Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 19, 2016
Document Release Date: 
January 9, 2006
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
January 7, 1969
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP71B00364R000100190067-4.pdf7.68 MB
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 JC LJRNAL OFFICE OF LE(..YISLATIVE COUNSEL Tuesday - 7 January 1969 25X1 25X1 25X1 1. Assistant, IWork1 out with Robert Michaels, Staff riouse Appropri tions Committee, plans for his visit to some 2. William Woodruff, Assistant Chief 25X1 25X1A 25X1 25X1 Clerk, Senate Appropriations Commiztee, informed me that Senator Russell wanted to be certain that his Subcommittee-received an Agency roundup briefing before we briefed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Woodruff wanted to be informed as soon as we had any indication that the Foreign Relations Committee wished to schedule a briefing. He said Senator Russell would be preoccupied with the Senate Rules debate next week (13-17 January) but might like an Agency briefing the following week (20 - 24 January). In any event however the Senator would want to be sure that his Subcommittee heard from the Agency before we appeared before Senator Fulbright's Committee. 3. Met with Representative F. Edward Hebert (D., La.) and advised him that has not filed the application for employment furnished him at the time of inter- view and that we are now putting his file on the inactive list. Mr. Hebert agreed that the file should not be kept open any longer and expressed appreciation for our assistance i.i this case. 25X1A 25X1A In conversation, Mr. Hebert advised that he will be returning to New Orleans in March for an eye operation which will take him out of circulation for some three months. For the first time in recent months, he seemed somewhat optimistic about improving his eyesight. 4. Met with Mr. J. R. Blandford, Chief Counsel, House Armed Services Committee, and completed the appropriate documenta- tion on two projects for which Secrecy Oaths had not been signed. 5. Met with Mr. Frank Slatinshek, Counsel, House Armed Services Committee, and briefed him on the security control systems utilized in the protection of sensitive information and completed the appro- priate Secrecy Oath. Mr. Slatinshek has recently been designated by the Chairman to attend CIA Subcommittee briefings. Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 25X1 25X1 25X1A Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 - Office of Legislative Couris,.:1, Page 2 - 7 Zanuary 1969 6. In response to his call, met with Mr. Norris, Counsel, House Armed 5ervices Special Subcommitton ee Seapower, who requested a h.,:lef :anciowIl on the current picture _anca forecast, both political and economic, ,,:he country of Liberia. Chairmai Charles Bennett (D., Fla.) is currently reviewing registration of commercial vessels arid has noted in particu.iar no disproportionate amount of tonnage flying the Liberian flag. DD/1 has 1.-f.a advised. 7. S-Dor-e. -t.) Representative Michael Feighan,, , Ohio), concerning the 2r1v:Ltt: his for rhich he had introduced in irc last Session but which dieL Lac elm ot the Session. Feighan said he 25X1 25X1A be glad 6. Assistant to to reintroduce the ',Di Informed aoy Carlson, Adrninistratve -al Washington), that Representative Julia Iliansen (D. , be interviewed by our recruiter on 13 January. See 3-earn would of 6 January. 25X1 9. J. ::.kju'rwine, Senate Internal Se.curiA-v- - committee, called and said he understooct that the Agency has prepar,.:d study on Communist influence in radical student activities on a wor-Ldwide basis. He asked if it would be :jos olsfor him to read the study, and 5:f in. we could provide a briefer fo brie-: him on the subject as his Subdommnitee ',:lanning to hold hearings on this H.11.4je,et during this session. I told him I would look into it and be back n t,..;uch with him. 25X1 1O Bill Wocht.if,on the staff of the Senate priations Committee, called and saia= he had been going over some of on: reserveletters for Senator Eusseli, in connection with the 16 December 1968 letter, he would like a brealcd.