to fund the
AGOR ship add-on, but has recommended the appropriation of
$7,300,000 for the two such ships in the President's budget.
The Navy requested $15,600,000 for 12 YT_P large harbor tugs and
four fuel barges. In addition, Congress authorized an additional $24,-
000,000 for four more YTB large harbor tugs, four YP patrol craft,
and conversion of two ARDM medium auxiliary repair drydocks. The
Committee recommends that the $24,000,000 authorized above the
President's budget for service craft be funded.
The Committee is of the opinion that the 16 LCA assault land-
ing craft authorized by Congress above the President's budget au-
thority request are not of sufficient urgency that it need be funded this
year. Consequently, the Committee recommends against funding the
$10,000,000 authorized for this purpose.
SUMMARY
The Committee has recommended the appropriation of funds neces-
sary to carry out the Navy shipbuilding and conversion program as
contained in the President's budget authority request, with the excep-
tion of the $150,000,000 in financial adjustments involving prior year
balances brought about by Section 642 of Public Law 91-171, and
$152,000,000 in advanced procurement funds for the CVAN-70. These
funds failed authorization of Congress. The Committee also recom-
mends funding $417,500,000 of the $435,000,000 authorized above the
President's budget authority request.
OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY
Appropriation, 1970----------------------------------------- $1,488,890,990
Estimate, 1971-------------------------------.--------------- 1, 541, 400, 000
Recommended in the bill------------------------------------- 1, 443, 400, 000
Reduction -------------------------------------------------- 95,000,000
This appropriation funds the procurement of major weapons and
equipment other than aircraft, missiles, and ships. Such equipments
range from the latest electronic sensors and weapons to update naval
forces, to trucks, training equipment, and spare parts. Also included
is the cost associated with the installation of ship and shore equip-
ment. Substantial quantities of expendable items, such as air- and
ship-launched ordnance, are programed under this appropriation.
COMMIrp E RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,443,400,000, a
reduction of $98,000,000 below the budget authority estimate, and $45,-
490,990 below the appropriation for fiscal year 1970.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
The appropriation provided will fund almost $500,000,000 worth of
ship support equipment, over $200,000,000 in communications and elec-
tronics equipment, approximately $300,000,000 in aviation support
equipment, over $350,000,000 worth of ordnance support equipment,
and almost $80,000,000 in civil engineering support equipment, supply
support equipment, and personnel and command support equipment.
The budget requests $3,800,000 in fiscal year 1971 for a quantity of
type 18 periscopes. Congress funded $4,600,000 for this purpose in
fiscal year 1970, but the Navy did not buy them and reprogrammed the
funds. The Navy is still experiencing interface and other development
problems with this equipment. The Committee does not believe these
periscopes are ready for procurement and recommends against fund-
ing them this year.
The Ship Alteration portion of this budget requests $4,900,000 for
installation of the SHORTSTOP electronic warfare system in a frig-
ate. The SHORTSTOP system is still under development and the
Navy has been experiencing serious development problems. The Com-
mittee believes further development and controlled testing of this
equipment will be required before installing SHORTSTOP in a Navy
ship for evaluation. For this reason, the Committee has reduced the
Ship Alteration request by $4,900,000.
COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONICS EQUIPMENT
AN/SPS-40 RADAR SETS
The Navy has again requested $3,800,000 to improve AN/SPS-40
radar sets. The funds appropriated by Congress in fiscal years 1969
and 1970 have been reprogrammed to higher priority programs. Since
the Navy appears to be using this request as a reprogramming fund,
the Committee recommends against funding the $3,800,000 request for
fiscal year 1971.
CBU--55/B CLUSTER BOMBS
The budget requests $11,500,000 for 4,800 additional CBU-55/B
fuel air explosive cluster bombs in fiscal year 1971. Congress funded
a total of 6,400 units in fiscal years 1969 and 1970. The Navy prema-
turely entered production on these bombs and has not yet corrected
all problems encountered. Only 2,100 weapons are required to prove
the producibility of these weapons, and more than enough funds for
this purpose have been appropriated by Congress. As our investigative
staff had determined, there are 17 different cluster bombs, including
three of the fuel air explosive types, in the military inventory. Under
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
77
the circumstances, there appears to be little urgency to step up pro-
duction of this weapon until all deficiencies are corrected. The Com-
mittee, therefore, recommends that the fiscal year 1971 buy be deferred
and has denied the request for $11,500,000.
WALLEYE
The budget requested $3,500,000 in fiscal year 1971 for Walleye. In
April 1970, the Deputy Secretary of Defense cancelled Walleye II
production, directed that Walleye Is be converted to Walleye IIs, and
when Navy -assets of Walleye are depleted, the Navy is to procure an
Air Force developed weapon. For this reason, the Committee denies
the $3,500,000 requested for Walleye.
DEFENSE COMMUNICATIONS PLANNING GROUP
The Committee recommends an $8,000,000 reduction in the $18,600,-
000 requested in fiscal year 1971 for Defense Communications Plan-
ning Group. This reduction results from a reduced cost and increased
life of the equipment bought under this program.
ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
MK-4 6 TORPEDO
In fiscal year 1970, Congress funded $64,200,000 for 1,160 MK-46
torpedoes. Subsequently, the Navy reduce this amount to $50,200,000
for only 600 torpedoes. During hearings, the Committee was advised
that the Navy has now decided that fiscal year 1969 program would
represent a buy out of this torpedo. The fiscal year 1971 budget contains
a request of $14,500,000 which was to be used to proof the proposed
fiscal year 1970 buy, which will not now be made. Therefore, the Com-
mittee denies the $14,500,000 request. The remaining funds available
should be more than enough for contract termination costs and proof-
ing the fiscal year 1969 production torpedoes.
MK-48 TORPEDO
The fiscal year 1971 budget request for the MK-48 torpedo totals
$110,600,000. The Navy proposes to use these funds to buy quantities
of both the Mod-0 (single purpose) and Mod-1 (dual purpose) ver-
sions of this torpedo, plus the conversion of a small quantity of Mod-O
torpedoes to the Mod-2 (dual purpose) version. The fiscal year 1969
program of $106,900,000 was to be used to buy 40 preproduction Mod-
1 torpedoes and 52 production Mod-0 torpedoes. There has been con-
siderable turbulance and numerous slippages in this program, result-
ing in significant cost increases. Whether the proposed fiscal year 1970
buy of Mod-0 torpedoes should be made is highly questionable. Be-
cause of the program delays and the fact that one-third of the fiscal
year has passed, the Committee recommends a reduction of $30,000,000
in the fiscal year 1971 request. A like amount in the unobligated fiscal
year 1970 program for the Mod-0 version can be used by the Navy to
offset this reduction. This will provide the Navy with sufficient quan-
tities of Mod-0, Mod-1, and Mod-2 torpedoes for testing and
Ap~10Aft6r Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
78
SECTION 642, PUBLIC LAW 91-1.71
The budget proposed the rescission of $18,000,000 in prior year bal-
ances which will not be obligated until after fiscal year 1971 in accord-
ance with Section 642 of Public Law 9,f-171. The Committee recom-
mends that the $18,000,000 in old balances proposed for rescission be
utilized by the Navy as an offset to new budget obligational authority
required in fiscal year 1971. Thus, the Committee recommendation will
reduce the Navy fiscal year 1971 budget authority request for this ap-
propriation by a total of $18,000,000.
PROCUREMENT., MARINE CORPS
Appropriation, 1970------------------------------------------- $500,848,000
Estimate, 1971------_----_ 200,000 000
Recommended in the bill--------------------------------------- -
Reduction 171,700,000
- - - ---- -- -- - -- - - - ----- 28, 300, 000
This appropriation provides the Marine Corps with weapons, am-
munition, and related equipments, most of which are for use by Ma-
rine general purpose forces such as Marine divisions and tank and
amphibious battalions. Such military hardware and munitions equip
the Marine Corps for the defense of advanced naval bases, for limited
war landing operations, and for general land warfare.
COMMITTER RECOMMENDATION
'I`he Committee recommends an appropriation of $171,700,000, a
reduction of $28,300,000 below the budget authority estimate, and
;329,148,000 below the appropriation for fiscal year 1970. The reduction
includes $16,100,000 which failed authorization by Congress and an
additional reduction of $12,200,000 recommended by the Committee.
The appropriations provided will fund the procurement of about
$100,000,000 in ammunition, quantities of a new family of amphibious
tractors, weapons, communications and electronic equipment, support
vehicles, as well as engineer and, other equipment.
PRIOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
The $16,100,000 of the Procurement, Marine Corps budget authority
request which failed Congressional authorization includes a reduc-
tion of $14,800,000 in the Improved Hawk missile program, and
$1,300,000 in the planned procurement of the LVTP-7 training device.
SUPPORT VEHICLES
XM-705 114-CON TRUCK
For fiscal year 1971, the Marine Corps has requested $4,200,000 to
buy 500 of the Army's XM-705 1%-ton truck. In view of the Com-
mittee's recommendation on the Army program, the Marine Corps
request, to fund this truck in fiscal year 1971 is denied.
SECTION 642 or Punic LAW 91-171
The Committee recommends a reduction in the overall Marine Corps
-8
un @ection
fiscal Gaa 16 Pi 99AR4rb re e e propos or reopos le~?3~scission Rne
Appf Section
r
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300.140003-8
79
642 of Public Law 91-171, should be used to offset this reduction in the
fiscal year 1971 budget request.
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
Appropriation, 1970-----------------------------------------
$3,405,800,000
Estimate, 1971----------------------------------------------
3,314,900,000
Recommended in the bill-------------------------------------
3,203,000,000
Reduction -------------------------------------------------
111,900,000
This appropriation provides for the procurement of aircraft, modi-
fication of inservice aircraft, procurement of spare parts including
engines and major components, and aircraft 'support equipment and
facilities including aerospace ground equipment.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an 'appropriation of $3,203,000,000, -a
reduction of $111,900,000 below the budget authority estimate, and
$202,800,000 below the appropriation for fiscal year 1970. The reduc-
tion includes $59,400,000 which failed authorization of Congress and
an additional reduction of $52,500,000 recommended by the Committee.
The appropriation provided will permit the procurement of the
last 'increment of F-111,aircraft, plus quantities of four other combat
aircraft, including UH-1 helicopters, as well as three separate trainer
aircraft, the U-17 observation aircraft, and the C-9A medical evacua-
tion aircraft. Appropriations are also provided for prior year un-
funded contract deficiencies as well as the contingency funding request
for the C-5A aircraft.
PRIOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
The $59,400,000 which failed Congressional authorization involved
financial adjustments in the recoupment of prior year balances predi-
cated upon Section 642 of Public Law 91-171.
The budget requests $283,000,000 for the procurement of up to
40 F-111F aircraft, and to defray the cost of inspecting and proof-
testing the wing structure in the area that failed in December 1969,
causing a fatal accident and the grounding of the F-111 fleet. A buyout
of the F-111 in fiscal year 1971 is anticipated. There is also a budget
request of $200,500,000 for prior year overtarget costs. The Air Force
recently advised the Committee that because of the proof-test costs and
a unit cost increase caused by a reduction in the F-111 program, only
24 aircraft can be purchased with the balance of the $283,000,000 re-
quested. This will cause a reduction in the number of unit equipment
aircraft in the wing. The Committee recommends appropriating the
full F-111 request.
