Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 15, 2016
Document Release Date: 
September 5, 2003
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
January 1, 1962
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8.pdf5.84 MB
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 1962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 4307 Mr. BROWN. It goes a little further than that. I would suggest, if you check the records, that while we authorize many expenditures, the money is not al- ways appropriated, and even if so, the expenditures are not always made by the President. But usually when the word "authorized" is used in legislation, the Chief Executive accepts it as more or less expressing the desire and the will of the Congress, and quite often he goes along with that. Mrs. ST. GEORGE. I thank the gen- tleman for the explanation. Mr. BROWN. Of course, that is one of the things that makes life in our Na- tion's Capital interesting-they do change the use of the words and the rules of the game now and- then to meet changing circumstances. Mr. VINSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BROWN. I yield to the distin- guished gentleman from Georgia, the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services. Mr. VINSON. In view of the state- ment of the gentleman from Ohio and the statement of the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. ST. GEORGE], I want to say that the word "authorized" in this particular instance means more than ever before. Mr. BROWN. As I pointed out, the gentleman from Georgia, the distin- guished chairman of the. Committee on Armed Services, usually has his way in the end. Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BROWN. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. CANNON]. Mr. CANNON. The gentleman will recognize, I am certain, as all Members of the House understand, that the word "authorized," as used in this connotation, means "permitted"-and nothing more. It does not direct; it does not commit the House to affirmative action so far as appropriations are concerned.' Chairman Nelson Dingley, of Maine, disposed of that question for all time when he rendered an opinion on Janu- ary 17, 1896, in which he said: The House has the right to refuse to ap- propriate for any object which it may deem improper, although that object may be au- thorized by law. Mr. BROWN. Now we have had two completely different opinions expressed by two of the deans of this House, by two of the most learned men in the House of Representatives, both of whom are chairmen of very, very important committees of the House of Representa- tives. So decide for yourselves, if you please, just what the word "authorized" means. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say in conclusion, in connection with this bill, of course, it is only an authorization bill, that is true; but, yet, it is a very, very necessary piece of legislation. All of these items that are authorized in this bill will have to be considered later by the House Committee on Appropria- tions. But, I wish to go just a bit further, if I. may, although I am not going to get into this argument over the B-70's. I have been around here for a long, purposes. The bill in part-and I quote long time, some 24 years; but I am still from the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of that very much of a junior to both the gentle- date, read: man from. Georgia and the gentleman "Be it enacted, by the Senate and House from Missouri. In the years I have been of Representatives in Congress assembled, here, however, I have learned that there That the President of the United States is has never been in the history of this hereby authorized and directed to undertake country-and I mean exactly what I the construction of not to exceed 50,000 say-there has never been any individual tons of modern naval vessels in the fol- in this country who had as great a grasp lowing categories:". or knowledge of military matters and And the categories are subsequently our military needs as the gentleman set forth. The House of Representatives from Georgia [Mr. VINSON], chairman passed that bill. It went to the other of the Armed Services Committee. I be- body. In the meantime the then Presi- lieve this has been agreed to by a great dent, Mr. Truman, and his then Secre- many qualified observers, all over this tary of the Navy, Mr. Matthews, became country, as well as our greatest military concerned about the use of the word experts, and others. He has been hon- "directed" in an authorization bill. Ap- ored many, many times by'many patri- parently in conference the conferees on otic organizations for the contributions the part of the House agreed to the dele- he has made to our national defense. tion of the word "directed." Like the gentleman from Mississippi, I When the conference report came back have not always agreed with everything to the House on July 31, the gentleman the gentleman from Georgia has said, or from Georgia [Mr. VINSON], when asked done, yet I do recognize his great knowl- some questions by Mr. MARTIN of Massa- edge and his great ability; and I believe chusetts, had the following to say: that his judgment is as sound as that of Mr. Speaker, one Senate amendment strikes anyone who may move from civilian life out the words "and directed." into the swirl of governmental affairs _ _ The Senate did not like the word "di- months, or a few years, have suddenly become an expert. I recall we had a witness from one of the departments before a committee on which I sat not long ago. I noted in the paper that he had been confirmed by the Senate a day or two before, but he was appearing before the committee as an expert because he was an Assistant Sec- retary in that department. I asked him when he took office. He said he had been sworn in that morning before he came to Capitol Hill. I mention that because sometimes I think we had better base our judgment upon knowledge and informa- tion gained by men in this Congress who, through long years of service, are often in a far better position to know and to judge the right thing to do than some of those who may serve a much shorter time in other capacities of Government. Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BROWN. I yield. Mr. FORD. May I say to the gentle- man from Ohio that I join with him wholeheartedly in the complimentary -things he has said about the fine gentle- man from Georgia. He is not only an expert in all aspects of the military, but also he is an exceedingly fine gentleman. In the light of the previous discussion here regarding the word "authorized" and its definition, perhaps I can clarify it somewhat-or maybe muddy the waters. Mr. BROWN. I am very happy to have the gentleman's- contribution. I want to call the gentleman's attention to the fact that the gentleman from Ohio held a very flexible position regarding what again from the RECORD : The words "authorization" and "author- ize" and "direct" are practically the same thing. I do not know whether the dictionary will agree with that interpretation or not, but we do have some legislative his- tory on the meaning of the words "au- thorization," "authorized," and. "di- rected." Personally I firmly believe that there is a distinct difference between the words "authorize" and "direct." I respectfully say they are not "practically the same thing" and any dictionary will agree with my observation. The gentleman from Michigan has in- dicated that the gentleman from Georgia is still of the same mind as he was back in 1950. The gentleman from Ohio is completely aware of the fact that we have authorized various Presidents, of all types, stripes, and breeds, to do many things that they have failed or re- fused to do. Of course I know of no par- ticular method or means the Congress of the United States, as the legislative branch, has to compel or to force any President to expend any funds which may be authorized and appropriated. That situation has existed many times in the past, and nothing was ever done about it. I presume that first of all, in connec- tion with this bill, under the gentle direc- tion of the gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. CANNON], chairman of the Com- mittee on Appropriations, that commit- tee will scan this measure very carefully and decide, in its own innate wisdom, what particular changes should be made tort' in this body in reference to the carried in this bill. meaning of this word. Back on May Finally, the other body will take a 27, 1950, the distinguished 'gentleman look at this legislation and probably add from Georgia brought a proposal to the some more to it in the way of appropri- floor of the House. It was H.R. 7764, ations and authorizations. Then finally a bill to authorize the construction of it will all go down to the White House modern naval vessels, and for other and be signed into law, both this authori- Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R00010.0100006-8 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 4308 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --HOUSE zation bill and the appropriation bill. In the end usually the President, the bureaucrats, and the other officials who serve under him, will do what they please about it anyway. So perhaps this has all been more or less a tempest in a teapot. Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question. The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. SEL- DEN). The question is on the resolu- tion. The resolution was motion to reconsider table. agreed to and a was laid on the CALL OF THE HOUSE Mr. PRICE. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evi- dently a quorum is not present. Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House. . A call of the House was ordered. The Clerk called the roll, and the fol- lowing Members failed to answer to their names : [Roll No. 421 Andrews Derwinski Moulder Ashley Diggs Passman Ayres Fogarty Pfost Baring Gary Powell Battin Grant Rains Blatnik Griffiths Rivers, S.C. Butch Harrison, Va. Roberts, Ala. Boykin Hoffman, Mich. St. Germain Buckley Jones, Ala. Sheppard Collier King, Calif. Spence Cooley McMillan Whitten Dawson Mason Widnali The SPEAKER. On this rollcall, 397 Members have answered to their names, a quorum. By unanimous consent further pro- ceedings finder the call were dispensed RIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR AIRCRAFT, MISSILES, AND NAVAL VESSELS Mr. VINSON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 9751) to authorize ap- propriations during fiscal year 1963 for aircraft, missiles, and naval vessels for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes. The motion was agreed to. Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the con- sideration of the bill H.R. 9751, with Mr. KARSTEN in the char. The Clerk read the title of the bill. By unanimous consent the first read- ing of the bill was dispensed with. The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. VINSON] will be recognized for 2 hours and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. ARENDS] for 2 hours. The gentleman recognized. from Georgia is Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will Approved Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, this bill authorizes appropriations for the procurement of missiles, aircraft, and naval vessels. The committee's authority to legislate in this area is based upon section 412(b) of Public Law 86-149. Pursuant to the authority granted by that law, the committee recommends a bill authorizing appropriations in the following amounts: Missiles, $4,052,182,- 000; aircraft, $6,034,390,000; and naval vessels, $2,979,200,000. This is a' grand total of $13,065,772,- 000. The committee began its hearings on January 24 and concluded them on March 1. The committee had before it every conceivable detail with respect to the programs. We looked at the inventory of each individual aircraft, missile, and ship-we compared the inventory to the requirements of the department-and we then studied each individual item of the 1963 program to see how it fitted into the whole picture. With respect to each item, we know how many the department has-the in- dividual cost of each item-we know who the manufacturers are-the capabilities of the particular missile, airplane, or ship-and every other thing of any im- portance whatsoever. Of course, much-perhaps most-of the information is classified and l[ regret that it cannot be spread on the record. AMENDMENTS The committee made a total of six amendments to the bill. I will speak briefly about each of these at this time and refer to them again when dealing with the individual programs later in my remarks. The first amendment added $55,290,- 000 for Army aircraft. For the most part, this amendment represents au- thority for more airplanes of the same kind which were in the program last year and which are in the program this year. The other Army amendment adds $31,182,000 for missiles. The story here is virtually identical to that with re- Peet to airplanes. It is more of the same-trying to get the Army a little bit closer to its actual requirements. In the case of the Navy, the commit- tee made only one amendment. It re- duced the Navy shipbuilding authoriza- tion by $2.8 million. MILITARY STARTS The larger and more important amendments to the bill were in the Air Force portion. There were three of them. First, the committee added $10 million for a start on 100 additional Minuteman missiles. It is only a start, but it is an important step toward the kind of inter- continental ballistic missile position which the country much achieve. The other two Air Force amendments relate to the B-70 bomber, or as it is called today, the RS-70-RS means re- connaissance strike. The first of these amendments added $491 million for the RS-70 and the sec- ond of them amended existing law to row, ide r errier, Tartar, Taros, For Release 2003/10/10: CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006 March 21 place all aspects of the RS-.70 within the provisions of section 412. Now, those are the amendments. I will speak at length about the RS-70 at a later point in my remarks. It is my intention now to speak about the individual military department pro- grams as they are reflected in this bill. ARMY Let us look at the Army first. The bill authorizes $273,790,000 for aircraft for the Army. A list of the air- craft to be bought and a description of each airplane appears on pages 17 and 18 of the report. Briefly, the Army plans to buy three kinds of helicopters-the Chinook, the Iroquois, and observation helicopters of the Sioux and Raven types. The bill authorizes also three kinds of fixed wing airplanes. The Caribou, the Mohawk, and the Seminole. A glance of pages 17 and 18 of the re- port will give you a good picture of these aircraft. And I might say that the aircraft used by the Army is, of course, the kind that is flown within the battlefield area. There is no conflict or duplication at all here with the Air Force. The Air Force provides the tactical sup- port but the Army needs aircraft for surveillance and to enable the com- manders to travel from unit to unit, to evacuate the wounded, and operate gen- erally within the restricted battle area. The planes are also used to move a squad of soldiers from one place to another as the battle situation might dictate. Today, there are about 22,000 people in Army aviation of which 7,000 are pilots. The Army has about 5,631 air- planes in its inventory. In the field of missiles, the bill author- izes $589,482,000 for Army missiles. These missiles are the Hawk, the Nike- Hercules, the Redeye, the Honest John. the Little John, the Pershing, and the Sergeant. And also some target mis- siles and some antitank missiles. Of these, the Hawk, Nike-Hercules, Honest John, and Little John are opera- tional. And the Nike-Hercules, as you know, is the surface-to-air missile that defends many of the great metropiltan areas, industrial complexes, and military bases throughout the country. Again, a glance at pages 17 and 19 of the report will give you the picture of these missiles. NAVY-MARINE CORPS For the Navy and Marine Corps, the bill authorizes $2,134,600,000 for aircraft. The Navy and Marine Corps are buy- ing the Skyhawk, the Intruder, the Vigi- lante, the Phantom, and a number of others all listed on page 20 and all de- scribed on pages 20, 21, and 22. The bill authorizes missiles for the Navy in the amount of $930,400,000 and missiles for the Marine Corps In the amount of $22,300,000. These missiles include the Sparrow, the Sidewinder, the Terrier, the Tartar, and a number of other missiles which are listed on page 20 and described on pages 22 and 23. You will note from that list that Spar- Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 Bullpup, Polaris, and Hawk are opera- tional. NAVAL VESSELS The bill provides $2,979,200,000 for the construction and. conversion of naval vessels. The program covers the construction of 37 new ships and the conversion of 35 other ships. The larger and more important areas of the shipbuilding pro- gram involve an aircraft carrier at a cost of $310 million-and I might say that this is a conventionally powered carrier. Also, there is one guided missile frig- ate at a cost of $190 million-eight nu- clear powered submarines of the attack kind at a cost of $510 million-and six Polaris submarines. at a cost of .$720 million. These are the biggest, more impor- tant portions of the shipbuilding pro- gram but every one of the ships in the program is set out on pages 23, 24, and 25 of the report with a description of the ship and its cost. AIR FORCE For the Air Force, the bill authorizes $3,626 million for Air Force aircraft. These aircraft include the KC-135 jet tanker-the F-105- fighter-bomber-the F-110 tactical fighter-and a number of other airplanes which are listed on page 26 and described on pages 26, 27, and 28. In the field of missiles, the bill au- thorizes $2,510 million for Air Force missiles. These include the Atlas, the Titan, the Minuteman, Bullpup, and others, which, again are listed on page 26 and described on pages 29 and 30. You will note that Atlas, Bullpup, Fire- bee, and Sidewinder are operational. As you know, the ICBM's are the Atlas, which is operational today, the Titan, which will be operational in the very near future, and the Minuteman, which will be operational later on. The Atlas and Titan are liquid fuel missiles while the Minuteman will use solid fuel. Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to talk to the committee with reference to the amendment relating to the RS-70, here- tofore referred to as the B-70. After this program gets underway it will be designated and known as RS-70. Mr. Chairman, I want to announce at this point that it is my intention at the appropriate time, when the amendments are being considered, to offer an amend- ment by direction and by unanimous vote of those who were present at the Armed Services Committee this morn- ing to delete from the bill the word "di- rect" and substitute the word "author- ize." This may come as a surprise to many of you, but I do not think it will be a surprise to those of you who have followed the logical progress of this whole controversy. Now, let us look at what lay behind the language "directed that the Secretary of the Air Force use the $491 million." It is a realistic and a natural conclusion of the whole matter. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 4309 It was simply this: I and the whole committee felt that we were getting out of the bomber business. How strongly we felt about this is clearly reflected in the committee report. How could we change the course being followed by the Department of Defense? Merely authorizing the additional funds, as hertofore happened in the past, was not enough. This has been tried. Most of the time it has not worked. So some other course had to be found which would impress the Department of De- fense that we meant what we said: that we were not going to stand idly by and see ourselves heading down the road that had nothing at the end but missiles. What course could we follow to see that this did not happen? It had to be some- thing drastic, something unusual, some- thing that had not been tried before. That "something" turned out to be a direction that the funds would be spent. I realized that there were some con- stitutional questions involved, questions that had never been answered. But there seemed to be nothing else we could do. So we put in the word "direct." What happened? Exactly what could be expected td happen. A great con- troversy in the press, some taking one side and some taking the other, and none of this was lost on the Secretary of De- fense. He saw we were going to get something done. Mr. Chairman, from here on I am in the field of conjecture. But there can be little doubt that this is what hap- pened: The Secretary of Defense was worried about two things: First he was .worried about flying directly in the face of the Congress, because this was a war he could never win-even if he did win a battle now and again. This was his first worry. His second worry was that maybe he was wrong about the RS-70. Maybe he was going too slowly on this bomber. So, what could he do? He did not want to fly in the face of the Con- gress, and he had an honest concern that he was wrong about the bomber, and about the RS-70. He could do only one thing. He could only seek some com- promise which would dispel both of these facts. And, what compromise could he make to take care of that? This had to be something firm and at the same. time well reasoned. It had to be something that an aroused Congress will accept. Well, he arrived at the right answer- and I, for one, am very glad that he did. Because, we were engaged in a contro- versy that if allowed to go on could only result in a disruption of relations that would be harmful to both sides-and harmful to the country. The kind of a fight that nobody wins. What did he do? This is what he did. I am now going to read to you two letters. One is from Secretary McNa- mara and the other is from the Presi- dent himself. This is what they say. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con- sent that the Clerk be permitted to read these letters. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the, request of the gentleman from Georgia? There was no objection. The Clerk read as follows: THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, Washington, March 20, 1962. Hon. CARL VINSON, Chairman, Armed Services Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN:,. While the President is writing to you directly concerning the constitutional problems raised by the pres- ent language of H.R. 9751, I want you to know that we are anxious to work with you, your committee and the Congress in the spirit which a Government of divided powers such as ours must maintain in order to function successfully. Consequently we are initiat- ing immediately a new study of the RS-70 program in the light of the recommenda- tions and the representations of the Armed Services Committee. This study will give full consideration- to the magnitude of the committee program and the depth with which the committee has emphasized this. Furthermore, if technological developments related to sideview radar, and associated data processing and display systems, advance more rapidly than we anticipated when the fiscal 1963 Defense budget was prepared,. we will wish to take advantage of these ad- vances by increasing our development ex- penditures; and we would then wish to ex- pend whatever proportions of any increases voted by the Congress, these advances in radar technology would warrant. Again let me express my continued friend- ship and admiration for you personally, and our gratitude for the work you are doing on behalf of our national defense. Sincerely, ROBERT S. MCNAMARA, Secretary of Defense. THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington March 20, 1962. Hon. CARL VINSON, Chairman, Armed Services Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: With the profoundest respect for. your leadership in national de- fense and congressional affairs, I must take this opportunity to urge your reconsidera- tion of the language added by your commit- tee to H.R. 9751. The amendment to which I refer states that the Secretary of the Air Force is "directed" to utilize not less than $491 million of this authorization (fiscal year 1963 funds for aircraft, missiles and naval vessels) to proceed with production planning and long leadtime procurement for an RS-70 weapons system. I would respectfully sug- gest that, in place of the word "directed," the word "authorized" would be more suitable to an authorizing bill (which is not an appro- priation of funds) and more clearly in line with the spirit of-the Constitution. Each branch of the Government has a re- sponsibility to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution and the clear separation of legislative and executive powers it requires. I must, therefore, insist upon the full powers and discretion essential to the faithful exe- cution of my responsibilities as President and Commander in Chief, under article H, sec- tions 2 and 3, of the Constitution. Additionally implicit in the Constitution, of course, is the intent that a spirit of comity govern relations between the executive and legislative. And while this makes unwise if not impossible any legislative effort to "direct" the Executive on matters within the latter's jurisdiction, it also makes it incum- bent upon the Executive to give every possi- ble consideration in such matters to the views of the Congress. For that reason, Sec- retary McNamara has indicated to you in a separate letter his willingness to reexamine No. 42-9 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 4310 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE the RS-70 program and related technological possibilities. Your devotion to our continued military effectiveness is admired and appreciated; and I look forward to working with you and re- ceiving your counsel for many years to come. Sincerely, Mr. VINSON. Now, if my colleagues will bear with me while I make some observations as to what this letter of the Secretary says. Let me emphasize what the letter said: Consequently we are initiating immedi- ately a new study of the RS-70 program. I ask my colleague to listen to these words: In the light of the recommendations and the representations of the Armed Services Committee. This study will give full con- sideration to the magnitude of the com- mittee program and the depth with which the committee has emphasized this. Furthermore, if technological develop- ments * * * advance more rapidly than we anticipated * * * we will wish to take ad- vantage of these advances by increasing our development expenditures; and we would then wish to expend whatever proportions of any increase voted by the Congress these advances in radar technology would war- rant. Now let us see what the President said. The President said: It makes it incumbent upon the Execu- tive to give every possible consideration in such matters to the views of the Congress. For that reason, Secretary McNamara has in- dicated to you in a separate letter his will- ingness to reexamine the RS-70 program and related technological possibilities. fuss, we got our point across. We are on the right road now. I might say this, we are going to watch this new study by the Department every step of the way from this point on. I advised the Com- mittee on Armed Services this morning that periodically I was going to respect- fully request these people who are deal- ing with this new study to come before the Committee on Armed Services and give a report on the progress of the study. We are going to make sure that every advance developed by this study will be translated-and immediately trans- lated-into the expenditure of funds for the most rapid development possible of the RS-70. Let me say that I am completely satis- fied with what we accomplished by the sensible approach that was taken yester- day in an hour and a half conference at the White House. I mean every single word I am saying. I feel that any reasonable man is will- ing to abide by the results of a thor- oughly objective study such as that which is now going to be made by the Depart- ment-and with the full, personal sup- port of the President. The President is interested now. He has injected himself right into the middle of this whole matter. And another thing, the committee will get a full assurance that the group mak- ing this study will have not only scien- tists and representatives of the Secretary of Defense in it, but will have people from the Air Force, not only the tech- nical ones but the policy ones; and not only civilians; but military people whose Now what is the sum and substance of background and experience in the devel- these letters? Well, the first thing they opment and operation. of bombers gives mean is that the Congress has made its them special understanding of the prob- point and has won the fight-or maybe lem that we are talking about. I should not say "won the fight," but Just what is the net effect of this whole maybe I should just say we caused the action? Department of Defense to see the error First. In the first place, this commit- of their ways. Reasonable people don't tee has expressed a complete unwilling- go bumping into each other and having ness to place this Nation in a position difficulties that can be avoided. There where its sole method of warfare would is always room for a little give and take. be massive retaliation. That is what makes our kind of govern- The committee's concept on this mat- ment work. We are not infallible, they ter is preserved by this action. are not infallible. There is room for Second. This committee had expressed differences. We are all headed for the its total unwillingness to junk manned same goal. We have just been disagree- bomber systems as a weapon in our ing as to how we would get there. So future defense arsenal. here we are-reason and commonsense That position is respected in this have won out. The committee has made action. its position crystal clear. The depart- Third. There have been no indications ment is now going to take a good, hard that the Secretary of Defense was in the look at that portion. It would be an un- least concerned with the size of the reasonable man, indeed, who would ob- program which this committee approved ject to this kind of solution. We want or the depth of its conviction in approv- an adequate Military Establishment with ing that program. . all of the things that such an establish- The Secretary states in his letter that ment needs. We want bombers and, the study which he will promptly insti- certainly, we have no objection to taking tute will take into full consideration not a good hard look at how we will get them. only the size of the program recom- We would be in a pretty shaky position mended by the committee but the depth if we said, "Go ahead, spend this money of the committee's conviction in approv- and never mind any more thought on ing that program. the subject, just spend these dollar Fourth. The Secretary has publicly bills." stated that he could not and would not Now the Department is going-to turn spend any more money in fiscal 1963 for their whole solution to the RS-70. They the development of the RS-70 than the have gotten the message. They know $171 million which he requested. that the Congress is not just talking. He now states that if technological They know we mean business. So we developments advance more rapidly than can congratulate ourselves that although was anticipated` when the fiscal 1963 de- we had to raise a good ruckus and a good fense budget was prepared, he will wish March 21 to take advantage of these advances by increasing development expenditures. He also states that, in that event, he would wish to expand whatever propor- tion of the increase voted by the Con- gress these advances in technology would warrant. The foregoing represents the four ma- jor points which have been stressed by this committee. In view of the results which have been achieved and the as- surances now given to the committee, I have no hesitancy in concluding that the committee's program remains intact and that the committee has achieved its objectives in a far more logical way than was provided in our initial approach.. