IN THE MCNAMARA ERA, WHAT IS CONGRESS' ROLE IN NATIONAL DEFENSE?

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP70B00338R000300080042-1
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 9
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 9, 2006
• Sequence Number: 42
• Publication Date: November 1, 1966
• Content Type: NSPR

Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300080042-1
ARMED FORCES MANAGEMENT. November 1966.
In the McNamara Era,
What Is Congress' Role in National Defense?
CRAIG POWELL
Associate Edi
In both Houses of the United States
Congress, several specific committees
share a closely vested interest in the
matter of national security. Probably
as illustrative as any of the correlation
between Congress and Defense is Rep.
L. Mendel River's (D., S.C.) House
Armed Services Committee. News media
headlines invariably chronicle the De-
partment of Defense and that committee
as being constantly locked in combat.
But headlines do not tell the full story.
The facts are that in the vast majority
of actions affecting the armed forces,
Congress and the Department of De-
fense are in accord. This is not to say
that there are not disagreements. There
are many; some on very major issues.
This report concerns the River's Com-
mittee as representative of the role of
the Legislative Branch in the area of
military affairs and national defense.
" O RAISE AND SUPPORT ARMIES" is
but one of the specific powers re-
lating to national security which have
been constitutionally mandated to the
Congress of the United States. Those
words, emblazoned in bronze in the
House Armed Services Committee room
are implicit of that committee's strong
belief that the security of the nation is
the first duty of government. On occa-
sion, detractors have alleged that Con-
gress is losing some of its initiative.
Whatever the truths of that allegation,
to apply such a charge to Armed Serv-
ices Committee would be fatuous.
Probably no other single Congressional
group has been as tenaciously interested
and aggressively active in its sphere of
responsibility as has the Armed Services
Committee of the House of Representa-
tives under the Chairmanship of L.
Mendel Rivers and his predecessor, earl
Vinsob. Despite the myriad subtleties of
the complex task, this committee has
been prolific in its activities associated
with the control and management of the
national defense resources in this arena
of changing military requirements.
The lawmakers' in-depth hearings gether with Richard B. Russell's Senate
into the areas of the proposed merger Armed Services committee) has been
between the National Guard and the
Reserves, airlift capabilities and tactical
airpower will have a considerable affect
on the future activities in the Pentagon
management of the Defense Establish-
ment. That all individual portions of
the total affect will be palatable to the
Department of Defense is highly proble-
matical. But unquestionably, the actions
taken by the committee and subse-
quently by Congress as a whole, are
conscientious actions and, as repre-
sentatives of the people, Congress will
continue to pursue the course of direc-
tion that it feels to be in the best inter-
ests of the nation. That there should be
some disparity of opinion between-
Congress" and Defeo is only natural.
Whileoth share a. common objective
of national defense, the individual
philosophies of each, as to how best
assure the security of the country,, are
widely divergent.
Congress Prefers a Margin
The climate of today's Pentagon is one
of cost reduction and cost effectiveness.
The Secretary of Defense has made it
abundantly clear that he will procure
only the minimum essential goods and,
services and that he desires to maintain
only those forces he feels mandatory
to meet Defense-anticipated contingen-
cies. Congress, on the other hand, feels
that there are flaws in this type of cost
effectiveness studies and systems analy-
ses and that'the stakes are far too ex-
cessive to run the Military Establish-
ment in the same manner as a major
industrial complex. Or as Chairman
Rivers has put it, "I think the American
people will always be willing to pay the
price for having too much defense,
rather than risk the inestimable cost of
having too little defense."
But regardless of the issues and dif-
fering points of view, one fact is ir-
refutably clear; the constitution of the
United States has invested in the Legisla-
tive body of the government, the power
to raise and support armies, provide and
chartered with maintaining a vigilance
ov `,`,common defense and the Depart-
ment of Defense, in general, including
the bepartments of Army, Navy Ind
Air Force" and their associated en-
deavors. Congress has the responsibility
and obligation to the American people
to maintain an intimate involvement
with matters of national defense. Thus,
L. Mendel Rivers and his committee in
behalf of Congress and the people not
only will, but rightly should, continue
to probe and question the Military
Establishment and influence defense
legislation within the best dictates of
their own conscience.
Generally speaking, relationships be-
tween the Armed Services Committee
and the Department of Defense are ex-
cellent. Rivers and some of the more
senior members of the committee meet
with Secretary of Defense Robert
McNamara and his'. deputy, Cyrus
Vance,at breakfast freuently to discuss
subjects of mutual interest. As a rule,
there is a concordance on the majority
of issues and while barbs sometimes fly,
they do not inflict irrecoverable wounds,
and the disagreements are not personal.