The fiscal year 1971 budget request includes $30,000,000 for an inter-
national fighter aircraft to be provided certain Ftee World Forces to
k01 ' e WP%1,41 ` 0 0ir~t:R--'w& oMUdi pt40003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
abundantly clear that all. the aircraft in the competition must be
thoroughly and completely evaluated against the total MIG 21 threat,
including its level of combat parameters and its maneuverability
characteristics. It is expected that the aircraft best able to meet this
total threat will be selected, with cost, maintenance, training, and other
pertinent factors receiving appropriate consideration.
The budget requests a total of $544,400,000 in fiscal year 1.971 for
the C,-5A aircraft program. Of that amount, $344,400,000 is for prior
year unfunded deficiencies. The remaining $200,000,000 is to pro-
vide a reserve or contingency fLind in order to assure production
continuity until the dispute between Lockheed and the Air Force is
resolved in the nature of a negotiated settlement, a loan, or some other
form of interim financing. The $200,000,000 is in excess of the amount
required to fund the C-5A contract, and it is expected that another
$200,000,000 will be required for this purpose in fiscal year 1972.
The $344,400,000 in prior year unfunded deficiencies includes $47,-
900,000 for General Electric on the engine contract and $277,800,000
for Lockheed. Of the $277,800,000 total for Lockheed, $127,100,000
will be used to adjust the ceiling under the repricing formula in the
contract, and $150,700,000 will be required to finance abnormal escala-
tion in the program, also a contractual commitment.
The Committee has given its most serious and utmost consideration
to the O-5A dilemma this year. We have held extensive hearings on
the matter and subsequently have :had a considerable number of meet-
ings with Air Force and other Defense officials to discuss the problem.
There appears to be no reasonable alternative avail able but to commit
additional funds in some form to this program if we are to obtain the
minimum number of 81 aircraft essential for our military airlift
requirements.
The problem which still concerns the Committee, however, is the
mechanics of resolving the issue, whether through the courts, by nego-
tiated settlement, or otherwise. Department of Defense officials have
yet to brief the Committee on their plans in this regard. It is impera-
tive that any solution found must not only be in the best interests of
the Air Force, but fair to the American taxpayer, and full assurances
must be received that these funds will not be diverted to other mili-
tary or commercial programs of the Lockheed Corporation.
The Committee, therefore, has recommended the appropriation of
the full amount requested for the C-5A program. The $200,000,000 in
contingency funds, however, are not to be obligated until the appro-
priations committees of Congress are thoroughly briefed on the details
of any resolution. It is expected that such notification will be made at
least 30 days prior to the intended commitment or obligation of these
funds. In other words, the language contained in the authorization
legis] ation should also be applicable to the Appropriations Committees
of the House and Senate.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
81
OTHER AIRCRAFT
U11-1H IROQUOIS HELICOPTER
The Air Force has requested $46,600,000 in fiscal year 1971 to buy
180 U11-1H Iroquois aircraft for South Vietnamese and Thai Air
Forces. During hearings this year the Committee was advised that
subsequent to the submission of the budget request the Air Force
learned that the unit cost of this helicopter increased from $259,000 to
$289,364, ostensibly leaving the Air Force with a deficit of about
$5,400,000 on the proposed buy of 180 helicopters.
Subsequent to our hearings, the Army advised the Committee of a
decision to utilize overhauled engines in lieu of new engines in their
new~,helicopter procurement program. This decision will result in a
savings of at least $58,000 per aircraft. When this saving is applied
against the planned Air Force buy of 180 helicopters, a saving of ap-
proximately $10,400,000 will be realized. For this reason, the Com-
mittee recommends a $5,000,000 reduction in the Air Force request.
B-52/FB-111 AIRCRAFT
The fiscal year 1971 budget requests a total of $107,000,000 to
modify B-52 and FB-111 aircraft to accommodate the SRAM, pend-
ing a production go-ahead on the SRAM program. Of the total, $92,-
500,000 is for B-52 modifications and $$14,500,000 is for FB-111
modifications.
The B-52 modification costs include $8,000,000 for the AN/ALR-37
Radiating Site Target Acquisition System (RASTAS) which is ex-
periencing development problems and should not be available this
fiscal year for installation in B-52G/Hs. The Committee has recom-
mended against funding this $8,000,000.
In addition, because of the slippage and Committee decision on the
SRAM program, all the SRAM-related modification request will not
be required. The Committee, therefore, recommended an additional
reduction of $27,700,000, or a total reduction of $35,700,000 to the
B-52/FB-111 modification program.
AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS
F-111 AIRCRAFT
The fiscal year 1971 budget for Aircraft Spares and Repair Parts
includes $31,600,000 for initial investment spares for the F-111 air-
craft. In view of the reduction in the proposed fiscal year 1971 buy of
F-111F aircraft from 40 to only 24, the Committee recommends that
$11,800,000 be deleted from this request.
SECTION 642 OF PUBLIC LAw 91-171
The Congress failed to authorize $59,400,000 which was the amount
proposed by the Air Force for rescission under Section 642 of Public
Law 91-171. The Committee endorses this action. Prior year balances
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
82
are to be used to offset that amount reduced in the fiscal year 1971
budget request.
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
Appropriation, 1970 ------------------
Estimate, 1971 $1,448,100,000
Recommended in the bill 1,530,600,000
1,372,300,000
------------
eduction 158,300,000
This appropriation provides for procurement, modification, instal-
lation, and checkout of missiles, boosters, payloards, drones, and the
associated ground support and checkout equipment. It also procures
technical data, spares support, transportation, expansion and nonre-
curring maintenance of industrial facilities, madhine tool moderniza-
tion, and classified project activities support.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,372,300,000, a
reduction of $158,300,000 below the budget authority estimate, and
$75,800,000 below the appropriation for fiscal year 1970. The reduction
includes $45,200,00 which failed authorization of Congress, and an
additional reduction of $113,100,000 recommended by the Committee.
IFhe appropriations recommended will provide for the procure-
ment of additional Minuteman ICBM Missiles and quantities of three
other missiles, including the Short Range Attack Missile (SRAM),
as well as various target drones. Significant funds were made avail-
able also for missile modifications and updating of our Minuteman
force.
PRIOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
The $45,200,000 which failed Congressional authorization includes a
reduction of $21,900,000 in production funds for the Maverick missile,
$300,000 in funds for initial provisioning spares for Maverick, and
$9,000,000 in the AIM-4D Falcon missile modification program. The
remaining reduction of $14,000,000 involves financial adjustments in
recoupment of prior year balances resulting from Section 642 of Pub-
lic Law 91-171.
OPERATIONAL BASE LAUNCH PROGRAM
The Committee recommends that the $3,200,000 requested for the
Operational Base Launch Program not be appropriated. The program
envisions a demonstration launch of a Minuteman missile from an op-
erational silo at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana, into the Pa-
cific. While only one missile will be fired, a small number of crews
will be chosen for the program and alerted. This fact alone diminishes
somewhat the realism being sought.
Even though the planned line of flight selected for the missile will
be across the northwestern portion of the United States -and some
2,00 miles south of San Francisco, a corridor encompassing the least
population density possible, it is believed that public reaction in and
around the area affected would be too great. In addition, the Com-
mittee feels that the total cost of the program, much of it to enhance
safety and to reduce the possibility of injury, does not justify the
purpose of the program, namely, to prove to the general public that
our Minuteman missiles do constitute a r ab1 a ~t
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : G~li _Wbp 2agfi~ fflbt 40003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
The reliability and effectiveness of Minuteman has been proven re-
peatedly by SAC crew firings of operational missiles from Vandenberg
Air Force Base.
For fiscal year 1971, the budget requests $99,500,000 for a produc-
tion buy of AGM-69A SRAMS (Short Range Attack Missiles)
for the B-52 and FB-111 aircraft. Slippages in this program have
delayed considerably the flight tests of this missile, and the flight test
program thus far has not demonstrated the degree of confidence neces-
sary to justify a decision to enter production on this missile in any
significant quantities. For this reason, the Committee recommends a
reduction of $49,500,000 in the Air Force request. The Air Force is
directed, however, to notify the appropriate Committees of Congress
prior to contractual obligation of the remaining $50,000,000 recom-
mended for appropriation, together with the status of the flight test
program and the rationale for any production decision.
MISSILE SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS
The Committee recommends a reduction of $5,400,000 in AGM-
69A SRAM missile spares. This reduction is associated with the Com-
mittee recommendation concerning SRAM production.
SPECIAL ACTIVITIES
The Committee also recommends a reduction of $55,000,000 in a
classified project.
SECTION 642 OF PUBLIC LAW 91-171
The Committee embraces the action of the Congress in failing to
authorize $14,000,000, the amount proposed by the Air Force for
rescission under Section 642 of Public Law 91-171. Prior year balances
are to be used to offset a like amount reduced in the fiscal year 1971
budget request.
OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
Appropriation, 1970----------------------------------------- $1,576,200,.000
F4stimate, 1971 --------------------------------------------- 1, 459, 600, 000
Recommended in the bill ------------------------------------- 1, 381, 200, 000
Reduction -------------------------------------------------- 108,400,000
This appropriation provided for munitions and associated equip-
ment, vehicular equipment, electronics and telecommunications equip-
ment, and other base maintenance and support equipment.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,381,200,000, a
reduction of $108,400,000 below the budget authority estimate, and
$195,000,000 below the appropriation for fiscal year 1970.
The recommended appropriations will permit the procurement of
about $700,000,000 in munitions and associated equipment, almost
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
84
$300,000,000 worth of electronics and telecommunications equipment,
approximately $400,000,000 in other base maintenance and support
equipment, as well as over $50,000,000 in vehicular equipment.
MUNITIONS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT
CKU-34/42 CLUSTER BOMBS
The Committee denies the $63,600,000 requested for CBU-34/42
cluster bombs because the Air Force,advised that this requirement had
been cancelled.
CBU-38 CLUSTER BOMBS
r h.e budget requests $9,800,000 for CBU-38 Cluster Bombs. The
Committee recommends a reduction of $4,800,000 because the Air
Force is experiencing technical problems associated with the SUU-13
dispenser.
VEHICULAR EQUIPMENT
M-715 1 f =rON TRUCK
The request of $500,000 for 122 M-77.5 11/4-ton trucks is denied. The
A rmy has not renewed the contract for these trucks, and the amount
requested is insufficient to buy a like quantity of XM-705 trucks. (See
page 65 of this report concerning the Committee recommendations
with. respect to the XM-705 truck.)
HiLFGTRONIC AND TELECOMMUNIGATIONS EQUIPMENT
DEFENSE COMMUNICATIONS PLANNING GROUP
The $36,000,000 requested for "Defense Communications Planning
Group" has been reduced by $14,000,000. This Committee recommenda-
tion is made possible by the reduced cost and increased life of the
eq uipment being procured under this program.
DEFENSE COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE EQUIPMENT
The Committee recommends a reduction of $2,100,000 in the $5,300,-
4)00 requested for Defense Communications Satellite Equipment. This
program has been realigned by the Defense Communications Agency,
therefore, the requirement to fund new satellite terminals this year
can be deferred.
AIRCREW SURVIVAL RADIO EQUIPMENT
The request of $3,000,000 to buy additional .aircrew survival radio
equipment is denied. There are sufficient aircrew survival radio assets
in the inventories of the Air Force to meet this requirement.