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. VINSON. If the gentleman will withhold his question for a moment, for I wish now to talk about the justifica- tion of asking the Appropriations Com- mittee to follow the modern version of what "authorized" means. The correct version was quoted by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. FORD] from a pro- ceeding that took place some 12 years ago. But time changes everything, and so we will now accept the modern ver- sion. I hope the committee will bear with me patiently here. This is very impor- tant. As I say, this is the turning point. You are either going to have bombers or you are not going to have bombers. Where does it lead you? It leads you down but one road, massive retaliation. It would lead to defeat if interconti- nental ballistic missiles were to be out- lawed. Mr. Chairman, now, that is the picture of the whole aircraft, missiles, and naval vessels program for fiscal year 1963. R5-70 Mr. Chairman, of course, there will be differences of opinion between the De- partment of Defense and the Congress as to just exactly what should be done in particular areas of defense. This is a healthy situation. I do not believe that, after the Armed Services Committee has held extended detailed hearings that we have only en- gaged in an exercise of self-improvement in the area of knowledge. To me, knowledge is something to be used, not merely to be possessed. Now, the committee was briefed in the greatest detail about the RS-70. We obtained the knowledge we wanted. And it is on the basis of the knowledge gained that we amended the bill in the fashion we did. - Last year, the Congress authorized $525 million for manned bombers. The Appropriations Committee found itself in complete agreement with this action and recommended an appropriation of $515 million against this authority. The Congress accepted this recommendation. And the same thing is true of the B-70. Last year there were $220 million in the bill for the B-70 and the Congress raised this by $180 million to a total of $400 million. I have mentioned the strong position taken by the Appropriations Committee last year in increasing by $180 million Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R00010.0100006-8 1962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE the amount requested by the Defense Department. This was a courageous act. I con- gratulate the Appropriations Committee for adding this $180 million, and the Congress approved it. The Appropria- tions Committee has been the - trail- blazer in the field of the B-70. Indeed, I can say in a very real sense the Armed Services Committee is following the leadership which has been furnished by our great Appropriations Committee. I think it might be well to review Con- gress' action last year in providing $525 million for manned bombers. This is the history of it. As I said. the Armed Services Committee was very concerned that we are getting out of the bomber business entirely. With this in mind, the committee added $337 million for B-52 or B-58 or a mixture of both. And the bill passed the House this way. The Senate committee- felt that we should not designate what kind of air- planes-and that the amount should be $525 million which is, incidentally, just about the cost of one wing of B-52's. In conference the House agreed to the Senate figure and the Senate language- and that is how the law came to read $525 million for manned bombers. And as I have said the Appropriations Com- mittee appropriated $515 million. Now, let us look at the money situation with respect to the B-70. The first funds were appropriated in 1955-7 years ago. And funds have been appropriated every year since that time for a total of over $1 billion to date. All of the funds so far have been appropriated for a B-70 which was a bombing airplane exclusively. These funds have been used and are being used for the three basic airplanes which, of course, could become either a B-70 or constitute steps toward the sys- tem which is now called the RS-70. These first three are experimental planes and constitute the basic structure of whatever plane finally would be decided on. None of this money has been wasted. Nor will the additional $300 million, which will make a grand total of $1.3 billion, be wasted since proper experi- mental models will be provided. However, the concept today is not to have a plane which. is just a bomber, but to have an airplane which is a bomber and a lot of other things, too. It will be used as a plane for observ- ing, reporting, evaluating, and exercis- ing on-the-spot judgment and action. It will have unusual communications equipment and a number of other fa- cilities and capabilities which are classi- fled. So, this is a very different kind of airplane than the B-70 as -it was first conceived-not different in appearance, but different in the great number of functions it can perform. The $491 million added by the com- mittee does one immediate thing: It is a major step toward three additional airplanes so that there will be a total of six. But it does something perhaps even more important than that. It raises the level of progress so that instead of ac- quiring only three flying laboratories, we will be acquiring in addition some- thing very close to a complete fighting machine. So close indeed that should the program be pursued completely, the second three airplanes would become an actual part of the inventory. The Department of Defense feels that the 'present program of $1.3 billion will permit the exercise of an option as to whether to continue on after the third plane. I have serious doubts as to whether this is actually so-because the present program has its sights set too low and the program will produce only basic pro- totype airplanes which will prove little more than that they can fly. The committee's program more clear- ly preserves the exercise of an option since it will produce an airplane con- figured as a combat aircraft which is a very far thing, indeed, from a flying laboratory. I would also like to say this. Mr. Mc- Namara is quoted as saying that in view of the size of our existing forces, ICBM's, Polaris submarines, B-52's, and so forth: It does not appear wise at this time to make a final commitment to a $10 billion B-70 production program. To do so would in my opinion be a serious waste of the Nation's resources. The committee's action is by no means a commitment to a $10 billion program. It is designed, however, to give us an opportunity to decide what commitment should be made in the area of an ad- vanced follow-on strategic bombing system. I join Mr. McNamara in his objection to the waste of our Nation's resources. I do not join him in his belief that the B-70 should be pursued at the low level that it is today. It is a human trait-to oversimplify issues. I think that is exactly what has happened here. The problem has been presented. in black and white. Mr. Mc- Namara says we are committed to $10 billion if we do anything at all, other than follow the present plan which is to build only three planes. This is not the case at all. And I would like to set the record straight. The actual issue that is presented to us is whether we should go along with a policy that would result, in the long run, in the extinction of bomber aircraft, or whether we should provide a reasonable option for the continuation of bomber aircraft as a part of our strategic force. This is the sole issue. I cannot stress this point too much: the $491 million which the committee recommends is not directed toward pro- duction which would lead to a large num- ber of aircraft. What it would do is to provide devel- opment that will maintain a true option for a subsequent decision to go ahead with a full weapon system program. To reach the $10 billion figure quoted by Mr. McNamara you would have to in- clude cost of design, development, test- ing, and you would have to procure and operate a large number of these aircraft for an extended period of time. Now, what happens if the $491 million is not made. available? We will find our- 4311 selves at the-end of fiscal year 1963 with a 3-year lag in engine deliveries, about a year lag in the important areas of honey- comb panels for the airframe, a real possibility that critical tools will be dis- posed of, the plant facilities being used for other- purposes, and a concentrated skilled labor force scattered through- out the country in other jobs. Now, that is what would happen if we do not raise the level of funding to $491 million. But if we do grant this authority -and these funds, we will permit the start of development of reconnaissance-strike -subsystems, we will permit the third air- plane to change over from a B-70 type to an RS-70 type. The additional authority would also allow long leadtime commit- ments for the fourth, fifth, and sixth air- craft, and very importantly, permit a wide range of options in 1965. Then in 1965, we will determine what course to follow-whether to produce air- planes or not-and we would be doing it on the basis of true factual knowledge. These options range all the way from completion of the sixth aircraft to going ahead to. a full weapon system develop- ment leading toward a force of actual fighting planes. As is clear from what I have said, we are buying more than three additional airplanes. We are buying the critical element of time, perhaps as much as 3 years. It is said that much of the equipment for the RS-70 still has to be developed. This is true. There is no doubt about it. It is for this very reason that we need the larger program for the RS-70. Why should we wait until the third plane is built before starting on the sub- systems which need further developing. Let us save time which is so valuable to our Nation. It is said that further research must be done on some of these elements be- fore they are far enough along to initiate a development program aimed at actual operational use. This is not the case. These elements are within the current state of the art. For example, a very important part of the RS-70 is the "high resolution radar." Now, this radar, which concededly is a very complicated device, had its first working model made by the University of Michigan years ago. One company has even built and demonstrated in flight a system very similar to the one that would be used in the RS-70. I can say, and this is important, that the quality of the radar picture obtained today is such that the radar operator can see and identify targets that can- not be seen. at all with current systems. We can all recall that very much the same arguments were made against the Polaris submarine years ago. If the Congress had not taken up for Admiral Rickover's ideas and supported him in his fight, we would have no Polaris sub- marines today. What the committee has been trying to get across now for 2 years is simply this: We think it is dangerous to get out of the bomber business entirely. Consider this: Where would we have been 5 years ago if we did not have Approved For Release 2003/40/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -. HOUSE March 21 bombers? Where would. we be today if we did not have bombers? In all prob- ability, we would have been attacked end would have been unable to strike back. 'I oday's B-47's, B-52's, and B-58's, have kept the peace, have been the one weapon which has deterred an enemy from attacking us. There is no doubt about the accuracy of this statement. This is no special plea for the RS-70. If it were some other advanced bomber, the committee would feel exactly the same way. The whole point of the com- mittee's action is that we don't want to be entirely dependent on missiles- whether they be ICBM, IRBM, Polaris, or any other kind. And the very simple reason for this is that it permits us only a single way to fight a war. A missile cannot look at something and report back. It cannot turn around once it is shot off. It cannot do any- thing but go and explode its nuclear warhead. Let me make my position clear. The last B-52 and the last B-58 will come off the production line this year in August and October.' We have over 1,200 bombers today. These bombers will wear out. If we do not start out on a new bomber, then the time will soon come when we will have no bombers. A complicated weapon system such as the bomber cannot be bought off -the shelf. Perhaps some Members do not realize that from the beginning of a bomber to the time they are in the inventory covers a period of 10 years. It is this very consideration-the element of time-which could threaten our national security. Now, let us look at the argument that in a few years the country will be bristling with intercontinental ballistic missiles-and for that reason, we would not need bombers. What does this mean? It means that we have a massive deterrent which we do need, and a capability for massive retaliation which we may never need. Our hands are tied. We have no filexi- bility. We can fight a nuclear war, but we cannot fight a general war in which nuclear weapons would not be used. It is all or nothing. Now, just suppose that nuclear weap- ons are b4nned by international agree- ment. This would eliminate the inter- continental ballistic missile entirely be- cause no one would ever use an ICBM to carry a mere high explosive warhead. If this should come to pass-or if we engaged in a general war in which by mutual agreement nuclear weapons would not be used--as we did with re- spect to poison gas-then the side that has the bomber force is a winner by that very fact alone. Perhaps the view of the Armed Serv- ices Committee is an overly conservative one-perhaps the bomber has lost its glamour-but if the committee is going to push hard on one side or another, it is going to be on the side of having too much rather than too little, having a strong conventional capability such as the bomber with a man's brain guiding it rather than an electronic device 'which I think of the Congress as an active purports to have all the answers but participant in the direction of policy, which cannot ask a question. and as a partner in the achievement of B-47's, B-52's, and B-58's. The ]3-47's are already rather old airplanes. They will start to fade out df the force in the not-too-distant future. Then the 3-52's will start to fade out. And finally the B-58's will go out, too. I am logical when I say that when the only bombers we have are gone, then we will be out of the bomber business. And this is an absolute certainty if there is no new bomber coming along to take their place. Let me say to you-the Soviet Union is by no means following this course. The Soviet Union is developing newer and faster bombers right today. The Soviets have had three bombers in their inventory since 1954. They are known as the Badger, the Bison, and the Bear. Altogether the Soviets have over 1,000 medium and heavy bombers in operational units. Most important is the fact that their long-range air arm is capable of deliv- ering nuclear weapons to targets any- where in the United States. But have they stopped developing new bombers as we propose to do? The an- swer is "No." They have a new supersonic heavy bomber, known as the Bounder. And an- other supersonic bomber-roughly com- parable in size to our B-58 medium bomber-known as the Blinder. And I might mention that the Blinder most probably has the capability of our B-58 which last year set a record of 3 hours and 20 minutes from New York to Paris- about 3,700 miles. It does not make much sense to me for us to go out of the bomber business while the enemy is getting more and better ones. So, here we have a problem made up of two elements: One of the elements is a thing and the other element is a prin- ciple. I have already dealt with the thing, which is the RS-70, and as for the principle I will simply say this: I ask you-What is Congress' function in defense? Is it a partner? ? Does it have a voice? Or is it just Mr. Money- bags, to give or to withhold funds? That is not what the Constitution says; the Constitution grants the Con- gress the exclusive power to raise and support and make rules for our military forces. The language of the Constitu- tion is clear. Congress does not want to run the De- partment of Defense-Congress just wants to sit at the table and get; across an idea once in a while. I say the country loses something if it loses the voice of Congress in Pentagon deliberations. I simply do not like the idea of Con- ess d. uncle who complains but who finally, as get the planes. everyone expects, gives in and raises his Mr. GAVIN. Would the gentleman hand in blessing, and then rocks in his care to make an estimate of what the chair for another year, glancing down three RS-70's will cost? the avenue once in a while wondering Mr. VINSON, Yes. I think I should whether he has done the right thing. - tell the House this. While this item is This is not the kind of picture that only for $491 million-to get these three I have of the Congress. additional planes in the next 3 years or Mr. BOGUS. Mr. unairman, wni tine gentleman yield? Mr. VINSON. With pleasure. Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that the gentleman from Georgia has just made a magnificent presentation dealing with the defense of the United States of America. I think that those of us who have had the priv- ilege of serving with him for a short time or for a long time may feel very confident of the security of our country as long as he is directing the affairs of this great committee. I think the fact that his committee time and time again has supported him unanimously, the fact that the leadership of the House time and time again has supported him unanimously, speaks more eloquently than anyone can for his devotion to our country, for his understanding of its problems. I read some time ago where some columnist had described the gentleman from Georgia as "the Fox." I think if it requires the knowledge and the cun- ning of a fox to succeed he will succeed; but I would rather think that he has the courage of a lion and the vision of an eagle; and I commend the speech that he has just made. Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. VINSON. I yield to the distin- guished gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. GAVIN. It is quite evident how much interest they had in this bomber when they only asked for $171 million and we had to add $320 million to bring it to $491 million to get prototypes of this RS-70. Why is it necessary for you as chairman of the Committee on Armed Services to go to the Secretary of De- fense and to the President of the United States to get them to acquiesce in this, and to permit the Department of the Air Force to proceed with the development of this development program which, in my estimation, is the most important matter that this committee can consider here today? Mr. VINSON. Let me suggest to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman knows when it is necessary to act, the Committee on Armed Services acts. We felt it was necessary in this instance to act. We did not think $171 million was sufficient so we added on additional of $491 million. Mr. GAVIN. Well, when we run out of the $491 million how are they going to get the money to expedite this project? Mr. VINSON. The Congress will meet again next year and, if they can spend $491 million this year toward get- ting the three RS-70's we will be ready to give them more money--and we will Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 Approved' For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 1962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 4313 so, it will cost a total of $1,200 million sound conclusions. The bill before us is with the administration then insisting to $1,300 million. Now bear in mind we based on the knowledge and recommen- upon more "battlewagons," as battle- have already committed ourselves to dations of our best military minds of ships were called. If military judgment cutive judgment were infallible d d , s- an exe spend $1,300 million and we get nothing all the services, and the recommen but a prototype airplane that I classify tions of our brilliant Secretary of De- we would not have had the construction as a flying laboratory. That is all you fense. of the carrier Forrestal stopped. And get for that money. But, if you add The measure now before you repre- we would not have found ourselves so un- $1,300 million more, we will get a modern sents the considered judgment of your prepared for the Korean war. bomber of the kind and capability that Committee on Armed Services in the I am not trying to fix blame on any the country and the world has never discharge of our constitutional respon- one, any President, or any Department seen produced. sibility for size and kind, in men and of Defense Secretary. I am doubtless Mr. GAVIN. What has me discon- weapons, of a national defense we shall laboring my point. I am simply trying certed is the fact that your committee, have. We present this to you as our to emphasize that while our Committee and with you with 48 years of experience conviction of what we must undertake on Armed Services can be wrong, it is behind you, must go to the Secretary in our defense planning and procure- not wrong-ipso facto-because the Sec- of Defense and the President of the ment that we may have a national de- retary of Defense is always right and he, United States, to get something done.. fense second to none. We have such a and he alone, can be right. - Mr. VINSON. I have tried to point defense today, and we intend to keep it There is only one feature of the pend- out that the Department of Defense that way. ing bill that is in issue. That is, as and the executive branch, with these When I say that this bill is the unan- Chairman VINSON has pointed out, with letters in the RECORD, are going to have imous considered judgment of our Com- respect to the B-70 bomber, now called ircraft i an ic th i a little different viewpoint on things that the Congress wants done and on the determination of the Congress to get them done. Mr. GAVIN. I think it is about time we took a determined stand. When the committee arrives at a conclusion that certain materiel or hardware is needed, they should pay more respect and at- tention to our conclusion. It is quite evident, Mr.- Chairman, that after the committee had arrived at a decision, you still had to go down and talk to the Secretary of Defense and to the Presi- dent. If you had not this RS-70 might not have been given any consideration. This should not be necessary for a man who is concedely the greatest leader in the field of defense the Congress has ever seen. Here we have a man who represents to the country their own personal leader in the area of defense. CARL VINSON is elected by the people of the Sixth District of Georgia. So far as defense is concerned, he represents not only that district but the whole of the United States and every person in it. The word of this kind of man should be listened to just because he said it. Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes. Mr. Chairman, as always, the distin- guished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. VINSON], the chairman of our Commit- tee on Armed Services, has presented to you a complete explanation of the con- tents and purpose of this bill. I shall not take up your time merely to repeat the details he has so ably presented. As a matter of fact, neither he nor I could go into much more detail than embodied in the committee report itself without risking a breach of security. ings and briefings. Into the decision You will recall how disturbed the made by the committee went the com- American people and the Congress were what I the shall, however, chairman has risk said repetition and what i is s e mt set forth in our committee report solely posite of years and years of hearings, to discover suddenly with the launching to emphasize certain salient facts in briefings and study of each and every of "sputnik" by Russia how far behind connection with the defense measure phase of our national defense. we were in the development of missiles. now before us. I should like to make We do not claim that our committee It was an alarming awakening to learn one or two observations which I hope judgment is infallible. By the same that immediately following the end of will be persuasive with you in giving token, we do not believe that any such the war, Russia proceeded with a missile your full support to our Committee on claim can be made for the Secretary of program while we did practically nothing Armed Services. Defense nor for the Joint Chiefs of in this field. We can congratulate our- . In the first place, we present this bill _ Staff. If military judgment were infal- selves on the remarkable strides that to you without a dissenting vote in our lible we would not have had the case of have been made in the field in the last committee. Every single member of our Billy Mitchell as an object lesson. Nor few years.. We have since brought into committee has had the benefit of all the would we have had in more recent years being missiles. of destructive power be- data available, secret and nonsecret, before World War II the controversy over yond imagination. military and civilian, diplomatic and the wisdom of constructing more battle- But it would be folly for us to put com- domestic, to enable him to arrive at ships rather than carriers and aircraft, plete reliance on an arsenal of missiles - ere s ces, mittee on Armed Serv other point I believe might justly be emphasized. Whenever, as in this bill, the committee departs from the recom- mendation of the Secretary of Defense the capacity of the committee to make such a military decision is inevitably brought into question. Who are we to be so presumptuous as to substitute our judgment for that of the Secretary of 'Defense who is advised by the Joint Chiefs of Staff? There is no denying that we have an extremely able man serving as Secre- tary of Defense. He is a dedicated man of remarkable ability and limitless en- ergy. As able and knowledgeable as he is, it is hardly possible that in the brief pe- riod of a little more than a year his capacity to evaluate our overall defense needs exceeds that of our own committee chairman who has been dealing with such matters for almost 48 years. Or go down the committee roster and re- flect on how many Secretaries of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff members have appeared before the committee over the years. Reflect on the number of military questions, in peacetime and in war, upon which the members of the Armed Serv- ices Committee have had to pass judg- ment. Reflect on the questions the com- mittee has had to resolve when, as in this instance, there is a difference of opinion among the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff themselves. And so, Mr. Chairman, when I refer to the bill as reported by our committee as being the considered judgment of our Committee on Armed Services there is a the RS-70. This is a superson in the development stage. It is an air- craft that can, be much more than a bomber. Fully equipped it will be cap- able of detection or reconnaissance to the extent almost unbelievable. At the same time this new plane will carry an enormous bombing power, so that it can not only report what our missiles may have missed but can also proceed to make its own strike on target. That is the meaning of the symbol RS-reconnais- sance-strike-that we now call this ad- vanced B-70 the RS-70. It does con- siderably more than drop bombs. It is the considered judgment of our committee that if we are to maintain a national defense second to none in the foreseeable future, we must proceed with the development of the RS-70 weapon system program as a supplement to our missile program, That was our decision -last year, in which the Committee on Appropriations and the. Congress as a whole concurred. For fiscal 1962 we authorized and appro- priated additional funds for manned bombers and for a prosecution of the RS-70 weapons system program. The Committee on Appropriations itself added $180 million to the $220 million requested for the B-70 development program. Those funds were impounded. The Secretary of Defense for reasons not convincing to me decided not to use the funds. Other secretaries of defense have impounded funds, and we find no satisfaction in having to say that sub- sequent developments vindicated the judgment of the Congress over that of the Defense Secretary.. -Approved For Release 2003/10/10: CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 - Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 4314 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -? HOUSE as our deterrent force. It must be borne in mind that the ICBM's and other mis-. siles carrying nuclear warheads is an un- tried weapon. Its component elements have been tested. We have every reason to believe our missiles will be operation- ally successful in actual combat. But we do not really know whether they will do all the things we believe they will. When we launched Lieutenant Colonel Glenn into orbit we had every reason to believe from all the tests made that it would be a successful flight. But we did not actually know whether, and to what extent the flight would be success- ful until it was actually made. And were it not for the fact that it was a manned flight, with adjustments made by Colonel Glenn, the flight probably would not have succeeded. But even assuming that our complete missile system to be everything we ex- pect it to be under combat conditions, it must also be borne in mind that it has its limitations. Once the decision is made to launch a missile there is no .turning back. On the launching an ir- revocable, unchangeable military deci- sion has been made. This type of weapon is indispensable in an all-out war, but it is of questionable value in any other type of warfare. To place all our reliance on the ICBM's and a huge arsenal of such missile would be tantamount to the same mistake France made in placing all its reliance on the Maginot line. Our committee has always taken the position that we must have a balanced flexible defense estab- lishment, one that can be effectively em- ployed anywhere, everywhere, in whole or in part, to meet any emergency when- ever and wherever it may arise. A bomber program in process is essential for this continued flexibility. A man operated bomber itself has the flexibility that the automation of missiles cannot possibly have. As we pointed out in our committee report last year, unlike mis- siles the bombers "can go part of the way and wait; it can go part way and turn around; it can proceed or not proceed in any fashion whatsoever since it is at all times under the intelligent control of a human being." There is an old adage: "Do not put all your eggs in one basket." But that is what the Department of Defense would have us do by refusing to recognize the need for developing the RS-70. They contend we have on hand a great and powerful force of bombers. That is true. Surely we are not so unimaginative and so shortsighted that we intend to stop there. We delayed until it was almost too late in developing a missile program. We cannot afford to delay proceeding with the development of the intricate RS-70 weapons system. A single year lost can never be regained in our determination to have a defense second to none now and in the years ahead. We are not proposing that we put RS-70's in our military inventory next year or the year after. We are not committing ourselves to any vast RS-70 procurement program. We are merely proposing that we proceed in an orderly manner with the develop- ment of such a program and to explore its great potentials. There is a military adage that you should never plan an attack unless you plan a retreat, that you should always base your military strategy on alterna- tives that if plan A does not prove suc- cessful you can immediately adjust to plan B. If our missile weapons system does not work according to plan, What is our alternative? What perchance would be our situation if nuclear war- fare should be outlawed just as poison gas was outlawed as an instrument of warfare? How prepared will we be for the day that no one would dare employ ICBM's? What is our defense alternative? Will we have nothing more than a fleet of outmoded bombers which will be no match to the type of manned aircraft our enemies may have developed? We are far ahead of Russia in bomber know-how, both in operation and pro- duction technique. The only way for us to make certain we stay ahead for our own security and the peace of the world is to develop this unique RS-70. We must explore its potentials to keels ahead, we must always be developing. We must recognize the need for trial and error. That, in substance, is the considered judgment of our Committee on Armed Services. We make that decision in the exercise of our responsibility under the Constitution as to the size and nature of the Armed ,.Forces we shall have. That is our responsibility and we seek to discharge it. We have no intention to transgress upon the constitutional duties and responsibilities of our Presi- dent, as Commander in Chief. We shall give him our fullest cooperation. We ask of him and of his Secretary of De- fense that they cooperate with us. It unfortunately took extraordinary action by our committee to get assurance from the President and the Secretary of Defense that they would give the Con- gress some recognition in what we con- sider necessary for our defense. While somewhat belatedly, we. now have an expression from them that they will give attention to what we believe to be a weapon we may sorely need in this long cold war. There are some who believe that our Committee on Armed Services has sur- rendered, that we have capitulated in not insisting upon the provision we originally proposed to incorporate in the bill. I, for one, have not capitulated nor have I surrendered. I, for one, shall insist that this President and every other President recognize the constitu- tional responsibility-a right as well as a duty-of the Congress to determine the size and r}ature of our Armed Forces. The chairman says we have won our point in this respect. But why should it have been necessary to rally forces prepared to do battle on this constitu- tional principle at all? If we have won, it is a paper victory. I shall await the translation of the as- surances we now have into affirmative action. The President forced us to get ready to make a fight we should never be forced to make. March 21 As to the great victory claimed by my chairman, future events will determine. Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ARENDS. I yield to the gentle- man from Pennsylvania. (Mr. VAN ZANDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Chairman, I arise in support of H.R. 9751. As has been mentioned by Chairman VINSON and my colleagues on the House Armed Services Committee, the purpose of the bill is to authorize appropriations in the amount of $13,065,772,000 for the pro- curement of aircraft missiles and naval vessels for our Armed Forces. In discussing the bill, I wish to point out that the Military Construction Act of 1959 in section 412(B) states as fol- lows : No funds may be appropriated after De- cember 31, 1960, to or for the use of any Armed Forces of the United States for the procurement of aircraft, missiles, or naval vessels unless the appropriation of such funds has been authorized by legislation en- acted after such date. Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Armed Services of this House has con- ducted extensive hearings to determine the requirements of the military depart- ments for new equipment under this pro- vision. H.R. 9751 represents the unani- mous opinion of this committee as to the program for fiscal year 1963 which should be pursued by the Department of Defense and funded by fiscal year 1963 appropriations. The programs of the Navy Department and the Marine Corps coming within the purview of section 412 include aircraft, missiles and ships in the total amount of $6,066 million. For the fiscal year 1963, the Navy has requested procurement au- thority to permit the continuation of readiness to meet assigned responsibil- ities around the world, to apply the fruits of research and development to the fleets, and to compensate for obsoles- cence of older equipment. The aircraft authorized by this bill for the Navy and Marine Corps total $2,134,600,000 and will provide a versa- tile combination of capabilities for con- ventional and nuclear attack, recon- naissance, air defense, antisubmarine warfare, early warning. and amphibious warfare. Aircraft procurement this year is about 16 percent higher than in fiscal year 1962 and will enable the pur- chase of 887 new aircraft and related equipment as compared with 803 aircraft for the previous year. Of this 887 air- craft, 863 will be combat types. Fifteen different types of aircraft are being authorized. The most important of these is the F-4H Phantom? which re- cently joined the fleet. This remarkable carrier-based aircraft holds the world's speed record for combat aircraft and is also being bought by the Air Force. Admiral Anderson, the Chief' of Naval Operations, has characterized the F-4H as the best all-around fighter aircraft in the world today. Another high-performance aircraft in the Navy budget is the A-3J-3 Vigilante, Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 Approved For Release 2003/10/10' : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 1962 which also is already augmenting our carrier attack capabilities. This aircraft is effective at very high altitudes or on treetop level missions, and is capable of more than twice the speed of sound. The program also contains follow-on procurement of the A-4D-5 Skyhawk and the A-2F-1 Intruder carrier- or land-based attack aircraft, and the F- 8U-2N Crusader all-weather fighter. These five aircraft comprise the bulk of combat procurement. Other aircraft for which continued procurement is author- ized include the W-2F Hawkeye, an im- proved carrier aircraft for early-warning and fighter control; the P-3V-1 Orion, a long-legged antisubmarine warfare pa- trol aircraft; and the S-2F-3 Tracker, a versatile carrier-based ASW aircraft. The HSS-2 Sea King, and ASW heli- copter, for which the Navy would be authorized additional numbers, set sev- eral world's speed records over the last year. Further procurement of the HRB transport helicopter and introduction of an improved assault support helicopter are authorized for the Marine Corps. A utility helicopter, navigational trainer, and two tactical reconnaissance versions of aircraft now in production complete the aircraft program. _ ? The Navy has requested authorization for missiles, drones, and related equip- ment, totaling $930,400,000, which is about 10 percent more than in the pre- vious fiscal year. Continuation of pro- curement is authorized by the bill for the Sparrow III and Sidewinder air-to-air missiles and the air-to-surface Bullpup missile. Initial procurement of the air- to-surface Shrike, the Subroc, the under- water-launched ASW missile, and a training version of Bullpup, is provided. The. Program will continue to furnish the Terrier, Tartar, and Talos antiaircraft missiles to destroyers, cruisers, and car- riers in the active fleet. The procure- ment of Polaris missiles is phased with the construction schedule of ballistic missile submarines. Authorization is also provided for the funding of shipbuilding and conversion, in the amount of $2,982 million, an in- crease of about 11/2 percent over the pre- vious year. The 1963 construction pro- gram of 37 ships includes 6 fleet ballistic missile submarines, a conventionally powered attack aircraft carrier, 8 nuclear powered attack submarines and a nu- clear powered frigate to be armed with the Typhon missile system. The 6 additional Polaris submarines will raise the number of that type to a * total authorized of 35; we are also au- thorizing long leadtime procurement for 6 additional SSBN's for a program of 41. The authorization for 8 more nuclear powered attack submarines will raise the total for that type to 38. The aircraft carrier will allow the Navy to maintain its carrier forces at the requisite level of modernity. Representing a new ad- vance in an integrated antiair missile and radar system, the Typhon frigate will be in the first -ship to be armed with this powerful equipment. A conventionally powered carrier is provided rather than a nuclear powered one on several grounds of professional CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 4315 judgment. Firstly, it has been estimated that a nuclear powerplant would increase the construction, operation, and main- tenance costs of a carrier to 30 to 50 percent. Such greater cost could more advantageously be allocated to other shipbuilding which the Navy very urgently needs. Secondly, nuclear power has been applied to surface ships for only a very short time so that broad experi- ence with the operation and mainte- nance of a nuclear powered force is essentially very limited. With the tech- nological progress being achieved in nu- clear power, it would thus seem prudent to more closely observe the performance of the nuclear surface ships now in com- mission and to afford sufficient time for developments in the field of nuclear re- actors to enable us to reduce cost and weight, and to increase efficiency. This does not- mean that there is not every expectation of success in the operation of nuclear surface vessels, just as there has been with nuclear submarines, but simply a well founded decision to defer construction of additional nuclear pow- ered carriers at this time. Other ships in the program are four amphibious transport docks, an am- phibious assault ship for Marine heli- copter assault operations, five escort ships and three guided missile escort ships, and two new-design gunboats. There is also included a fast combat sup- port ship, a -tender for Polaris subma- rines, two oceanographic research ships, a surveying ship, and a roll-on roll-off cargo vessel. The conversion of 35 ships is author- ized, as against 22 conversions in fiscal year 1962. Twenty-four of the conver- sions in- the current bill will continue the modernization of World War II de- stroyers to extend their lives as well as to improve their effectiveness. The other 11 conversions authorized will transform 2 old light aircraft carriers into a major communicgtions relay ship and a com- mand ship; will provide a mine counter- measures support ship, 2 fast ammuni- tion ships, 2 jumbo or large oilers, and 2 technical research ships, in addition to a Polaris resupply ship and a Typhon guided missile development ship. The provisions of H.R. 9751 reflect extremely thorough exploration into the detailed requirements of the Navy De- partment by our committee. I am con- vinced that the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the Commandant of the - Marine Corps have exercised sound judgment in their recommenda- tions to us. This bill will provide the Navy and Marine Corps, within the limits of funds which can reasonably be made available, with the best new air- craft, missiles, and ships, as well as the maximum degree of modernization of older vessels. In conclusion, this bill, H.R. 9751, is- entitled to unanimous sup- port because it concerns the security of the Nation which depends solely upon an adequate national defense. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ARENDS. man from Texas. I yield to the gentle- Mr. MAHON. As the gentleman well knows, I was among those who were dis- turbed by some of the language in the original bill, especially by the language designed to direct the expenditure of certain funds by the Secretary of the Air Force. I want to say that I am highly pleased with the way the Com- mittee on Armed Services has resolved this matter in the settlement today. You have not surrendered, in my judg- ment. I think you have done a magni- ficent job in dealing with this matter and in finding a way to resolve differ- ences. ' You have dramatized for the Congress, for the executive branch, and for the country a very vital and im- portant matter. I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. ARENDS], and I want to especially commend the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. VINSON], chairman, of the committee, for the matchless way in which he has handled this very dif- ficult situation. I think we are on the right road in the steps being taken today. Mr. ARENDS. I thank the gentleman. Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished gentle- man from Illinois [Mr. PRICE.] Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, at the outset I want to assure my colleagues in the House that I am in full support of the position taken by our distinguished Chairman [Mr. VxNsoN] and the full Committee on Armed Services. Mr. Chairman, Mr. VINSON and Mr. ARENDS have, and others will, cover the bill as reported by the Armed Services Committee, and will deal at length with the RS-70. In the light of the Defense Depart- ment's attitude toward the RS-70, I would like to outline briefly just what the Soviet Union is doing in the field of manned bombers. The U.S.S.R. has made phenomenal progress in creating air power needed to support the drive toward world domina- tion. They have built a large and power- ful tactical aviation organization and an effective military transport service. They have created an air defense sys- tem equal to any in the world, and, most important of all, they have created a long-range air arm which is capable of delivering nuclear weapons to targets anywhere in the United States. Soviet long-range aviation is organ- ized into long-range air armies, with the bulk of aircraft based in western U.S.S.R.; the remainder are based in the Soviet Far East. These long-range air armies have over 1,000 medium and heavy bombers in operational units. When the Korean war ended in July 1953, long-range aviation consisted of a force of approximately 1,200 copies of our old B-29. Since then the Soviets have demon- strated their ability to develop a modern, effective strategic bomber force with a nuclear capability. They began this demonstration with the June 1954 Mos- cow Air Show by displaying nine swept- wing jet bombers similar in performance to the U.S. B-47. These aircraft, which we have desig- nated Badger, have an estimated gross- Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 weight of 150,000 pounds, and a speed of about 500 knots. The Badger is powered by two turbojet engines, each developing an estimated 18,000 pounds of thrust. It has a radius of over 2,500 nautical miles with one refueling and with a 3,300- pound payload. Also displayed in the 1954 air show was a large bomber comparable to the U.S. B-52. This aircraft, desig- nated Bison, has four jet engines which are probably similar to those installed in Badger. It has an estimated weight of over 350,000 pounds, a wing span of 170 feet, and a radius of over 4,000 nautical miles with refueling and a maximum speed on the order of 500 knots. This aircraft, in spite of its size, can be ac- commodated by over 200 airfields within the U.S.S.R. Another long-range bomber, the Bear, first appeared in April 1955. The Bear is powered by four turboprop engines, each developing approximately 12,000 equiva- lent shaft horsepower and turning counter-rotating propellers. It is ap- proximately midway in size between the Badger and the Bison. It has an esti- mated combat radius of around 4,200 nautical miles, and a maximum speed of approximately 495 knots. Although the Bear, Bison, and Badger all appeared initially prior to 1956, modi- fication of existing units and production of new aircraft has continued until very recently. We have seen that resurgence of Soviet long-range aviation began with the dramatic demonstrations of new bombers in the 1954 air show. Now the operational equipment derived from the showpieces are obsolete. Just at the time that the developmental life was passing from the 1954 series of bombers there has begun a new resurgence. In the summer of 1961 was another spec- tacular demonstration of new Soviet bombers. The display of Soviet military avia- tion at Moscow on July 9, 1961, indicates that the U.S.S.R. has again made major progress in the development of all types of aircraft despite Premier Khrushchev's statement on January 14, 1960, that, "We have been curtailing sharply pro- duction of bombers and other obsoles- cent equipment." A new supersonic, heavy bomber re- search vehicle known as the Bounder was displayed in public for the first time, although it had been under develop- ment for a number of years. The Bounder is powered by four turbojet engines and is obviously a supersonic design with its highly swept delta wing configuration. It is about 200 feet long and has a wing span of about 80 feet. The Soviets also displayed 10 new Blinder bombers. The Blinder is a su- personic aircraft roughly comparable in size to the U.S. B-58 medium bomber. The B-58, as you know, on May 26, 1961, set a record of 3 hours, 19 minutes, and 51 seconds from New York to Paris, a distance of 3,652.97 statute miles. In addition to the previously men- tioned conventionally powered aircraft, the Soviets are known to be interested in a nuclear powered bomber, a devel- opment in which I have always had a CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE March 21 strong personal interest. I regret to say that my experience with the nuclear powered airplane is very much the same as that being experienced with respect to the RS-70. In my opinion the De- fense Department is being equally short- sighted about both of them. There is no doubt that Soviet long- range aviation crews regularly undergo extensive training and can navigate ade- quately to any point within their air- crafts' range under all weather condi- tions. Their bombing accuracies are un- doubtedly compatible with requirements to place high-yield nuclear weapons on target from all altitudes. The Soviets are evidently continuing the design and development of new and advanced long-range bombers.. They are thereby in a position to introduce into their operational units new models as well as improvements in existing designs during the next several years. So that is what the Soviets are doing. But in the face of the rapid advance that the Soviets are making, our Defense De- partment apparently proposes to let the bomber die on the vine. I support my chairman, Mr. VINSON, and the Armed Services Committee wholeheartedly in urging that the,House exercise its con- stitutional right to insist that the un- imaginative, shortsighted, and dangerous direction in which the Defense Depart- ment is leading us with respect to manned bombers be reversed-and re- versed by an affirmative vote on H.R. 9751 as reported with authorization for $491 million for the RS-70 program in lieu of the $171 million requested by the Defense Department. Mr. OSMERS. Mr. Chairman, will. the gentleman yield? Mr. PRICE. Yes, I yield to the gen- tleman from New Jersey. Mr. OSMERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I. am in full support of the bill. (Mr. OSMERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) -40 Mr. OSMERS. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished chairman of the Commit- tee on Armed Services, Mr. VINSON, has made an excellent and complete state- ment with respect to the need for the enactment of the H.R. 9751. He has also explained in great detail the reasons why it is of the greatest national defense importance for us to continue the de- velopment of the RS-70 weapons system at least for the coming fiscal year. The outstanding leader of the minority mem- bers of the Committee, Mr. Arends, has also explained several important aspects of the measure before us. We need the weapons authorized in this bill even though, in my opinion, an all-out nuclear war batwean the U.S.S.R. and the United States is extremely un- likely. Both nations have too much to lose and too little to gain from such a war. Only the development of a really effective anti-missile missile would change this situation and the develop- ment of such a weapons system does not seem likely in the near future. Within the next 5 or 10 years, how- ever, Communist China can reasonably be expected to acquire a nuclear-weap- ons capability. It is from Red China that the United States, and even the U.S.S.R., could expect such an attack. The heartless, cynical attitude toward human life that seems to motivate China's leaders, coupled with their fail- ure to either develop their nation's economy or even feed its people, might well cause them to launch a nuclear at- tack. The powers-that-be in Peiping might reasonably figure they would gain more than they would lose considering their huge population and low state of development. It is my earnest hope that the state- ments in the President's letter to Chair- man Vinson about the RS-70 weapons system will not be forgotten by the President in the fiscal year ahead. Many of us are suspicious about the sincerity of the President with respect to any defense statement. The President's at- titude on defense is likely to be affected by the great success with which he used the "big lie" technique in his ]1960 cam- paign. All will recall how he charged that the Eisenhower administration had been derelict in permitting a missile gap to develop between Russia and the United States. It was probably the greatest single factor in his winning the election by a few thousand votes. There are those, of course, who will argue, with some cause, that phony promises made to Negro voters with respect to civil rights were the dominating factor in providing his 1960 narrow margin. It is important to the Nation that the RS-70 program be better remembered than the missile gap. Mr. Chairman, because we are dis- cuesing national defense, it might be well to take a look at the so-called dis- armament negotiations now going on at Geneva which may have great impact on our defense future. The scientific com- munity that is associated with, our mis- sile and nuclear programs is almost unanimous with respect to the need for U.S. nuclear atmospheric testing at the earliest moment. There have been grave doubts that our Nation will ever obtain the scientific benefits expected from these tests simply because the President left the door open for cancellation of the tests at the very moment he announced them. There has been considerable evidence in the newspapers that leads one to believe that the Russians may succeed in talking us out of our much- needed test program by giving us empty promises of possible future inspection privileges. Such a result at Geneva would indeed be a national calamity. While not directly related to this, authorization bill, it seems appropriate while discussing defense to make com- ments about the callup of the reserves last October. On the news ticker a few minutes ago, it was stated that plans are under consideration by the Secretary of Defense to release the reservists, called to active duty last fall, between August and September of this year. The re- serve callup may have served a domestic political purpose last year when the ad- ministration wanted so much to pep up our citizens after the depressing Cuban fiasco and the unchallenged building of the Berlin wall. However, there was no Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 1 9 62 ' CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE proven need then, or now, for the re- tential destruction either for ourselves serves called, and, neither adequate plans or for others. Time is of the essence for effective training nor proper, facilities and we must move with tremendous were available for most of those who were speed and dispatch. That, of course, called to duty. This is true of the Army Mr. Chairman, was the sum and sub- in particular. The decision apparently stance of the controversy that arose with was political, not military. Intransigent respect to the RS-70 which our com- and stupid decisions at the highest level mittee considered at great length. with regard to releasing those men, who As we make this transition from that were suffering great hardship, have which is tried and proven and tested and caused distress for families in every area move into a new field of missiles, where of the country. we have never actually fired a missile The Department of Defense should with a warhead along its full and com- permit those reservists who want to re- plete course, there is some question in turn to civilian life to do so now. Why our minds, Mr. Chairman, even though wait until August or September? military authorities assure us they have Vacancies created can be filled by volun- perfected these missiles. But as I re- teers and draftees where necessary, member, and as all of us here today Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the remember, prior to World War II when gentleman yield? we had the assurance that we would Mr. PRICE. I yield to the gentleman sink the Japanese fleet in 2 weeks and from Illinois. that day never came to pass as we well Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, I con- know. So our committee, properly con- gratulate the gentleman on a very forth- cerned for the defense of this Nation. right statement and associate myself saw to it that we put into this bill an with him in his remarks, amount of money which might be neces- Mr. PRICE. I thank the gentleman. sary in the event that certain develop- Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield ments were forthcoming. We wanted to 10 minutes to the gentleman from make certain, if those developments did Massachusetts [Mr. BATES]. come to pass, that the money would be (Mr. BATES asked and was given per- available so that we could proceed full mission to revise and extend his re- speed ahead with the RS-70. I think marks.) that decision on the part of the com- Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, if there mittee was a wise one. I support it is anything that really characterizes the wholeheartedly and I believe that the world in which we live today it is change Secretary of Defense, prompted as he and transition. Time has been tele- will be by members of the Committee on scoped in the last 20 years as never be- Armed Services, will see to it that until fore in the history of our country or, that day comes to pass when we can indeed, the history of the world. proceed with absolute certainty, at least I remember about 10 or 12 years ago this Nation will have a weapons system we had a bill before our committee, un- ate the form o the that can enemy no der which a general was asking for more matter effectively against gainst nst any enemy no be found. wi So I money. All of us become a little aggra- am ma in accord, he Mr. might on the with vated at the request of this particular action taken , this morning on Chairman, of general and a membor of the committee this e part the pointed his finger at him and said, "Gen- our committee. We have indicated to eral, if we let you, you would fortify the the Pentagon and to the Secretary Defense and to the President of nt of the moon." United States and to the world at large Now, Mr. Chairman, how far are we that as we wean ourselves away from the really from that today? A concept, an Manned bombers and enter into the field idea, a hope of today becomes practically of missiles, we want to make certain a reality of tomorrow. Those of us who that at least we have in our inventory work on the Committee on Armed Serv- a bomber upon which we have depended ices are considering to a lesser extent so much in the past, until such time as what we have today, but instead most of we know absolutely and positively and our thoughts are projected 5 and 10 years definitely that these missiles will work hence as we move ahead at this tre- without fail. We owe that much to our mendous pace. Associated with this is country and we cannot give our people the question of things becoming obsolete less. even before they become a reality. There Mr. Chairman, there is one question I was a time, Mr. Chairman, when we could would like to bring up which has not dip back into the archives or mothballs been discussed by any of the preceding and withdraw from our fleet, for in- speakers. stance, ships that had been built 25 and That is the question of the future 30 years before. That is what we did 'of the U.S. Navy. Today we have during World War II with the Nevada some 900 ships; 75 percent of our and the Texas and the Arkansas and the ships are of World War II vintage. Pennsylvania, and all the destroyser When we consider that the life of the that we gave to Great Britain likewise average naval vessel is only 20 to 25 were ships that had been built during years we must contrast it with the au- World War I. But those days are gone. thorization in this bill today of but 37 We no longer have time on our side. We new naval vessels. As we look ahead no longer have that great army of France 5, 6, or 7 years we see mass obsolescence upon which we once depended. No of our Navy. Because of that situa- longer is England the Queen of the tion and the concern that has been Waves. No longer is the Atlantic and expressed by myself and the chairman of the Pacific with the great protection to the committee and others, we are under- us that they once afforded us. Today taking an investigation of this whole we, are within a half hour's time of po- subject that we shall pursue in the very 4317 near future. If we do not take action now, if we do not chart our course, if we do not know exactly how many ships we need or the various sizes and 'types there will be a bill presented to this Congress and the American people in about 5 or 6 years that will approxi- mate $25 billion. So we must set our- selves to the task for a normal buildup of the number of ships that might be needed and look forward and correct the situation. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. HARDY], is working hard on this. Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BATES. I yield Mr. HARDY. Let me commend the gentleman for his presentation of this most important subject. I would like to associate myself with his remarks. I feel certain that as our subcommittee begins to function under the chairman- ship of the gentleman from South Caro- lina we will produce results that -will show clearly what our Navy needs. Mr. BATES. There is just one other thing, Mr. Chairman, that concerns me. As I said, we are living at a tremendous pace and in an age of transition. So we must do the things this committee feels need to be done to protect our own security. We place great reliance on our Navy, yet today we have no program for a buildup. In my own thinking I am sure that in the long run, if we ever have a long run, our form of gov- ernment will win, but in a short run no one knows what will happen. I was gratified when the President of the United States indicated he would pro- ceed with nuclear tests, because from the results of recent Russian tests it is clearly'indicated that we must go ahead in that same field if we are to remain supreme. If the Russians should come up with a new breakthrough, some things that we did not have, we would be in a very difficult situation indeed. If they should develop, as we developed in the forties, a new type of atomic bomb, I know they would blackmail us immediately. There are many coun- tries, so-called neutral and uncommitted countries, throughout the world who cau- tion us against such a course of action as nuclear testing, but I want to say to them, Mr. Chairman, and to you that we should do the things that are necessary for our own protection. Let us hope that these other nations of the world will go along with us, but if they do not, Mr. Chairman, let us still do the things we must do for our own security. (Mr. HIESTAND asked and was given permission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD.) Mr. HIESTAND. Mr. Chairman, in the middle of this discussion of the con- stitutionality of this bill, I think we want to be sure and not lose sight of the tre- mendous importance of its substantive content-namely, the continuation and stepping up of the great B-70, now RS-70, program. The Defense Department has an- nounced that the B-52 and B-58 produc- tion will be phased out this year. Thus, unless we reactivate the RS-70, by 1964 we shall have no planned bomber pro- No.42-10 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 4318 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE gram and will, in effect, be creating a bomber gap. Now, Mr. Chairman, there are a great many reasons why we need manned air- craft. Although tremendous progress has been made in the development of missiles, we all must agree that they have not been successfully tried in actual warfare. Manned bombers have and their success is a matter of record. But we must have better and faster manned bombers, certainly better and faster and more capable than the So- viets. Now, the Soviets have delta-winged manned bombers of great size and capa- bility. We have seen photographs of them as flown over Moscow in Soviet air displays. I believe we are substantially ahead of them with our B-52 operation, especially since we have kept it improved and up to the minute. But why be con- tent when we know full well the great B-52 and probably the B-58 will be well on their way to obsolescence within 2. years? In fact, previous delays on the RS-70 may lead to a bomber gap in spite of any immediate action we take today. Mr. Chairman, let us not repeat the missile gap folly and the procedure which created it, from 1946 to 1952. At that time despite the demands of the then General Eisenhower, we had prac- tically no missile program. It requires 5 or 6 years since 1952 to close that gap. But when we start a program let it be one far in advance of anything today. Let us bear in mind that although the proposed RS-70 program will be expen- sive, the important thing is it will cost potential enemies 10 times as much to devise a defense against such an ad- vanced weapons system. The Secretary of Defense declares that we shall need a breakthrough in radar and other electronic equipment and con- tends that this cannot occur for the next 2 or 3 years. But supposing it does take 3 years-need we sit on our heels waiting for it to happen, thereby setting our de- fenses back another 3 years? Of course not: We must prepare for the future today. Why not take the expert advice of the professions the military experts who have made the military their life ca- reers? They are practical men skilled in military science and.tactics. They have scientists there who have worked on these problems for years. The the- orists have their value, but the practical men whose careers are at stake have pleaded for this program for years. Great progress was being made when the B-70 program was originally cut back from some 18 major subcontractors. Might not that breakthrough have al- ready occurred if we had been pushing the project the past 3 years? Mr. Chairman, this could well be the most important action this Congress will take this year. The whole safety, the en- tire defense of this Nation, depends upon it. It is vitally important, almost trag- ically so. Let us be sure and not lose sight of the value of this program in our discussion of rights of the Congress to make laws for all departments, includ- ing the executive. Here we can take a giant step forward-if we remain firm and back-up our committee. Mr. Chairman, I am heartily in sup- port of the bill. (Mr. ROUDEBUSH asked and was given permission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD.) Mr. ROUDEBUSH. Mr. Chairman, this Nation's defensive posture is of ex- treme interest to all of us. I think without exception every Mem- ber of this body wants to do everything possible and provide every means to as- sure the safety of our citizens-and to provide the military with weapons of re- taliation in the event of nuclear war. Therefore, I do not consider the proposition before this House today to have any partisan-political significance. Rather, any discussion results from two different opinions or ideas as to how we can best provide this safety and assur- ance to our Nation. I submit to you here today that the investment requested by the Armed Serv- ices Committee to get the RS-70 pro- gram moving is most essential and cer- tainlyjustified. I feel that the decision we must make here today could well be the most im- portant and the most decisive that Con- gress must make during this session. It affects the future security of our Nation. Many of you know that I serve on the House Spade Committee, and I feel I am familiar with our present level of excel- lence in missilery. With this in mind, I have carefully analyzed the potential of the so-called massive retaliation by missiles alone. I have analyzed both the reliability and the failures of the long-range mis- sile practice firings accomplished by the various agencies of our Government. With what knowledge I have on this matter, I am completely unwilling to see this Nation depend solely on missiles for retaliation. I say this whether these missiles are borne by nuclear submar- ines-are launched by manned aircraft- launched from foreign lands by our troops or friendly allies-or are of the nature of the huge projectiles capable of interoceanic flight and guided by mechanical brains. I am also unwilling for this Nation to be placed in a position of failing to com- pete in the field of manned bombers. I think we all know that the B-52 pro- gram is being phased out-and even with skybolt-type missiles, rapidly approaches obsolescence. The B-52 first was placed in service in 1955--7 years ago. This aircraft, now rapidly facing obsolescence, forms the very backbone of the striking power of our SAC forces. In my judgment, the RS-70 is the most awesome weapon "ever conceived by any nation. It travels faster than a rifle bul- let at an altitude of nearly 14 miles. The RS-70 would provide us a strik- ing force that is necessary in limited warfare, yet it would be a tremendous asset in case of massive retaliation. Most nations still would have to rely on water transports to move large num- bers of troops. The RS-70 could travel 5,000 miles while a troop transport trav- eled 50 miles or less at sea. March 21 . After leaving its base here in America, if orders were changed it could do a fly- over and still return to base. We have nothing which compares to it in our arsenal of weapons-and neither does any other nation, I believe one of the best demonstra- tions of the capabilities of man was by John Glenn. I am sure one of the most valuable lessons coming from his flight is that there is no substitute for man's ability to make decisions and perform tasks under extreme conditions of speed and weightlessness. A missile cannot think-nor can it change its mind after launch. It cannot even be safely destroyed in flight should a change in plans occur. I hope that this tremendously im- portant program will be approved. Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. BRAY]. Mr. BRAY. Mr. Chairman, the issue before us today goes far beyond the RS- 70 program. At stake is the future of the manned bomber in the American Air Force. Not only is the Secretary of Defense rapidly downgrading the RS-70 program, but he is "phasing out" all bombers. Last year the Armed Services Com- mittee, over the objections of the De- partment of Defense, included in the authorization bill one wing of B-52 bombers and one wing of B-58 bombers. The Department of Defense refused to allow these planes to be built and has now begun to close down all Air Force bomber production lines. By October, if the McNamara plan holds, all produc- tion on Air Force bombers will be fin- ished. We are going out of the manned- bomber business. Today we are well ahead of Russia in manned bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles, but Russia is proceeding with the development of new and better bombers. If the Department of Defense persists in its present line of thinking and acting it will soon be the old story of the tortoise and the hare. We will be the hare and Russia will be the tortoise. As the bombers we have today gradually wear out and become obsolete, Russia will become superior to us in the air- the tortoise will pass the hare. When this will happen I do not know. The time will surely come, however, un- less our planning changes. We will be behind Russia in manned bombers. Some will say that we should buy bombers as needed. They fail to realize that we cannot go down to the hardware store and buy them. The bombers which we will have in 1966 and 1967 are the ones we plan today. I do not claim to bean authority on the efficiency and capabilities of the RS-70, but I assure you that I have studied it carefully and have discussed it with the best authorities in the world. Its poten- tial as a bomber and reconnaissance craft is enormous. Whether it will live up to all of the expectations of its de- signers, no one knows of a certainty, and the technical matters involved are too complex to adequately discuss on the floor. However, I do know that the RS-70 as planned unquestionably will be Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 1962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 4319, the finest bomber in the. world in speed, the Congress finally did raise this in the 22 years I have been here I have altitude, range, carrying capacity, recon- amount. President Kennedy never used seen many Secretaries. of Defense, and naissance, capabilility, and versatility. the additional money authorized. great ones, Including Forrestal, Lovett, However it will not be in operation for There has been a growing belief in and Gates. I do not know of any one several years. Its capabilities are well America, and one of its strongest propo- individual that I have seen come here recognized by practically all authorities nents has been President Kennedy, that with the genius for administration and on aviation. our defense should not be totally depend- the ability to act as an effective admin- Do we want to be first or do we want to ent upon nuclear bombs carried in inter- istrator as the present Secretary of De- "phase out" of the entire bomber pro- continental ballistic missiles. Yet, the fense. In the field in which I am most gram? President Kennedy . recently course that the Department of Defense knowledgeable-in the area of procure- stated that he does not want America to is pursuing is directly contrary to the ment-he has done things in the last depend altogether on massive retalia- goals anripunced by President Kennedy; year that we have been asking to be tion. That is, he does not want the that is, not to rely wholly on massive done at the Pentagon for certainly 12 United States to be entirely dependent. retaliation. Rather we should build up or more years. He is a master admin- upon massive destruction alone to resist our conventional forces and maintain istrator. He is a` dedicated individual. aggression. Yet today, if we follow the our superiority in manned bombers for He is perhaps the most unique man to course 'that Is being developed by the possible conflicts in which massive re- occupy the Office of Secretary of Defense Department of Defense, we will have only taliation with nuclear missiles certainly in the last two decades. But here let two answers to aggression. We must could not be used. This is why we insist us pause and examine exactly what his say that we are helpless to resist or we upon the importance of the RS-70 pro- qualifications are to make military de- must destroy our enemy by using nuclear gram. cisions. If I operated a huge hospital, warheads by means of Intercontinental Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield I would have the gentleman as my ad- ballistic missiles. I want us to have an- 5 minutes to the distinguished gentle- ministrator, and he would do an excel- other alternative-the ability to stamp man from.Louisiana [Mr. HESERTI. lent job. But if it came to operating out small "brush wars" without resorting Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Chairman and on a patient, I would call on a doctor to total destruction. Members of the Committee, there still and follow his advice. A good example of the importance of seems to be some confusion as to exactly Mr. Chairman, the Committee on having strong conventional forces to take who won what and who lost what. I think Armed Services did not come to this de- care of limited aggression occurred 4 it quite necessary that an effort be made cision on the RS-70 program without years ago this July when President to clear the atmosphere now and present the advice of high military authorities. Eisenhower sent forces into Lebanon and to the committee exactly the situation We had a full and complete briefing by stopped Communist aggression there, in which we find ourselves. the Air Force. We - had the benefit of This operation did more for American The distinguished gentleman from the knowledge and experience of men prestige than any other incident in re- Georgia [Mr. VINSON], chairman of the who actually have worn the uniform, the cent years, without the loss of an Ameri- Committee on Armed Services, has made men who know what the military needs. can life. Firing an intercontinental the statement here in the well that to- Backed up with that, we had the judg- ballistic missile into Lebanon certainly day we make history. We certainly do ment and the wisdom of a committee would not have been considered by any make history, because for the first time which reflects Its seniority in the 48 responsible government, yet unless we this Congress has come to grips with years during which the chairman, the had, done something at that time the the executive department as to each gentleman from Georgia [Mr. VINSON], entire Middle East might now be lost to one's responsibility related to the other. has served in this House. I submit that the Kremlin. Without a powerful air The resolution is long overdue. It in view of this experience we are in force and an ability to resist limited ag- should have come to pass 12 years ago just as good or better position to judge gression by land, sea, and air, we could when the Congress authorized the build- or to make a judgment upon the needs never have another Lebanon. - Ing of the flush-deck carrier United of the military as related to an indi- If we desire only to be strong in mas- States and the funds were refused by the vidual who came here shortly more than give retaliation, the. path now being fol- Secretary of Defense. If we had come a year ago. Washington is a bad place lowed by the Department of Defense to grips with the problem then, we would for a man to attempt to play God, even would be the correct one. We are de- not be discussing it here today. But, if it be the Secretary of Defense. I veloping an intercontinental ballistic through the succeeding years the will of think as a result of what has happened missile capability which together with the Congress has been cast aside; the in this matter the Secretary of Defense the Polaris submarine can destroy Rus- will of the Congress has not been ad- has learned a lesson, and I hope he has. sia or any other country at will. i want hered to, and nothing has been done He has learned the lesson that this Con- us to have such a capability but I cer- about it until this present situation grass does stand for something; that the tainly do not want our defense strength arose. Committee on Armed Services does have to reach such a condition that we must In past years the Congress has au- a responsibility and will not hesitate to totally rely on such a capability. While thorized the full strength of the Marine discharge it. It has been a long time such massive retaliation may some day Corps to 200,000. It was not adhered coming, but I congratulate Secretary be necessary, we shudder to think of such to. It authorized funds for the mdderni- McNamara on the position which he a day coming. We can contemplate a zation of our Army. It has not been ad- has now taken, though belatedly. I situation arising, however, where strong 'hered to. It authorized money for the think all of us should know this because bomber forces backed by strong conven- extension of