However, there are some very real and
honest differences in opinion as to
sources of authority and in the manage-
ment of the military forces.
Most all-encompassing thorn pricking
Congress appears to be what the com-
mittee feelsi,the Defense attitude
toward Congress and its constitutional
authority, as well as the mutual coopera-
tion that must exist between the two. To
quote Chairman Rivers, "The Congress
and the Department of Defense must act
as partners in the matter of national
security, but I think there are times
when the Department of Defense for-
gets that Congress exists for reasons
other than to provide a blank check."
A close examination of this situation
indicates an annoyance on the part of
Congress that they have, on occasions,
gone through a futile exercise of enact-
ing authorization bills after long and
House Armed Services Committee Chairman maintain a navy, and make rules for the serious consideration, whether they be
Rivers: "We Aptpft* dnFovaReiiea'!pe 2Q6iL it 11i@f: Rj4ffR Q $ O 9o 2-Hardware, military con-
mightiest military strength possible.
As executor of these responsibilities, the struction, or other matters, only to have
House Armed Services Committee (to- the projects deleted or deferred by the
 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300080042-1
Defense Department. Further, it should
not be difficult to understand that the
legislators would be "righteously in-
dignant," if, while attempting to re-
sponsibly meet their obligations, they be-
lieve that the Defense Department cir-
cumvents Congressional "intent" (see
Special Report-September AFM).
The true crux of the mdttcr seems to
be that Defense officials feel that thgs
is a better informed judgment. Thus, in
matters of conflicting evaluations, par-
ticularl in areas of policy and force
structures, the Defense Department is
inclined to delete or delay programs
recommended or directed by Congress,
or if implementing them, doing so in a
manner not intended by the Legislative
body. This obviously does not lend itself
to an aura of mutual understanding.
in such areas as pay and allowances,
housing, retirement benefits and other
personnel matters, Defense is apt to de-
fer to Congressional edict even when
there is not complete concurrence. But
in areas concerning force structures,
application of forces and the manage-
ment of resources, the Department of
Defense feels that the diversity and com-
plexity of defense activities are such as
to preclude the civilian committees hav-
ing an in-depth understanding of the
issues. It appears that the DOD position
is that questions of proper mix of forces,
systems to be developed for maximum
cost effectiveness, and questions involv-
ing the conduct of military engagements
are so complicated that even the best
intentioned legislator, with only limited
knowledge and background, cannot
have a properly informed judgment on
which to base complex force level
decisions.
Staff is Experienced
It is a fact, however, that neither the
committee members nor the committee
staff personnel are either naive or unin-
telligent. The majority have long years
of experience and association with both
defense philosophies and military mat-
ters. Many of the staff members have
been in the business far longer than
their Pentagon counterparts and are
equally as dedicated to the primary ob-
jective of national defense. This is not
to say that Congress is not fully aware
of the dangers inherent in making de-
cisions without the full and total infor-
mation available to military officials in
the Pentagon. Tp the contrary, Rivers,
himself, would be one of the first to
acknowledge these pitfalls. And here
lies a prime source of Congressional
content' In past years, the Armed
Services om pTQW4'4ffi@4f FRVd@ se
on the nation's top military leadership
for advice and counsel; These military
Control of Purse Strings Can
Strongly Influence Defense Programs
~N 1949, all Defense appropriations
were consolidated into one Defense
Appropriations Bill and concurrently
Congressman George Herman Mahon
(D., Tex.) was named Chairman of the
House Subcommittee for Defense
Appropriations. A champion of strong
national defense programs for over a
quarter of a century, Mahon not only
still retains the Defense Subcommittee
chair, but also has, since 1964, been
chairman of Congress' largest commit-
tee, the House of Representatives' 50.
member Appropriations Committee.
"It is not meddling," says Mahon,
"When Congress seeto influence de-
tense programs and defense policies.
Rather it is performing its proper and
mandatory function." And, from the
position of his dual chairmanships, it
is the Texas legislator's view that, over
the years, Congress has exhibited strong
leadership in pushing toward the attain-
ment of an effective national defense.
While Mahon recognizes the role of
the Legislative Branch is not always
startling when the Administration and
the majority in Congress are of the same
party, he nonetheless maintains a firm
conviction that it is the duty of his com-
mittee to serve as "watchdog of the
treasury" and to intelligently attempt to
ascertain that funds are applied to those
programs clearly in the best interests of
the nation rather than to projects of mar-
Some critics readily want to throw the
charge that in many instances Congress
merely rubber stamps the budget re-
quests from the Executive Branch. This
is particularly true when the Congress
appropriates almost the identical amount
of money as that requested by the De-
partment of Defense and the Armed
Services. "A brief examination," says
the Appropriations chairman, "would
completely refute such a conclusion."