OPERATIONAL BASE LAUNCH
The Committee recommends that the $6,400,000 in this budget for
the operational base launch program not be appropriated. In the
opinion of the Committee, the total cost of this program does not
,justify the purpose to be served.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
85
SECTION 642 OF PUBLIC LAW 91-171
The Committee has reduced this appropriation by an additional
$14,000,000. The $14,000,000 in prior year balances, which was pro-
posed for rescission under Section 642 of Public Law 91-171, should
be used to offset this reduction in the fiscal year 1971 budget request.
PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE AGENCIES
Appropriation, 1970 -------------------------------------------
$61,600,000
Estimate, 1971 ------------------------------------------------
49,500,000
Recommended in the bill---------------------------------------
38, 910, 000
Reduction ----------------------------------------------------
10,590,000
This appropriation provides for procurement of capital equipment
for the Defense Communications Agency, the Defense Supply Agency,
and other Defensewide agencies. The fiscal year 1971 program includes
funding requests for automatic data processing equipment, communi-
cations equipment, materiels handling equipment, and general and spe-
cial purpose vehicular equipment.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $38,910,000, a re-
duction of $10,590,000 below the budget authority estimate, and
$22,690,000 below the appropriation for fiscal year 1970.
The recommended appropriations will provide funds in accordance
with the request, with the exception of miscellaneous equipment for
Secretary of Defense Activities, certain automatic data processing
and other equipment for the Defense Communications Agency, as well
as a general reduction in the request for the National Security Agency.
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ACTivrrIEs
The budget requests $242,000 for Secretary of Defense Activities.
The Committee reduced this request $60,000. It was the opinion of the
Committee that there is now sufficient numbers of recording, dupli-
cating, dictating, and camera equipment controlled by Secretary of
Defense and that additional procurements of such equipment are not
required. In addition, the Committee does not see the need for the
Armed Forces Institute to purchase a mechanical belt conveyor sys-
tem, and this request is to be deferred this year.
DEFENSE COMMUNICATIONS ACENCY
The budget requests $13,261,000 of procurement funds for the De-
fense Communications Agency. The Committee reduced this request
$8,330,000.
The major reduction relates to the $6,400,000 requested for automatic
data processing equipment for the World-Wide Military Command
and Control System. Last year, as stated in the Committee's report on
the Department of Defense Appropriation Bill for 1970, the Depart-
ment announced plans to proceed with the acquisition of 34 standard-
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
86
ized computer systems for use in the World-Wide Military Command
and Control System at an estimated cost of over $500,000,000. Our
report pointed out that severe difficulty had been encountered in the
design of the system to be installed. The Committee desired that the
Department proceed with caution in implementing this system and
directed the General Accounting Office to make a comprehensive
review of the need, requirements. and implementation features.
On March 23, 1970, in testif~ying in support of the Defense Com-
munications Agency fiscal year 1971 budget request, the Director ad-
vised the Committee that. the Department was having problems in
programming and approving the basic, concepts on which the original
study justifying the system was based. He further stated, at that time,
that the proposal for the system was presently in the Office of the
Secretary of Defense going through the final exercise of approving
the technical and operational aspects of the system. However, the
1)CA Director was optimistic and expected the system to be approved
"momentarily".
On June 9, 1970, the Department of Defense announced that the
I)eputy Secretary of Defense had approved a revision to the program
Nvhich had been approved in November, 1969. The announcement stated
that. "As a result. of reviews during the past five months, DOD will
procure a minimum of 15 new standardized computing systems. The
procurement, also will include an option for 20 additional computers.
Cinder the original program, a minimum of 34 new computers was to
be procu red with an option for up to 53 more."
As recently as September 30, 1970, the Committee was advised that
the operational aspects and implementation of the system is again
under intensive review, as a result, of the Blue Ribbon Defense Panel
recommendations that the military command and control structure
of the Department be realigned.
The General Accounting Office has not completed its study but a
report is to be furnished the Committee prior to the beginning of
bearings on the fiscal year 1972 budget request. It is estimated that
the system may cost any where from half a billion to a billion dollars
or more, depending upon the number of locations approved for equip-
nient installation. In light of the uncertainty surrounding the system
and the fact that the Committee has not received the results of the
General Accounting Office review, the Committee decided to hold in
abeyance funding of the system this year. Therefore, the. Defense Com-
rnunic.ations Agency request to purchase this equipment is denied
and the Department should not allow the services to use any funds to
implement the system.
The Committee also deleted the $500,000 requested for "Query Dis-
play Consoles" for the National Military Command System, and items
costing less than $500,000 each was reduced by $1,430,000 to the 1970
level of $3,280,000.
NATIONAL SEcrrnuTY AGENCY
The request of the National Security Agency is reduced $2,200,000.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
TITLE V
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATIONS SUMMARY
The Committee recommends the appropriation of $6,954,700,000
for the research, development, test, and evaluation activities of the
Department of Defense for fiscal year 1971. The recommended amount
is $390,900,000 less than the budget estimate of $7,345,600,000 and
$452,048,694 less than the $7,406,748,694 provided for fiscal year 1970.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION,
ARMY
Appropriation, 1970-----------------------------------------
$1,608,282,908
Estimate, 1971----------------------------------------------
1;717,900,000
Recommended in the bill------------------------------------
1,608,500,000
Reduction --------------------------------------------------
109,400,000
The Committee recommends the appropriation of $1,608,500,000,
for the research, development, test, and evaluation activities of the
Army, a reduction of $109,400,000 below the budget estimate, and
$217,092 more than the sum provided for fiscal year 1970.
The Committee recommends a reduction of $3,800,000 in Defense
Research Sciences. The budget proposed to increase spending in this
area from $65,601,000 in 1970 to $69,400,000 in 1971. The recom-
mended action would keep the dollar level for Army Defense Research
Sciences at the approximate level of the previous fiscal year. This
reduction was agreed to in the authorizing legislation.
In the area of behavioral sciences, the Committee recommends a re-
duction of $300,000 in "Military Personnel Performance" and $500,000
in "Military Training Leadership." Both reductions are in accord
with action taken in the authorizing legislation.
A reduction of $1,000,000 is recommended in the request of $2,100,-
000 for "Army Operations, Foreign Environment." This reduction
was made in the authorization action.
A reduction of $2,100,000 is recommended in the $8,000,000 requested
for General Biological Investigations, an area related to biological
warfare. This reduction was made in the authorizing legislation. In the
area of chemical warfare, a reduction of $900,000 is recommended in
General Chemical Investigations, as required in the authorizing
legislation.
The area of Studies and Analyses is reduced by $1,000,000 from
the $9,200,000 recommended in the budget request. This recommen-
dation is in accord with the authorizing legislation.
The Committee recommends a $10,000,000 reduction in Exploratory
Development. There are a number of individual exploratory develop-
(87)
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01: CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
88
m.ent projects throughout the budget activities. The budget request
is for $232,700,000 this year as compared with $208,532,000 last year.
The Air Force budget shows a, decrease in exploratory development
for fiscal year 1971, and the Navy shows a smaller increase than the
one requested by the Army. The Committee feels that the $10,000,000
reduction, which permits a level of $222,000,000, and which is $14,-
000,000 more than was provided in FY 1970, will enable the Army
to carry out those exploratory development projects essential to the
research, development, test, and evaluation program.
The Committee has been informed that certain automatic data
processing equipment which was planned in the budget program to be
leased with RDT&E funds in fiscal year 1971 has been or will be
procured, utilizing funds in the PEMA account. The Committee has
therefore deleted $1,000,000 in RDT&E, Army for the lease costs.
The Army is requesting $24,720,000 in fiscal year 1971 for contracts
with Federal Contract Research Centers funded under this heading.
This compares with an allocation of $22,664,000 last year. The Com-
mittee noted that this increase is proposed in spite of the fact that one
Federal Contract Research Center, CRESS, has been deleted from
the fiscal year 1971 program. Consistent with its long standing posi-
tion that close attention should be given to the funding level of these
organizations, the Committee recommends a $2,000,000 reduction.
The Committee recommends the appropriation of the full $17,600,000
requested for further development of the CHEYENNE AH-56A heli-
copter. Also funded are Army requested developments in the area of
aircraft weapons, aircraft propulsion, aerial surveillance, and avionics
systems.
A reduction of $4,000,000 is recommended in the $21,000,000 re-
quested for Advanced Helicopter development, as specified in the
authorizing legislation.
In the area of missiles, the Committee recommends the appropria-
tion of the full $365,000,000 requested for further development of the
SAFEGUARD anti-ballistic missile defense system. Other major
missile programs supported are the IIAWK surface-to-air missile, the
Chaparral/Vulcan surface-to-air missile-gun system, and the division-
support missile LANCE.
A reduction of $6,200,000 is recommended in the request of
$89,300.000 for SAM-D surface-to-air missile program as set forth
in the authorizing legislation.
The Committee recommends a $5,000,000 reduction in the $16,500,-
000 requested for further development of the PERSHING missile sys-
tem. The sum of $11,200,000 was allocated to PERSHING last; year
and $9,500,000 was programed in fiscal year 1969. The PERSI-IING
development program started in fiscal year 1963 and PERSHING
missiles have been in the field for some years now. The Committee
feels that only those modifications should be made to PERSHING
which will substantially enhance its performance and believes that
the $11.500.000 allowed will be adequate to fund the essential require-
ments in this area.
The budget requests $158,000.000 far the Advanced Ballistic Missile
Defense. program as compared with $110,080,000 provided in fiscal year
1970. The increase was justified on the basis of a new hard site missile
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
89
defense effort which is to be initiated in fiscal year 1971. The Com-
mittee approves the initiation of the new effort but feels that other
areas of endeavor which have been pursued in the past could now be
abandoned and that the sum of $138,000,000, a reduction of $20,000,000
as authorized, will be adequate for this program in fiscal year 1971.
A reduction of $2,200,000 was made in the Strategic Army Com-
munications effort in the authorizing legislation due to program slip-
pages and excess funds carried over from the fiscal year 1970 pro-
gram. The Committee concurs in this recommendation.
A reduction of $1,100 000 is recommended in the Sea-to-Land Logg~is-
ties System. This would eliminate the entire request in this area. The
funds requested were for the development of two prototype tugboats
by the Army. The Committee believes that the Army can rely on tug-
boat developments accomplished elsewhere in the Government and
commercially for its modernization requirements in tugboats and rec-
ommends the termination of this program.
In the area of chemical warfare, the authorizing legislation made a
reduction of $500,000 in lethal chemical investigations and $300,000
in lethal chemical munitions concepts. These reductions are included
in the total recommended sum.
The Committee recommends the appropriation of the full $36,000,-
000 requested for further development of the Main Battle Tank, now
called `XM-803". The Committee is still concerned about the future
of this tank. The program has been reoriented and the tank which
would have cost more than $800,000 per unit as envisioned last year,
has been "stripped" to a version which will cost an estimated $600,000.
This is still a very large sum to spend for a tank. The Committee feels
that further refinements should be sought. The Committee is very
concerned about the decision of the Army to utilize a de-rated engine
which has experienced considerable technical difficulty in the past as
the engine for the new version of the Main Battle Tank. The Com-
mittee is well aware of the fact that a tank can perform no better than
its propulsion unit permits and does not feel that the utilization of a
second-rate p.ropiilsion unit gives a high degree of confidence in the
future of this program.