the B-52 program. It has it is most important: This is the first tional forces could stop limited aggres- not been adhered to.' In other words, to time that the Secretary of Defense has sion before it reached the point of our put it in simple language that we all un- given any indication of acknowledging having to resort to full nuclear defense. derstand, this situation of the RS-70 is that other people can make decisions Last year I took the lead in the com- the straw that broke the camel's back, and do not have to use an IBM machine mittee fight to restore the RS-70 pro- and some vigorous and direct action had to do it. It has been said of him, and gram to the status that it had in the to be taken, some vigorous and direct I think in a critical though charitable Eisenhower budget. President Kennedy, language had to be used, and that Ian- vein, that he is as inscrutable as the in the 1960 campaign, criticized Eisen- language was the word "direct" in the sphinx, and twice as inflexible. That hower three times for-not pushing the amendment offered to this bill by the observation was before yesterday after- RS-70 program, yet when Kennedy pre- committee. noon. sented his budget to the Congress in Mr. Chairman, I think we should know Mr. Chairman, I want to pay particu- February 1961, for fiscal year 1962 it was some of the background. I think we lar tribute to the President of the United $138 million less than the amount sub- should understand exactly the events States in this instance. When he came mitted in the budget for fiscal year 1962 which have led up to this situation, and into this picture, he came into the pic- by President Eisenhower. We lost this this exercise which I think has been a ture with the knowledge that he had ac- fight in the committee to restore the most healthy one, and one which I think quired through the years as a Member of $138 million that Kennedy had deleted will have its effects in future days to this body, and as a Member of the other by two votes, but after reconsideration come. I want to say here right now that body. He came in with the full affec- Approved For Release 2003/10110 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 4320 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -. HOUSE March 21 tion and understanding of the problems what the President has said, that he had per victory. It can only be a paper vic- which we have here. In order to give confidence in his Secretary of Defense; tory however if we, in the Congress, an indication of how this whole thing I may say that I, too, have confidence allow it to become a paper victory. has been misrepresented to the public, I in the Secretary of Defense; and not Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, will the will cite one instance, or two instances: that I have less confidence in the Secre- gentleman yield? Every time the Secretary of Defense has tary of Defense, but I have more con- Mr. HEBERT. I yield to the gentle- talked to the American people, and he fidence in my chairman, the distin- man from Pennsylvania. has given his views on many occasions guished gentleman from Georgia. Mr. GAVIN. It must be remembered, on the subject, the rejection of the RS- So today this is not a battle won or we have to get ourselves elected every 70 has always been referred to as "the lost, or something we should gloat over. other year and when we express our- President's program," and the press has This has been a constructive exercise. selves, we are expressing the sentiments picked it up and said "The President This has been an exercise which has of our people back home whom we are backs Mr. McNamara, the Secretary of focused the attention of the Nation on proud and honored to represent. Defense." a serious problem of conflict in approach Mr. HEBERT. I thank the gentle- Now, actually what did the President to problems. man. I think his remarks are well say publicly, and that one time was in The President wisely has pointed out chosen because we do have a representa- a news conference, when he said that he his powers under the Constitution, but tive form of government, and here is relied on Mr. McNamara, and had full we, too, must point out that under being demonstrated one of the ad- confidence in him, but suggested there article I, section 8, we have the respon- vantages of representative government. was some compromise available. That sibility and the backing of the Con- I think this point should be stressed is all he said. That was the President's stitution to raise and maintain armies right here, sir, that when the vote comes position. The President has never as- and navies, and to appropriate moneys later today the resounding and solid sumed responsibility for this program per for their upkeep; and also to make the vote of this House will reflect what the se, but his name has been bandied about rules and regulations for the control people of America believe when it comes as though indicating that he was in full of those bodies. to the RS-70 program. And I hope the accord with the abandonment of the The Department of Defense is much in Secretary of Defense will be impressed RS-70 program. the position, I think I would say, as that with the decision not of one lone man There is another facet to this contro- of a baseball manager; or perhaps I backed by dubious authorities on mili- versy which I think you should know should say the Secretary of Defense is, tary weaponry, but the decision of mil- about. Unfortunately, those of us on He is in full command and charge on lions of Americans reflected in the vote the Committee on Armed Services have that field. But he has got to play ac- today of their constitutional representa- been unable to get our story over to the cording to the rules. He may not tives. ' public because we are under the com- change the size of the ball or shorten Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield pulsion of security. We have had meet- the distance between the bases. Nor 10 minutes to the gentleman from Cali- ing after meeting under top secret direc- do I think he is in a very enviable posi- fornia [Mr. WILSON]. tion. The last time Mr. McNamara ap- tion when he tells you, as the gentle- Mr. WILSON of California. Mr. peared before us, his speech was stamped man from Indiana has pointed out SO Chairman, I am entering this contro- "Top Secret." We could not discuss that well, that we are at the end of the versy today not as a constitutional law- speech nor. could we discuss the questions road in bombers. It means that when yer, but rather as an aviation historian. which were asked him, nor even now the B-52 and the B-58 go out we have Progress in aviation has been a fascinat- can we discuss what went on in that no other bombers on the drawing boards ing thing. Even within my lifetime, meeting. I think it would be very en- to replace these manned weapons. The which incidentally is less than the 48 lightening if you knew the colloquy, but Secretary of Defense gives out great years that our distinguished Chairman, we are still under the compulsion of figures. I cannot compete in his realm CARL that , has served-even within my security and secrecy. The presentation with numbers, statistics and figures, lifetime, the airplane has progressed which Mr. McNamara made to us, every other than to approve them if they are from a flimsy, unpredictable, sputtering page of it, marked "Top Secret" was on my side. But it is like the football toy, literally nothing more than a box given out almost in toto the next day coach who said that in 1967 he is going kite wa motor into the greatest de- at a hurriedly called press conference to have the greatest team he has ever in the Pentagon. had in history. ifensive kite with i weapon and deadliest e st de- As man, and I think this is serious business when we He will have reached his peak and he anaent magic of wcarpet of ar war ever devised nd worldwide transporta- cannot discuss these matters in public. can defeat any team against him. ion. a matter of fact, and I think paren- But, I submit what will happen after day did not thetically, I should inform you of this 1967, if they have nobody on the bench ju The appear airplane like we magic, kgnow It todthe esult rather amusing incident. A very artic- to come up and fill the ranks of the sen- o generations of applied imagination ulate and able young colonel was fors when they go out, and that is the and effort, from glider pioneers ers like John testifying before us during the hearings situation in which we find ourselves in hers to the scientists that were in secret and his biography this particular instance, unless there is Montgomery s otoday. was stamped "Secret." We could ask a weapons system, a manned bomber and omy with its and d others improvements, Eachnew air- him him where he was born, and he could weapons system on the drawing boards plane, tell us within the confines of the com- and ready to replace the deficiencies in a nwith bits own the Air to the thee structure u as our know know mittee room, but outside of that none of the inventory, at the end of 1967 we will today us could open our mouths if we were be absolutely lost?in the field of retalia- mercial airline system. going to respect the stamp of secrecy. tion in this particular atmosphere. Up Before World War I only the dreamers So I think it quite necessary that to this time the Secretary has been writ- could visualize the airplane as anything everybody in this body should under- ing the obituary of the RS-70 in in- more than an exhilarating experiment. stand exactly what the situation is. stallments. Today, I hope his letter The first airplane dogfight in battle was I compliment the distinguished rank- retracts those words and that he will between pilots with pistols. But as air- ing member of our committee, the gentle- begin to take a constructive and pro- planes became faster and more aneu- man from Illinois [Mr. ARENDS ] , who gressive view. His language is clear in verable, it was inevitable that theould certainly made a very lucid explanation his letter. There is absolutely no doubt be armed with machineguns and later of the problem today. Of course, it is in the world that this Committee on rockets. The first load that a military not necessary to add more laurels to Armed Services has not capitulated. It airplane carried was an observer who the crown now worn by my distin- has won a very distinct and very deserv- spotted for artillery forces. Later on, guished chairman, the gentleman from ing victory in the interest of represent- messages were carried by airplanes from Georgia [Mr. VINSON]. He and I have ative government and in the interest of headquarters to the frontlines. And, of differed on many occasions, as many of the American people. We have a re- course, inevitably the obvious advantage you know. But my devotion and affec- sponsibility to meet from here on out. I developed for using the airplane as a tion and respect for him have never been agree with the gentleman from Illinois means of delivering destructive explo- diminished. I might almost paraphrase in referring to that. This may be a pa- sive power on the enemy. The first Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 Approved For Release 2003/10/10: CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 1962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE bombs were little more than glorified hand grenades, and from there, through progression, the means of dropping blockbusters and later nuclear bombs de- veloped into the ultimate and awesome capability of the latest SAC aircraft, which today in the form of the mach II B-58 is capable of flying 1,200 miles per hour and flying from Los Angeles to New York and back to Los Angeles nonstop in a period of some 4 hours. It is an ill wind that blows nobody some good. Certainly the greatest in- strument of war has also resulted in the greatest instrument of peacetime trans- portation known to the world. The modern airlines today exist only because of the initial development of military aircraft. We would not have our net- work of airlines had it .not been for the billions of dollars that have been poured into the development of military aircraft in, the period since World War I. The first airmail and passengers were car- ried in surplus World War I airplanes. The workhorse of the airlines after World War II, the famous DC-3, was a direct outgrowth of a military airplane produced by Douglas. The modern jet transports produced by three leading companies, Convair, Boeing, and Doug- las, had their design origination and early development based on the B-47 and later the B-52 bombers. Progress in aviation has not always been easy. There have always been the doubters and the scoffers who were will- ing to tell why it could not be done. Many scientists and engineers at the time of the Wright brothers, using their slip sticks and their equivalents of Univac and IBM, whatever they were in those days, had it all figured out that it was physically impossible for man to fly. They could prove it with statis- tics. Yes, and there were plenty of doubters within the military, too. The Secretary of the Navy in 1912 made the statement "If you can demonstrate to me that the aeroplane is capable of tak- ing off and flying out to a battleship, landing alongside and capable of being lifted aboard, then I shall believe it to be of some value to the military." Our own distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, partici- pated in the 1920's in the investigation of the rather absurd proposal by Col. Billy Mitchell, that the airplane was ca- pable of sinking a battleship. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why this dis- tinguished gentleman believes so strong- ly in the RS-70. Bombers, in particular, have always had to fight hard for their existence. I mentioned the Billy Mitchell contro- versy. In more recent times we have seen the B-36 controversy, when many people felt the long-range interconti- nental bomber was unnecessary as long as other forces were available today. Well, I say, thank God for the visionaries and the experts of their day who pro- vided us with the B-17 and the B-24 and the B-36 and the B-47 and th' B-52 and the B-58. This country has been safer because of them and without them I think it is no overstatement to say we would not be here today as freshmen in a free nation. These are the thoughts that have been running through the minds of many of us who serve on the Armed Service Com- mittee today. This is the reason for the apprehension we indicated through our unanimous vote in favor of the continu- ation and extension of the B-70 or RS- 70 program. These are the reasons why we reject completely the contention by the Secretary of Defense and his sub- ordinates that we can phase out the bomber program and rely in the future on missiles for our defense. All of the Univac's and the IBM's in the Penta- gon, had they been available back at the beginning of World War I and World War II, couldn't have predicted the fantastic development in uses and ca- pabilities that grew out of these early aircraft. I submit to you that all of the Univac's and the IBM's and the think- ing machines that are available to the modern Pentagon are incapable of pre- dicting with infallibility the forces and materiel that might be necessary to pro- tect this country in the future. - For the first time in our history we are laying down our tools that have helped to forge the greatest protective force and the greatest peacetime trans- portation force in, history. No, my friends, I cannot believe that the people of this country are willing to legislate man out of the air. Yet in effect, that is what the throttling of the B-70-RS-70 program means. It means we have no faith in the future of aircraft. It means we are putting our entire reliance on the little black boxes that may be electronic marvels, but that even today have been known to blow a fuse. Now I have no personal quarrel with the Secretary of Defense. I am willing to rate him as a genius, as many people have called him today. I think he. is probably the closest equivalent to a real live flesh and blood thinking machine that modern industry has ever produced. Yet he would be one of the first to tell you that a computer is valueless if you do not have enough input. In other words, you have got to take all the fac- tors into consideration when you press a button and ask a computer to make a decision for you. You have got to crank in all the possible variations and infor- mation into the machine before you can get an answer out the other end on a roll of printed tape. Until these thinking machines at the Pentagon get cranked into. them the factors of unpredictable future needs and the supplemental bene- fits that derive from continued develop- ment of the aircraft, I am sure they are going to continue to get the answers that say we do not need airplanes for the future. Certainly, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. VINSON, our distinguished colleague from Georgia, has a sense of history. His championing of a stronger Navy, of nuclear-powered submarines, of a modernized expanded ,Air Force, are factors that are rather hard to crank Into a Univac. As for me, I would rather put my faith in a hunch of CARL, VINSON'S than in the punches on all of Mr. McNamara's IBM cards. Yet today we see the Congress in conflict with' the Secretary of De- fense and with the President of the United States, a man who was highly touted during the 1960 campaign as hav- ing a sense of history. I think that Mr. Kennedy, the candidate, probably did have more of such a sense then than he has now. He was in favor of an ex- panded B-70 program at that time, be- fore he started listening to the experts and their printed tapes. Listen to what he said on November 2, 1960, in my own hometown of San Diego. Here is what he said: I endorse wholeheartedly the B-70 manned aircraft. We could not get the administra- tion to release the funds until this week. That does not exactly jibe with the recommendations he has been sending up to Congress through the Secretary of Defense, does it? How about the Vice President; where does he stand? I have been reading a rather remarkable document. , It is called the investigation of the prepared- ness program by the Preparedness In- vestigating Subcommittee of the Com- mittee on' Armed Services of the U.S. Senate, printed in 1960, the 2d session of the 86th Congress. LYNDON JOHNSON, the chairman of the subcommittee, con- ducted a sweeping investigation into the B-70 and he came out with some remark- able recommendations. In the first place, he proved that the B-70 would be of tremendous use to the military in lim- ited war. He pointed out its efficiency for the rapid support of troops and the delivery of missiles and equipment. He pointed out, for example, that it would take 10 days for 25 turbojet airplanes to airlift 4,000 tons of cargo over a 3,500- nautical-mile range and this same job could be done, not in 10 days, but with the RS-70, or the transport equivalent of the RS-70, in 21/2 days. Can an IBM machine predict that some time in the future it may be impor- tant to get 4,000 tons of vital war mate- rial up to the frontlines of some remote fighting front of the future? You know it cannot. Well, let us just read for a minute what Mr. JOHNSON recommends to the Congress of the United States. These are the conclusions of the Senate Investigating Preparedness Subcommit- tee. I like the title of that "Prepared- ness." We need that. First. The advent of the ICBM does not preclude the necessity for continued. development and use of advanced, manned weapon systems. Second. Manned weapon systems- such as the B-70-could strongly com- plement other strategic weapon systems, Third. There is a need to develop a bomber beyond the capabilities of those presently in being, since a bomber-mis- sile or mixed-forces concept is essential to our defense posture. Fourth. There is a continuing require- ment for a manned bomber with super- sonic and intercontinental characteris- tics. Fifth. The Nation possesses the nec- essary resources to build a B-70 type weapon system. Sixth. The technology required ' to build a B-70 type weapon system is at hand and is not dependent upon tech- nological breakthroughs. Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 4322 Seventh. Successful development of a weapon system such as the 8-70 pro- gram, could also advance the age of su- personic commercial and industrial transport and represent an essential link in the chain of continuous advances in controlled flight. Eighth. Because of its size and basic configuration, the B-70 is suited to pos- sible adaptation as a supersonic, nu- clear-powered air vehicle. Ninth. A B-70 type system, because of its planned altitude and speed capabili- ties, has potential application as a re- coverable booster space system to per- form recurring heavy payload orbital launches. Tenth. Unless an operational super- sonic bomber is developed now, there will be no replacement for the B-52 at the time at which it enters its period of ob- solescence-mid-1960's--and experience has demonstrated that stretching out an essential military development program not only increases ultimate total cost but loses valuable time. So here we have additional testimony indicating the value of the B-70. This, in effect, is the testimony of LYNDON JOHNSON, the chairman of the Senate Preparedness Subcommittee. Has Mr. JOHNSON changed his mind today? I don't believe he has. I can easily understand a man chang- ing his mind; I have done it many times myself. But normally when this happens, it is a question of the scales tipping slightly in one way under one set of circumstances, and tipping slightly the other way in ? another set of circumstances. However, with respect to the B-70 this condition does not obtain at all. Nothing could be more precisely, directly or forcefully stated than the position of the Preparedness Subcommittee-Mr. JOHNSON, chairman-with respect to the B-70. This was no slight tipping of the scales in favor of this weapon system. This was an outright and aggressively stated recommendation-and one made without equivocation of any kind. A person of Mr. JOHNSON's intelligence and obvious capability does not whim- sically arrive at a particular conclusion. Nor does a person like Mr. JOHNSON capriciously change a decision on a fundamental issue. Mr. JOHNSON does not speak out in this controversy over the B-70 today, but his voice is heard-loud and clear-in the decision of his subcommittee from whose report I have just read. Mr. Chairman, I support the expanded program for the RS-70. I do so in the certainty that the RS-70 is not in itself the ultimate weapon of ultimate air- craft. It is another step forward in man's conquest of the air. It is just a prelude to such fantastic airplanes of the future-as Convair's proposed space plane, which will make even the RS-70 as old fashioned as the Jenny of World War I. Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Cal- ifornia [Mr. GUBSERI. (Mr. GUBSER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE March 21 Mr. GUBSER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend our chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the Hon- orable CARL VINSON, for his vigorous leadership in a fight which is designed to gain the respect of the Congress which the Constitution intended. The committee report states on page 7: The role of Congress in determining na- tional policy, defense or otherwise, has de- teriorated over the years. In the place of joint formulation of national policy by the Congress and the President we have seen an acceptance of the principle that in some matters, defense in particular, government should be by "expert." This is the greatest mistake that can befall a republic. The German Reichstag made the mis- take in 1933 and it did not get the chance to live to regret it. In our republic we do not have a dic- tator of defense, we have a Secretary of Defense who holds no power except that which flows to him through the President. Our entire system is based upon op- position to the concentration of absolute power in the hands of one man, regard- less of his expertise, because, as the committee states, "expertise is not in- fallibility." Experts are human and no human is infallible. So, we dare not trust one man with making the decision which determines whether we shall survive. Men make mistakes. It was some man, an expert-I do not know which one-who decided to build the Edsel, and the stockholders of Ford Motor Com- pany know it was a mistake. I am greatly impressed with the out- standing ability of Secretary McNamara, but he is only a man and, as such, bears some human limitations. It was Secretary McNamara, an. ex- pert, who opposed me as a novice, when, last year on the floor of this House, I proposed an amendment to authorize six more Polaris submarines. He was wrong, and has now admitted it by his action to do administratively what I tried to do legislatively. It was a man who said on January 23, 1960, that "America had become second in missiles" and it was the same man who worried all through 1960 about the effect of this missile . gap on our national prestige. To many, authenticity and expertise is the automatic windfall of presidential candidacy, so many thousands of peo- ple believed that we were second in mis- siles. As one member of the Committee on Armed Services I repeatedly said the missile gap did not exist, but nobody listened-I was not an expert. Here again is another case where an expert, a man, was wrong. It is now admitted that there never was a missile gap. We cannot afford to ignore the time proven constitutional formula for co- operation between Congress and the Executive. Thanks to Chairman VIN- SON, this issue has now been spotlighted to the extent where the Executive can no longer ignore it. We have worn all we could expect to win and more than could have been won without the com- mittee amendment striking the word "directed." Admiral VINSON has won our battle for us. This morning a question was asked in a session of the Committee on Armed Services as to whether the letters from the President and Secretary could be in- terpreted as an intention by the admin- istration to request all necessary funding up to $491 million in fiscal year 1963 for the RS-70 program. The answer was affirmative and unequivocal. With this battle the deterioration of the role of Congress is now at an end, and the American people will be the beneficiaries. Mr.. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. BECHER]. (Mr. BECKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. BECKER. Mr. Chairman, it would seem to me that after the execu- tive meeting we had of the Armed Serv- ices Committee this morning we are now proceeding in what I would call an exer- cise in futility. A great many words are being expressed about what we are do- ing here today-who has won and who has lost; who has capitulated and who has not capitulated. We have made quite a reversal in the discussion made here today about why we are doing this, and the concession made by the Secre- tary of Defense in the fact that now he has conceded to make a study. Well, anyone who heard the reading of the letter from the Secretary of De- fense before our committee this morning in executive session and those who heard the reading of that letter on the floor of the House today know that this is an old legislative trick-that when you want to get rid of something, agree to a study. This is the surest way to brush some- thing under the rug that you want to get rid of. This is all the Secretary of Defense agreed to do in his letter. Mr. Chairman, studies have been going on for years in this program, and for these studies we have appropriated over $1.3 billion, and will agree to appropri- ate another $1.3 billion to complete the additional RS-70 planes. Mr. Chairman, we have heard the statement of our good chairman, the very distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the gentle- man from Georgia [Mr. VINSON]. While we heard his statement today, I won- der how many read the statement in the report of the Armed Services Committee on the bill authorizing some $13 billion, and dealing specifically with the RS-70 program? Let me read one paragraph of that report. I think it is quite dif- ferent than that which we are getting today in this exercise in futlii:ty: To any student of government, it is emi- nently clear that the role of the Congress in determining national policy, defense or otherwise, has deteriorated over the years. More and more the role of the Congress has come to be that of a sometimes querulous but essentially kindly uncle who complains while furiously puffing on his pipe but who finally, as everyone expects, gives in and hands over the allowance, grants the per- mission, or raises his hand in blessing, and then returns to his rocking chair for another Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 4323 year of somnolencd broken only by an oc- casional anxious glance down the avenue and a muttered doubt as to whether he had done the right thing. Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BECKER. I will be happy to yield to my colleague from Louisiana. Mr. HEBERT. May I say to the gentleman that the excerpt he just read from 'the report is probably one of the most accurate descriptions of the Con- gress today. There has been a change, however. Mr. BECKER. I agree with the gen- tleman wholeheartedly. That is why I have used it here, in the light of what has been said in the previous statements before this House. Nothing could be clearer than this. Let me call attention to what we are doing in Congress, not only in the picture of our national. de- fense, with which our committee is charged, and sits month in and month out in trying to design a program for the defense not only of the United States of America, but of the free world, we are again giving up our constitutional rights to provide a Military Establishment for this country. In doing so let me bring this to the attention of the Members of the House. Are we doing differently than that which we are being asked to do? There is leg- islation proposed from the "Avenue" that is.coming before the House to give up other constitutional powers this year in the fields of tariff and trade, and turn this over to the executive branch of the Government. This is the proposal of the administration. In article I, clause 3 of the Constitution, this is clearly em- powered to the Congress of the United States. Mr. Chairman, there is another piece of legislation to be considered, this year wherein we are being asked to again give up our constitutional powers, and that is in the field of taxes wherein we are being asked to give the President and the executive branch of Government the right to lower taxes 5 percent, if he deems it advisable to do so. Mr. Chairman, again in the same iden- tical clause in the Constitution, these powers are spelled out to be the powers In another piece of legislation we are being asked to give the executive branch of the Government $1 billion to spend at will on public works, in the event the executive branch feels it is necessary and advisable. This again dilutes the power of Congress to authorize and appropriate for specific projects as we deem advis- able. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that what we are doing here is not a matter of yield- ing, or a matter of being unwilling to mously because over the years we have come to understand what they were real- ly trying to do. Why do I go along with Curtis LeMay, this great general, with the great record, and his advisers in the Air Force? I will tell you why I do and why I am willing to; because, in the history of the United States of America it has been our military leaders who have led us to victory in every war. It has been our civilian experts who have put the world in the mess in which it is today. I say that our military leaders are men who are dedicated to the defense of this Na- tion and who have proven that beyond any shadow of doubt.. That is why I am willing so many times to go along with their reasoning; because of their great experience and- their great dedication. I think Mr. McNamara is a great, a wonderful man. I have nothing against him as an individual or as a personality. But when Mr. McNamara goes before the American people day after day to try to get the press, the news media on his side, as against the will of the Con- gress of the United States, I say that is wrong. It does not comport with the intent of having three equal branches of Government, each equal in its powers under the Constitution. I do not believe that any Secretary of Defense is carry- ing out his duty as he should when he uses those methods. The President of the United States as an elected official has a duty, and I have no criticism of him when he takes any means at his command to prepare legislation on those things he desires, because he has that responsibility under the Constitution. But we who are the elected representa- tives of the people-and I close on this note-have to take this position. I say this to you, that when I go back home and see what is reflected in the mail that I receive, there is a great disturbance in the minds,of the American people as to the effectiveness of the Congress to- day. What are we doing to off set the. many things that are happening in our Nation and the world? I think today is a good example. In all conscience I must vote for this bill. I have no alter- native than to provide for the national defense. I do so with a full appreciation pf what is necessary. I can only hope, and express the fervent prayer, that the Secretary of Defense will wake up to the will of Congress. And as to our good chairman, I am sure he will do what he said he will do, see, to it that we get regular reports of what this study is going to do, and not have the matter brushed under the rug. So many studies that we have asked for in the years that I have been a member of the committee I never heard of again. This may be just another one. compromise with the executive branch So I say, Mr. Chairman, that while I of the Government, but we are yielding certainly must vote for this legislation, to the so-called civilian experts ' of the because I must vote for it as others do, executive branch of the Government, I do so, with a great reservation insofar who are telling the Committee on Armed as the great need of bombers is con- Services and telling our Military Estab- cerned, one which the Committee on lishment-our Air Force, who came be- Armed Services has marked for study fore our committee with every intent and year in and year out. We know that with every means at their command to this is a vital, an essential part of the impress upon us why the RS-70 is vitally defense weapons system of this great necessary. We agreed with them unani- country of ours. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BECKER. I yield to the gentle- man from Iowa. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I have been waiting all afternoon to hear some- one tell us, under this agreement that has been reported, how much of the $491 million is going to be spent for the purpose for which it is intended. Mr. BECKER. You heard the letter of Mr. McNamara. He did not say he would spend any, but he said if the study proved that technological advances in certain fields in the way of a weapons system of the RS-70 proved in the course of the year essential or moving ahead, he would spend part or all of it that was deemed necessary. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. (Mr. HALL asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD.) Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, this bill, H.R. 9751, would authorize appropria- tions during the next fiscal year for air- craft, missiles, and naval vessels for the Armed Forces. The total amount of au- thorization is over $13 billion. It con- stitutes the largest single authorization bill to come before the Congress during this session. It involves nothing, except the defense and security of our country since it includes authorization for every- thing from missiles to revolvers; in short, all the military hardware and weapons which comprise our military deterrent. It is no easy responsibility, to sit in judgment on matters which result in such a heavy burden on the American taxpayer, and yet to realize that these are decisions on which our very lives may depend. The Armed Services Com- mittee has been in almost daily session, listening to posture briefings by our military chiefs, hearing highly classified intelligence estimates of the military capabilities of the Communist bloc, and considering all the evidence which must form a basis for our decisions. Bills which are reported out of the Armed Services Committee are unique in that much of the basis for commit- tee action is highly classified and cannot be discussed in open debate on the floor of the House. Therefore, the Congress must rely on the judgment of the com- mittee, to a far greater extent than they rely on other committees; whose recom- mendations can be fully discussed dur- ing debate, and any particular bill amended, and so forth. I can report to you that the recom- mendations of our committee on this particular bill were originally unani- mous. Party affiliation did not enter into our decisions, as indeed it should not on matters affecting our Nation's defense. The major controversy on this defense authorization bill occurs between the Armed Services Committee and the ad- ministration's Secretary of Defense; and then only on two of our major weapons systems. One involves the Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile. As yoft may know, several counties in the Seventh Congressional District of Mis- souri are included in the Minuteman- Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 Approved For Release 2003/10/10: CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 4324 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE complex which has its headquarters at the Whiteman Air Force Base, Knob- noster, Mo. SAC has already contracted for the construction of underground fir- ing sites, several of which will be located in our northern tier of counties. Twelve squadrons totaling 600 hard- ened and well dispersed Minuteman missiles have been funded through fiscal year 1962. Funds for four more squad- rons are included in the 1963 budget and are included in the bill approved by our committee. This represents $10 million more than the amount requested by our executive branch. It was the opinion of our committee that a larger force of Minuteman missiles should be initiated at this time in order that the ultimate number procured and placed will move us closer to the capability which our country must have in the years ahead. The first Minuteman missile was fired in February 1961 and was completely successful. Numerous tests since then have also been success- ful. In view of the rapid strides which Communist Russia has and is making in the field of missiles, the committee believed our Nation had no choice but to develop a strong deterrent capability in this area. The other area of controversy involves the B-70 or RS-70 bomber. This super- sonic bomber-or space capable plat- form-is still in the development stage and a high degree of secrecy is attached to its intended capabilities. The com- mittee believed it has a very special place in our defense structure because it possesses the potential to do many things in the areas of reconnaissance, strike, and communications. Further- more, unlike a missile, a bomber of this type give us greater flexibility. Once a missile is fired from its launching pad we have reached the point of no return. A nuclear explosion is as certain to fol- low as day follows night. A bomber with the capabilities of the B-70 would pro- vide us with the option of waiting until the last possible second before making the fateful decision of whether to touch off a nuclear holocaust in the event of war. It can be recalled. For the last 3 years, the Congress has authorized the expenditures neces- sary to produce three experimental types. But in each case the recom- mendations have not been carried out in full by the Secretary of Defense. The bill finally, but not unanimously, voted out by the Armed Services Com- mittee authorizes the Secretary to utilize an additional $491 million to proceed with production planning and long lead- time procurement of the B-70 weapons system. The debate taking place this week undoubtedly would have dealt with interpretation of the Constitution as to whether the Congress has the authority to so instruct the administrative branch of Government. This question was sold out by the leadership and chairman, and majority party, after a White House conference of 3:30 Tuesday afternoon. I am on record-May 23, 1961-as urging more and firmer policy of the Armed Services Committee to the chairman. In respect to our ability to finance the additional B-70 authorization, I might point out that the foreign aid which we are now extending to Commu- nist and so-called neutralist or :non- alined countries, would finance our entire B-70 development program. I certainly believe that this expenditure of tax funds will serve a far better investment in our defense posture and for civilian flight development and progress than in sup- porting and building up those countries, who would be likely to side with the Communist bloc in the event of war. When the foreign aid bill comes up again this year, I certainly will vote in accord- ance with these beliefs and convictions. In all fairness, I want to point out that our committee, as a whole, has the high- est regard for Defense Secretary McNa- mara. I personally believe he is capable, and dedicated to carrying out the enor- mous responsibilities which are his. The areas of agreement between the Defense Secretary and our committee are far more numerous than the areas of dis- agreement. This is as it should be. I regret the issue was not joined and that in the interest of expediency, principle was forgotten. Perhaps only time will tell whether the vaunted courage of the Armed Services Committee has served our country well, protected it faithfully, and lived up to our constitutional re- sponsibilities. Certainly, the proverbial "walk" in the White House rose garden, changed things abruptly. I find it diffi- cult to yield by altering the House's "direction," and still support unwanted, and unneeded, further spending, even for defense; when we are already com- pletely deterrent capable and annihila- tory. It would seem more appropriate to strengthen the demands and will of our total people and defend them by expe- diting an anti-missile missile, through not only the "whiz-kids" and their ideas under control; but, also by utilizing the grizzled and tried and true knowledge and experience of our military leaders. Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michi- gan [Mr. CHAMBERLAIN]. (Mr. CHAMBERLAIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill before the House and to say that when the chair- man in his statement today stated that the Members of the House would be sur- prised at the news he was going to bring, I assure you, I, too, was greatly sur- prised, when I heard this news just an hour or so before. But though I have reservation about what has been (lone to the RS-70 program, I can say in all good conscience, I do not disagree with the decision that has been made with respect to striking the directive words in this bill. But, as we heard in a colloquy earlier in the debate as to what the word "direct" might mean or "authorize," I think now we should turn our attention, as my colleague from New York has pointed out, to what the word "study" means? So often when we reach a dead end here with these problems, we throw the legislative machine into neutral and stop for a study. When the Secre- tary of Defense says, "Consequently, we are initiating immediately a new March 21 study"-I would like to ask when he says, "Consequently, we-" who is we? Who is going to be the head of this study or is it going to be composed entirely of those in the Department of Defense that had a negative attitude toward this B-70 program? Are we going to call in some people from the Air Force who might be- lieve there is some merit to the RS-70 and listen to what they have to say? Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I am happy to yield to my colleague from Iowa. Mr. GROSS. I have an idea you will see the hiring of some kind of manage- ment or consulting firm to come up with the answer that the Secretary of De- fense wants in this matter. Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I would not be surprised, nor would I be surprised if it took a couple of years. Are we going to have a stacked committee to study this problem? I think that is something we should inquire into and I want to serve notice on my chairman that I am going to be making some inquiries as to who will be making this study in the weeks and months ahead. Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana. Mr. HEBERT. I would refresh the gentleman's memory as to what the dis- tinguished chairman of our Committee on Armed Services said originally when he was speaking as to who would be on the study committee and who would par- ticipate in the study. He said: And another thing, the committee will get a full assurance that the grcup making this study will have not only scientists and representatives of the Secretary of Defense in it, but will have people from the Air Force, not only the technical ones but the policy ones; and not only civilians, but mili- tary people whose background and experi- ence in the development and operation of bombers gives them special understanding of the problem that we are talking about. Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I am glad that my colleague has pointed that out. I hope he will join me in making certain that a stacked committee is not created. Mr. HEBERT. I am sure, and the gentleman knows my record when it comes to matters of that kind and knows of my persistence in that respect that I will be on your side to see that that promise is carried out. Mr. CHAMBERLAIN, There is one other thing that I want to point out. In the next paragraph in the Secretary's letter, he said: Furthermore, if technologica:L develop- ments advance more rapidly than we antici- pate, we will wish to take advantage of these advances by increasing our develop- ment expenditures. Which raises the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg? I think it is the will of this Congress to spend more money right now to make certain that we do everything we can to bring about technological advance- ment and get this program going, and get this plane off the ground. I would like to say in conclusion that I share wholeheartedly the statement Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 1962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 4325 that was made by my colleague from Rapid airlift in proper quantities, using year's share of the total force, which will Louisiana, about the testimony of Sec- equipment designed for the job, can help require 5 more years to build. This point retary of Defense classified top secret, stem possible aggression. Failing in bears emphasizing: The 16 C-141 aircraft yet the morning papers have had much this, it can put the forces in place and to be authorized are merely the first in- of the same information spread in the continue to support them as required. crement and the 136 C-130 aircraft only press reports. Having failed for 2 years Timely airlift can often keep outbreaks a part of the total force of over 400 which to convince the committee, in top secret of violence limited. modernize both the Tactical Air Com- sessions, of the soundness.of his posi- In my judgment, the case for airlift mand and Military Air Transport Serv- tion the Secretary of Defense elected to is made by just these examples, but there ice and provide a versatile aircraft for take this complex issue to the people in are more. Our strategic retaliatory force support of the Army. Each year some an apparent attempt to have it decided depends in part upon airlift support, as procurement of the C-141 aircraft will on the front pages of the newspapers does our Mobile Strategic Army Corps be requested until over 200 are bought with unclassified information. This and our Tactical Air Forces. The very and the program goal is attained. We every Member of Congress should resent. mobility of these latter forces is given must appreciate that the total objective While I question that any funds that meaning only through the use of air- force is required even though it is to be may be appropriated in excess of lift. achieved by a year-by-year procurement budgetary recommendations will ever be The unique role which airlift plays to- program. Each year, in other words, spent, I certainly share the view of my day is best exemplified by the nature we must be prepared to authorize 1 year's distinguished chairman and my col- of U.S. support to the United Nations to- share of the ultimate force. leagues on your Armed Services Com- day. In the past 18 months, some 31,000 What are the objectives of the Air mitteethat the time has come to speak troops and 7,000 tons of cargo from 17 Force in projecting a force of the most up and find out whether we do have any different U.N. member nations have been modern transport aircraft the "state-of- voice in determining the level of our airlifted into the Congo in furtherance the-art" can provide? Broadly speaking, national security programs. It is my of the U.N.'s efforts to maintain order they are to achieve complete flexibility hope that the vote on this issue will and provide for democratic development. in airlift forces so that support for all cause our able Secretary of Defense to Now, if we can do all these things types of missions can be provided from reflect about the mutuality of our re- with today's forces, why is there still any operating location and to permit the sponsibilities to the Nation. I urge your more needed? A brief review of today's accomplishment of all the airlift require- support of the recommendations of your force and its posture is perhaps the best ments of cold, limited, and general war. Armed Services Committee. way to seek an answer and identify some Specifically, the aim is to relieve our de- Mr. I3EBERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield limitations. pendence on island bases; to acquire the such time as he may desire to be the Today, there are over 1,800 transport ability to deploy strategic Army forces gentleman from Florida [Mr. BENNETT]. aircraft including some 230 of the Civil up to several divisions, plus mobile strike (Mr. BENNETT of Florida asked and Reserve Air Fleet which are available to forces anywhere in the world in the was given permission to revise and ex- the Air Force during times of emergency. shortest possible time; and above all, to tend his remarks.) This is a sizable force, but one which be able to undertake simultaneously air- Mr. BENNETT Florida. Mr. Chair- man, the Committee on Armed d Services has many demands made upon it, most lift tasks of some magnitude to more has wisely resolved the RS-70 legisla- of which can be met separately but than one theater of operations. tive debate by providing for joint legis- which, taken together, create shortcom- I am convinced by what I have seen lation and Executive scrutiny of this de- ings in timeliness or method of delivery of this program that the airlift force of vepooment program. I was glad to hear or mission accomplishment itself. In the future will have impressive capabili- the chairman of our committee an- other words, there isn't enough airlift ties, distinguished by flexibility and ver- nounce that the research and develop- today to meet in quantity or quality all satility. It has my support and I am ment of this plane and its subsystems wartime airlift requirements. There are convinced it merits the continuing sup- will have continuing periodic investiga- some requirements, such as missiles and port of the Congress. tion by the committee to assure that certain Army equipment, which are Before closing, I should allude to some progress is made in the maximum degree; heavier or larger than present aircraft requirements of the future which are so that when opportunities arise for are capable of airlifting and yet which not now a_ part of the airlift program I pushing ahead to the prompt and pos- require transportation by air. More im- have just discussed, but which when sible final production that this will be portantly, the majority of the strategic presented to us will deserve our most done in fact. airlift force is obsolescent and piston- thoughtful consideration. Now I would like to turn to another type, operating. in the 200 to 250 knot I have reference to three items. First, aspect of this bill. range. Also,'the force is made up largely a follow-on aircraft is required to re- Aggression, of any magnitude, at any of converted passenger-type aircraft car- location, must be met with the proper which lack flexibility because they can spar place capable the C-133 of h as an outsize cargo car- force at the right time. Airlift helps to perform airlanded missions only and space boosters now beiall ng planned and or make this possible. - Without it, our have no outsize cargo carrying capabil- developed. now bocce is currently ity. The latter is true of the entire dThe Air Force is currently ability to meet aggression would be preparing a specific operational require- greatly reduced. CRAF fleet. In addition, the capability ment for this aircraft. Second, a light It was never more important that we of the piston engine force is predicated transport aircraft with true vertical or do everything possible to reach our na- on the existence of island bases en route short field take-off and landing capabil- ities objectives across the entire spec- to Europe and the Far East. which will carry 8- to 10-ton pay- trum of conflict and international rela- The Air Force has developed a pro- loads to provide support and combat tions. Airlift has the power to support gram for airlift modernization both in- zone mobility to the ground forces in the this country and free world aims to such terim and long range which, when imple- future We can expect to see a specific an extent that it holds a unique position mented, will reduce or eliminate most of operational requirement for this essential as a tool of national policy. A quick look the limitations I have just mentioned. aircraft in the near future. The Army at the past will show just how flexible This Congress by its fiecal year 1962 has already expressed its view in the airlift can be as a tool of national policy authorizations enabled the program to form of a qualitative material require- and just how important it is as a corner- continue when last year it authorized ment and the Joint Chiefs of Staff are stone of our strategy. 93 C-130 aircraft, 15 additional C-135's now studying the matter. Last, and The Berlin airlift of 1948-49, Lebanon and funds to proceed with a positive looking to the 1970's, we should expect in 1956, and Taiwan in 1958 are three development and procurement program. to see a valid requirement expressed for examples of how airlift supported our for the C-141-the most vital step to a supersonic transport-1,500 miles per national effort in times of emergency, date toward a truly modern transport hour or faster. Technology will inevit- The recent deployment of forces to Eu- force. The items we see in this year's ably permit its development and future rope is another more current example of budget request and which we are being strategy will dictate its acquisition. One the need and effectiveness of airlift. asked to authorize represent the coming dramatic example should illustrate this: No. 42-11 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 4-326 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE Today's battle group could be delivered in Europe with little warning, in less than 10 hours and with approximately 43 sorties. Economic considerations alone will probably determine our position in this matter but we could ill afford on the one hand to see another nation develop this aircraft first and become the world's sup- plier and on the other to surrender our historical position in the forefront of aircraft development. March 21 and that the Congress in adopting the any of the money we are providing to- legislation as proposed by our committee day in this great bill for missiles, tanks, will also be winning its point. guns, ships, and all the other -things. Last week Defense Secretary McNa- But this committee is charged with the mara appeared before our committee, as has been mentioned, Later on he held a press conference and presented publicly at least a great portion of the material he had presented to the committee. The interesting thing about the Sec- retary's appearance and his subsequent press conference is that on the basis of Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the information he gave us the B-70 or 10 minutes to the gentleman from New the RS-70 was a Complete waste of York [Mr. STRATTON]. money and a completely worthless weap- (Mr. STRATTON asked and was given on system. permission to revise and extend his re- The Secretary is a brilliant man, as marks.) has already been testified to here earlier, Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, a but his testimony before the committee good deal has been said on this contro- proved too much, because in his own versy already and I shall address myself budget there is set aside the sum of $171 to just one or two points. Much has been million to promote an aircraft which he ,said this afternoon as to who is winning was trying to tell us last week, on the and who is losing in the compromise that basis of his computers, was completely has been worked out by the committee. worthless and a complete waste of l: think there is some confusion on this money. That $171 million was in the issue. In fact we are presented with two budget, of course, because the President issues as I see it. The first is the con- of the United States and his officials in stitutional issue, the question of whether the Defense Department had already the Congress has the, right to direct the very wisely recognized that you cannot Executive to spend any particular sum base the future of the Nation solely on of money. Many people have been in- what a computer tells you. Any com- terested in this particular issue and puter has to have certain assumption, some perhaps have looked forward to a fed in to get started. The fact of the head-on clash between the legislature matter is that the Defense Department, and the Executive on this particular in spite of Mr. McNamara's analysis, has point. This clash has now of course been proceeding, but proceeding all too been avoided by the action of the com- slowly in the judgment of our commit- rnittee. tee, toward the development of a new In this connection I am reminded of a manned plane, a new manned bomber, in story that a former Governor of the case the time should ever come when it State of New York, Al Smith, used to like might be needed. to tell, about a young man who was tak- So all that our committee was doing [ng an examination to be a railroad was to tell the Defense Department that crossing guard on the New York Central it should proceed more rapidly on this Railroad. He passed his written exami- advanced plane than the Secretary :nation with flying colors, but when it wanted to proceed. The point at issue is came to the oral examination they asked whether we are going to proceed at $171 him this: "Suppose there is a train com- million worth or whether we are going :rug from one direction on a one-track to proceed as rapidly as humanly pos- 'line and then you look the other way and sible to develop this new aircraft so that you see another train coming in the it might be ready even sooner in the opposite direction on the same line. event it is needed, that is, as the gentle- You wave your lantern but the wind man from Louisiana [Mr. HEBERT] said blows it out. You wave your red flag a moment ago, be ready when the seniors but the wind blows it away. What would on the team have graduated, and when you do then?" The. young man looked we are looking at the bench for some- up and said: "I would go and call my body else to replace them to carry on the wife." The examiner said: "No, no, this battle. is a serious matter. I do not think you Our committee is not willing to put all understood the question. I will repeat it: our defense eggs into the missile basket. "'There are two trains on the same track So we have insisted that the new genera- coming from opposite directions; the tion, the mach 3 bomber, be prepared wind blows your lantern out and more rapidly. The result of the letters tears your flag off the stick. What would that have been read into the committee you do?'" He said again, just as em- record this afternoon is to demonstrate phatically: "I would go call my wife." that the President and Secretary of De- They asked him: "But why would you fense are now both in complete accord call your wife?" And he replied: "I'd with the committee, that money shall be call her to come and see the darndest spent on this system just as rapidly as it railroad wreck she'd ever seen." can be effectively used. Well perhaps this is what some folks We are not asking here to spend $10 had hoped to see here today. billion. We just want six of these planes But the real issue here is not the con- instead of three. That is the real dif- stitutional issue the real issue is the ference and that is the real measure of ons system. Will it be expedited as us. It may well be that our country will mittee and now before the House is rapidly as possible? And on this point never have to use the B-70. We did not whether instead of $171 million, the sum I do not think there is any question but have to use the B-36, either, as you re- of $491 million be provided te, expedite what the committee has won its point call. We might not even have to use. the prototype development of this unique Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 defense and the security of the Nation, and we would be doing less than our solemnly pledged duty if we did not do everything possible to guarantee our se- curity in the years to come, when the decision will not rest on the IBM com- puters, but on a situation that we can only guess at today will be upon us. I want to commend the chairman of our committee for the action he has taken. I fully support the amendment he will offer this afternoon, and I con- gratulate the members of the committee because I am sure we will all go along with an action that will not, it is true, result in any great railroad wreck, but will protect the security of our Nation as we believe it needs to be protected in the face of Communist challenges and aggression from abroad. I support the committee's position on this bill. Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. PIRNIE]. Mr. PIRNIE. Mr. Chairman, what constitutes adequate military prepared- ness for our Nation? The better in- formed one becomes as to the nature and scope of the threats to our security and the technological problems involved in modern weapons to meet these threats, the less inclined one should become to assert an arbitrary opinion. However, the Armed Services Committee has a direct responsibility to prepare and sub- mit to this body measures which in its well-considered judgment support our Defense Establishment at the level of military preparedness the current world situation requires. Balancing factors of economic and military requirements, we have unanimously brought to the floor H.R. 9751. In it is embodied the results of weeks of briefings, hearings, and de- tailed presentations during which we have heard our leading military authori- ties, uniformed and civilian. The bill embodies all basic recommendations of the Department of Defense and adds a further important item which has be- come a subject of considerable contro- versy. , It is vital to the Nation. that the dispute be kept in perspective. Our able Secretary of Defense early demonstrated a surprising grasp of the vast program he directs. Our commit- tee has great respect for his sincerity, diligence, and ability. The bill before you gives him the tools he requested to do the job, but it goes beyond his request by authorizing additional funds for the development of the RS-70 weapons sys- tem-the reconnaissance version of the mach 3 bomber. The development of this aircraft was first authorized in 1955,. Funds have been appropriated in each fiscal year since that date until now we have approximately $1 billion invested in the program. The Department of De- fense recommended that a follow-on sum of $171 million be expended for the fiscal Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 1962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 4327 weapons system. The Secretary of De- it should give full expression to that con- Asia. We must prepare for the almost fense has consistently maintained that viction. This is our duty. Although we certain war with China while at the the additional funds are not required, may change the language of the bill so same time be prepared for possible con- but in the opinion of our committee, the as to eliminate the word "direct," our flict with Russia. Air Force made a convincing case for intent is clear and we have the assur- I might remind the House that Her- the authorization of this additional sum.' ance of the President and the Secretary man Goering, commander and chief of Knowledge of the background of this of Defense that our concern will not be the German Luftwaffe, boasted before difference in opinion is helpful. Last ignored. Our able chairman has de- the entire world that no bomb would fall year the Congress voted funds for addi- tailed this measure. Our committee on Berlin. He boasted that the anti- tional conventional bombers. That ac- unanimously brought this bill to the aircraft defenses of Berlin and of Ger- tion was prompted by a conviction that floor. It represents our best judgment. many were impregnable and could not be the missile program has not proceeded to Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield pierced. Herman Goering based his the point where complete reliance could such time as he may consume to the fallacious belief on the calculations of a be placed upon its capabilities to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. mathemwas atical g"quiz un his ,"a Dr. Dru wig, exclusion of the manned bomber. De- DORN]. spite approval by the Congress, the Sec- Mr. DORN. Mr. Chairman, I am for wig had informed Goering that no retary of Defense declined to make use this bill. I wish to thank the distin- bomber could get over Berlin as he could of the funds so appropriated, and the guished Committee on Armed Services of prove by slide rule, mathematical deduc- assembly lines on these bombers-our the House for the work it has done on tions, and computations that the bomb- most advanced operational types-have the bill. I hope the RS-70 program can ers simply could not pass the antiair- ground to a halt. The best intelligence proceed as expeditiously as possible. craft batteries. I greatly fear that some available makes clear that the Soviets (Mr. DORN asked and was given per- of our "quiz kids" in America today have have not taken similar action but in- mission to revise and extend his figured out on paper and by mathemat- stead are adding and developing new remarks.) ics that they have all the answers against manned bomber strength. Mr. DORN. Mr. Chairman, it is with air attack. They may have, but we still It may well be, and we sincerely hope particular pleasure that I rise to support need the RS-70 for insurance. The it to be so, that our program for 1963 the distinguished, able, and farseeing chances are your house will not burn; will be effective without the addition we chairman of the Armed Forces Commit- but it may; therefore you have fire in- propose. We would like to feel that pro- tee, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. surance. During the initial period of our vision for 1,000 Atlas, Titan, and Minute- VINSON], and his great committee. conquest of space, bases on the moon and man intercontinental ballistic missiles, Mr. Chairman, when war comes to the on planets, we will need something to plus 41 submarines with over 650 Polaris United States, it will begin in the Far protect us while we get there. The missiles, plus our existing great bomber East. Red Communist China, seething answer is the RS-70. fleet would constitute sound protection with unrest and seeking a foreign scape- Mr. Chairman, I was in this House for the Nation. Nevertheless, we believe goat, will attack Quemoy and Matsu or when we passed a 70-group Air Force. that nothing has transpired to cause us Formosa. Red China will launch her The year was 1947. It was a bitter to ignore the potential of the RS-70; overwhelming land juggernaut into struggle, but this Congress looking that it is vital to our interests to develop South Korea or into South Vietnam, ahead, looking to the future, appropri- and fly the best manned weapons system Burma, Thailand, or India. China may ated money for a 70-group Air Force. modern technology can devise. Time is decide to attack all of these objectives it was a tragic mistake when the first of the essence. We must avail ourselves simultaneously. In any case, the United Secretary of Defense and the President of the technical miracles which this fly- States will be involved in war. The Far impounded the money and refused to ing laboratory will provide. Its surviv- East is the key area of the world. The carry out the wishes of the Congress ability, its reconnaissance potential, and road to Paris is still the road through and the American people. Three years its weaponry will reflect scientific Peiping. The road to Latin America and later the bloody Red forces of North achievements, yet to be placed in a flying the soft underbelly of the United States Korea crossed the 38th parallel and configuration. is the road from the Far East through launched another world war. Again, we The sum of $491 million made avail- the Near East and through Africa. Red were tragically unprepared. We had to able now will move this program faster China is anxious for war. Her popula- appropriate billions of additional dollars, and more efficiently. It would be false tion is increasing rapidly and in a few and place new plans on the drawing economy not to make-full use of the years will reach a billion people. She board. We now had to build a 124- latest advances in sophisticated commu- can, afford to lose a half billion popula- group Air Force. I have wished many nications and manned weaponry. A tion to win a war. The United States times that this 70-group Air Force had short time ago, Col. John Glenn indi- cannot possibly win a ground war with been built promptly. Had this hap- cated the significant advantages of man- the millions of Red Chinese soldiers. pened, I believe the Korean war would directed systems. Furthermore, ap- Mr. Chairman, by 1970 the only deter- have been averted, 33,000 American lives proval of the committee's action in this rent to Red Chinese aggression could be saved, and billions of American dollars instance in no way constitutes an irre- a powerful RS-10 strategic bomber com- not to mention the other hundreds of vocable commitment to a later multi- mand. With the outbreak of war, a thousands killed and wounded in Korea. billion dollar production program-but powerful RS-70 command might be our Sometimes men are so close to their only buys valuable leadtime should only means to stop such an avalanche profession that. they can not see some mass production be required. Whether of manpower pouring into southeast of the simple, basic, elemental truisms. its prototype performance and later de- Asia. It is quite possible that,in such a I believe this was true of many of our veloped counterweapons will dictate struggle Russia may remain neutral. great military leaders following World squadron procurement, time will tell, but She may deny Red China the use of her War I when the great and incomparable if we are to have any bomber program, air defense forces. It will be many years Billy Mitchell was court-martialed for and I believe we should, it should pro- before China will or can develop ade- pointing out obvious facts about the teed now and with all possible speed quate defense against strategic bombing. future role of aircraft in war. -Back and efficiency. In addition to a lack of technicians, through the history of this great Nation, Surely Congress was intended by the China does not have the billions of dol- many Members of Congress were ahead Constitution and is expected by our peo- lars necessary to create the air defense of the time and could see into the future ple to have more than a veto power over necessary to even remotely challenge the with uncanny accuracy relating to fu- military programs. In this bill we are RS-70. We must not fall into the fatal ture instrumentalities of war. One not trying to usurp prerogatives of the error of being hypnotized by the bombast Member of this Congress expressed great Executive, but are solemnly exercising of Khrushchev. We must not permit shock when conferring with the Presi- our constitutional duty "to raise and our whole attention to be attracted by dent in the late thirties he noticed min- maintain the armed force necessary for him and his dazzling feats in space. All iature battleships and cruisers on the the preservation of our Nation." If Con- of this may just be designed to divert President's desk. This Congressman gress has a firm conviction that any af- our attention while the Red Chinese trembled with fear for the future secu- firmative action is necessary or desirable. amass their forces to conquer southeast rity of our country and told the Presi- Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 4328 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE March 21 dent that airplanes could sink those reading of the language: "Congress shall ware in the next 12 months. I am cer- battleships and cruisers. The President have the power to raise and support tain that there is no one in this body laughed and said impossible. A few armies" has, to this simple country law- who would not prefer, if the safety of years later, America learned the hard yer, a fairly clear meaning. Raise means the country permitted It, that this money and tragic way early one Sunday morn- get the men-support means get them and these efforts be devoted to activi- ing, December 7, the place Pearl Harbor, the equipment they need. It does not ties forwarding the peaceful advance of The Congress was right in 1947; the mean to tell them where, or how, or human society. experts .and the executive branch were when to use it; that would be the re- But the present state of the world dead wrong. Billy Mitchell and many sponsibility of the Commander in Chief. precludes such action on our part and Congressmen were right; the experts But the constitutional issue is being by- requires the action that we must take and executive leaders were dead wrong. passed, which brings us to the experts. here today. The refusal of the Soviet I believe today that we must conquer The experts in the Defense Depart- Union to agree to any meaningful pro- space. We can not predict future mili- ment say they do not need the money visions for international disarmament tary science and tactics on concepts and cannot spend the money to further make it necessary that we authorize the of the past. We must prepare for war in the development of the RS-70 aircraft, program this legislation encompasses. space. We must master pushbutton The experts in the Air Force say they In a word this bill represents a major warfare; but, Mr. Chairman, while we can use the money advantageously; not part of the price of freedom (luring the are preparing for this war of the future, waste it, not squander it, not spend it next 12 months. Anything else, any re- we must be prepared for the war of the uselessly, but spend it usefully toward duction of the level of effort provided in immediate future. We must be ready the day when a new generation of this bill would make it impossible for us during this transitory period. We must manned strategic aircraft will come into to reasonably guarantee so far as we can bear in mind Red China and the Far being. If there is anything which the the security and freedom of our country East. magnificent exploit of John Glenn and her ability to meet commitments to Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield taught me, it is that in the most ad- friendly nations. 