In explaining this contention, Mahon
states that, "Congress often within the
framework of defense funds -re-
quested, has substantially and importantly
changed the course of defense programs,
giving them new direction and emphasis.
In some cases the change may represent
a reduction such as a cutback in funds
for an outmoded system or other
weapons considered by Congress to be
of low priority value; a high priority
weapon may be substituted for a low
priority weapon; or a high priority pro-
gram may be accelerated beyond the
point recommended by the Executive
Branch. A case in point would be the
current year's appropriations relative to
the proposed nuclear frigates."
In the current budget requests, AFM
was told, the Department of Defense
had requested funding for two conven-
tional destroyers. However, as Congress
has always been particularly sensitive to
the demand inherent in the current
~ 'a- that the U.S. be as
.wLam-PA ue}~ 0
UZS
etl~;'1COn~s ea r~ p`repared"las possible and desiring
 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300080042-1
Mahon: "Congress, often has
substantially and importantly
changed the course of defense
programs giving them new di-
rection and emphasis."
constantly improve its state of readiness, action along the lines recommended by President by making a supplemental
the Committee took a long look at the Congress is usually taken sometime budget request in the usual manner.
request. Ultimately, the Armed Serv- within the fiscal year for which the It is apparent, though, that the incli-
ices Committee authorized not only the funds are appropriated." nation on the part of Defense to exten-
destroyers but added funding for a sively apply the reprogramming princi-
nuclear frigate and the long leadtime A Source of Irritation ple to carry out the DOD desires rather
money for a second nuclear frigate. The Without question, one of the greatest than the utilization of the funds as Con-
Appropriations Committee, on the other irritants to Congress is the current gress had intended, is leaving many
hand, recommended and budgeted only trend taken by the Department of De- Capitol Hill legislators in a something
the necessary funding for the frigates fense in the major reprogramming of less than happy frame of mind.
and not that for the destroyers. In this fund The secretary of Defense is not In general, from the Appropriations
manner Congress asserted its influence rdgpire to explain how monies were Committee view, Congress desires to
on the future of the surface navy. s e-M- -once e appropriations were influence national defense through the
Other examples, expllained the com- nab' It is within his prerogative to shift control of national purse strings. At the
mittee were the authorization and funding within a lump sum allocation same time, it must attempt to do so
appropriation of money to keep avail- (such as major aircraft systems procure- without becoming inextricably bound in
able the production capability for the ment) without necessarily informing the the myriad details of the intermeshing
F-12 Mach-interceptor not asked for Congress, butmerely submitting a semi- defense management.
in the budget, and additional monies anrn al__undetailed -report showing how Chairman Mabon-feels that the U.S.
for Research on the Navy's Deep Sub- mush money had been shifted. Over is measurably stronger today and more
mergence Program. Also there was a recent years, however, a reprogramming adequately prepared to meet its responsi-
modest sum allocated for the continu- system has evolved in which by "gen- bilities as a result of the aggressive ac-
ance of three Air National Guard heavy tleman's agreement," the Department of tion of Congress, taken upon its own
airlift units (the maintenance of which Defense-informs Congress of such shifts initiative, above and beyond the recom-
the Secretary of Defense has agreed to) at the time and/or quests prior mendations of the Executive Branch.
and for the maintenance of the B-52 approval of the commitees. Such was "My position," says the Congressman,
bomber force at 600 aircraft, the case of the recent request of Con- "is -that if Congress is due any credit,
"The Executive Branch , does not gross for authority to shift funds from and I think it is, the credit comes, prin-
always move to accelerate programs in various other programs in order to make cipally, not from increasing or decreas-
consonance with Congressional intent," additional buys of F-4 and A-4 aircraft. ing defense budgets but fromredirecting,
said Mahon. "At times funds are im- Under the current agreements, had the re-emphasizing, and accelerating key
pounded and not used for the year in committee said "no" to the request, the defense programs. The important role
which appropriated, but this is an excep- Secretary would have been left with the of Congress has been in the downgrading
tion to the rule. However," he con- alternatives of going ahead with the of marginal projects or low priority
tinued, "while prompt action is not procurement (thereby risking the ire of projects and the acceleration of high
always taken by the Executive Branch the committees), not making the pur- priority projects having a direct relation
to carry out the Aopffoue4 rear iaBileaska2866iQTdiki actQ RlifMVDW8R60A$Q6DWG4 rve." 0
 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70800338R000300080042-1
experts have been traditionally brought
before the committees and their frank
appraisals and best judgments solicited.