The authorizing legislation made a reduction of $7,500,000 in the
$9,800,000 requested for Tracked and Special Vehicles. This reduction
was based on the postponement of the ARSV Armored Reconnaissance
Scout Vehicle and the MICV Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle.
The Committee has concurred in this recommendation.
The Committee recommends a $6,000,000 reduction in the $12,000,000
requested for the Defense Communications Planning Group. The Com-
mittee has noted that in the past considerable reprogramming has been
done from funds appropriated for this activity. The Committee is fur-
ther aware that this organization is phasing out and that its programs
are being incorporated into the regular programs of the military serv-
ices. The new STANO Surveillance, Target Acquisition, and Night
Observation development program of the Army should assume some of
the effort previously accomplished under the Defense Communica-
tions Planning Group.
A $2,000,000 reduction is recommended in the development of Elec-
tric Power Sources. The request for fiscal year 1971 in this area was
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
00
$6,000,000 as compared with $3,600,000 last year. The other military
services, NASA, and private industry have large efforts in the area of
electric power sources. The Committee believes that the recommended
reduction will not adversely affect the modernization of the Army.
The Committee noted with approval the deletion of all of the
$14,000,000 requested for Project Mallard in the consideration of the
authorizing legislation. The Committee reduced the funds for Project
Mallard last year and directed that the program be terminated.
Since that time, the Defense Department has made a number of efforts
to keep the program alive through reprogramming.
Project Mallard was ill-conceived from the beginning. The Com-
mittee agrees with the authorizing committees that the concept needs
to be completely reoriented. Rather than start from a field Army
requirement, the total tactical communications needs of all the serv-
ices must first be established. With full participation of the Defense
Communications Agency, these requirements should be evaluated with
the present and future Defense Communications System to determine
how much of these requirements can be satisfied by the vast worldwide
communications system we already have or. will have in the foreseeable
future. Thereafter, a reasonable and meaningful tactical communica-
tions requirement can be identified which will serve most of the needs
of all the military services, and provide a more efficient use of the
resources available to accomplish the task. In order to assure success,
full participation, endorsement, and cooperation of the military serv-
ices and the Defense Communications Agency is essential.
The Committee concurs in the $18,000,000 reduction in new obliga-
tional authority to be offset by recoupments from funds appropriated
in. prior years as provided in the authorizing legislation.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION,
NAVY.
Appropriation, 1970 ------------------------------------------ $2,203,660,000
Estimate, 1971 ---------------------------------------------- 2,197,300,000
Recommended in the bill-.------------------------------------- 2,156,200 , 000
Reduction ---------------------------------------------------- 41,100,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,156,200,000 for
the research, development, test, and evaluation activities of the Navy.
The sum recommended is $41,100,000 less than the budget estimate of
$2,197,300,000 and $47,460,000 less than the $2,203,660,000 appropri-
ated for fiscal year 1970.
The Committee recommends a $5,000,000 reduction in research. The
budget program for research in the Navy in fiscal year 1971 is $118.9
million, a $1,000,000 increase above the $117.9 million allocated in fiscal
year 1970. The Navy research effort is substantially greater than that
of either the Army or the Air Force. The Army programs $80.1 million
for research and the Air Force programs $83.3 million. The Com-
?nittee does not believe that the Navy is unique among the services in
its needs for basic research. After the application of the recommended
reduction, the Navy would still be funding research at a level of
approximately $30,000,000 more per year than either the Army or the
Air Force.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
91
The Committee is very interested in the recommendation of the
Blue Ribbon Defense Panel, appointed by the Secretary of Defense,
that all research of the Department of Defense be conducted by a
single organization outside of the military services. While the Com-
mittee is not at this time recommending such an organizational change,
the Committee does feel that the Department of Defense should thor-
oughly explore the pros and cons of this matter, and in the hearings on
research, development, test, and evaluation next year inform the Com-
mittee as to the decisions made in this area.
As was the case with the Army, the Committee recommends a re-
duction in the level of funding for Exploratory Development. The
budget request is $242,900,000 for various areas of exploratory de-
velopment throughout the RDT&E, Navy program. This compares
with a program level of $236,100,000 in .fiscal year 1970. The Committee
recommends a deletion of $3,000,000 which would allow one-half of
the requested increase in this area.
The Committee recommends a reduction of $500,000 for Education
and Training Development as specified in the authorizing legislation.
For Studies and Analyses, Navy, the request for $9,200,000 is re-
duced by $200,000, as recommended in the authorizing legislation. In
addition, the Committee recommends a $200,000 reduction in Studies
and Analyses, Marine Corps for which $2,142,000 is budgeted and
$1,250,000 was appropriated for fiscal year 1970.
The Committee recommends a $1,000,000 reduction in the funds al-
located to the Center for Naval Analyses, a Federal Contract Research
Center, which contracts with the Department of the Navy. The pro-
gram in fiscal year 1970 was $8,500,000. As the hearings indicate, the
Committee is not entirely satisfied with the operation of this organiza-
tion.
In the area of Federal Contract Research Centers, the Committee
also recommends a reduction of $3,000,000 in the $27,600,000 requested
for effort with the Applied Physics Laboratory of Johns Hopkins
University. The budget proposes an increase from $21,900,000 in fiscal
year 1970 to $27,600,000 in fiscal year 1971 for this organization. An
increase of this magnitude in a single fiscal year is not in accord with
the Committee's policy of restraint of such non-profit organizations.
The Committee is not convinced that the efforts of this organization
have been productive enough in the past to justify such an increase
now.
The Committee recommends a $10,000,000 reduction in the request
for $13,500,000 for development of the Destroyer Helicopter System
known as "LAMPS". This program would develop a helicopter for
use on destroyers. The Committee is not certain that the Navy is plan-
ning to utilize an off-the-shelf helicopter for the LAMPS program.
The Committee feels that in the military services or available otherwise
off-the-shelf there are helicopters which could be utilized for this effort.
Since the Navy has not yet completed a Development Concept Paper
on LAMPS, the Committee feels that the funds provided will be
sufficient until the preliminary reviews have been made of requirements
in this area. A reduction of $3,000,000 in LAMPS was made in the
authorizing bill.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
92
The Committee recommends the deletion of $5,200,000 for avionics
development for the F-14C aircraft. Testimony revealed that the
F-14C aircraft is no longer in the approved program. Navy witnesses
agreed that the sum requested is no longer required for the purpose
for which requested but indicated that they would like to spend the
money in another area, possibly on cost overruns on the engine devel-
opment program for the F-14 aircraft. The Committee understands
that the engine program for the F-14 aircraft is important and must
stay on schedule and, if the Navy has additional funding requirements
in this area, they can be handled by reprogrammings or supplemental
appropriation requests.
In major aircraft development programs, the Committee recom-
mends the appropriation of the full $274,000,000 requested for devel-
opment of the F-14A aircraft, the $47,700,000 requested for the fur-
ther development of the E-2C aircraft, and the $10,000,000 requested
for the EA-GB electronic warfare aircraft.
The Committee recommends the approval of the full $207,960,000
requested for research and development of the S-3A antisubmarine
warfare aircraft, and in addition, recommends that $58,000,000 be
added to this program in lieu of funds deleted from the Procurement
request to fund the S-3A aircraft needed in the development program.
The Committee does not feel that proper financial management is
reflected by efforts of the Navy to fund developmental efforts in the
procurement accounts. This distorts to the Congress and to the public
the level of effort in the procurement area and in the research, develop-
ment, test, and evaluation area.
The Committee recommends the appropriation of the full
$10,000,000 requested for development of a heavy-lift helicopter.
This appropriation is approved only in line with the understanding
set forth in Deputy Secretary Packard's letter to the Chairman, dated
September 21,1970, in which it is stated that--
The Marine Corps and the Army have essentially the same
tactical equipment to move and the standard shipping con-
tainer is becoming the major discrete logistics load. It has
been shown that a heavy-lift helicopter sized to off load con-
tainers from ships can accommodate most tactical equipment
with the high degree of assurance and can also be based
aboard the Marine Corps LHA amphibious carriers. For
these reasons, I have approved the development of a single
heavy lift helicopter for use, by all services requiring such an
aircraft * * * the Army has been designated as lead service for
this development.
The Committee believes that the Deputy Secretary of Defense has
made a wise decision in this instance and that considerable time,
money, and effort will be saved by the utilization of a single heavy-
lift helicopter by the Army and the Navy.
The Secretary's letter also stated that the funding requested for the
separate programs will be required in fiscal years 1970 and 1971 but
would be used on the development of a single aircraft. With this un-
derstanding, the Committee approves the funds requested.
In the aviation area, other sums are recommended for ASW devel-
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
93
opments, avionics developments, reconnaissance and electronics, war-
fare developments, V/STOL developments, and search and rescue
efforts.
In the missile area, the Committee approves full funding of the re-
quest for further efforts on the Fleet Ballistic Missile System and
ballistic missile submarine defense. The full amounts requested are
recommended for further developments on the Shrike and Standard
Arm missiles. The full $44,000,000 requested for the Undersea Long
Range Missile System, an advanced long-range Poseidon-type missile
system, is recommended.
The Committee recommends the deletion of $9,700,000 for the Point
Defense System, as provided in the authorization legislation. The
budget request is $24,500,000. The Committee action will allow $14,-
800,000. The reduction is recommended because of program slippages
in fiscal year 1970.
The Committee recommends reduction of $8,000,000 in the area of
ship contract definition based on a delay in the DXG program.
The development of Surface Effects Ships is reduced from the budget
level of $20,000,000 to $10,000,000. Under the budget program, the
Navy would continue the construction of two 100-ton surface effects
ships. This program was a joint program under which costs were
shared on a fifty-fifty basis by the Navy and the Maritime Adminis-
tration. The financial support of the Maritime Administration was
withdrawn this year, and the Navy, in requesting $20,000,000, proposes
to entirely fund the program. The Committee does not feel that the
Navy should assume the entire financial burden in this area. In other
parts of the world, commercial surface effects ships are in operation
today, notably, on scheduled crossings of the English Channel. The
Committee feels that the maneuver to force the Navy to assume full
funding of this operation places the Navy in the position of financing
a program of importance to commercial shipping as well as to the
Navy and the proper and agreed upon share of the financing by the
Maritime Administration should be continued if the program is to
proceed at the funding level contemplated.
Under this program, two prototype ships are funded. The funds
allowed would permit the continued construction of one of the two
ships. If the Navy cannot obtain further funding from the Maritime
Administration, this is the course which might be followed.
The Navy has experimented with smaller surface effects ships. The
basic technology of surface effects ships is very well understood and a
number of craft have been built by various countries. The Committee
understands that surface effects ships may be important to the Navy
in future years and feels that the Navy should go ahead with one
prototype ship if further participation by Maritime is not possible.
On the other hand, the Committee is not at all willing to have the
Defense Department victimized by program changes by other agencies
which result in higher costs to the Department of Defense.
The Committee recommends a $1,000,000 reduction in Program 479,
a classified program, and understands that this reduction will cause
no delay in the program.
A $7,300,000 reduction is recommended in Advanced Surface Ship
Sonar development, as provided in the authorization legislation. The
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
94
budget request is for $11,000,000. The reduction is based on delays in
the program and the availability of fiscal year 1970 funds for effort
in fiscal year 1971.