5 minutes to the gentleman from New vanced of systems, man is not yet ob- The fiscal year 1963 request for total York [Mr. PIKE]. solete. new obligational authority for the entire (Mr. PIKE asked and was given per- As between the experts who will have Department of Defense totals over $50 mission to revise and extend his re- to fly the plane and those who will sim- billion. Of this amount, the adminis- marks.) ply watch it go by, I will cast my lot with tration, as has been indicated to you, re- Mr. PIKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank those who are prepared to risk their quested $12,481 million under section the gentleman from Lairman for lives in manning it. I have learned, to 412(b) of Public Law 86149. The com- yield- my sorrow, that no experts are infallible. mittee, as my colleagues have already ing me this time to speak on this highly This Year's experts are next year's ex- outlined in detail, has increased this re- important bill. No one knows better experts. than our able and eloquent chairman, Two years ago, quest by money eve00 a then sueand the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. ViN- plane being built in the my own experts called district the even sum eve o for oney even 000 these times ;and soN] , that I dislike not like this bill. On the fothis great Nation. sontrary, I dlike it thoroughly-for best fighter-bomber available. Today I regret to find myself in a position of they are saying that a plane which has advocating-that any aspect of this or any most primitive reason. It is going to been available for 4 years was really bet- other budget recommendation be in- mean serious economic dislocation for ter all along. It just took the experts 4 creased. I would rather be a party to a the district I represent. A very major years to find out. So I am not over- cutting of the budget recommendations. procurement which the so-called experts whelmed by the word "expert." I am Indeed, we hope that cuts may be pos- at the Pentagon were talking about impressed by the fact that in a nation sible in other aspects of the Department speeding up as recently as last fall is where we feel obliged to produce new of Defense allocation which will balance being cut back this legislation. So I models of every make car every year out this half billion dollar increase in do not like this bill one bit. But I for the pleasure of our people, we have the present bill. respect this bill. I will offer no amend- not produced a new strategic aircraft As a matter of fact, unbalanced ments seeking to continue production since the B-58 for the benefit of those budgets and deficit spending represent, of a wonderful aircraft. The fight was who risk their lives daily to keep us free. in my opinion, a threat to the future of made in the committee. Anyone who If we pass this bill and spend the this country which is second only to the cares can find it in the hearings, but money authorized we will still not have danger of our encountering a military the fight was lost. The fight was not a new bomber until 1967 or 1968. By disaster should "our deterrent power be made on any political considerations or that time our newest bombers will be 6 allowed to lag. Accordingly, it is only on any economic considerations or on or 7 years old. I hope that regardless of because I am convinced that the safety any consideration other than what I be- the semantics involved, the RS-70 proj- of my country requires it that I can bring lieve would provide the best defense for ect is pushed forward as rapidly as myself in the belief there Is no alterna- America at the least cost to America. I possible. tive but to say that we must pass this lost. So, I rise in support of a bill that I urge the support of this bill, and bill with the additional $584 million iii- I do not like, a bill that may mean that state that I would have been happy to. eluded. The extra money will expedite I shall not survive to support next year's support it in its stronger language. the modernization and mobility of our military appropriation bill. I do so Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield Army. It will provide the necessary re- lady because there is at issue, in this such time as he may require to the gen- search, development, test and evaluation bill a principle far more important than to enable us to substantially expedite the the survival of any number of freshmen tleman from Missouri [Mr. HALL]. Congressmen. The question is this: Can (Mr. HALL asked and was given per- time when we can exercise that Congress only say that we have too much seems ission to extend his remarks at that seem a fleet of RS-70 the 7 aircraft, if option that desirable. strength, or can it also say we have too point in the RECORD following the re- Mr. Chairman, I urge the passage of little? Can it only pull up on the reins marks of Mr. BECHER.) the bill with these authorizations intact. air can it apply the spurs? Those who Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield say that Congress has no greater power 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ver- 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio than to say "no" occasionally base their mont [Mr. STAFFORD]. [Mr. CLANCY]. position on one of two theories: First, Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. Chairman, I (Mr. CLANCY asked and was given is the constitutional question; and, sec- rise to urge the passage of H.R. 9751. I 'permission to revise and extend his re- end, there is the argument that no one recognize that it authorizes the expen.di- marks.) should question the experts at the ture of an enormous sum-$13,065,772,- Mr. CLANCY. Mr. Chairman, I rise Pentagon. 000 for ships, planes, and aircraft for in support of H.R. 9751, which provides Mr. Chairman, as to the first, there the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1962. for the authorization of $13,065,772,000 are better qualified constitutional law- I feel certain that all of us regret the for the procurement of aircraft, ships, yers than I among the Members to chal- necessity for devoting so much of our and missiles. This amount is $584,672,- lenge the constitutional lawyers who treasure, our energy, and our intelli 000 more than was provided for in the bill apparently abound in the Pentagon. A gence to the production of military hard- that was originally resented to Con- Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006 p8 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 1 gress. The greatest part of this addition, Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 $491 million is for the RS-70 program. minutes to the gentleman from Iowa The adoption of this legislation will [Mr. GROSS]. assure the people of this Nation that we (Mr. GROSS asked and was given per- .are intent upon maintaining a military mission to revise and extend his re posture that is more than sufficient to marks.) deter aggression on the part of the Mr. GROSS: Mr. Chairman, I have adversaries of freedom. listened attentively to all of the discus The adoption of this legislation will sion this afternoon with the exception further insure that the United States has of about 5 minutes for a sandwich and a the capability of deterring the use of cup of coffee. I have heard repeatedly mass destruction weapons that our of a wonderful compromise that has potential enemies possess at this time. been worked out on the bill by the House In evaluating and reappraising our Armed Services Committee and how the defense posture, we are concerned with House is winning its point. I guess I the threat to our security which exists subscribe to and read too many news- as a result of the tremendous progress papers. I had been reading for days that has been made in the technology of about the struggle to the death between mass destruction. the colossus of the South and the colos- We must have in our military in- sus of the Northeast on the subject of ventory sufficient weapons and force that the big bomber. But I found when I will survive an initial massive nuclear arrived on the House floor this noon attack and be capable of delivering a that although the House Armed Services decisive counterblow. We have the Committee had voted unanimously orig- capability of doing this today. inally to direct the Secretary of Defense We should make every effort that can to spend $491 million for the RS-70 that reasonably be made to strengthen these this was not the last word. I learned vital retaliatory forces that we now have that overnight the gentleman from at our command. This bill will contrib- Georgia had trod the primrose path to ute greatly to the defense posture that is the White House and the signals had necessary and one which we should been changed. I am not aware of an- maintain in the best interests of this other all night twist party at the White Nation. House last night. At any rate I came the House floor this noon and found t o it is imperative, however, that we have a mixed striking force of proper propor- that the word "direct" would no longer thi sr is the n t a compromise; it is a Representa- It is for this reason that I whole- be used in this legislation to force the Pe heartedly support the committee action Secretary of Defense to spend $491 mil- fives. with respect to the RS-70 program. The lion for development of the RS-70 minutes GAVIN the ge Mr. air from ield 10 capabilities and tremendous value of bomber. manned bombers have been demon- I went to the dictionary a little while igan [Mr. FORD]. strated time and time again, and we ago, for it was apparent the alleged com- . (Mr. FORD to revise annd wextend his as given per- should not neglect the manned bomber promise has been worked out on the mission re- program in the future. basis of two words. I went to the diction- marks.) I disagree with the administration ary to look up the difference between Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, in all of that the RS-70 should not be carried "direct" and "authorize." "Direct" is the debate that I, have listened to this forward at this time as a full scale absolute; "authorize" is discretionary, as afternoon I have not heard anybody weapon system development. we all know in the House when we quote the precise language which is in Military experts recognize important vote authorizations for appropriations. basic controversy, or was in basic con- advantages in a mixed missile and bomb- There is nothing mandatory upon the troversy I should say, up until this er - force. The principal advantage of Appropriations Committee to provide morning. the RS-70 is its ability to operate under the amount suggested in any authoriza- This language on page 2 of H.R. 9751, positive control and to deliver a large tion bill. One is absolute; the other is which was in controversy, reads: number of nuclear weapons in a single completely discretionary. For the Air Force, $3,626 million, of which sortie. It is highly maneuverable, can Then there was a letter from the the Secretary of the Air Force is directed to employ tactics and does not have to fly President read into the RECORD this utilize authorization in an amount not less o over or into the target. It also possesses afternoon. Let me read just a few words than d with 91 milli oduu ionri planning anc163 to the advantage of having a human being from this letter from the President. pro aboard to exercise judgment consistent "I must, therefore, insist upon the full leadtime procurement for an RS-70 weapon system. with changing environment. powers and discretion$," and so on. It will have extraordinary reconnais- Is there anything mandatory about I want to go on record, as I have in sance aids which will permit the study that? Of course there is. "I must in- the past, as being unalterably opposed of targets in detail and report the condi- sist upon the full powers of the executive to that language. I do agree there was tion of same after an ICBM strike. It branch of government," is what the Pres- no harm in the Committee on Armed could then go in to finish a job. Its tre- ident is saying in effect. Services recommending an authoriza- mendous capabilities are vital to and will What kind of a compromise are we tion of $491 million for the RS-70 pro- greatly complement our strategic mili- engaged in here this afternoon? What gram. Such a dollar authorization tary posture. kind of fight is the Committee on Armed would not be objectionable. But I want The budget that was submitted to us Services winning? What kind of fight it to be very clear that the language by President Eisenhower in January of is the House of Representatives winning, directing the Secretary of the Air Force, 1961 provided that the then B-70 pro- for this involves all of us? and in effect the Commander in Chief, gram be continued as a full weapons Then I read the report accompanying is wrong for a number of reasons, system development. this bill, and I found this: First, it would have invaded the re- We shall continue to make every ef- To any student of government, it is sponsibilities and the jurisdiction of the fort to have the present administration eminently clear that the role of- the Commander in Chief, the President of recommend the RS-70 development as a Congress in determining national policy, the United States. This would have full weapons system. We sincerely hope defense or otherwise, has deteriorated been, in my judgment, an unconstitu- that the study which is to be conducted over the years. tional invasion of the responsibilities of by the Defense Department will result in I agree with the distinguished gentle- the Chief Executive. Secondly, the an acceleration of the day in which the man from Georgia, the chairman of the language would have usurped the appro- our becomes operational and part of Committee true. Armed You can scarcely turn Appropriations. Thfirdthe ly, thisnlanguage our inventory. absolutely 4329 a page of H.R. 8400, the foreign give- away bill, last year, but what you find powers delegated to the executive branch of the Government that ought to have been retained by Congress. The concluding paragraph entitled, "Deterioration of the Role of Congress," reads: Perhaps this is the time, and the RS-70 is the occasion, to reverse this trend. Per- haps this is the time to reexamine the role and function of Congress and discover whether it is playing the part that the Founding Fathers ordained that it should. Those are beautiful words, those are significant words. What now? Will you, before the afternoon is over, ask that these words be expunged from the report? I think that would be most fit- ting. I do not believe they belong in this report under any such compromise with the executive branch as is being sug- gested. I say that Members of Congress and the public had been led to believe that here was a fight that would settle the question of separation of powers as between Congress and the executive branch of government. I intend to support the bill for I be- lieve this country must have incompa- rable defenses, but I deeply regret that Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 4330 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE March 21 would have created inflexibility in the tee back and going into the matter fur- its prerogatives. I do not want those management of the RS-70 program they. of us who are members of the Commit- which undoubtedly would have led or Mr. FORD. I will rely entirely on the tee on Appropriations drafting legisla- conceivably would have led to harm and wisdom of the chairman in conference tion on an appropriation bill. I op- detriment to the program rather than to correct this very awkward sounding posed It in every instance that I can helping and assisting it. Inflexibility in sentence. recall. On the other hand, I do not such a complicated weapon system would Mr. VINSON. Yes; it might be car- think it is the prerogative of the Com- hamstring the responsible management rected in conference, i will say, before it mittee on Armed Services to invade the in the Air Force. becomes law. I assure you there I will jurisdiction of the Committee on Appro- May I say to my highly respected try to improve on the sentence. priations. This language, if it had been friend, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Mr. FORD. I thank the gentleman. approved in its original form, would ViNSON], that if he is going to make a Mr. Chairman, I would like to take ex- have been an invasion of the authority change in this committee amendment, ception to some remarks made in the of the Appropriations Committee. to just change the word "directed" to committee report. I earnestly request I am just as jealous that the Congress "authorized" the result will be. an awk- that members of the committee read this not invade the jurisdiction of the Chief ward sentence. report, starting on page 3, under the Executive. Mr. Chairman, the gentle- Mr. VINSON. I grant you that is heading "Manned Bombers" and running man from New York [Mr. BECKEB] ear- true. We are trying to make as little through page 9. her pointed out that President Kennedy change as possible. The committee report says in one has sought by one means or another to Mr. FORD. It is a very awkward heading on page 5: "Disregard of Con- gain greater authority over the raising sentence. If the gentleman makes that gressional Will." On page 6 the com- or lowering of taxes. The President cur- change, could the gentleman in. his wis- mittee cites 13 Instances, beginning with rently wants some authority in a stand- dom and good judgment revise the lan- fiscal year 1956, and running through by fashion to institute a vast public guage of that sentence so we at least fiscal year 1961, where the Executive has works program. I strongly disapprove of will have a decent-sounding sentence in refused to do what the Congress has this authority in either of those cases, any law? directed. and I will not vote for them. Mr. VINSON. Well, I think in view Mr. Chairman, I do not question the On the other hand, I do not want the Of the letter from the President, when validity of those figures. But on the Congress to usurp and take from the he uses a word, that 4s the word I adopt. other hand I made a check to see how Chief Executive authority that is his. Of course, there are different words we many times during this same 6-year pe- And so the amendment to this language, ,could-adopt. We could just put a period riod the Executive has followed the di- as originally proposed, is sound. after the figure and strike out the bal- rection of the Congress on military Now I should like to ask my good ance, but I do not want to do that, be- matters. It is interesting to see, if one friend, the chairman of this committee, cause I wanted the relationship of the will look at the record, that during this when he offers this amendment to RS-70 to the money figure to be re- same period of time the executive change the language from. "direct" to flected. It may not be exactly accurate branch of the Government has followed "authorize," whether or not he will agree from a grammatical standpoint, but the recommendations of the Congress that this part of the language in the nevertheless it is good enough from a 28 times in toto. In nine cases out of committee report Is also revised; and legal standpoint, so I hope, therefore, this same period of time the executive let me read it from page 9: that the gentleman will not be too tech- branch of the Goverment followed the Lest there be any doubt as to what the nical and concur in the amendment. recommendations of the Congress more RS-70 amendment means let it be said that Mr. FORD. I am always proud of the than 50 percent. So, Mr. Chairman, it means exactly what it says; i.e., that the handiwork we do on the floor of the the Chief Executive, whether it was for- Secretary of the Air Force, as an o?mclal of House and in committee, and I am very inter President Eisenhower, or President the executive branch, is directed, ordered, gthe full disappointed, I will say to my friend, Kennedy, far more times has followed amount ont of and 91 1 million to utilize ranted when we do something that is awkward, the recommendations of Congress on Pceedhw$h production plaannnninng planning and l0 that does not meet the standards that he military matters than he has not. So, long leadtime procurement for an RS-70 and others establish in the drafting of I am not convinced at all as to the weapon system." legislation. If you just change the word validity of the statement made on page Are you changing this when you "directed" to "authorized," it leaves a 6 of this committee report on the con- change the language by the amendment? very awkward sentence. ejusion made therefrom. Mr. VINSON. Of course, when you Mr. VINSON. Well, that may be true. Mr. Chairman, I must say that I agree use the word "direct" that argument is Let me read it: "of which the Secretary in other portions with the committee re- sound and logical. When you use the of the Air Force is authorized to utilize port. Nothing is more obnoxious in my word "authorize" it would not be applica- authorizations." opinion than to have someone in the ble to the section the gentleman has Mr. FORD. That does not sound very executive branch of the Government, just quoted. well. whether he is in the Defense Depart- Mr. FORD. I am delighted to hear Mr. VINSON. Well, that might not be ment or the Department of Agriculture, the gentleman say that when you exactly up to the latest and most proper place a halo over his head and decide change the language from "direct" to phraseology, but nevertheless if I do it on his own that all the wisdom in the "authorize" that this part of the com- the other way, then I lose entirely the world exists in his Department. mittee report is no longer applicable. connection of the $491 million with the AN, nhe;?? +s,:., ,.,,?,.--__ 1bV-' V. have a good record, and the facts which guished gentlemen of the Committee on Mr. FORD. May I respectfully sug- I recited before prove it. They have Appropriations. I am pleased at the Best that you write it this way: "of which followed our recommendations, in toto, high compliment the gentleman paid the the Secretary of the Air Force is au- 23 times in this 5- or 6-year period. report. I do think it is a very fine re- thorized $491 million during fiscal year They have followed our reeommenda- port and I point with lasting pride to the 1963 to proceed with the production, tions substantially in nine more 'in- reports of the Armed Services Commit- planning, and long-time procurement stances. tee. I trust there is enough of informa- for RS-70 weapon systems." Mr. Chairman, I think that the Con- tion in the report to cause him to con- Mr. VINSON. This question was gress would have been unwise to ap- tinue to give his strong and loyal raised in the committee this morning, prove the language "directs" because it support to the RS-70 concept. and all that the gentleman says was un- would have caused trouble between two Mr. FORD. I do agree with the RS- der consideration. The thought of the great committees, the Committee on 70 concept. Our House subcommittee committee was that we wanted to tie this Armed Services, and the Committee on on military appropriations last year, as in, that is, the $491 million, with the Appropriations. I am very jealous of the gentleman may remember, did not RS-70 program. I trust that the gentle- the prerogatives of my committee, the accept President Kennedy's cutback in man will go along with the committee. Committee on Appropriations. I am the program. We stuck with former I cannot now change the committee very envious that the Committee on President Eisenhower's dollar amount of amendment without calling the commit- Armed Services exercise to the fullest $358 million. Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 1962 CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD - HOUSE 4331 Mr. VINSON. That is right. Mr. FORD. Not at all. As a matter of go to the House Appropriations Commit- Mr. FORD. I must say I have not fact, I think I am saying quite the con- tee. passed judgment on whether we should trary. I just want to clarify what this I respectfully suggest that in my have $171 million or $491 million for the letter said. humble judgment the wording of the bill fiscal year 1963. Our committee has not I want to commend the committee for in line 2, page 2, would be in substantial marked up our bill and it would be pre- making the change, and I will support contravention of the jurisdiction of the mature on my part to make any such them despite the awkwardness of the House Appropriations Committee, un- decision at this point. sentence because I think we are now do- less the word "direct" is stricken. The Mr. VINSON. Yes; but I was refer- ing what this committee and this House very honorable, timely, and constructive ring to the fact that in last year's de- ought to do at this time. adjustment made yesterday afternoon bate, the gentleman so clearly pointed , Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Chairman, I have late by the President of the United out the justification for a continued no further requests for time. States and the Secretary of Defense in appropriation for the then B-70. I Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Chairman, I -yield conference with our distinguished Armed trust he will follow the same logical such time as he may require to the gen- Services Committee chairman, the gen- course this year with the RS-70. tleman from Oklahoma [Mr. WICKER- tleman from Georgia, the Honorable I think he was right then and I hope SHAM]. CARL VINSON, all of whom met at the he will continue on the beaten path he Mr. WICKERSHAM, Mr. Chairman, White House on yesterday, is very pleas-- has already laid out. as a member of the House Armed Serv- ing and inspiring to me. This is because - Mr. FORD. May I comment on this ices Committee, I have, for a long this important incident in the history of letter from Secretary McNamara to the period of time, urged the continuation our legislative and Executive depart- chairman. This letter is a very care- of the research, development, and ac- ment responsibilities again gives crystal fully drawn letter. May I read it so tual production of the B-70, and later, clear evidence of the fact that our con- there is no misapprehension on any- the RS-70 on a 24-hour-a-day, round- stitutional form of government can and body's part who heard it earlier: the-clock basis. does work efficiently and with utmost ac- This study will give full consideration to The passage of this measure means cord between these department set up the magnitude of the committee program continued life, rather than an ap- by our constitutional frameworkers and the depth with which the committee preaching death, not only to the RS-70 when there is an actual emergency aris- has emphasized this. program and the manned bomber pro- ing either by way of important differ- Here is the real guts of the letter: gram, but the life of the Air Force itself. ences of opinion, or by way of any other Furthermore, if technological develop- Also, a much longer life for our valuable 'emergency which should be cooperatively ments related to sideview radar, and associ- SAC bases. understood and honorably adjusted. ated data processing and display systems, The overwhelming majority of the Having sat all through this important advance more rapidly than we anticipatd debate from the very beginning until this When the fiscal 1963 Defense budged was committee not only favored this measure minute in the debate, and with the clos- prepared, we will wish to take advantage but favored the continued production ing of the debate within the next few of these advances by increasing our develop- line of the B-52 until sufficient RS-70's it appears to me there will be votes "nay be ment expenditures; and we would then wish are available to replace them. minutesa very, sparse number me to expend whatever proportions of any in The result of the agreement that has This is as I believe it should be; as it crease voted by the Congress these advances been reached means increased stature for must be, and in the best interests-of our in radar technology would warrant. Gen. Curtis LeMay and Secretary of national defense. Therefore, I shall There is not a scintilla of evidence in the Air Force, Eugene Zuckert. vote to approve the bill on its merits and this letter that the Secretary of Defense The enactment of this well-considered on the deletion of the word "direct" on is going to recommend the procurement bill means more security and less inse- M its merits. I cordially compliment our of aircraft four, five, and six in either curity for the free world. distinguished committee chairman, the the B-70 or the RS-70 configuration. Furthermore, it means that the Pres- gentleman from Georgia, the Honorable All he has said is we are taking a look ident, in 'his wisdom, has remembered CARL VINSON, who has served in this to see whether in the radar and sub- some of the lessons he learned while a great legislative body for 48 years last system components program we should U.S. Representative and as a Senator, past. spend more money in fiscal year 1963. and, consequently, has followed to a I repeat, I compliment all in connec- All the testimony before our commit- great degree, the wishes of the legislative tion with this timely adjustment of sin- tee is to the effect that if there is an branch-the Congress, cere and responsible differences of opin- expanded program in this area, all they our action here today, and the un- ion. I believe my Armed Services Com- will spend is an additional $10 million to derstanding that has been reached, will mittee has achieved its purposes in main- $30 million in fiscal year 1963. This they enhance the future of the Nike-Zeus pro- taining its responsibilities in the prem- can easily get from the emergency fund duction. and I honor the executive depart- . or from the contingency fund, $30 mil- This measure will act as a further de- merit of our Government for maintain- lion in the contingency fund and $150 ing its constitutional responsibilities . million in the emergency fund. terrent to the Communist world likewise. Mr. COHELAN. Mr. Chairman, will Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield (Mr. DOYLE asked and was given per- the gentleman yield? such time as he may require to the gen- mission to revise and extend his re- Mr. FORD. I yield to the gentleman tleman from California [Mr. DOYLE]. marks.) from California. Mr. DOYLE_ Mr. Chairman, I rise, to (Mr. COHELAN asked and was given Mr. COHELAN. The gentleman un- express my approval of the proposed permission to revise and extend his re- derstands, however, that the Secretary change of the text of the bill before the marks.) intends to spend that money provided House by striking the word "direct" at Mr. COHELAN. Mr. Chairman, I the breakthroughs in this radar area line 2, page 2, from the text of the bill want to take this opportunity to offer .should come through. What is wrong and substituting the word "authorize." my high compliments to our distin- with that? This I believe is in accord with the ac- guished chairman, the gentleman from Mr. FORD. Nothing is wrong with tual situation as it exists under our con- 'Georgia [Mr. VINSON], for the wisdom that, but some people got the impression stitutional form of government because and judgment he has once again demon- and some people said to me after the let- the Commander in Chief, who is always strated in the handling of this most com- ter was read that the Secretary, in ef- the President of the United States, is the plex and difficult problem. feet, was saying that he was going to sole elective officer who can actually di- Our country is blessed in these difficult push with aircraft four, five, and six. rect what shall be done with the money times with outstanding leaders in every He did not say that. which we in Congress authorize to be ex- branch of our remarkable system of gov- Mr. COHELAN. That is quite per- pended. It is his constitutional respon- ernment. The President and his most rect. The gentleman would not, cer, sibility to do that; it is our constitu- brilliant and distinguished Secretary of tainly, as a member of the Appropria- tional responsibility as the Armed Serv- Defense, Mr. Robert McNamara, have tions Committee suggest that the House ices Commitee to authorize an amount, acted with discretion and restraint in burn dollar bills just to get this program and which authorizing action by our keeping with their awesome responsi- going. Armed Services Committee must then bilities. Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 4332 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE I congratulate all parties to this great public debate for their superb leader- ship. Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may require to the gen- tleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BOLAND). (Mr. BOLAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks at this point.) Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to hear from the distin- guished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. VixsoN], that an agreement has been reached with respect to the B-70 bomber, now known as the RS-70. Otherwise, I would be opposed to the Armed Services Committee's original recommendation, which, in effect directs the President of the United States to build the bomber. Here we get into a deep constitutional question. President Kennedy has said that this aircraft is too costly, with a price tag conservatively estimated at over $10 billion, and it will be obsolete for mili- tary purposes before it is ready to fly. Mr. Chairman, the Congress should not command nor should the. Congress direct the President on how to arm the military forces for the missions the President decides are in the national in- terest. The President is the one person in government and in the Nation with all of the facts and intelligence at his fingertips. He is the man who has to make the big decisions on weapons. He is the man who knows whether or not it is worth the cost of billions of dollars for a weapon which may be obsolete before it is placed in the national arsenal. And the President is the man. who has access to secret information which may be the cornerstone of his final decision. I am sure my colleagues will agree with me that no President will gamble our national security and preservation to save dollars. Neither does any Presi- dent want to embark on a crash program of bomber construction when he knows the weapon will be obsolete in a few years hence. Yet, the Armed Services Committee originally recommended in its report "that the Secretary of the Air Force, as an official of the executive branch, is directed, ordered, mandated, and required to utilize the full amount of the $491 million authority granted to proceed with production planning and long leadtime procurement for an RS-70 weapon system." Mr. Chairman, I believe that Congress should carry out the intent of the Found- ing Fathers who drafted the Constitu- tion, and that we limit our activity to the traditional and time-tested role of "ad- vise and consent" and "to investigate and propose." President Kennedy and Secretary of Defense McNamara, after taking office last year, approached the B-70 bomber controversy with an open mind. Their investigation showed that the B-70 never enjoyed the full support of President Eisenhower, his Secretary of Defense, his principal civilian advisers nor the Joint Chiefs of Staff as a corporate body. In fact, the only consistent supporter of the B-70 program was the Air Force. The March 21 secretaries and chiefs of the other or delay the successful development of services, whether under the Kennedy ad- the RS-70 program. ministration or the Eisenhower adminis- Earlier in debate, an effort' was made tration, never supported the B-70 for to create the impression that Mr. Ken- full weapon system development or pro- nedy supported the RS-70 program as curement and, indeed, many vigorously a candidate for the Presidency, but has opposed it. So, it is a matter of record now reversed his position. The President that the B-70 has long been considered has not changed his position. The a very doubtful proposition, with the President believes In the development of weight of competent scientific, technical this RS-70 program. The question in- years. President Kennedy and Secretary McNamara have not closed their minds to the B-70, or RS-70, problem. They feel that by continuing our XB-70 pro- gram of three prototype aircraft and by proceeding with the exploratory develop- ment of the key subsystems of the pro- posed RS-70 for which funds have been included in the 1963 budget, they will have open to them the option of produc- ing and deploying an RS-70 system at a later time if the need for such a system should become apparent. Mr. Chairman, since the key subsys- tems of the aircraft have yet to be de- veloped, delaying the decision for 1 year would not postpone the real operational readiness of the first wing at all. But, President Kennedy and Secretary Mc- Namara, after thoroughly reviewing all aspects of the problem, have decided that the RS-70 program will not add significantly to our strategic retaliatory capability in the period after 1967. Therefore, I am extremely pleased that a compromise has been worked out and the original committee recommendation has been substituted. lion can be spent in this fiscal year. It was the judgment of the President's ad- visers that this money could not be spent at this time because the entire program is not sufficiently advanced to justify this large appropriation at the time and that, therefore, there was no sense in throwing the budget out of bal- ance for fiscal 1963. For these reasons I think both these men have reached an excellent compromise which will actually speed up basic research and development in this program. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the long- range manned bomber is still our first line of defense. The Strategic Air Com- mand has provided for our Nation and the entire free world, the greatest deter- rent to war that we ever had. There is no question in my mind that if Mr. Khruschev is twisting and turning today and starting all sorts of local provoca- tiohs and has not touched off a third world war, it is only because he Is mind- ful of the awesome strength, the defense, the retaliatory power that the United States has in its manned bombers in the Strategic Air Command. Let there be no mistake. Our manned bombers can Mr. HEBFRT. Mr. Chairman, I obliterate the Soviet Union if Mr. yield Khruschev is foolish enough to violate 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illi- the peace at this time. No one knows nois [Mr. PUCrNSxiJ. this better than Mr. Khruschev himself. (Mr. PUCINSKI asked and was given It was my honor to lead ray bomber permission to revise and extend his group in the first B-29 raid over Tokyo remarks.) in World War II. It was also my privi- Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise lege to serve under General LeMay who in support of the bill H.R. 9751, as I was commanding general of the 20th understand it will be amended by the Global Air Force in World War II. I committee. I congratulate the chair- think that General LeMay is one of the man of the committee, the distinguished greatest military leaders this country gentleman from Georgia [Mr. VINSON], has ever produced. Millions of Ameri- and the members of his committee for can soldiers were spared the horror of in- calling to the attention of the American vading Japan's rocky shores because people the tremendously important con- General Lemay helped bring the war in sequence of a successful development of Japan to a successful conclusion with the RS-70 weapons system. I think massive bombing raids under. his per- the American people owe .this commit- sonal leadership and supervision. The tee a del-et of gratitude for bringing this Defense Department will be wise in seek- subject to the attention of the entire Ing his continued counsel. Like him, I Nation. But with equal conviction, Mr. believe we must go forward with this Chairman, I think the President of the long-range manned bomber program. United States deserves a great deal of We should make all the progress we can credit and the Nation owes him a debt in missilry, but we cannot for one mo- of gratitude for proposing a compromise ment weaken our manned bomber pro- formula and a solution which, indeed, grain. will move - this important program Reference has been made here today to forward. Earlier, Mr. Chairman, during Colonel Glenn and the fact that he debate today, some doubt was cast upon stated right from this podium that if the wisdom of the compromise language human beings had not been in the space which was agreed upon by the chairman vehicle he controlled, the mission might of the Committee on Armed Services and not have been successfully accomplished. the President. It is my judgment that Perhaps we should also recall another President Kennedy and Chairman VIN- incident last year when we launched the soN have demonstrated that reasonable spy-in-the-sky satellite, Tiros. It was men can reach reasonable agreements, designed to give us information about under the democratic processes in our weather and to give us other informa- Republic. The compromise proposed by tion that we need about various parts of President Kennedy will in no way deter the world from a military standpoint. Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 Approved For Release 2003/10/10.: CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 1962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 4333 You will all recall that on that particular manned weapon; systems in our future aero- to produce it or not. Just that time- flight, somebody had forgotten to prop- space program. There is no question, for sensitive is this project. It is likewise erly activate one of the lenses in that example, that this country's defense posture the consensus of much military thinking will be greatly improved by the phase-in of that our enemy's potentialities for the space capsule, and the mission failed to effective and reliable ballistic missiles. They future are such that e would be wise the it to get the information it was designed to are exceptional weapons. Nevertheless, they pons produce. Tiros failed because we relied cannot perform all essential combat tacks. get the S-70 weapon asyptembinto our inventory jt as e. exclusively This on electronic Again, this is General White speaking: This House cannot afford to let the This business of relying completely in We will have to rely upon manned weapon RS-70 die on the vine. I repeat: we on of mm the serving e best i interests of not, of systems to perform vital war functions must issue a mandate that it be put into y opinionon, , servin ng t the he best which require on-the-spot, trained human work fully and promptly. this country: We will need human judgment. * * * In any future war, there said by civilians in the manpower for many years in our struggle is almost certain probability that events It t has has b beeen n saaidn that the financial for survival. And it is for this reason will not unfold exactly as planned. Thus, that I am glad the Committee today has there will be a tremendous premium on resources are not adequate to provide us forces, to brought before the House this subject. systems which can look, and find, and re- With the weapons sufficient grouf the ground moforcesdern- It is most important that research and port, and attack, and return to attack again. ize development go ahead on a manned We will always need systems which can to provide an adequate airlift, to im- bomber out and destroy mobile targets as plement the RS-70 program in the bomber that will have the flexibility, that well as fixed or rapidly developing targets on the manner, or to development embark k full ll speed and speed will have the maneuverability that it is whose positions are unknown or uncertain proper needed in our first line of defense. I am until observed. ahead f on a. antimissile missile. sure that every single American wants to , What more powerful a recommenda- But, as I see it, instead of maintaining have a strong an Establishment, for the RS-70 than that? What adequate ground forces and obtaining not because it is serves instrument of war greater reason could we give for the essential weapons, the United States has but because it serves as the n House to issue a mandate that work an been devoting a great portion of its fl-wark my mp but eace. There is is no would question ot greatest t bulin the RS-70 be pushed forward as rapidly nancial resources to foreign aid. mind inW World Hitler War II in in 1939 if the as possible to completion? The cost of this great weapon is in- dared start United an and the f tfree Further consultation with military finitesimal when contrasted with the d States rest near the the re- experts-with men who ought to know- billions upon billions of dollars we have ld had had world anywhere nea t ay. reveals what a wondrous weapon the squandered in lands scattered all around Therefore pry I power think that every ave today. RS-70 actually will be. We learn that the globe. We say we want to hem in the o evMember of because of its design? this powerful Communists. There is no better way Congress worked and who who up has rt this s on legislation bill weapon will be able to utilize existing than to build the RS-70. and who will support this profound military and civilian air fields. The air- And it is my observation that Ameri- Inde contril utionsg one r of r ation of craft will have intercontinental range cans would be much more content to see the the most peace, for preservation which can be expanded to global capac- their tax dollars being used for projects only because one language, the Khrushchev understands language of ity with the use of refueling tankers. that will provide for our own safekeeping only . f The RS-70 will have all the guidance in time of need. strength. features of an intercontinental missile- This, the military tells us, the RS-70 a mthe RS-70 and more. The navigation system can will do. program orderly make a most development contribution will make and d significant automatically navigate the aircraft to It has been estimated it will cost the help increase our defense network any point on earth. The digital com- Russians 40 billions of dollars to pre- new heights perfection. our retaliatory o tr ea- puter provides a rapid solution to both pare a defense against the RS-70, if new her. Speaker, . For this 75 real will the bombing and navigation equations. they wanted to tackle the job at all. son, approved overwhelmingly I hope H.R. It can handle more than one target at a This weapons system would give America Ken- - time and switch targets in a fraction of a a tremendous military show of might at be approved President with th the amendment suggested by, Pres second. The RS-70 will have the capa- any spot on the globe in less than 5 hours reedy and accepted by Chairman VINSON. bility of carrying a multiple and varied time. And, more importantly, it will Mr. Chairman, as I see it, the princi- weapon load. The flexibility of weapon have a man at the corols. pal question confronting the House in loads offered by the RS-70 insures us I a a persuaded that there will never debate here today is whether the RS-70 the advantage of selection'of the proper weapons system shall be produced as weapon for each target. be a thinking machine that could be sub- speedily as possible or whether we shall Are not these powerful arguments that stituted for the human mind in the ac- abandon perhaps our one most impor- should persuade anyone of the vital role curate and flexible maneuvering of an tant weapon in the defense posture of of the RS-70 in our defense scheme? air vehicle. We saw a near classic ex- the United States. The problems that confront the RS- ample of this in the recent space orbit We hear great wails about economy 40 today are nothing new. General by Colonel Glenn. everytime the RS-70 is mentioned. And White is the authority for this state As a part of my remarks, Mr. Chair- all of this at a time when we have thou- ment: man, I wish to include a statement that sands and thousands of well-trained men, Throughout our history, all bombers have was made by a professional soldier in called back into duty, who are spending had a hard life. Every system I can think whom I have the utmost confidence. their time policing up the grounds and of-the B-17, the B-29, the $-36, the B-47, This statement is by Brig. Gen. Bonner engaged in other nonessential activities., and the B-52-have almost died on the vine, Fellers, U.S. Army, retired. General As a man of medicine, I know that and yet I submit that each one of those sys- Fellers has had an outstanding career, when we are ill we consult a doctor. By tems has been the thing that has saved this including a tour of duty as chief of plan- the same token, I say that when eve are Nation. I ask you to think where we would ping under Gen. Douglas MacArthur in considering the military might of this be today if we didn't have the B-52's and the Pacific in 1943-44. General Fellers' Nation we should consult military men B-47 s. statement is as follows: who are in a position to know.. We can- General White further declares that The only effective free world military shield not hide behind the cloak of penny- he is absolutely convinced that the same is U.S. nuclear striking power. This is the pinching when the entire future of. our kind of situation is likely to confront us only decisive force which stands between country may be at stake. in the future. And he adds: freedom and slavery. it is the only military .For me, I need turn back only a few Therefore, I say manned weapons systems force which the Kremlin fears. months to the inspiring and forthright are required from here on out in some pro- Despite these obvious facts, our 1963 de- testimony of our Air Force chiefs on the portion. That being the case, I would say fense budget fails to insure continuance- of role of the RS-70. Hear well the words that the B-70 Is the necessity because it is U.S. supremacy in nuclear capability. In- of Gen. Thomas D. White, then Air Force the latest thing in the state of the art. stead of continuing superior nuclear strik- ing power-a wholly inadequate conven- Chief of Staff, when he said: It is General White's expert opinion tional warfare capability is gradually to be I am deeply concerned with the need to that a delay in producing the RS-70 is substituted. This conventional warfare maintain a proper mix of manned and un- the difference between whether we ought program is no threat whatsoever to the vast No. 42-12 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 4334 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --HOUSE March; 21 R ed Army, submarine fleet, and air force. result in a collision between the legisla- ing it to the Air Force to determine in Here 1963 is the plbudgetan in the fiscal year tive and executive branches of Govern- the year ahead if we have an adequate The Minuteman missile production pro- ment. Comment was heard that the stock of ICBM's and Polaris-based mis- gram is to be cut from 600 to 100 a year. President, as Commander, was in com- siles, and also, B-52's and B-58's, as The mobile (railway) Minuteman produc- plete command over his forces and that tb give us a powerful nuclear striking tion is to be cut from 300 to 100. This re- he should not be likened to a general who power. The determination has rightly duces the total production from about 3,300 has command but cannot dictate the been left to the Department, of Defense to 900. precise weapons with which his forces with authority to act, and not under The B-70 bomber program is being re- will be armed. On the other hand, com- a compelling directive, to determine duced to three-more likely to one-trans- ment was heard that the Congress should whether or not we need this plane to port type aircraft with no usefulness as a weapon. The 8-70 would be the most de- not be restricted to simply a passive role send into enemy territory in the event structive and versatile weapon ever devel- or to supine acquiescense in programs some of our missiles are off target, or in oped. In 5 hours it could find and destroy handed to it by the Department of De- any event, to determine if this weapon any target, anywhere. Traveling at 2,000 fense. In preliminary considerations of system is needed to go in and take a look miles per hour and above 70,000 feet, its this bill there were such comments heard after our missiles have been fired. probability of penetrating enemy defenses is as "Congress has deteriorated over the Finally, apart from the great cost nine times that of the B-52. years." In news analyses printed in the which is being charged to the military, It has been calculated that were a B--70 bomber force in existence, it would cost the press and elsewhere, the Constitution we learned from our visit to the North Soviets $40 billion to build a defense against was quoted and particularly article I, American plant at Los Angeles, and a it. section 8, wherein the Congress was personal inspection of the B-70 mockup, No more B-52 bombers (the backbone of granted powers relating to the armed that much knowledge has been gained our present striking power) will be built services which all turned upon whether as a result of the research on this faster- after the current contract runs out in 1962. the Congress could direct the executive than-sound bomber which will yield a No more B-58's are to be built. branch, and in this case the Secretary dividend and have great value in the field The F-108 supersonic fighter production was canceled last year (1960). The F-106 of the Air Force, to utilize an authoriza- of supersonic commercial aircraft for the now in production will be discontinued upon tion in an amount of not less than $491 future. completion of the present small contract. million during fiscal year 1962, to pro- Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, we sched led 1965.e ow0it wawsill beure ai edeuntile1970 leadtime prproduction ocurement) fors thenItS-70 are once aersy that has on cones - and used for delivery of conventional bombs. weapon system, the controversy that has arisen concern- Funds for the Dyna-Soar X-16, which has But as is so often true of so much good ing the pace of development of the already proved that it can orbit and then RS-70, the Air Forces' reconnaissance- reenter the atmosphere under manual con- legislation, a cojnpromise was at the last strike superbomber. Until recently, this trot-an advance over Russian develop- moment agreed upon and the word plane has been known as the B-70. ment-have been cut from $185 to $65 mil- "authorized" was substituted for the The issue at hand is the speed with lion. word "directed." opose to No more advanced aircraft are to be pro- The final vote reflected the temper of which wl ponary we don. this new duced. Inferior subsonic aircraft will be the House and the complete agreement and am aawth r. substituted; 585 such craft are to be built. of every Member present and voting that It acquainted with arguments pam pre- For arming them $500 million is to be spent the substitution of words was a wise sented the he son that the d, and I am annually on old-fashioned conventional still of thopinion that the development bombs. choice. A collision was averted and a The atomic warhead production for dike favorable result was reached. The final of the RS-70 could be accelerated in missiles is being cut back. vote was 403 yeas, and the nays, 0. No accordance the nce with ton remedForc s I Air Force research and development for one voted against the authorization bill of the Committee on Armed Forces. I fiscal year 1963 is cut in half-a $2 billion on a rollcall vote. will try to explain why I have taken this cut. The only reason we are asking that position, Turning from nuclear to conventional war- our comments be spread upon the Our Nation, and the free world, con- fare weapons could be suicidal for us. We RECORD is that in tinues to be faced with a determined and and the free world are not equipped either connection with an to deter or to win a war against the Soviets official trip to the Pacific Missile Range aggressive adversary-the Communist with conventional weapons. On the other at Vandenburgh Air Force Base during monolith. The Communist leaders of the hand, we can build better planes; we have December, we visited the North Ameri- Soviet Union, and of China, have better trained crews to fly them; we are not can Aviation plant at Los Angeles and not abandoned their plans for world committed to a vast land army as is Russia. had the privilege of looking at the B-70 domination. They are determined to As a consequence, it is readily within our mockup, which is the principal compo- achieve this objective-by every means capability to create and maintain superior nent of what is now described as the possible, particularly they propose to do nuclear striking forces. RS-70 weapon system. There are many this by gaining control of space. , Despite these well-known facts, within 3 years, present Pentagon planning will pro- details which the Air Force would pre- Just last week, when Soviet Russia or- vide almost no new U.S. aircraft or missile fer not be commented upon, and some bited its latest satellite, Khrushchev production. By then, and with our gradual of course are strictly classified, but it can boasted that the Soviet's are develop- shift from nuclear to conventional capabil- be said that when one leaves the great ing-or have already developed-a global ity, we shall be at the mercy of the Kremlin. hangar where the mockup is housed, he missile which can annihilate opposition Could it be that we are deliberately per- has the impression that he has seen on any continent. mitting our striking power to fall into sec- something almost unbelievable in terms Obviously, therefore, the race for the and place? Will we next be told that since the Soviets have become stronger and have of size and in terms of potential accom- control of space is of utmost importance the power to destroy us, our only hope for plishments. to our own security and the survival for survival is to join a world order? We do not profess to know whether our civilization. Only the Congress can correct this alarm- or not further development can quickly In this race, the development of the ing situation. All funds for the executive be accomplished in the necessary high RS-70 can play a very important part. branch should be withheld until a sound de- resolution radar which would be re- It can enable us to achieve and main- fense program is instituted. quired to provide capability as a post- tain military superiority in one vital Mr. Chairman, this statement by Gen- attack weapon to recognize, seek out, and area. eral Fellers along with statements of dis- destroy any unknown enemy missiles The RS-70 is a new airplane which tinguished general officers of our Air after a nuclear exchange and which ob- will operate higher and faster than any Force is why I am more persuaded than jectives would be completely out of eye combat aircraft the world has ever ever that we need the RS-70 and we need range. Further, we do not profess to known. It is expected to insure that the it now. know whether or not additional money Air Force and the Strategic Air Com- Mr. RANDALL. Mr. Chairman, the now could speed development of the RS- mand will have the proper military vehi- debate on H.R. 9751 being the bill to au- 70 and have it ready earlier than the cle to carry out their combat responsi- thorize appropriations for fiscal year 1970 estimate. But we believe that the bilities in the post-1965 time period. 1963 for aircraft, missiles, and naval ves- House exercised sound judgment in Mr. Chairman, the opponents of the .sels was heralded earlier as certain to providing for the authorization and leav- program recommended by the House Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 `1962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE Armed Services Committee argue that we can not speed up the rate of develop- ment of the RS-70. Mr. Chairman, sim- ilar arguments were used on many occa- sions in the past with respect to many types of weapons. Arguments were and are used with respect to the development of missiles. And yet, when the chips were down, we proved that the develop- ment of our spacecraft could be acceler- ated beyond original estimates. Everyone agrees that RS-70 will con- stitute an important addition to our de- fense posture. I believe that we can ac- celerate the development of this weapon if we put our minds to it. I will, there- fore, support the recommendations of the House Armed Services Committee on this vital issue. Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, on August 29, 1961, I directed attention to the abandonment and scrapping of the Bomarc manufacturing and deployment program after the program had been authorized and funded by Congress, and I urged military leaders to review our whole defense posture as it related to the Bomarc. The production center of the Bomare engine was established in my congres- sional district, Ogden, Utah, nearly 6 years ago at a Marquardt facility. Two years later the facility was doubled and a 184 acre test facility was established nearby on the shore of our Great Salt Lake. The first Bomarc A missile was phased-out in 1960 and production was started on the new Bomarc B missile. A year later this missile was phased-out completely by the military. Today we learn from the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee that by June 1, 1962 the United States will have 12 squadrons of 50 Minuteman mis- siles each, or a total of 600; that the Defense Department asked for four more squadrons in fiscal 1963 at a cost of $21/2 billion; that the committee felt this was not adequate and added another $10 mil- lion for a long-lead start on additional Minuteman missiles. Today we also learn that by June, 19611 the Navy will have 29 Polaris sub- marines missile equipped; that Defense officials asked to add 6 in 1963 and stated they plan to ask for another 6 in 1964 for a total of 41. The House Com- mittee, according to the able chairman, feels there should be more. Again today we learn Defense offi- cials insist on plans to phase out manned bombers in favor of interconti- nental ballistic missiles. The House committee questioned the reliability of the ICBM last year. Defense officials requested at that time $220 million for ,B-70's; the Congress gave them an ad- ditional $180 million, suggesting that the resulting increase in manned bombers was essential to the defense of this Na- tion until such time as the workability of the ICBM's got out of the textbooks and the laboratories. Defense officials did not carry out the mandate of the Congress in fiscal 1962. None of the ad- ditional funds was spent. This year Defense officials requested $3.135 billion and the House committee in its wisdom increased that amount by $491 million; at first they directed and Approved then by amendment authorized that this "be utilized In fiscal 1963 to proceed with production, planning and long- lead procurement for the RS-70 weapon system," which is the current nomen- clature for the B-70 manned bomber. As the chairman of the House com- mittee has so cautiously pointed out to us: If our hopes are realized and nu- clear weapons are outlawed by interna- tional agreement, we would be in an untenable position with no conventional defense capability. I again urge review and reevaluation of the entire Bomarc program, particu- larly in light of the importance of manned bomber program to the defense of this Nation. Mr. BASS. of New Hampshire. Mr. Speaker, I am in opposition to the pro- vision that the Secretary of the Air Force is directed to spend $491 million for the RS-70 bomber program. My objection goes beyond the merits of the bomber program itself. But it is worth noting that when the B-70 pro- gram was considered last year by the Science and Astronautics Committee, of which I am a member, there were dif- ferences of opinion by experts on our national defense about the program- differences which still have not been re- solved. As of now, the program has been modified and is now redesignated as the RS-70 program. My objection is, based on my concern for the separation of powers in our gov- ernmental system as specified in our Constitution. This legislation proposes to direct the executive department to spend money which the President-right or wrongly- had decided not to spend. I do not be- lieve Congress has the right to so direct the executive, nor should it presume to take that right. The President of the United States is Commander in Chief. It is inconceiv- able to me that Congress should tell a Commander in Chief what weapons sys- tem to develop any more than it should attempt to tell a general in the field which weapons to fire. These are the rights and duties of the Executive. We in Congress should neither attempt to assume executive powers nor should we relieve the President of the responsibili- ty for making the right decisions. Throughout my 7 years in Congress, I have fought attempts by the President to usurp powers that belong in Congress. I have voted in favor of annual-rather than 5-year-appropriations for foreign aid and I have voted against many ag- riculture programs because, among other reasons, I believed that the action pro- posed by the administration would put too much power into the hands of the Executive. This argument works both ways. I believe that the. legislation we are considering today would assume powers which properly belong to the President. Mr. HFBERT. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time on this side. Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time. Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Clerk read the bill. 4335 The Clerk read as follows: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated during fiscal year 1963 for the use of the Armed Forces of the United States for pro- curement of aircraft, missiles, and naval ves- sels, as authorized by law, in amounts as follows: AIRCRAFT . For aircraft: For the Army, $218,600,000; for the Navy and the Marine Corps, $2,134,- 600,000; for the Air Force, $3,135,000,000. MISSILES For missiles: For the Army, $558,300,000; for the Navy, $930,400,000; for the Marine Corps, $22,300,000; for the Air Force, $2,500,- 000,000. NAVAL VESSELS For naval vessels: For the Navy, $2,982,- 000,000: Provided, That effective July 1, 1962, restrictions on the fund authorization con- tained in Public Law 87-53, approved June 21, 1961, for the procurement of aircraft, will no longer apply. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re- port the committee amendments. The Clerk read as follows: Page 1, line 8, strike "$218,500,000" and insert "$273,790,000". The committee amendment was agreed to. The Clerk read as follows: Committee amendment: Page 1, line 10, strike "$3,135,000,000" and insert "$3,626,- 000,000", and add the following language: "of which the Secretary of the Air Force is directed to utilize authorization in an amount not less than $491,000,000 during fiscal year 1963 to proceed with production planning and long leadtime procurement for an RS-70 weapon system." Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Committee amendment offered by Mr. VINsoN: On page 2, line 2, strike out the word "directed" and insert in lieu thereof the word "authorized". The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment to the amendment. The amendment to the amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The question now recurs on the committee amendment, as amended. The committee amendment, as amend- ed, was agreed to. The Clerk read as follows: Committee amendment: On page 2, strike "$558,300,000" and insert 482,000". The committee amendment was to. The Clerk read as follows: 2, line "$589,- Committee amendment: Page 2, line 4, strike "$2,500,000,000" and insert "$2,510,- 000,000". The committee amendment was agreed to. The Clerk read as follows: Page 2, line 6, strike "$2,982,000,000," and insert "$2,979,200,000". The committee amendment was agreed to. The Clerk read as follows: Committee amendment: Page 2 line 17 insert: SEC. 2. Section 412(b) of Public Law 86- 149 is amended to read as follows: Approved For. Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 4336 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE March 21 "' (b) No funds may be appropriated after Congress and the country, and the ization, the Hound Dog missile, and December 81, 1960, to or for the use of any course followed is in keeping with con- tanker and airlift aircraft, but the De- armed force of the United States for the pro- stitutional precedents. partment in later years fully adopted cerement of aircraft, missiles, or naval yes- COMMENDATION OF DEFENSE OFFICIALS the policies urged by Csels, unless the appropriation of such funds year 1960, $650 Congress. s million was has been authorized by legislation enacted In the heat of controversy, we are In fiscal used out of congressional add-ons of after such date: Provided, however, That no often inclined to make critical remarks :funds may be appropriated after Decem- in haste that may not be fully justified. $922 million. The principal items used ber 31, 1961, to or for the use of any armed I want to say, after long years of deal- were $140 million to support the strength force of the United States for research, de- of the Army Reserve and National velopment or procurement of the RS-70 ing with the civilian and military lead- Guard, $200 million for Army moderniza- such system unless the appropriation of era of the Department of Defense, I have Gun, d, $137 for ASW, or my million for such funds has been authorized by legisla- found them, on a whole, to be men of Atlas and Minuteman. tion enacted after such date.' ' ability and dedication who seek to serve fiscal year 19 Minuteman. Congress voted $1.8 the best interest of the country and who The committee amendment was agreed seek to be cooperative, as a general rule, billion additional funds, of which $1.6 to. Congress: billion was used for such major programs Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I move with I think we have excellent leadership as Polaris, Atlas, Minuteman, airlift air- to strike out the last word. in the Pentagon, with Mr. Robert S. craft, and satellite programs. DEFENSE LEGISLATION BILL McNamara as Secretary of Defense; Mr. 1) =AILS BY FISCAL YEARS Mr. Chairman, I have felt that the Elvis J. Stahr, Secretary of the Army; The influence of Congress has been language originally incorporated in the Mr. Fred Korth, Secretary of the Navy; exerted not only in negative ways, that pending military authorization bill, and Mr. Eugene Zuckert, Secretary of is by cutting funds, but also in positive which directed the executive branch to the Air Force. ways, by adding funds for specific pro- utilize a $491 million authorization for The Chairman, General Lemnitzer, grams. the planning and" production of the RS- and members of the Joint Chiefs of Let-us look at the record, year by year. 70 aircraft was very unwise. The Staff are men of high quality and dedi- FISCAL YEAR 1956 language raised serious constitutional cation. They are not men who agree on The Congress made two increases in questions and tended to bypass the regu- all subjects. It is a normal and whole- that year: First, $250,000 for the promo- lar procedures which call for direct some situation- in a free country such tion of rifle practice, which was utilized action by the Congress on funds recom- as ours. in full; second, $46.4 million for an in- mended by its Appropriations Commit- COOPERATION BETWEEN CONGRESS AND DEFENSE crease in Marine Corps strength, which tees before authorized programs can be DEPARTMENT was not utilized. executed. I have asked the members of the staff There were two add-ons, one minor I am very happy over the masterful of the Appropriations Committee to help and one major. The minor one was way the gentlemen of the committee me assemble some information in re- used; the major one was not. And the and their distinguished chairman have gard to examples of cooperation by the position of Congress on the major mat- resolved this problem. It will now be Defense Department with Congress ter did not prevail. possible for the matter to be handled in during the past few years. It .is true FISCAL YEAR 1957 the usual orderly way, and in keeping that Defense officials and the President with traditional procedures. The gen- do not always comply to the letter with The Congress increased the President's tleman from Georgia has dramatized an the recommendations of Congress in de- budget in four principal areas in that interesting and important matter, yet he fense matters. However, as a general fiscal year: has done no disservice to relationships proposition, the President and officials in First, $15 million for Army Reserve between congressional committees and the Department of Defense do seek to Forces military construction-utilized in between Congress and the executive carry out the will of Congress. There full. branch. are some notable exceptions which have Second, $14 million to increase the ACTION REQUIRED BY APPROPRIATIONS been referred to in the debate today, strength of the Army National Guard COMMITTEE and I shall not dwell upon them. I and the number of its civilian tech- The great Committee on Armed Serv- should now like to extend my remarks at nicians-utilized in full. ices has brought to bear its best judg- this point in the RECORD and recite some Third, $800 million to increase the ment, after many hearings and much of the examples having to do with actions procurement of Air Force heavy bombers, deliberation, on the RS-70 airplane mat- by the executive branch on specific tankers, and other essential weapons- ter and on the many other important recommendations of the Congress during utilized in full. procurement matters pending in the recent years. Fourth, $100 million to expedite the President's budget. INFLUENCE OF CONGRESS ON DEFENSE PROGRAMS Air Force's overall research and devel- I know that this great committee, and Congress has exercised a strong in- opment program-utilized in full. the House as well, will expect the Appro- fluence on the character of Defense pro- Thus,, in fiscal year 1957, increases priations Committee to bring to bear its grams. Some of these influences can be totaling almost $930 million were voted very best judgment also in determining summarized briefly: and all were utilized in full as desired what funds shall be recommended under In fiscal year 1956, Congress increased by the Congress. This was the year the pending authorization bill for the funds by $46.7 million for two purposes. where the Congress gave the B-52 pro- RS-70 and other procurement items. It The lesser increase was used, the major gram a big boost forward, thereby shap- is, of course,' impossible to predict today increase for the Marine Corps strength ing the character of our Strategic Air just what action the Appropriations was not used. Forces to this present day. Committee will take. The Subcommit- In fiscal year 1957 Congress increased FISCAL YEAR 1958 tee on Defense Appropriations is still four specific programs by a total of about In this year the Congress made two conducting hearings on the various pro- $930 million, all of which was used. This increases: First, $13.8 million for the grams which are authorized in this bill was the year in which the B-52 program. Army National Guard, which was utilized and the other details involved in the was given a substantial boost, forming in full; second, $21.5 million for the Air regular annual appropriations. the character of our Strategic Air Forces Force for transfer to the Civil Aeronau- The members of the Committee on Apr as of today. tics Administration for VORTAC, which propriations always do their best to In fiscal year 1958, funds totaling $35.3 was also utilized in full. handle defense appropriations to the million were added for the Army Na- m best again, the add-ons made by the of their ability. I think our actions tional Guard and the VORTAC air navi- Ha C Here eres were the fully -oonns utilized. are usually reasonably satisfactory to gation system, and were all utilized. the Committee on Armed Services, to In fiscal year 1959 increases voted by FISCAL YEAR 1959 the House, and to the country as a whole. Congress totaled $1.3 billion for 15 In that fiscal year the Congress made I am glad to see this system of checks specific purposes. About $730 million a large number of increases, aggregating and balances, between the authorizing was utilized, including $550 million of over $1.3 billion, of which about $730 committee and the Appropriations Com- $609 million voted for Polaris. Funds million was actually applied as desired mittee, preserved. This is good for the were not used in 1959 for Army modern- by the Congress. Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 1962 ' . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE First, $65 million for the OSD emer- gency fund to take care of breakthroughs in research and development-utilized in full. Second, $99 million to increase the Army strength from 870,000 to 900,000 only about $19.1 million was utilized. Third, $41 million to increase Army Reserve drill pay strength from 270,000 to 300,000-$27.7 million was utilized to achieve that goal. Fourth, $55.7 million to increase Army National Guard drill pay strength from 360,000 to 400,000 and maintain the civilian technicians program-$38.6 mil- lion was utilized to meet that objective. Fifth, $5 million to increase Army mapping-utilized in full. Sixth, $37 million for Army moderni- zation-not utilized in that year. Seventh, $6 million for Army Reserve Forces military construction-not util- ized in that year. Eighth, $45.2 million to increase Marine Corps strength from 175,000 to 200,000-about $10.6 million was utilized. Ninth, $609 million to increase the Polaris program-about $550 million was' subsequently utilized. This includes about $241 million released in fiscal year 1959 to permit letting of contracts early in July 1959 for Polaris submarines 7, 8, and 9. Tenth, $11 million to speed work on Regulus submarines-not utilized. This program was later terminated in favor of the Polaris. Eleventh, $13 million for two destroyer escorts-utilized in full. Twelfth, $48 million for Hound Dog- not utilized in that year. Thirteenth, $90 million for Minute- man-although these particular funds were not utilized, the Air Force, through the reprograming of funds no longer re- quired for other projects, did carry on a program in that year on the expanded scale desired by the Congress. The, House Armed Services Committee re- port, while technically correct in show- ing this $90 million as not utilized, leads to the wrong conclusion. Fourteenth, $55.6 million for KC-135 tankers-not utilized in that year. Fifteenth, $140 million for airlift air- craft-not utilized in that year, al- though, here again, the program was in- creased through reprograming of other funds. Thus, in fiscal year 1959, most of the increases were utilized in whole or in part for the purposes intended by the Congress. But it is interesting to note that although the Department did not choose to use some of these increases in 1959-such as for Army modernization, Hound Dog, KC-135 tankers and airlift aircraft-the Department in later years fully adopted the policies urged by the Congress and increased these programs very substantially. Moreover, the Con- gress, in that year, laid a very substan- tial foundation for our Polaris submarine program upon which the executive branch was able to build in later years. FISCAL YEAR 1960 In that year the Congress added about $922 million, of which the Defense De- partment utilized almost $650 million. First, $147.2 million was added to maintain the Army Reserve and National Guard at 300,000 and 400,000 drill pay strength, respectively-$140.2 million was utilized to accomplish that purpose. Second, $43.1 million was added to provide a Marine Corps strength of ;200,000-this sum was not utilized. Third, $375 million. was added for Nike-Zeus and/or Army moderniza- tion-$200 million was used for Army modernization. Fourth, $137.3 million was added to in- crease the ASW capability-all of which was fully utilized. Fifth, $35 million was provided for ad- vanced procurement for a nuclear-pow- ered carrier-none of this money was utilized. Sixth, $85 million was added for At- las-all of which was utilized for At- las-Titan. Seventh, $87 million was added for Minuteman-all was utilized. Eighth, $12 million was added for Army National Guard construction-the funds were not utilized in that year. Thus, in fiscal year 1960, most of the items added by the Congress were uti- lized in whole or in part and, here again, the executive branch eventually followed the direction pointed by the Congress and later increased the Marine Corps strength and Army procurement. FISCAL YEAR 1961 In this year the Congress again made a number of important additions to the program, some of which were requested by the Department of Defense. The net increase totaled over $1.8 billion, of which over $1.6 billion was utilized. First, $105 million was added to main- tain the Army Reserve and Guard strength-all of which was utilized. Second, $5 million was added to in- crease the Army National Guard tech- nicians program-all utilized. Third, $201,000 was added for the pro- motion of rifle practice-all utilized. Fourth, $158 million was added for Army modernization-over $113 million was utilized. Fifth, $382 million was added for Polaris-over $345 million was utilized. Sixth, $105 million was added for ASW-all of which was utilized. Seventh, $194 million was added for airlift aircraft-almost $172 million was utilized. Eighth, $97 million was added for air defense aircraft-not utilized. Ninth, $82.9 million was added for an airborne alert capability-all of which was utilized. Tenth, $184.3 million was added for the B-70-all of which was utilized. Eleventh, $83.8 million was added for Samos-utilized in full. Twelfth, $26.2 million was added for Minuteman-utilized in full. Thirteenth, $26.4 million was added for Midas-utilized in full. Fourteenth, $35 million was added for Discoverer-utilized in full. Fifteenth, $132 million was added for interceptor aircraft improvements- utilized in full. Sixteenth, $131.9 million was added for Atlas-utilized in full. 4337 Seventeenth, $34 million was added for Bmews-utilized in full. Eighteenth, $16.2 million was added for the surveillance program-utilized in full. Nineteenth, $15 million was added for the Gar-9 air-to-air rocket and ASG-18 fire control programs-utilized in full. Twentieth, $20.4 million was added for Reserve and National Guard construc- tion-almost all was utilized. Here, again, was a year in which the Congress exerted a major influence on the pace and character of the defense program. The Polaris program was again accelerated, Army modernization was speeded up, the antisubmarine war- fare effort considerably expanded, the airlift aircraft program was finally got- ten off dead center, an airborne alert ca- pability for our heavy bombers was firm- ly established, the reorientation of our air defense program was begun, and a sharp impetus was given to our military satellite programs. Even the B-70 pro- gram was moved forward in that year. It cannot be said with accuracy that the Congress has litttle or no influence on the defense program. FISCAL YEAR 1962 This brings us to the current fiscal year. For this year the Congress pro7 vided a total of about $1 billion above the President's amended budget, of which the Department presently plans to use about $230 million. Increases were made in over 20 items, of which the Depart- ment plans to carry out all but three. These three, however, are the big ones- the'B-52, the B-70, and the Dyna-Soar add-ons-totaling a little over $780 mil- lion. The arguments, pro and con, on these three items are well known to all. But some of the Members may not realize that the Department is following the de- sires of the Congress on a number of other quite significant items. These in- clude maintaining the Army Reserve and Guard strength at 300,000 and 400,000, respectively, to the extent possible under the present circumstances; substituting one nuclear-powered frigate for one conventionally powered frigate-this is an item of about $41 million; installing turbofan engines in 15 of the C-135's- an item of about $21 million; procure- ment of a long-range jet passenger transport-$7.8 million; a $71/2-million increase in the development effort on special forces equipment; and, finally, an increase in Reserve Forces construc- tion-an item of $16.1 million. And the year is not yet over. It is important that we continue the spirit of good will and cooperation which exists between Congress and the execu- tive branch in defense matters. There is room for improvement, but I would not want to minimize the fine spirit of cooperation which has been typical in the past. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. GROSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I take this time to ask the question as to Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 4338 whether the funds appropriated for naval vessels may be used for renova- tion or whether this is entirely for new construction? Mr. VINSON. I may say to the dis- tinguished gentleman that the' bill authorizes 37 new ships, and 35 conver- sions, all set out in the report and referred to in my remarks in a more limited way earlier. I will put in the RECORD at this point a complete break- down of each one of the new ships and in addition the conversion of some 35 ships. The matter referred to is as follows: One attack aircraft carrier--CVA; cost, $310 million: This ship is the prime off ensive unit in an attack carrier striking force-the Navy's major weapon for control of the seas. The carrier provides a continuously -ready modern airfield capable of operating all types of aircraft In any navigable waters of the world. These characteristics of versatility and mobility are unique to sea service forces and are equally applicable in general, lim- ited, or cold war. The carrier in this program .will replace an old Essex-class carrier. This attack carrier will be an improved Forrestal and the eighth ship in this class. One guided missile frigate DLG(N); cost, $190 million: This guided missile frigate is the only nuclear-powered surface ship in this year's program. It is also the first ship to receive the new typhon weapons system in- corporating many significant improvements including greater target-handling capability, greater range, shorter reaction time, and al- most complete immunity to countermeas- ures. The typhon weapons system will provide this ship with an air-control, anti- aircraft, and antimissile capability which hitherto have not been approached by any naval weapons system. In addition to the greatly improved weapons systems, this ship will have the extended range and endurance at sustained speed resulting from nuclear power. Twenty-eight conventional and 2 nuclear- powered guided missile frigates have been authorized in previous programs, 10 of which have joined the fleet. Eight nuclear-powered submarines--SS (N); cost, $509.9 million: These fleet attack submarines are designed for optimum op- erations against enemy submarines and surface ships. They are essentially repeats of Thresher class included in previous programs. These submarines will be the first to in- clude the capability of firing the submerged launched rocket weapon, SUBROC. This weapon is capable of carrying a nuclear war- head, and is designed to destroy submarines or ships. Combined with previous new construction, these 8 will give the Navy a total of 40 nu- clear-powered attack submarines, 16 of which have joined the fleet. Six fleet ballistic missile submarines-SSB (N) ; cost, $720.3 million: These fleet ballis- tic missile submarines are a vital addition to our national deterrent forces. These six Po- laris submarines are essentially the same as those in prior programs incorporating im- provements which have been dictated by ex- perience. Twenty-nine fleet ballistic missile subma- rines have been authorized in previous pro-' grams. These 6 will give the Navy a total of 35, carrying 560 ballistic missiles. Six have joined the fleet. Four amphibious transport, dock-LPD; cost, $181.6 million: These ships will in- crease the effectiveness of modern amphib- ious operations. These ships each carry 930 troops, 2,500 tons of cargo and equipment, plus 6 heli- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE March ~1 copters and various combinations of Landing craft. Six of these ships have been previously authorized. The first two are scheduled to be commissioned this year. One amphibious assault ship-LPH; cost, $60 million: The amphibious assault ship (LPH) in conjunction with the LPD is ca- pable of combat loading, transporting, and landing a battalion landing team. This ship carries 2,000 troops and 30 HUS helicopters. Four ships of this type have been approved in prior programs. One, Iwo Jima, has re- ported to the fleet. Five escort ships-DE; cost, $128.3 million: These ships are all repeats of similar types contained in previous programs and are de- signed for effective performance in locating and destroying enemy submarines. These ships are fitted with the latest and best ASW weapons systems including Asroc, Dash, and homing torpedoes. Twenty-four ocean escorts have been au- thorized in previous programs. Seventeen have joined the fleet. Three guided missile escort ships--DEG; cost, $93.9 million: These 3 DEG's are similar in all respects to the escort ships except that the after 5-inch, 38-caliber gun mount has been replaced by a Tartar missile battery (16 missiles). Three of these ships were au- thorized in the 1962 program. Two motor gunboats-POM; cost, $4.1 million: These are the first of a new class specifically designed for operations in re- stricted waters, such as coastal patrol block- ade and paramilitary warfare. The final armament is still to be decided; however, 20 tons have been reserved for this purpose. One fast combat support ship-AOE; cost, $67 million: This is the second ship of this design combining the essential features of both the fleet oiler and ammunition ship. Having a top speed of 26 knots, this ship will be capable of staying with the fast task forces and providing most replenishment services on a one-stop basis. One has been authorized in previous programs. One submarine tender AS (FBMI; cost, $73 million: This is the third new construc- tion tender designed primarily to support the Polaris submarines. It will be equipped to provide logistic support for nine sub- marines and complete alongside services to, three at any one time. These ships also have the capability to. check out, maintain, and issue missiles and missile components. The first new construction tender will join the fleet later in the year. Two oceanographic research ships--AGOR; cost, $8.8 million: These are relatively small ships of about 1,300 tons and are designed to conduct basic and applied oceanographic research in support of the national ocean- ographic program. They will be civilian manned. Five ships of this type have al- ready been authorized. The first two are scheduled for completion during the fourth quarter of this year. One surveying ship=AGS; cost, $9.4 mil- lion: This ship is about twice the size of the oceanographic research ship and will be equipped to conduct hydrographie surveys and collect other oceanographic, acoustic, and meteorological data under the direction of the Navy oceanographer. This is the first ship of its class. Like the preceding: ocean- ographic research ship, it will be civilian manned. One cargo ship-MSTS roll-on/roll-off; cost, $20 million: This Military Sea Trans- portation Service ship is similar to the very successful Comet, roll-on/roll-off ship now in regular service between New York and St. Nazaire. It is designed to transport and deliver wheeled and tracked vehicles, troop equipment, and general cargo. Its configura- tion of internal ramps will provide for quick loading or'unloading. This is the first ship to be funded under this appropriation for Military Sea Transportation Service. The Navy authorization also provides funds for 45 service and landing craft, the rehab- ilitation and modernization of 24 World War II destroyers and the conversion of 1 major communication relay ship, 1 command ship, 1 mine countermeasures support ship, 2 am- munition ships (PAST), 2 oilers (Jumbo), 2 technical research ships, 1 cargo ship (FBM), 1 guided missile ship, and 1 service craft, a floating drydock. Mr. GROSS. Then the bill does pro- vide for such conversion or renovation. The gentleman might be able to answer the question whether funds are pro- vided in this bill- Mr. VINSON. No; that comes before the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. GROSS. I mean funds author- ized. Let me correct the statement. Mr. VINSON. Yes, authorized. Mr. GROSS. "Authorize." That is a good word around here today. Mr. VINSON. That is right; it is a good word. Mr. GROSS. Whether funds are au- thorized in this bill for the taking of a yacht out of mothballs, air conditioning the yacht, and giving it to Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia; does the gentleman know? Mr. VINSON. Well, I will say the dis- tinguished gentleman from Texas de- veloped that fact. All we are doing to- day is authorizing these things. He would not give his approval to anything that would be converted without having some military value to the country. Mr. GROSS. Well, would the gentle- man think that a yacht, an air-condi- tioned pleasure yacht, is intended to have military value? Mr. VINSON. No, I do not know what the gentleman has reference to, but I can tell you that conversions in this bill are for military purposes. Mr. GROSS. Well, then, can the gen- tleman tell me this: The bill provides for the construction of helicopters; is that right? Mr. VINSON. In another part of the bill, yes. Mr. GROSS. This bill authorizes funds for the construction of helicopters? Mr. VINSON. That is right, and we are increasing it in that respect by rais- ing the amount about $55 million. Mr. GROSS. How many of these new helicopters will be assigned to the White House? Mr. VINSON. Well, I do not know about that. Mr. GROSS. Did the military not justify the construction of helicopters when they came before your committee? Mr. VINSON. I cannot reveal the number involved. Mr. GROSS. Someone here indicates there may be 10 new helicopters assigned to the White House. Now, my question is this: Will these helicopters continue to be used at the rate of two flights in 2 days to transport the First Lady, Mrs. Kennedy, to go fox hunting down in Vir- ginia? Does the gentleman have any idea? Mr. VINSON. The gentleman will have to do like I do in confer- ence. I ask the questions and then I answer them. The gentleman will have to do the same thing. Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman. Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 1962 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 4339 N{r. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, I [Roll No. 431 move to strike out the last word. YEAS-403 Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 9751 and Adair Doyle Knox nski particularly appreciate the initiative of ir Addabbo Durno Kornegay the Committee On Armed Services in Addonizio Dwyer Kowalski seeking a speedup in development and Alford beertt Ed oon dson Ku kel production of the RS-70. Alger Ellsworth Laird Under date of February 20, .1962, I Andersen, Everett Landrum wrote Secretary of Defense McNamara Minn. Evins Langen urging such a speedup, in the light of AAnders n, 111. FFallon arb teen Lan ford nds Fascell Lennon my own understanding of the need and Arenfuo justification for such a weapons develop- Ashbrook Fe ton Lesinski ment. Ashley Findley Lindsay The Assistant Secretary of Defense Ashmore Aspinall Finnegan Lipscomb who replied to my letter, on March 15, Auchincloss Fino Loser cited many of the arguments for pro- AAveryy Fisher she McCullough ynt McDowell ceeding slowly with the RS-70 program, Bailey Fllood and brought to my attention for the first Baker Ford McFall time several factors of admitted import- Baldwin Forrester McI lire ante in this matter. Barrett ' Frazier Mosween Nonetheless, the reasons for expediting Barry Frelinghuysen McVey development and production of the Bass, Tenn. Friedel MMacdona acGreald r RS-70 continue to outweigh, in my judg- Bates Fulton Mack mint, those reasons advanced for the Beckworth Garland Madden Defense Department position, and I am Beermann Garmatz Magnuson greatly pleased by the Secretary's an- Belcher Gathings Mahon nounced decision to re-examine the Bell Gavin Mailliard Bennett, Fla. Giaimo Marshall Department's conclusion in the light of Berry Gilbert Martin, Mass. congressional recommendations. Betts Glenn Martin, Nebr. This bill is another major step forward Beatnik Gonzalez Mathias Butch Goodell Matthews in substantially strengthening our coun- Boggs Goodling may try's defense and I am confident it will Boland Granahan MMea eadow be overwhelmingly approved, in further Bolling Gray Bolton Green, Oreg. Michel testimony, to the resolution and deter- Bonner Green, Pa, Miller, Clem mination of the Congress and the Bow Griffin Miller, American people to provide preparedness Brademas Gross George P. Bray Gubser Miller, N.Y. Second to none in the world today, Breeding Hagan, Ga. Milliken A strong and prepared America Con- Brewster Hagen, Calif. Mills tinues to be the world's best guarantee Bro ksell HHale olly Minshall Moeller of peace, and we add significantly to Broomfield Halleck Monagan that guarantee by today's action. Brown Halpern Montoya The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, Broyhill Harding Moorehead, the committee amendment is agreed to. Burke, Ky. Hardy Ohio There was no objection. Burke, Mass. Harris Moorhead, Pa. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any fur- Burleson Harrison, Va. Morgan ther amendments? If not, under the Byrne, Pa. Harrison, Wyo. Morris rule the Committee rises. Byrnes, Wis. Harsha Morrison Cahill Harvey, Ind. Morse Accordingly the Committee rose; and Cannon Harvey, Mich. Mosher the Speaker having resumed the chair, Carey HeHays Multer t - Cederberg Hebert Murphy Mr. KARSTEN, Chairman of the Commi tee of the Whole House or} the State of Celler Hecheer Murray Hatcher it- Chamberlain Hemphill the Union, reported that that Comm tee, having had under consideration the Chelf Henderson Chenoweth Herlong bill (H.R. 9751) to authorize appropria- Cheperfield Hiestand tions during fiscal year 1963, for aircraft, church Hoeven missiles, and naval vessels for the Armed Clancy Hoffman, Ile. Clark Holifield Forces, and for other purposes, pursuant Coad Holland to House Resolution 562, he reported the Colmer helan HHoran ornier bill back to the House with sundry Conte Huddleston amendments adopted by the Committee cook Hull of the Whole. Corbett Ichord, Mo. Nedzi Nelsen Nix Norblad Norrell Nygaard O'Brien, Ill. O'Brien, N.Y. O'Hara, Ill. O'Hara, Mich. O'Konskl Olsen O'Neill Osmers previous question is ordered. Cunningham Jennings Ostertag Is a separate vote demanded on any Curtin Joelson Passman an amendment? If not, the Chair will put Curtis, MMa . Johansen oss Johnson, Calif. Pelly them en gros. Daddario Johnson, Md. Perkins The amendments were agreed to. Dague Johnson, Wis. Peterson The SPEAKER. The question is on Daniels Jonas Pfoat the engrossment and third reading of Davis, John W. Jones, Mo. Philbin Davis, Tenn. Judd Pike the bill. Dawson Karsten Pilcher I Pil and read a third time, and was read the Dent Denton third time. Derounian The SPEAKER. The question is On Derwinski the passage of the bill. Devine s ,Mr. VINSON. Mr. Speaker, on that Dingell I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas Dole and nays were ordered. Dominick .. __ _ Tnnnhi,A ion Karth Kastenmeier Pirnie Kearns Poage Kee Foil Keith . Powell Kelly Price Keogh Pucinaki Kilburn Purcell Kilgore Quie King, Calif. Randall King, N.Y. Ray King. Utah Reece were-yeas 403, nays 0, not voting 33, as born Kirwan Reltel follows: Dowdy Kitchin Reuss Rhodes, Ariz. Selden Tuck Pa. Rhodes Shelley Tupper , Riehlman Sheppard Udall, Morris K. Rivers, Alaska Shipley Ullman Tex. Roberts Shriver Utt , Robison Sibal Vanik Rodin Sikes Van Pelt Colo. Rogers Siler Van Zandt , Fla. Rogers Sisk Vinson , Tex. Rogers Slack W aggonner , Rooney Smith, Iowa Wallhauser Roosevelt Smith, Va. Watts Rosenthal Springer Weaver Rostenkowski Stafford Weis Roudebush Staggers Westland Roush Steed Whalley Rousselot Stephens Wharton Rutherford Stratton Whitener Mich. Ryan Stubblefield Wickersham , Widnall St. George Taber Williams St. Germain Taylor Willis Santangelo Teague, Calif, Wilson, Calif. Saund Teague, Tex. Wilson, Ind. Saylor Thomas Winstead Schadeberg Thompson, La. Wright Scherer Thompson, N.J. Yates Schneebeli Thompson, Tex.Young Schweiker Thomson, Wis. Younger Schwengel Thornberry Zablocki Scott Toll Zelenko Scranton Tollefson Seely-Brown Trimble NAYS-0 NOT VOTING-33 Abernethy Downing Rivers, S.C. Alexander Fogarty Roberts, Andrews Gary Schenck Bass, N.H. Grant Short Battin Griffiths Smith, Calif. Bennett, Mich. Hoffman, Mich. Smith, Miss. Boykin Jensen Spence Buckley Jones, Ala. Walter Collier Lane Whitten Cooley Mason Davis, Moulder James C. Rains So the bill was passed. The Clerk announced the following pairs: Mr. Cooley with Mr. Schenck. Mr. Alexander with Mr. Hoffman of Michi- gan. Mr. Spence with Mr. Bennett of Michigan. Mr. James C. Davis with Mr. Collier. Mr. Fogarty with Mr. Bass of New Hamp- shire. Mr. Lane With Mr. Smith of California. Mr. Walter With Mr. Jensen. Mr. Downing with Mr. Short. Mr. Abernethy with Mr. Mason. Mr. Gary with Mr. Battin. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND REMARKS Mr. VINSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous censent that all. Members may have 5 legislative days in which to extend their remarks in the RECORD on the bill just passed. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia? There was no objection. CORRECTION OF ROLLCALL Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Speaker, on Thurs- day last, March 15, on rollcall No. 36, a call of the House, I was present in the chamber and responded when my name was called. I ask unanimous con- sent that the RECORD be corrected to so indicate. Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 4340 The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Connecticut? There was no objection. FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE A further messagetfrom the Senate by Mr. McGeron, one of its clerks, an- nounced that the Senate agree to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Sen- ate to the bill (H.R. 5968) entitled "An act to amend the District of Columbia Unemployment Compensation Act, as amended." SPENDING, DEFICITS, DEBT, AND TAXES (Mr. McSWEEN asked and was given permission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD.) Mr. MCSWEEN. Mr. Speaker, the President's foreign aid message of March 13 in which he asked Congress for $4.9 billion in foreign aid for next year has prompted me to rise to com- ment about our economic strength. I am deeply concerned about the high rate of spending which causes budget deficits and inflation, an increasing na- tional debt, and pressures for even more taxes. We will be obliged to borrow this money to spend on foreign aid. Since World War II U.S. foreign aid has exceeded $101 billion and will rise above $106 billion next year. Net for- eign aid, after allowing for loan repay- ments and foreign currency credits re- ceived for surplus farm products, totals $91 billion. We pay interest of about $2.75 billion annually on this $91 billion portion of the national debt. So our actual total foreign aid cost for next year will be over $7.5 billion. The enormity of the foreign aid tab is one of the reasons why I have never sup- ported this program since I have been in Congress. While I certainly realize that some military assistance is essen- tial to our security I feel strongly that we are squandering our national herit- age at a rate beyond the danger point. Our military might is vital to the free world, but this depends upon our sol- vency. Our fiscal situation is vulnerable. In the 15 fiscal years since World War II there have been 6 surplus years and 9 deficit years with a net deficit of $28 billion. The current fiscal year deficit will increase this figure to over $35 billion. The Federal budget cannot be bal- anced in the forseeable future unless the rate of increase in expenditures indi- cated by present proposals is curtailed. Non defense expenditures have increased by 48 percent in the last 6 years until this year, while defense expenditures have increased only 15 percent. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --HOUSE On February 20 1 also voted against the bill to increase the national debt limit ceiling by $2 billion to $300 billion, although it passed 251 to 144. ?I under- stand there will be another proposal this year to increase the ceiling even higher. I have concluded that the only way to reduce the debt is by a systematic and mandatory plan under which the budget must contain a specific item for an ap- propriation for debt retirement. l again call the House's attention to my bill, H.R. 6670, which would require as a start an annual 1 percent debt retirement ap- propriation. I find that the people back home are as concerned and disturbed about spending, deficits, debt, and taxes as I am. PROGRAM FOR BALANCE OF THE WEEK (Mr. KYL asked and was given per- mission to address the House for 1 minute.) Mr. KYL. Mr. Speaker, I take this time to ask the distinguished majority leader what legislative matters are scheduled for the remainder of this week. Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, in response to the inquiry of the gentleman, tomorrow the conference report on H.R. 5968, amend- the District of Columbia LTnem- ployment Compensation Act, will be called up; and the bill S. 2533, a bill to amend the requirements for participa- tion in the 1962 feed grain program, will be on the calendar. I know of no other business for the balance of the week. Mr. KYL. Could the gentleman in- form the House at this time when we might expect to vote on the major reve- nue bill? Mr. ALBERT. Well, if the gentleman will forbear, I think the bill will come up next week, but I would prefer to wait until tomorrow to announce the pro- gram. Mr. KYL. I thank the gentleman. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE NOT GENERALLY AWARE THAT THEY HAVE TWO GOVERNMENTS-AN ELECTED GOVERNMENT AND A BANKERS' GOVERNMENT (Mr. PATMAN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, the Com- mittee for Economic Development in a widely distributed statement has said that the lack of proper teaching of eco- nomics in our high schools and colleges has resulted in an "economic Illiteracy" that is a growing national concern. If it were not for this widespread illit- eracy the American people would not tolerate for very long the present ar- rangement whereby their economic live- lihoods are re ul t d th g a e rough the money I have been voting "no" on many bills and banking system. having merit, not because I necessarily As to some aspects of the influence of otherwise oppose these programs but be- governmental policy over economic ac- cause I am more concerned about our tivity in this country the general public overall financial condition. does have some information. Most peo- Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8 March Y pie are aware that the Government's fis- cal policies have a great influence over their economic lives. They know that the Government's tax and spending poli- ties can stimulate economic activity or dampen economic activity, and the na- tional income, the level of business profits, and the number of jobs available are affected thereby. FED EXERCISES DISCRETIONARY CONTROL OVER SUPPLY OF MONEY The general public is not generally aware, however, that the Federal Re- serve authorities have complete discre- tionary control over the supply of money and the prices which will be paid for the use of money and that they exercise this discretion also to influence the level of economic activity, the rate of invest- ment, the rate of consumer spending, and the percentage of the labor force which shall remain unemployed. In a money economy such as ours, those au- thorities who control the money supply and interest rates have the upper hand in regulating the economy. IN NO OTHER MAJOR INDUSTRIAL COUNTRY DOES THE EXECUTIVE HAVE SO LITTLE INFLUENCE OVER OPERATIONS OF CENTRAL EANH In the United States today we have In effect two governments regulating levels of economic activity. We have the duly constituted Government carrying out laws enacted by the Congress and the President and reviewed by the judiciary. Then we have an independent, uncon- trolled and uncoordinated government in the Federal Reserve System, operat- ing the money powers which are reserved to Congress by the Constitution. In no other major industrial country in the world today does the duly con- stituted government-the Chief Execu- tive-have so little say and so little in- fluence over the operations of the Na- tion's central bank. How did this second government come about? Did Congress ever give the Fed- eral Reserve authority to exercise discre- tion over the supply of money which the Nation will have or the level of interest rates which will be paid for the use of money? Did Congress ever give the Fed- eral Reserve authority to try to influence levels of economic activity-either to try to dampen booms or to stimulate eco- nomic activity in periods of recession? The answer is no. FED HAS USURPED POWERS When the Federal Reserve System was set up under the act of 1913 Con- gress intended that the Federal Reserve would provide a system whereby the sup- ply of money would be automatically determined by the volume of economic activity taking place, not by any discre- tion on the part of the Federal Reserve authorities, either currently or on the basis of the Federal Reserve people's forecast as to what the trend in business activity will be. True, the Federal Reserve Act has been amended many times, but in none of these amendments has the basic con- ception of an automatic, non-discre- tionary money system been changed. You will not find in the statute anywhere any words giving the Federal Reser, Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000100100006-8