T has historically been a major
c of Congressional defense exper-
tise. Today, however, Rivers and the
coniv'ittee feel.-that this source of ex-
pcf?ise has been shut off or at best
setlot}sly tlllut' , Prank and open dis-
cussion of the issues, they believe, is
no longer possible. This belief stems
from their conclusion that, in the cur-
rent Defense Department climate, the
ination made available to them is
but a predetermined Defense Depart-
ment position, and that the top military
leaders can do little when appearing
before the committee but parrot that
defense position.
The Armed Services Committee told
AFM that it needs and desires guidance
from the military as it has known it in
the past and that with such advice they
could carry out their own responsibili-
ties to the nation more efficiently and to
the greater benefit of the Defense De-
partment. ILis n committee opinion that
it would behoove DOD to take Congress
into closer confidence and keep them
better informed of its actions rather
a.jean tending to disregard the Congres-
sional role in defense when appropria-
tions are not in total consonance
with Defense judgments. However,
for the moment at least, there is no such
tendency.
The Committee Setup
It is in this environment, then, that
the House Armed Services Committee
feels it must carry out its obligations to
the people. The committee is_ a highly
competent gathering of 37 United States
Congressional Representatives with a
collective total of 199 years of experi-
ence and close involvement in national
security atla rs (a pertinent point, the
committee feels, when related to the
comparative tenure of many policy and
decision-making officials at the Depart-
ment of Defense level).
Guiding activities of the committee is
able L. Mendel Rivers, Congressman
from South Carolina. Rivers has been
in public service since 1933 and a mem-
ber of the United States Congress for
26 years. He has been on the Armed
Services Committee for most of those
years and has chaired for the past two
years. He has been accused of trying
to consolidate his position as committee
leader and of being a temperamental
chairman, though those who work
closely with him thoroughly discount
the former. To the latter, they concede
only that in hA12P8QV tFtgrl Ws
liefs he is direct and inclined to caustic
comment to emphasize his point. His
COUNTERPART to the River's Commit-
tee in the House of Representatives
is the 17-member Senate Armed Services
Committee chaired by Richard B. Rus-
sell of Georgia. By some, Russell has
been accused of being aloof and difficult
to reach. In fact, however, the senator
possesses a politic appreciation of the
separate yet co-equal status of the Legis-
lative and Executive Branches of Gov-
ernment. Further, he believes strongly
that in his critical role as Chairman of
the Armed Services Committee, person-
alities should not be allowed to blur
objectivity nor independent judgment
be influenced by personal friendships. As
a result, Russell makes a conscious effort
in his associations with the Executive
Branch to be cordial but not intimate;
an attitude which to a degree permeates
his committee.
"it is the moment of truth for those
in the Executive Branch who formulate
defense programs and those in the Legis-
lative Branch who pass upon them," said
Russell, prior to the start of a series of
hearings on authorization and appro-
priation of funds for the defense of the
country.
"For several weeks these (Congres-
sional) committees will consider vol-
umes of testimony and almost a moun-
tain of supporting data to help them
form a judgment on whether the opti-
mum degree of emphasis is being placed
h M11
United States." Russell continued, "The
decisions that are weighed in this proc-
ess are awesome in their complexity and
consequences. In all sincerity, I state my
awareness that those who participate
need a profound understanding of the
lessons of history, a discerning judg-
ment of contemporary events, a pre-
scient knowledge of the future to be con-
fident their choices are wise ones."
Chairman Russell is equally aware of
the legislative power that is in the hands
of Congress and its constitutional re-
sponsibilities in the field of national
defense. He also leaves no doubt of his
conviction that Congress and in partic-
ular his Committee are properly facing
those responsibilities and taking the nec-
essary legislative action to carry out its
obligations. He believes, however, that
it would be an oversimplification of the
subject to consider these constituted
authorities alone. They are not an ex-
clusive grant to Congress and an exam-
ination solely of these powers as stated
in the original charter leaves many
modern day questions unanswered.
The Constitution has given Congress
the power to enact laws. At the same
time, it has invested in the Executive
Branch strong unilateral power. "It-is
a fact of life," says Russell, "that the
division of powers between the Legsla-
tive and Executive Branches is not a
simple or a complete one."
"OOhVRA i! , the veteran legislator
9 and with conviction
 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300080042-1
Defining Limit of Congress' Powers
Is a Sensitive Matter of Judgment
Russell: The division of powers
over military affairs between the
Legislative and Executive Branches
is not a simple or a complete one."