The Committee also recommends a reduction of $2,000,000 in ASW
Acoustic Warfare as recommended in the authorizing legislation,
and a reduction of $3,100,000 in Laboratory Independent Exploratory
Development., as provided in. the authorizing action. The sum of
$200,000 is reduced from the $1,900,000 request for Manpower Effec-
tiveness, also a part of the authorization reduction.
Earlier in the year, the Committee was requested to reprogram
$2,200,000 for expenses incidental to the closing of the Naval Applied
Science Laboratory at the Brooklyn Navy Yard and the relocation
of activities previously performed at that laboratory to other locations.
The Committee refused to approve the reprogramming requested and
reminded the Navy that the rationale for the closing of the Applied
Science Laboratory in the Brooklyn Navy Yard, as presented to Con-
gress, was the saving of money. The Committee felt it should not
appropriate additional funds for that purpose when a saving had been
promised, not an increase. The Committee directed that the funds not
be reprogrammed and stated that they would be recommended for
deletion in the action on the appropriation bill. Accordingly, the
Committee recommends the deletion of the $2,00,000 for which repro-
gramming was refused.
The Committee recommends a reduction of $1,500,000 in facilities
and installations support. For the most part, this reduction can be
reflected in reductions in flying hours in support of R&D activities.
A reduction of $1,000,000 is recommended in the $2,200,000 re-
quested for Advanced Airborne Reconnaissance. This effort would
develop a reconnaissance version of the F-14 aircraft. The Committee
believes that all efforts essential in fiscal year 1971 can be performed
with the $1,200,000 remaining.
The Committee recommends a reduction in new obligating authority
of $15,000,000 based on the recoupment of prior year funds as set out
in the budget as proposed for rescission. This action was taken in the
authorizing legislation. In addition, the Committee recommends a fur-
ther $10,000,000 reduction in the belief that additional recoupments
can be made and that a reduction should be made in the $228,845,000
which it is estimated will remain unobligated at the end of fiscal year
1971 in this appropriation.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION,
AIR FORCE
Appropriation, 1970------------------------------------------
$3,069,053,300
Budget estimate, 1971------------------ .---------------------
2,909, 700,000
Recommended in the bill ------------------------------------
2, 701, 100,000
Reduction ---------------------------------------------------
208,600,000
The Committee recommends the appropriation of $2,701,100,000 for
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force. The sum
recommended is $208,600,000 less than the requested budget authority
of $2,909,700,000 and $367,953,300 less than the $3,069,053,300 appro-
priated for fiscal year 1970.
The Committee does not recommend reductions in the research and
exploratory development areas of the Air Force similar to those
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
95
reductions recommended for the other military services. The budget
of the Air Force shows a decrease in both of these categories.
The Committee recommends a reduction of $300,000 in Studies and
Analyses as proposed in the authorizing legislation. This item deletes
all of the funds in the Studies and Analyses line item for the Air
Force.
A $2,000,000 reduction is recommended in the Light Intratheatre
Aircraft (LIT) program. The recommended reduction deletes the
entire budget estimate and was a part of the authorizing legislation.
Similarly, the authorization action deleted the entire $2,500,000
requested for the CONUS air defense interceptor program, and the
action recommended follows the authorization.
The Committee recommends the deletion of the $500,000 requested
for the Advanced Tanker development effort. This sum was requested
in a reprogramming for fiscal year 1970 and was refused by the
Committee at that time. The sum requested for reprogramming is still
available and can be used in lieu of new obligational authority in
fiscal year 1971.
The B-1 long range bomber program was reduced from $100,000,000
to $75,000,000 in the authorizing legislation. The Committee recom-
mends the full amount authorized, $75,000,000, a reduction of
$25,000,000.
A reduction of $2,000,000 is recommended in Aerospace Biotech-
nology. The budget request in this area was $19,000,000 as compared
with $17,081,000 in fiscal year 1970. The recommended action would
hold the program to the level of the prior fiscal year. Now that the
Air Force has no manned space program, the Committee sees no reason
for an increase in this area.
The entire budget request of $33,600,000 for development of a new
subsonic cruise armed decoy, termed SCAD, is denied. The authorizing
legislation cut this program by $23,600,000. The object of the SCAD
program is to develop a new decoy as a replacement for the Quail decoy
now carried on the B-52 aircraft. When the program was presented to
the Committee last year, it was stated that a single decoy would be de-
veloped which could be utilized on both the B-1 and the B-52 aircraft
as well as the FB-111 and which could be either armed or not armed.
The present program proposes only an unarmed decoy for the B-52.
The SCAD program, in research and development and in procurement,
would exceed a billion dollars in cost. In the view of the Committee,
the Quail decoy now with the B-52 force, the Hounddog stand-off
missile now with the B-52 force, the SRAM missile which is under
development, and which is a very costly development, and the elec-
tronic countermeasures and other penetration aids which have been
incorporated in the B-52 fleet should provide that degree of penetra-
tion capability essential to the B-52 force. Further, the Committee
suggests that there are other ways of improving strategic bomber
penetration, such as development of an air-to-air defensive missile,
which might be more attractive than a new decoy.
The Committee recommends a reduction of $50,000,000 in the
$77,000,000 requested for Minuteman rebasing. The Minuteman re-
basing program is that program under which the Air Force would
endeavor to develop additional protection for the Minuteman ICBM
force. The Minuteman rebasing program grew out of the Hard Rock
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
96
Silo Program which has now, for the most part, been abandoned and
on which more than $50,000,000 has been spent. The proposal of the
Air Force incorporates several alternative methods of providing addi-
tional survivability for the Minuteman force including a shelter-based
mobile system, a hard point anti-ballistic missile defense system, and
the upgrading of the hardness of existing silos as well as the afore-
mentioned hard rock silo effort. The Committee feels that the
$27,000,000 allowed will enable the Air Force to pursue those efforts
which should be pursued in fiscal year 1971. The Air Force is directed
to carefully study these alternative methods before expending hard-
ware funds in this area.
The Committee points out that the Safeguard program, which will
cost from $6 to $12 billion depending how many sites are protected, is
basically for Minuteman defense, fhat the Army has initiated a new
hard point defense missile system, and that mobile Minuteman concepts
were planned a decade ago and abandoned. With the ever-increasing
accuracy of ICBMs, a valid question can be raised as to whether or not
any hardening of missiles can be effective for a long enough period
of time to encourage the investment of the billions of dollars which are
required in this kind of effort. The Committee further feels that the
Air Force should not preclude the procurement and deployment of
additional ICBMs as a means of enhancing the survivability of the
Minuteman force. The Committee has noted the alarm expressed by
many Defense officials in the fast growing ICBM force of the Soviet
Union but has no budget request or authorization for any additions to
the on-launcher ICBM force of the United States.
Further, there are interesting arguments being made that future
expenditures in the area of increasing the survivability of our missile
counter force should be expended on sea-based missiles which do not
draw enemy fire upon the continental United States and which, at this
point in time and for the forseeable future, have a relative degree of
invulnerability.
The Committee recommends a reduction of $5,000,000 in the $105,-
000,000 requested for the Advanced Ballistic Reentry System effort of
the Air. Force, as agreed to in the authorizing legislation.
A reduction of $24,200,000 is recommended in the Short-range Air-
I'o-Air Missile program of the Air Force as authorized. The budget re-
quest is for $37,200,000. Under this program, the Air Force was to have
developed a short. range, so-called "Dogfight" air-to-air missile, termed
the AIM-82. The Air Force has cancelled this program and will use the
AIM-9H air-to-air missile of the Navy. The $13,000,000 remaining will
provide the costs of terminating this effort. The Committee compli-
ments the Department of Defense for making this decision for the
joint utilization of air-to-air missiles. The Committee believes that this
decision will save considerable money and will provide both the Air
Force and the Navy with an acceptable weapon.
The Committee recommends a reduction of $23,500,000 in the Air-
borne Warning and Control System (AWACS) program. The budget
request is $87,000,000. The amount provided would allow an increase
of $23,500,000 more than the sum allocated last year to the AWACS
effort. The Committee does not believe that the AWACS effort should
necessarily proceed faster than the other important components of
nuclear defense against manned bombers. The Committee notes that
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
the authorization bill deleted the entire sum for the interceptor which
is a vital component to the defense against a manned bomber. It is
clear that the over%vhelmingy emphasis of the Soviet Union in recent
years in the area of strategic weaponry has been on the ICBM, both
land based and submarine-based, not on manned bombers. It is noted
that the R. & D. cost of the AWACS is estimated to be $687,000,000
and the procurement cost $1,400,000,000. Certainly, we should be on
very sound ground before proceeding with full scale development of
an AWACS system.
The Committee recommends a reduction of $19,800,000 as a part
of the reduction discussed under the Procurement title in the area
of Operational Base Launch Support. As stated previously, the
Committee does not feel that the proposed launch of a Minuteman
ICBM from the north-central United States into the Pacific, under
all the safeguards and procedures which are a part of the program,
would be a substantially greater test of the readiness of ICBM crews
and hardware than the present training launches from Vandenberg
Air Force Base and that the very great cost of this effort, as well as
the element of risk involved in launching over a large area of the
United States, indicates that this program as conceived should not
be funded.
The Committee recommends the deletion of $500,000 from the
$4,700,000 requested in the area of Human Resources and deleted in
the authorizing legislation. The Committee also concurs in the author-
ization reduction of $1,700,000 in the Air Force share of the Project
Mallard tactical communications effort. The termination of this effort
is consistent with the position of the Committee last year.
Consistent with actions on other procurement and RDT&E appro-
priations the Committee recommends reduction of $18,000,000 in new
obligational authority to be recouped from excess funds in prior year
programs. This cut was also enacted in the authorizing legislation.
The Committee action provides the full $370,000,000 requested for
the F-15 fighter aircraft. The $27,900,000 requested for the A-X close
support aircraft is also provided under the concept set forth in the
report under "Close Air Support Aircraft." The full $46,000,000 re-
quested for the SRAM short range attack missile is provided as well
as the $224,200,000 requested -for Minuteman except for funds re-
lating to the Operational Base Launch Program discussed above.
The full amount of $118 00,000 is provided for the support of the
Eastern Test Range. The dommittee notes that Air Force support of
this range continues to decline as Air Force use of the range declines.
The reduction in the Air Force astronautics budget activity reflects,
in large part, the cancellation of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory
(MOL) which had been carried in the program at a level of a half
billion dollars before its cancellation by the Executive Branch. The
Air Force continues to fund a wide range of space technology pro-
grams including improvements of the Titan III space booster and
support of the Satellite Control Facility.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION,
DEFENSE AGENCIES
Appropriation, 1970-------------------------------------------
$450,752,486
Estimate, 1971------------------------------------------------
470,700, OW
Recommended in the bill---------------------------------------
438, 900,000
Reduction ---------------------------------------------------
31,800,000
Approve F4 apse 2001/11/01: CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
This appropriation provides funds to cover the expenses of activi-
ties and agencies of the Department of Defense, other than those of the
Military departments, for basic and applied research and for such
advanced research projects as may be determined and designated by
the Secretary of Defense.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $438,900,000 for
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense Agencies, a
reduction of $31,800,000 below the budget estimate, and $11,852,486
below the appropriation for fiscal year 1970. The recommended reduc-
tion includes $17,900,000 which failed authorization by Congress.
ADVANCED RESEARCH PrOJECTS AGENCY (ARPA)
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $212,300,000, a re-
duction of $10,400,000 below the budget estimate of $222,700,000. Of
this reduction, $8,900,000 failed Congressional authorization as
follows :
Defense Research Sciences---------------------------------------
$1,200,000
Advanced Engineering-----------.--------------------------------
7,200,000
Overseas Defense Research (AGILE) ------------------------------
500,000
The Technical Studies request is recommended to be reduced by
$500,000.
The Committee has reduced the Distributed Information Systems
program by $1,000,000. This reduction is to be applied to the climate
modification research program (NILE BLUE) which is to improve
the long-term stability of numerical weather prediction models to per-
mit the prediction of world climate: both with and without the effects
of environmental perturbations. This reduction will fund the program
at the fiscal year 1970 level.
DEFENSE COMMUNICAT[ONS AGENCY (DCA)
The budget request for DCA was $15,900,000. The Committee
recommends a reduction of $3,000.,000, of which $2,400,000 was an
unspecified reduction made in, the authorizing legislation. Of the
$3,000,000 reduction, $2,100,000 is applied to the DCA request for
service support contracts. The remaining $900,000 is applied to
service contracts in support of the National Military Command Sys-
tem, especially the MITRE contract for system analysis and technical
review and evaluation in support of Joint Chiefs of Staff and Office of
the Secretary of Defense projects. The Committee again advises the
Department of Defense that computer projects such as war gaming
computer models, feasibility studies, and cost analysis studies are not
RDT&E efforts and in future years, funds for such work are to be
requested in the Operation and Maintenance budget.
DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY (DSA)
The budget request for DSA is $11,500,000. This request is in sup-
port of the Defense Documentation Center. Of the funds requested,
$1,000,000 failed authorization. The Committee recommends an addi-
tional reduction of $300,000 for a total reduction of $1,300,000 for this
activity. The Committee action would reduce civilian personnel
strength by 50 positions in the belief that this activity is overstaffed.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
99
STUDIES AND ANALYSIS
The budget requested $9,000,000 for this activity. Of the funds re-
quested, $600,000 failed authorization. The Committee recommends a
further reduction of $1,400,000. In line with this reduction the Com-
mittee directs that the Department make a thorough review of the
need for some of the studies to be undertaken as they appear to be of
questionable value.
OTHER AGENCY REDUCTIONS
The request of the Defense Intelligence Agency is reduced $300,000.
The National Security Agency request is reduced $3,100,000. The re-
quest of the Defense Atomic Support Agency is reduced $6,700,000.
The request to restore $5,000,000 of old prior year balances failed
authorization.
EMERGENCY FUND, DEFENSE
Appropriation, 1970------------------------------------------ $75,000,000
(Transfer authority) -------------------------------------- (150,000,000)
Estimate, 1971----------------------------------------------- 50,000,000
(Transfer authority) ------------------------------------- (150,000,000)
Recommended in the bill--------------------------------------- 50, 000, 000
(Transfer authority) --------------------------------------- (150,000,000)
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $50,000,000, the
budget estimate, for the Emergency Fund, Defense.
In addition, language is retained in the bill making $150,000,000
available for transfer by the Secretary of Defense from appropriations
available for obligation during the current fiscal year, as proposed
by the Budget.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
TITLE VI
COMBAT READINESS, SOUTH VIETNAM FORCES,
DEFENSE
Appropriation, 1970 ---------------------------------------- --------
Budget estimate, 1971-------------.--------------------------- $300,000,000
(Transfer authority) -------------------------------------- (150,000,000)
Recommended ---------------------?-------------------------- 358, 500,000
(Transfer authority) -------------------------------------- (150,000, 000)
Increase ------------------------------------------------------ -X58,500,000
This new appropriation was :requested for the first time in the FY
1971 Budget. The funds requested are to be used to increase the readi-
ness of South Vietnamese Forces in connection with the Vietnamiza-
tion of the war.
On September 9th, Secretary Laird informed the Committee that
his most current validated requirements in this area totalled $358.5
million. The Committee fully supports the concept of the Vietnamiza-
tion of the war and the bringing home of American forces at the
earliest practical date. Therefore, the Committee recommends the ap-
propriation of the full $358.5 million for currently validated require-
ments. This is an increase of $58.5 million more than the sum requested.
the Committee recommends approval of the full $150.0 million in
transfer authority under this heading; as requested in the Budget.
The Committee recommends that the sum under this heading be
available for obligation for the same period as the appropriations
to which it is transferred instead of available until expended. This
action is in accord with the recommended action on all procurement
and RDT&E appropriations.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
TITLE. VII
SPECIAL FOREIGN CURRENCY PROGRAM
----------
--------------- - - -- ---`- -- 621,000
Estimate, 1970---------------------------------------------
Estimate, 1971------------------------------------------- --------000
Recommended in the bill --------------------------------------------- -- 21621,000
This appropriation provides dollars to be used exclusively for pur-
chase from the Treasury of excess foreign currencies to finance under-
takings which are of benefit to the Department of Defense, according
to 80 Stat. 990.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,621,000, the
budget estimate, for the Special Foreign Currency Program.
The Committee recommends that the funds under this heading be
available for obligation until June 30, 1973 instead of available until
expended as proposed in the Budget. This action is consistent with
the action taken on appropriations for Procurement and Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation.
(101)
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
TITLE VIII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
The accompanying bill includes forty-four general provisions, most
of which have been carried in annual Defense appropriation bills
for a number of years.
The Budget recommended the deletion of Section 801 which pertains
to publicity and propaganda purposes. The Committee feels that spe-
cific reductions made in public affairs functions in the various per-
sonnel and operation and maintenance appropriations are a more ef-
fective means of controlling such expenditures. However, a number of
Members of Congress have expressed the desire that the provision
be retained and the Committee has again included it in the bill.
Section 806 has been amended to make appropriations available for
not only the acquisition of land but also for "interest therein" as pro-
posed in the Budget. This will provide the Department with more
flexibility as provided for under 10 U.S.C. 2675.
Section 807 has been revised. to provide schooling in schools oper-
ated overseas by the Department of Defense for the minor dependents
of Department of Defense personnel who died while entitled to com-
pensation or active duty pay. This provision will allow widows who
are foreign nationals to educate their children in American schools if
they return to their country of origin. The limitation on obligations for
dependents' education is increased from $129,900,000 to $134,400,000
as requested.
The Committee recommends that Section 815 be broadened to per-
mit the payment of flight pay to personnel assigned to long term
courses of instruction of 90 days or more, in lieu of pay for actual
flying. The Committee is concerned over the high cost of providing
aircraft for such flying and feels that the provision will permit the
Department to achieve monetary savings without adverse effect.
The Committee recommends the deletion of language pertaining to
the purchase of house trailers in Section 827, since all forces have now
been withdrawn from France. '.Phis was requested by the Department
of Defense.
The Committee recommends the continuation of the set-aside for the
procurement of commercial passenger sea transportation on American-
flag vessels in Section 832. The amount recommended for the set-aside
is $5.500,000. A $7,500,000 set-aside was enacted for fiscal year 1970.
The Department of Defense recommended that the set-aside be elim-
inated entirely. The $5,500,000 set-aside seems to be reasonably satis-
factory to all parties concerned.
The Committee recommends the increase, from $200,000,000 to $300,-
000,000 in transfer authority for the Secretary of Defense in matters
lie deems vital to the security of the United States or to improve the
readiness of the Armed Forces, as proposed in the Budget. The matter
is .1 ncluded in Section 836.
he Committee recommends a change in the language in Section 838
from "in Vietnam" to "in support of Vietnamese forces". This action
i
s consistent with action taken in the authorizing legislation.
I The Committee recommends the retention of the language in Section
840 relating to individuals convicted of riot activities. The Budget
proposed deletion of the provision.
The Committee recommends the retention of the language in Section
(102)
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
103
841 relating to student loans. The Budget recommended deletion of
the provision.
The Committee recommends the inclusion of language in Section
842 which would make all procurement and research, development, test,
and evaluation appropriations available for, obligation for specific
periods of time rather than available until expended. The Committee
feels that the enactment of this provision is essential to providing im-
proved Congressional control of Defense Department spending. The
same language was passed by the House last year. This matter was more
fully discussed previously in the report under "Closer Control of
Carryover Balances" (page 7). The deletion of the language enacted
last year concerning the reporting of rescissions is approved as
recommended.
Section 639 as proposed by the Budget is not required since reduc-
tions have been made in new obligational authority rather than by the
rescission of prior year amounts.
The inclusion of a new provision, Section 844, reflects the Commit-
tee's deep concern that the provisions of Section 610 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act, 1971, as passed by the Senate, would
result in the diversion of large sums appropriated for national de-
fense to non-defense purposes.
LIMITATIONS AND LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
The following limitations and legislative provisions not heretofore
carried in connection with any appropriation bill are recommended :
On page 15, beginning on line 2, in connection with "Procurement of
Equipment and Missiles, Army" :
-to remain available for obligation until June 30,1973-
Note.-The above limitation on obligational availability until June
30, 1973 appears in connection with other appropriation paragraphs
on pages 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 23.
On page 15, beginning on line 3, in connection with "Procurement of
Equipment and Missiles, Army" :
-Provided, That none of the funds provided in this Act shall
be available for the maintenance of more than two active produc-
tion sources for the supplying of M-16 rifles or for the payment
of any price differential for M-16 rifles resulting from the mainte-
nance of more than two active production sources-
On page 16, beginning on line 8, in connection with "Shipbuilding
and Conversion, Navy" :
-to remain available for obligation until June 30,1976--
On page 20, beginning on line 13, in connection with "Research, De-
velopment, Test, and Evaluation, Army" :
-to remain available for obligation until June 30,1972-
Note.-The above limitation on obligational availability until June
30, 1972 appears in connection with other appropriation paragraphs
on pages 20 and 21.
On page 22, beginning on line 19, in connection with "Combat Readi-
ness, South Vietnamese Forces, Defense" :
-COMBAT READINESS, SOUTH VIETNAMESE
FORCES, DEFENSE
For transfer, by the Secretary of Defense, upon determination
by the President that such action is necessary to further improve
Appro44d4%vbftfva4iezMOr1`/AV94reGlA? *G03637F00W" 003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
:104
nam, to any appropriation available to the Department of De-
fense for military functions to be merged with the appropriation
to which transferred, $358,500,000, to remain available for the
period of availability 9f the appropriation to which trans-
ferred, and in addition $150,000,000 to be derived by transfer from
.such appropriations available to the Department of Defense for
obligation in the current fiscal year as the Secretary of Defense,
with. the approval of the President, may designate : Provided,
That the Secretary of Defense shall notify the Congress promptly
of all transfers made pursuant to this authority.
On page 25, beginning on line 18, in connection with "General
Provisions" :
-for acquisition of land or interest therein as authorized by see-
tion 2672 or 2675 of title 10, United States Code.