Congress has remained resolute despite
conflicting Defense desires.) The com-
mittee recognizes that under Secretary
of Defense McNamara "options" have
been emphasized in an effort to do away
with limited or static strategies. At the
same time, the committee is cognizant
that tyre-can always be a lapse into
over-conservatism and failure to appre-
ciate the value of advanced weaponry
atdclianging strategies. For this rea-
son, Congress will unquestionably con-
tinue to carry out the functions of in-
quiry and criticism of the Department
of Defense and to legislate to the degree
it feels necessary.
Thus, in a dangerous age and in an
arena of separate yet co-equal status
with the Executive Branch, Congress
must perform its role in national defense
with wisdom and discretion. For, as
Chairman Russell would say, "Under
our Constitution the initiative in the
conduct of international relations and
the command of our armed forces is in
,
a
date, e -, to implement any full scale development gress can force Defense to take a the hands of the President. But of the AMSA. At the same time, despite re-examination of its programs and re- the president can and will do- in any
the obvious "in Ant" of C ress t re e those 3which it believes will be specific instance is conditioned by Con-
ic really no e GR2li gg cases 'Lill on ~Q~~tQ>$A0~ 0 ~$i ~tf anrT reaction."
tended to observe this thin line of de-
marcation between the Legislative and
Executive charters. While he strongly
defends what he conceives to be the
proper role of Congress in guiding the
activities of his Armed Services Com-
mittee, he is equally meticulous in mak-
ing certain that there is no intrusion into
the sphere of Executive responsibility.
To do so, he feels, could have disastrous
consequences. (The constitutional word-
age delineating the powers and responsi-
bilities of the Branches is sufficiently
vague as to create a twilight zone be-
tween the two; where blacks and whites
must fade to varying shades of grey.)
As a case in point, AFM was told, the
committee for some time has had a lin-
gering doubt and concern that perhaps
there has been an overreliance on the
Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, and
there is a stringent need for a follow-on
manned bomber to replace an aging
B-52 fleet in the mid-1970s. The elon-
gated F-l I 1 (FB-111) they feel to be
only an interim bomber at best and that
there is a valid requirement for an Ad-
vanced Manned Strategic Aircraft to be
under full development at this time. As
a result, Congress has provided the
authorization and the appropriations to
proceed with such development. To
D f h
s not seen fit
Congress desires to effect to force the port within its already authorized budget.
use of the provided authority or the This is not to say that Russell's Armed
allocated funding. Services Committee is not and will not
This does not mean that no provi- continue to be keenly interested in all
sions are made within the Constitution facets of Defense activities, nor that it
and the nation's laws for Congress to will not act whenever it feels it appro-
take action to force its "intent" (though priate, (rn fact on many occasions,
it has few weapons other than its almost ,such as last ear s military pay increases,
unused powers of impeachment). 'Iv-
made made more positive in one
piece of legislation than in another, de-
pending upon how implicitly the law is
written. Laws can be passed in what-
ever degree of specificity that Congress
desires to legislate. Some Congressional
critics of the Defense Department would
like to dot every "i" and cross every "t."
However, Russell feels the Executive
Branch should always be tit a degree
gLfiexi_bilit
Can Wisdom Be Legislated?
The Chairman looks upon . Congress
and the Committee as highly potent
weapons yet at the same time recognizes
their limitations. While he feels that
Congress has infinite power to grant or
deny funds, he is generally skeptical of
Congress' ability to legislate efficiency
intoie management of the Department
of Defense. - "It is difficult," he says, "to
make wisdom a matter of law."
by cutting back on funds, Con-
Yet
 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300080042-1
competency to direct activities of his
committee has been attested to by high
level Pentagon officials close to the com-
mittee, who told AFM they find Rivers a
"highly capable" chairman.
Backing the Congressional contingent
is a 20-year committee veteran, Chief
Counsel John Blandfoid and a profes-
sional staff, well versed in defense
activities.
To direct its attention to the myriad
aspects of those activities, the commit-
tee is currently composed of four perma-
nent subcommittees and nine special
subcommittees. These subcommittees
are chaired by some of the most knowl-
edgeable names in military affairs on
Capitol Hill: Philbin (Mass.), Hebert
(La.), Price (Ill.), Fisher (Tex.), Byrne
(Pa.), Bennett (Fla.), Hardy (Va.),
and Pike (N.Y.).
The subcommittees carry out the re-
sponsibilities of the committee charter
that charges it with an obligation in the
management of ammunition depots,
forts, arsenals, as well as all Service
reservations and establishments. They
are concerned with the conservation, de-
velopment and use of naval petroleum
and oil shale reserves, as well as the
scientific research and development in
support of the armed Services. The size
and composition of the Services fall
within their purview as do the pay,
promotion, retirement and other bene-
fits and privileges of the members of the
Services. Major among its activities is
the area of strategic and critical mate-
rials necessary for common defense.