On page 26, beginning on line 7, in connection with "General
Provisions" :
-Provided, That under such regulations as may be issued by the
Secretary of Defense, such schooling in a school operated by the
Department of Defense under this section may be provided with-
out tuition for minor dependents of civilian and military per-
sonnel of the Department of Defense who died while entitled to
compensation or active duty pay: Provided further, That where
such personnel die subsequent to the date of this act, such schooling
must be continued or commenced within 1 year after the date of
death;
On page 34, beginning on line 1, in connection with "General
Provisions" :
or who have been a ,signed to a course of instruction of 90
days or more.
On. page 42, in line 23, in connection with "General Provisions" :
- --insupport of Vietnamese forces-
On page 44, beginning on line 8, in connection with "General
Provisions" :
Sec. 842. Appropriations heretofore made available for Pro-
curement of Equipment and Missiles, Army; Procurement of
Aircraft and Missiles, Navy; Other Procurement, Navy; Procure-
ment, Marine Corps ; Aircraft Procurement, Air Force; Mis-
sile Procurement, Air Force; Other Procurement, Air Force;
Procurement, Defense Agencies ; and Special Foreign Currency
Program shall not be available for obligation after June 30,
1973. Appropriations heretofore made available for Shipbuild-
ing and Conversion, Navy, shall not be available for obligation
after June 30, 1975. Appropriations heretofore made available
under the headings Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation,
Army; Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy;
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force; and
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense Agencies
shall not be available for obligation after June 30,1972.
On page 45, beginning on line 3, in connection with "General Pro-
visions":
Sec. 8414. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall be
available for the purposes which would be authorized by section
610 of the Military Censtruetion Authorization Act, 1971, as
passed by the Senate.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
SEPARATE VIEWS OF HONORABLE LOUIS C. WYMAN
I disapprove of the incremental appropriation for DD963 procure-
ment which is a first installment on a more than $2 billion contract to
a single shipbuilder. The House-passed language in the Military Pro-
curement Bill for FY71 would have required this destroyer class to be
built in substantially equivalent proportions in at least two separate
shipbuilding facilities. The Senate deleted this provision and the Sen-
ate conferees in the language of the Military Procurement Conference
Report "were adamant in their opposition to this position."
I believe the public interest is best served by not putting contracts
of this magnitude into single-source procurement. No single source
should have a two-thousand-million-dollar contract ! It's too much
money in one place. It's an invitation to waste, to overlapping func-
tions, to loose procedures, to concealed bidding and subsequent con-
cealed recoupment of underbidding. Most importantly, it leads to huge
cost overruns.
This is the lead destroyer on which the United States Navy will
depend for the next two decades. As things now stand, the Navy pro-
poses to put this entire program in a single yard (in this instance,
Litton, Inc. in Pascagoula, Mississippi). The claim is that by doing
this they will save money. This is unlikely. This giant single yard
already holds billions in ongoing Government contracts.
If any money is saved in this way, it will be at the expense of the
national security, for a single hurricane, or a single bomb, or a single
effective act of sabotage could wipe out the whole production capa-
bility in one fell swoop. There should be at least two widely separated
facilities building this destroyer both from common specifications.
I do not contend that the Navy should build two different destroy-
ers. My point is that the Navy's new destroyer on common specifica-
tions should be built in two different widely-separated places for the
security of the country, to say nothing of diversification of jobs and
economics associated with such a monstrously huge procurement im-
pact.
I do not favor the appropriation of funds for the implementation of
this particular procurement unless this contract is required to be
awarded to at least two separate private shipbuilders. Who they are
makes no difference, but they should be widely disparate and their
performance by the terms of the procurement contract should be re-
quired to be competitive in the sense of contract incentives provided.
To me, this entire DD-963 construction program is suspect. As long
as I remain a member of the Defense Subcommittee I shall continue
to press for dual source procurement on this and every other huge
contract involving more than $2 billion. In my opinion, the public
interest demands this and I am appalled that the Senate conferees on
the Military Procurement Bill should, in the language of their own
report be "adamant in this opposition" to such a requirement without
a dissenting voice.
(105)
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
SEPARATE VIEWS OF' HON. DONALD W. RIEGLE, JR.
As is well. known, we do not provide a specific line-item appropria-
tion in this bill to finance American military operations in Southeast
Asia. Instead, an open-end spending authority is established-as has
been the case since the, beginning of the Vietnam war. Once again,
the House Appropriations Committee is recommending that the Con-
gress sign it blank check for U.S. military efforts in Vietnam and
Southeast Asia. I strongly object to the continuation of this practice.
Further, it is an established fact; that this war has not been formally
declared, as required by the Constitution. Even the highly contro-
versial Gulf of Tonkin resolution has been repealed twice by the
Senate-and will most likely be repealed by the House when it comes
to a vote. So, no specific congressional authority exists to carry on
this Southeast Asian war-in a form required by the Constitution.
Thus, any expenditure of funds to finance the Vietnam war is of
very questionable constitutionality.
Accordingly, I must file my objection to this defense appropriation
until such time as specific expenditure limitations are established with
respect to U.S. military spending in Southeast Asia.
DONALD W. RIEGLE.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF THE HONORABLE JEFFERY
COHELAN
I support the committee's action in carefully pruning $2.089 billion
from the Department of Defense appropriation bill for fiscal year
1971. However, I strongly feel that additional cuts should be made
in this bill.
I favor deletion of funds for the further deployment of the ABM
as well as funds for the continued deployment of multiple war headed
missiles on the land-based Minuteman III.
I oppose further deployment of these two weapon systems for two
reasons : cost and strategic effect. In this bill $1.07 billion has been
appropriated for the ABM and $474 million for land-based MIRV's.
It does not take much of one's imagination to see that these funds
could be effectively used for our pressing domestic problems.
Aside from the cost factors, I oppose further deployment of these
two systems for technical and strategic reasons. The official justifica-
tion is that the ABM and MIRVed missiles will increase U.S. secu-
rity. I feel quite the contrary view in that the ABM and MIRVed
missiles will place this Nation in a more precarious strategic situation.
Let me take each system in turn. The ABM is old news, yet the
arguments remain as valid now as when I first raised them in 1966
with the old Nike-X program-will such a system work? We all know
that the ABM is an integrated and complex system composed of two
types of missiles-Sprints and Spartans- and also two different ra-
dars-MSR and PAR-and a highly sophisticated data processing
system that will coordinate all the components. None other than the
Deputy Secretary of Defense, Mr. David Packard, admitted that the
computer capability is not yet available. Hence there is more than a
reasonable doubt that the entire system will not be operational.
In addition, many competent technicians have expressed very ser-
ious doubts about the ability to adequately create this complex com-
puter network. The decision to deploy the ABM contradicts the re-
cently highly publicized "fly before you buy" policy that was heralded
with such fan fare by the Secretary of Defense.
In spite of the serious technical objections surrounding the ABM,
the Department of Defense has not been lax in creating new missions
and rationales. The latest rationale-the bargaining chip theory, i.e.
we need the ABM to force the Soviet Union to negotiate at the SALT
talks-assumes that the Soviets will be forced to negotiate by a weapon
system that is not operational and which many knowledgable special-
ists say will never work. This assumes incredible naivete on the part of
the Soviets.
The ABM should remain in research and development. The deci-
sion to continue further deployment of the ABM should only be made
when the system is operational and in light of the then current stra-
tegic balance.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
[08
I should also like to comment on the continuing deployment of the
land based MIRV missiles. In the past I have opposed the MIRV pro-
gram on the basis of its severe imbalancing effect on the arms race. I
still hold these reservations. It is my continuing hope that a SALT
agreement will be reached which will cut back on this system and
stabilize the nuclear balance.
I should also note the appropriation for the B-1 bomber. It is quite
clear that our arsenal contains aircraft presently operational which
would adequately fill the mission intended for the B-1. The F-111 as
an example, can carry and deliver strategic weapons with the same
penetration ability and speed as that intended for the B-1. There
appears to be no need for a follow on to the B-52 at this time.
JEFFERY COFIELAN.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 1970 AND THE BUDGET
ESTIMATES FOR 1971
PERMANENT NEW BUDGET. (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY-FEDERAL FUNDS
[Becomes available automatically under earlier, or "permanent" law without further, or annual, action by the Congress. Thus, these amounts are not included in the accompanying bill]
Department of Defense:
Wildlife conservation, etc., military reservations (permanent, in-
definite) ----------------------------------------------------
Total, permanent new budget (obligational) authority, Federal
funds-----------------------------------------------------
New budget (obliga-
tional) authority,
1970
Budget estimate of new
(obligational) authority,
1971
Increase (j-) or
decrease (-)
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 1970 AND THE BUDGET
ESTIMATES FOR 1971
PERMANENT NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY-TRUST FUNDS
Becomes available automatically under earlier, or "permanent" law without further, or annual, action by the Congress. Thus, these amounts arenot included in the accompanying bill]
I New budget (obliga- I Budget estimate of new I Increase (+) or
Agency and item tional)1a9u7t ority, (obligationlal) authority, decrease (-)
Department of Defense:
Department of the Army---------------------------------------
$50, 000
$50, 000
----------------
Department of the Navy---------------------------------------
7,339,000
7,339,000
------------------
Department of the Air Force general gift fund---------------------
5, 000
5, 000
----------------
Total, permanent new budget (obligational) authority, trust funds - -
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 1970 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES
AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR 1971
TITLE I-MILITARY PERSONNEL
[Note-All amounts are in the form of "appropriations" unless otherwise indicated.]
i
f
et (obii-
w bud
N
Bill compared with-
Item
New budget Cobb-
gational) authority,
mates o
Budget est
new (obligational)
authority, fiscal
g
e
gational) authority
recommended in
the bill
New budget (obli-
gatfonal) authority,
Budget estimates of
new (obligational)
fiscal year 1970
year 1971
fiscal year 1970
authority, fiscal
year 1971
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Military personnel, Army ------
$8,875,391,000
$7, 923, 700, 000
$7, 822, 450, 000
-$1, 052, 941, 000
-$101, 250, 000
Military personnel, Navy ------
4, 858, 531, 000
4, 402, 300, 000
4, 360, 100, 000
-498, 431, 000
- 42, 200, 000
Military personnel, Marine ---
Corps------------------
1, 649, 952, 000
1, 494, 200, 000
1, 422, 700, 000
-227, 252, 000
-71, 500, 000
Military personnel, Air Force___
6, 498, 189, 000
6, 096, 000, 000
5, 973, 350, 000
-524, 839, 000
-122, 650, 000
Reserve personnel, Army------
338, 725, 000
336, 500, 000
334, 750, 000
-3,975,000
-1,750,000
Reserve personnel, Navy ------
141, 935, 000
144, 200, 000
142, 100, 000
+165,000
-2,100,000
Reserve personnel, Marine
Corps---------------------
49, 000, 000
54, 100, 000
52, 050, 000
+3,050,000
-2,050,000
Air Force - - -
Reserve personnel
82, 092, 922
86, 200, 000
86, 200, 000
+4,107,078
__________________
,
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 1970 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES
AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR 1971-Continued
TITLE I-MILITARY PERSONNEL-Continued
[Note-All amounts are in the form of "appropriations" unless otherwise indicated.)
N
b
d
l
Budget estimates of
New budget (obli-
Bill compared with-
Item
ew
u
get (obl
-
gational) authority,
new (obligational)
authority, fiscal
gational) authority
recommended in
New budget (obll-
Budget estimates of
fiscal year 1970
year 1971
the bill
i gational) authority,
new (obligational)
fiscal year 1970
authority, fiscal
year 1971
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
National Guard personnel,
Army---------------------
$403,403.895
$387. 100. nn0
$.387 inn 000
-era 303 QAr
,, -.,,-
-----------------
National Guard personnel,
Air Force
--- Fame
ti i n 69 rz7
iuo, 5vv, wv
0 r. --- 00
106, auu, VUV
_ _ _
-2, 194, b76
-
Total, title I-Military
personnel - - - - - - - - - - _
23, 007, 914, 493
21, 032, 800, 000
20, 689, 300, 000
-2, 318, 614, 493
-$343, 500, 000
Operation and maintenance,
Army y---------------------
Ir
I-A
fD
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
Operation and maintenance,
Navy----------------------
5,242,824,000
4,804, 000, 000
4, 681, 910, 000
-560,914, 000
-122, 090, 000
Operation and maintenance,
Marine Corps --------------
428, 458, 120
356, 600, 000
399, 943, 000
-28,515,120
+43, 343, 000
Operation and maintenance,
-
Air Force ------------------
6, 530, 100, 000
6, 176, 500, 000
6, 117, 136, 000
-412, 964, 000
-59,364, 000
Operation and maintenance,
Defense Agencies -----------
1, 160, 866, 907
1, 162, 100, 000
1, 125, 750, 000
-35,116,907
-36, 350, 000
Operation and maintenance,
Army National Guard_______
315, 003, 601
287, 400, 000
287, 400, 000
-27, 603, 601
------------------
Operation and maintenance,
Air National Guard ---------
345, 201, 780
343, 600, 000
337, 600,000
-7,601,780
-6,000,000
National Board for the Pro-
motion of Rifle Practice,
Army_____________________
54, 008
65,000
100,000
+45,992
+35,000
Claims, Defense______________
39, 000, 000
39, 000, 000
39, 000, 000
__________________
________________--
Contingencies, Defense________
5,000,000
10, 000, 000
5,000,000
__________________
-5,000,000
Court of Military Appeals,
Defense____________________
736,000
780, 000
780, 000
+44, 000
------------------
Total, title III-
-
Operation and maintenance__
21, 534, 995, 495
19, 512, 045, 000
19, 213, 630, 000
-2, 321, 365, 495
-298, 415, 000
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 1970 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES
AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR 1971-Continued
TITLE IV-PROCUREMENT
[Note-All amounts are in the form of "appropriations" unless otherwise indicated.)
N
b
d
t
bli
Budget estimates of
Naw budget (obli-
Bill compared with-
It
ew
u
ge
(o
-
new (obligational)
gatlonal) authority
em
gational) authority,
fiscal year 1970
authority, fiscal
year 1971
recommended in
the bill
New budget (obli-
gational) authority,
Budget estimates of
new (obligational)
fiscal year 1970
authority, fiscal
year 1971
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
I (5)
(6)
rrV(;uremeIIt or equipment and
missiles, Army--------------
I $4, 259, 329, 911
$3, 251, 000, 000
$2, 933, 100, 000
$1, 326, 229, 911
-$317, 900, 000
Transfer from stock funds- _
(50, 000, 000)
__________________
__________________
(-50, 000, 000)
Proposed for rescission
(prior year balances) ----
------------------
-25, 000, 000
------
------------------
000, 000
Budget authority _ _ _ _ _ _ _
4, 259, 329, 911
3, 226, 000, 000
2, 933, 100, 000
-1, 326, 229, 911
-292, 900, 000
Procurement of aircraft and
missiles, Navy--------------
2, 621, 705, 547
3, 470, 700, 000
3, 005, 800, 000
+384, 094, 453
-464,900, 000
Transfer from stock funds
(25, 000, 000)
------------------
--------
(-25, 000, 000)
Proposed for rescission
(prior year balances) ----
------------------
-43, 000, 000
------------------
------------------
+43, 000, 000
Budget authority _ _ _ _ _ _ _
2, 621, 705, 547
3, 427, 700, 000
3,005,800, 000 I
+ 384, 094, 453
-421, 900, 000
rip
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
Shipbuilding and conversion,
2, 495,899,014
Navy---------------------
Proposed for rescission
(prior year balances) ----------------------
2, 495, 899, 014
Budget authority-------
1, 488, 890, 990
Other procurement, Navy______
Proposed for rescission
(prior year balances) _ _ - _
1, 488, 890, 990
Budget authority _ _ _ _ _ _ _
500,848,000
Procurement, Marine Corps-_
Proposed for rescission
(prior year balances) ----------------------
500,848,000
Budget authority- - _ _ _ _
Aircraft procurement, Air
3, 405, 800, 000
Force--------------------
Transfer from stock funds_ (325, 000, 000)
Proposed for rescission
(prior year balances) ----------------------
3, 405, 800, 000
Budget authority- ----- 3,405,800,
2, 728, 900, 000
2, 694, 400, 000
+198,500,986
-34,500, 000
-150, 000, 000
------------------
------------------
+150, 000, 000
2, 578, 900, 000
2, 694, 400, 000
+198,500, 986
+ 115, 500, 000
1, 559, 400, 000
1, 443, 400, 000
-45, 490, 990
-116, 000, 000
-18, 000, 000
-----------------
+18, 000, 000
1, 541, 400, 000
1, 443, 400, 000
-45, 490, 990
-98, 000, 000
208, 000, 000
171, 700, 000
- 329, 148, 000
-36, 300, 000
-8,000,000
------------------
-----------------
+8,000,000
200, 000, 000
171, 700, 000
-329, 148, 000
-28, 300, 000
3, 374, 300, 000
3, 203, 000, 000
-202, 800, 000
-171, 300, 000
-
000, 000)
-59, 400, 000
, 400, 000
-+59,400,000
3, 31 4, 900, 000
-
-
-111, 900, 000
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 1970 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES
AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR 1971-Continued
TITLE IV-PROCUREMENT-Continued
[Note-All amounts are In the form of "appropriations" unless otherwise indicated.]
Missile procurement, Air Force
$1, 448,100, 000 $1.
I ; 544; 600 ; 000 -2-7o 300 0 -$75, 800, 000 -$172,300,000
for rescission
(prior year balances) _ rr
------------------ ------- -f-14, 000, 000
Budget authority----- 1,
448, 100, 000 1, 530, 600, 000 1, 372, 300, 000 - 75, 800, 000 -158, 300, 000
Other procurement, Air Force 1, _
576, 200, 000 1, 503, 600, 000 1, 381, 200, 000 -195, 000, 000 -122, 400, 000
Proposed for rescission
(prior year balances) _ _ _ _ - 14, 000, 000 ----
-------------- - x-14, 000, 000
Budget authority----- 1,
, 576, 200, 000 1, 489, 600, 000 1, 381, 200, 000 -195 000 000 - 108, 400, 000
Defense Agencies_ 61,600,0
00 49, 500, 000 38, 910, 000 - 22, 690, 000 -10, 590, 000
Subtotal_______________ 17,
, 858, 373, 462 17, 690, 000, 000 16, 243, 810, 000 -1, 614, 563,462 1,446,190, 000
for rescis-
sion (prior year
balances)________ 331,400,000 I ------------------ -------- --
- - _ _ _ _ +331,400, 000
New budget (obli-
i
estimates
newg(obiigat o al) Of
gatiwonbal)daautliol Y
Bill compared with-
gat
onal) authority,
fiscal year 1970
authority, fiscal
year 1971
recommended in
the bill
Now budget (obli- Budget estimates of
gational) authority
li
, new (ob
gational)
fiscal year 1970 authority, fiscal
(2)
(3)
(4)
year 1971
I
(5) (6)
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
Total, title IV-Procure-
ment----------------
Research, development, test,
and evaluation, Army __-____
Proposed forrescission
(prior year balances) -----
Budget authority-------
Research, development, test,
and evaluation, Navy -------
Proposed for rescission
(prior year balances)
Budget authority _ _ _ _ _ - _
Research, development, test,
and evaluation, Air Force----
Proposed for rescission
(prior year balances)
- - - _ - -
Budget authority-------
17, 858, 373, 462
17, 358, 600, 000
TITLE
TITLE V-RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
-1,114,790, 000
$1,608,282,908
------------------
$1, 735, 900, 000
-18, 000, 000
$1,608,500,000
------------------
+$217, 092
------------------
-$127, 400, 000
+
1, 608, 282, 908
1, 717, 900, 000
1, 608, 500, 000
+217, 092
-109, 400, 000
2, 203, 660, 000
------------------
2, 212, 300, 000
-15, 000, 000
2, 156, 200, 000
------------------
-47, 460, 000
------------------
-56,100,000
+15, 000, 000
2, 203, 660, 000
2, 197, 300, 000
2, 156, 200, 000
-47, 460, 000
-41, 100, 000
3, 069, 053, 300
------------------
2, 927, 700, 000
-18, 000, 000
2, 701, 100, 000
-
-367, 953, 300
-226, 600, 000
3, 069, 053, 300
2, 909, 700, 000_ 1
2, 701, 100, 000
-208, 600, 000
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR 1970 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES
AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR 1971-Continued
TITLE V-RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION-Continued
[Note-All amounts are in the form of "appropriations" unless otherwise indicated.]
New budget (obli-
gational) authority,
fiscal year 1970
Budget estimates of
new (obligational)
authority, fiscal
year 1971
New budget (obli-
gational) authority
recommended in
the bill
New budget (obli-
ge f scallyear 1970 y.
Budget estimates of
new (obligational)
authority, fiscal
year 1971
Research, development, test,
and evaluation, Defense
agencies-------------------
Proposed for rescission
(prior year balances) ----
-5,000,000
Budget authority _ - _ _ - - -
470, 700, 000
Emergency fund, Defense------
75, 000, 000
50, 000, 000
50, 000, 000
(Transfer authority) ---_--
(150, 000, 000 )
(150, 000, 000 )
(150, 000, 000)
Subtotal---------------
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8
Proposed for rescis-
sion (prior year
balances) --------
Total, titleV-Research,
and evaluation ......
development, test,
(Transfer authority) __ _
i
------------------
-56, 000, 000
------------------
------------------
+56, 000, 000
7, 406, 748, 694
(150,000, 000)
7, 345, 600, 000
(150, 000, 000)
6, 954, 700, 000
(150, 000, 000)
-452, 048, 694
------------------
-390, 900, 000
------------------
TITLE VI-COMBAT READINESS, SOUTH VIETNAMESE FORCES, DEFENSE
Combat readiness, South
Vietnamese forces, Defense___
__________________
$300,000,000
$358,500,000
+$358, 500, 000
+$58, 500, 000
(Transfer authority)_________
__________________
(150, 000, 000)
(150, 000, 000)
(+150, 000, 000)
------------------
Special foreign currency pro-
gram----------------------
(Additional transfer authority,
sec. 836) -------------------
Grand total ---___-_____
(Transfer authority) -----------
--------__
1 $72, 667, 032, 144
1$72
(350, 000, 000)
$68,745,666,000
(600, 000, 000)
$66, 656, 561, 000
(600, 000, 000)
-$6, 010, 471, 144
(+250, 000, 000)
i Includes $760,264,144 allocated from the lump-sum indefinite appropriation in title III, Second Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1970, for the general 6 percent retroactive
pay increase.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000300140003-8