These responsibilities are mandated
and obligatory to the Armed Services
Committee as action agent for the
House Legislative branch. Mendel
Rivers leaves no doubt that he and the
committee fully understand both the
dictate and the devoir, and that they are
zealously devoted to meeting their
charge.
AFM talked with Chairman Rivers
and members of the committee staff in
regard to the present relationship with
the Department of Defense and current
areas of committee concern.
It is obvious that relationship between
the two is better than usually reported,
but not so harmonious as it has been in
the past. However, it is also obvious
that both are working toward their com-
mon objective of the best defensive
forces possible for the security of the
country. It is equally apparent that Con-
gress is inclined to go to greater lengths,
more expeditiously and at a commen-
surately greater cost than the current
defense regime where the philosophy of
"cost effecti 4A veidtfiOr Release 2
decision process and a holding of de-
fense resources (predicated upon systems
Legislators' Power to Investigate
Is a Potent Aid to Defense Efficiency
Stennis: "It is imperative that
Congress constantly measure our
military preparedness against the
possible demands we may face."
)06/0I/3.0 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300080042-1
 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300080042-1
T is HIGHLY questionable that any
large bureaucratic organization such
as the Department of Defense would op-
erate at peak efficiency for any extended
period of time without the motivating
force of authoritative criticism from out-
side sources While Defense and the
military Services have tried to build their
own investigative capability (e.g., the
Inspector General system) the very na-
ture of the hierarchy and its inherent
"chain of obedience" either makes diffi-
cult, or precludes, the application of
informed criticism in important areas.
In this view the investigative powers
of Congress become a valuable and
potent aid to the effective management
of Defense resources and to proper
legislative actions. By picking an area
of Defense activity, narrowly and de-
liberately circumscribed, Congress can
focus its energies to a degree not other-
wise possible and in this manner make
a most telling contribution to national
defense. The true value of the appli-
cation of these powers is well illustrated
by recent Congressional hearings into
Military Airlift Resources and defense
capabilities in the area of Tactical Air
Power and Close Air/Ground Suport.
On Capitol Hill, it is generally con-
ceded that "Mr. Investigator" is Senator
John Stennis (D., Miss), Chairman of
the Subcommittee on Preparedness In-
vestigations and ranking member of the
Senate Armed Services Committee. "The
responsibility of Congress is clear,"
Stennis told AFM. "It is imperative that
it- (Congress) constantly measure our
military strength and our military pre-
paredness against the possible demands
which we may face in view of our
worldwide commitments and that we
face up, realistically, to the problems
which may confront us at hot spots and
potential hot spots all around the world
as a result of the aggressive and expan-
sionistic designs of communism."
To do this, Stennis pointed out, Cop-
gress must collect its own facts and
make its own evaluatiogsindepend6nt of
the military. He feels strongly that Con-
gress has the responsibility to take this
independent action and examine and
evaluate each area for itself rather than
something less than a full partner in
military and defense matters, I, for one,
will never be content to abdicate my re-
sponsibility in this field to any individual,
department or agency; nor will I ever
be content to sit idly by and see the re-
sponsibility and obligation of the Con-
gress in this area turned over to the
Executive Department by default or
eroded beyond repair or recall."
Stennis is convinced that the major
role that Congress should play in the
defense field must be boldly asserted;
that the Legislative Branch should play a
greater, rather than a lesser, role in our
government.
There Can Be No Restraints
In his zeal for Congressional inde-
pendence in assessing any given situa-
tion, Stennis does not mean to imply that
Congress would exclude the judgments
of the nation's skilled and professional
military leaders. To the contrary, on
natters that are essentially military in
nature, Stennis feels that their advice
and recommendations should be sought
and seriously weighed and that freedom
of expression and even dissent during
this period should be both countenanced
and encouraged. He feels equally,
however, that such testimony, if it is to
be beneficial to investigation, must be
open and frank, and without restraint
imposed by a previously determined
Defense Department position.
"Congress can discharge this major
responsibility in the defense field," the
veteran senator said, "intelligently and
effectively only if it has access to all of
the facts and to the professional opin-
ions and view of skilled and high-
ranking officers. There must be no
arbitrary restrictions or institutional re-
straints which prevent our high-ranking
officers, when testifying in executive ses-
sion upon matters affecting security and
survival of this country, from present-
ing both the facts and their views to the
Congress openly, candidly and freely.
Without such a free and full presenta-
tion by the knowledgeable military peo-
ple the Congress will be restricted to a
one-sided presentation which merely par-
rots a policy or position which has been
gations into military affairs and manage-
ment of the Military Establishment,
Stennis is extremely pointed in stressing
Fiis conviction that -the Legislative
Branch is not and will not be bound by
_
restrictions placed on Congressional
stated that in a memorandum issued last
January, witnesses were given instruc-
tions as. "guidance" in testifying before
Congress if pressed for their personal
opinions. "Among other things," he said,
"they were told to give 'the considera-
tions or factors which support the deci-
sion'-meaning the decision of higher
authority. This attempts," he continued,
"to compel the witness to argue for a
viewpoint with which he may disagree."
In such interrogation, the subcommit-
tee chairman believes that CQpgress
-must insist upon direct and responsive
answers when requesting the personal
-pro essiona opinions in executive hear-
Jrgo Commented Stennis, "When they
are in professional disagreement, they
cannot and should not be expected to
support the opposing view."
His experience as head of the Pre-
paredness Investigations Subcommittee
has given the senator a strong convic-
tion in the value of the Congressional
role as both mentor and critic in matters
of national defense. He is convinced
at previous investigations have evi
_-t. .n.ced a--stringent requirement toques-
ion and Turther evaluate Defense assess-
-
ifent of reported defense needs aid
pab lities.
So strongly does Congress feel in this
relation, says Stennis, that his subcom-
mittee is currently involved in inquiries
and an all encompassing survey of U.S.
worldwide commitments.
"We have determined," he said, "that
it is necessary to make an overall study
and assessment of our worldwide mili-
tary commitments and an evaluation
of what is required in military man-
power, equipment, weapons and other
resources to enable us to respond to
these commitments."
Whatever the pros and cons, there
seems little question that Congress most
properly has the responsibility to carry
out an investigative role in national
blindly accepting a Defense-assessed officially approved at the highest security and this is a view concurred in
position. He said, "Despite the trend echelon." and desired by most knowledgeable
in recent years, AlIPMO d400B lLwase 2alasK -/wto V949qVMl( O@"8RbiSAI @608(SO42L4ry? 0
 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300080042-1
analysis) to only those necessary to meet
assessed contingencies. The committee
feels that a surplus of military hardware
even if it means waste, is far preferable
to a shortage that may mean disaster.
Rivers told AFM, that the primary
differences between Congress and the
Pentagon are philosophical. Both agree
the country comes first. Those philo-
sophical differences, however, make a
common approach difficult. Rivers _fels
further that the attitude of the Defense
Department toward his committee is
more one of toleration than of coop-
eration. --'.,'They simply do not take us
into their complete confidence," he said.
He indicated that there were a num-
ber of areas of disagreement in the man-
ner in which the Pentagon is currently
managing defense resources. "I am par-
ticularly opposed," he said, "to this busi-
ness of major reprogramming. It makes
a mockery of the whole appropriations
process.." He pointed out that funding
author zations are made by budget line
item only after extensive testimony justi-
fying those items. "I was dismayed,"
said the Chairman earlier this year,
"when the Secretary of Defense an-
nounced that many highly important
military projects would be deferred,
even though the Congress had not only
authorized their construction, but funds
had been provided. These projects must
first go through a long and laborious
study and approval by the Bureau of
the Budget and the Department of De-
fense before they are even submitted to
the Congress. I am completely dumb-
founded," he continued, "by the fact
that without any prior consultation with
the representatives of the people the
Secretary of Defense announced the de-
ferment of many important items and all
military family housing."
Research and development projects,
the development of advanced weapons
systems and failure. on the part of De-
fense to make decisions to proceed with
Much developments were among the areas
causing committee concern.
? The Hebert subcommittee is mak-
ing a searching inquiry into the
announced phaseout of the B-58 and
B-52 strategic bombers and what Rivers
terms the "lack of decision to develop
a suitable replacement aircraft." He
feels distraught that the Air Force is not
flying a single aircraft specifically de-
signed for close air support that it has
been allowed tQ develop itself.
Early this summer, the Chairman
Advanced Manned Strategic Aircraft
(AMSA) and an Improved Manned
Interceptor, he stated, "There is little
interest in the civilian sector of the De-
partment of Defense in a true, follow-on
bomber. Instead, the Department is
content to gamble on an elongated
F-111 to be called the FB-111. It is only
an interim bomber at best." He con-
tinued, "Our interceptor aircraft will
start a downward trend in the years
ahead and the fate of a new Improved
Interceptor has not been decided. Per-
haps it will be the YF-12A or perhaps
they will come up with an IMI-111."
? Of equal concern to the committee
is its conviction that a block obso-
lescence of the U.S. Naval Fleet requires
immediate action to update deep pene-
tration naval gunfire support ships,
heavy gun-carrying units and action to
give the Navy a nuclear power capability.
"We have the know-how and the in-
dustrial capacity to provide nuclear
power for major surface segments of the
fleet. But we can't even get a decision
from DOD to build a new nuclear-
powered frigate," Rivers said. He
pointed _ out that facts supporting the
construction of nuclear frigates in order
to operate nuclear task forces are so
overwhelming that "it is inconceivable
to me that anyone can dispute them. But
they are still being disputed."
? A caustic source of irritation to the
Congressional defense experts is the
current controversy over the Defense
Department's proposal for the merger
of the National Guard and the Re-
serve Forces. There is a consensus
among the committee members that
despite an unequivocal and clear rejec-
tion of the merger proposal by the Con-
gressr the Pentagon, electing to follow
its own judgments, continues to persist
in predicating its future planning on the
merger and reorganization proposal.
This and actions already taken by the
Defense Department (which, in effect,
closely parallel ends outlined in the
original proposal) the committee inter-
prets as "thwarting the will of Congress."
Despite the differences, however, the
Pentagon and the Hill do work closely
in most areas, particularly in support of
the conflict in Southeast Asia. Both are
primarily interested in the morale and
well-being of the fighting man in Viet-
nam. But it is the committee's reaction
that decisions to properly supply and
equip our fighting forces should have
is the most worried of all men," he said.
Rivers is blunt. He takes little stock in
"cost effectiveness" if it results in de-
fense without an adequate "safety mar-
gin"; nor is he convinced of the validity
of the theory of "escalation" and "re-
straint." ... have " he says, "too many
people who are. counting the costs of
tlatlc_ recur y and not enough weigh-
ing the cost of defeat." He firmly be-
lieves the proper course of action is "to
build and maintain the mightiest mili-
tary strength possible and, if necessary,
commit without restraint, the entire
arsenal to preserve the nation."
At the same time, there is no doubt
that current philosophies within the
Pentagon will continue to prevail. As of
this writing there appears little hope, ,at
least for the moment, that the climate
can be other than one of friendly
condescension.
Vigilance is Needed
Congress and Defense are close to an
impasse on many major issues. The
Armed Services Committees and Con-
gress realize that they can effect legisla-
tion and make appropriations. But they
can not easily force the Department of
Defense to spend the funds appropri-
ated. They can give authority for action,
but cannot without complications re-
quire that authority to be used. Rivers
recognizes full well these subtleties. He
is cognizant that while Congress has
powers that can be evoked to achieve
certain ends, it is not in every case
necessarily prudent nor in the nation's
best interest to wield these powers.
Thus, Defense will probably continue
in its own way and as it sees fit. Yet
one would be naive to the extreme, to
assume that Congress is not dedicated
to its cause. Or that it will not continue
to apply power within the dictates of its
own convictions.
If the writers of the Constitution felt
the new nation so complex as to neces-
sitate a division of power (Executive-
Legislative-Judicial) then perhaps, in the
United States of today, it is well that
there exists an authority vested with
maintaining a vigilance over any bu-
reaucracy the size of the Department of
Defense.
Congress must stand this vigil. To do
otherwise would be failure to carry out
its mandate. Or as Mendel Rivers
would say, "The Congress has a consti-
tutional responsibility in the area of
national defense. It must either meet
lauded the nation's tremendous defense says Rivers, "that more consideration is this responsibility, watch it erode, or
capability and the advances that had given to the fighting man before he takes unconstitutionally delegate its responsi-
been made. He stated, however that on the `30-yard look'." This he ex- bility to the Department of Defense."
"there are dh Proye tfgQra a61e 2Q 1 41I Qe l iR1 e4~ ~~~E~~ Ql rte Armed Services Com-
military departments, and our prepara- face when he is 30 yards from the mittee will meet its constitutional duty
tions for the future." Referring to the enemy. "At that point, the Serviceman and responsibility. 0
been made sooner. "It is high time,"
 Ap
Ap
~F T
UNCLASSIFIED CONFIDENTIAL
SECRET
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
OFFICIAL ROUTING SLIP
TO
NAME AND ADDRESS
DATE
1 IA
j5 w
2
L. C
3
4
V
1,'?
fiAAl
5
" 1-
M
6
ACTION
DIRECT REPLY
PREPARE REPLY
APPROVAL
DISPATCH
RECOMMENDATION
COMMENT
FIE
RETURN
CONCURRENCE
INFORMATION
SIGNATURE
Remarks:
&U ..v At~aj I r`te' t4-,t 1-4
,
a-J azkJ
t4iA42/ QM ~
FOLD HERE TO RETURN TO SENDER
FROM: NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE NO.
DATE
LLAI
e i
FORM No. 237 Use previous editions