-,v,rh_ of the figures for Vietnam and Laos. With respect to tne 23 December leer, he would like further clarification regarding the sensitive project He would like this information sometime tomorrow. I contact.ec_i vho is working on this. Approved For Release 2006/01/30,: CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 25X1 25X1A Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 ournal - Office of LcisaLive e Page 4 Monday - 6 January 1969 A.pproriations Committee with Mr. William Woodruff, although Mr. Woodruff will not:E for at least two to three weei,....5 can be away from the Committa but will be unable to travel at a The DD/S&T. have been acivised. Also received from documents forwarded to Me -.tie cc: 0 /DDCI Ex/Dir-Compt HA /DDP DD/I DD/SiszT DD / S Mr. Houston Mr. Goodwin OPPB Item 3 - FBIS Item 4 - DID/OCS cicm Mr. Robert ivlichaels, House advised after a final check ata,ATypropriations Committee., that to get away from the city r,lt)hger, that he (Mr. Michaels) tns week after Wednesday morning date in the foreseeable future. ,Viichaels a receipt for classified .:_riran on 23 December. CitE M. MAURY . ..,:_,1,,Lative Counsel Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 25X1 25X1A 25X1A Approved For Rele :Journal - Office of Legislative Counsel Friday - 3 January 1969 aP71600364R000100190067-4 Page 2 4. In connection with Senator Ernest F. Hollings' (D., S. C . ) earlier call to OLC, for information on the World Anti-Communist League, accompanied the Taiwan analyst of OCI, to a meeting with Senator Hollings and Michael Joy, his Legislative Assistant. Senator Hollings' interest stems from an invitation to attend a conference in Taiwan on 23 January in which the League is involved. The briefing went well, with Senator Hollings complementing on his detailed knowledge of the subject. I stressed that the Government's position with respect to the World Anti-Communist League was not within the Agency's province. Mr. Joy had contacted Mr. Hart, of State Department, whose information and evaluation was similar to that given by Senator Hollings was grateful for our help and determined it to be in his best interest to decline the invitation. 25X1A 25X1A 25X1 5. Staff Director, furnished to Liberty to At the request of Garner J. Cline, 25X1A Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization, him the name of as the person in Radio whom he could write a "thank you" letter. 25X1 6. Talked to Frank McNamara, House Committee on Un-American Activities, concerning the Committee's 25X1A 25X1A 25X1 25X1A request for to appear before the Committee. I noted that Chester Smith, General Counsel of the Committee had made the original request. McNamara was unaware that the request had been made and expressed some doubt that could provide information of value to the Committee. He also stated that because of the lack of appropriations and a Committee agenda that he thought it unlikely that could appear before the Committee prior to February. McNamara will check with Smith on this. 7. Met with Mr. Robert Michaels, House Appropriations Committee staff, who advised that neither he nor Mr. Woodruff, Senate Appropriatisla, were able to set a time for possible travel to next week. I will recheck with Mr. Michaels on Monday. Approved For Release 20604 I DIENSFIAL00364R000100190067-4 25X1A ApprovekFor Release 200 FE 90067-4 the JOURNAL OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL Friday - 3 January 1969 Fran Hewitt, on the staff of called to say that he had a considerable amount of classified material to be destroyed and asked if we would assist (as we have in the past) by making our incinerator facilities available for this purpose. I told Hewitt we would be happy to cooperate with him and would make arrangements with him for this to be done next week. 2. Jay Sourwine, on the staff of the Senate Special Subcommittee on Internal Security, called to say he wanted to be quite clear regarding our position on the ase. 3.I Attempted to see Mr. M. Albert Figinski, Chief Counsel, Senate Improvements in Judicial Machinery Subcommittee, in connection with Senator Tydings' letter to the Director on the Agency's cooperation with the U.S. courts on computerized translation of court reporter's notes. Mr. Figinski was unavailable and I will try to contact him Monday morning. Approved For Release 20 B00364R000100190067-4 25X1C 25X1 25X1C 25X1 25X1A - 25X1 25X1A 25X1 25X1A 25X1 Approved-For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP711300364R000100190067-4 Journal - Office of Legislative Counsel Thursday - 2 January 1969 Page 3 8. FI Staff, advised that a former staff agent has an appointment with a Member of Congress in the leadership to obtain his endorsement for a position with the new Administration. is bringing this to the attention of the DDP and it was recommended that the Member of Congress be advised of the former Agency employment either directly by the individual or by this office. 9. In connection with recent legislation enlarging the scope of the Department of Defense dependent schooling program to include kindergarten instruction, spoke with Dr. Anthony Cardinale, Director for Dependents Education, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, who advised that the funds for the program were appropriated in P. L. 90-580 and that the approval of the appropriation constituted approval of the program as reflected in the hearings on the DOD appropriations for fiscal 1969. This information was passed to pns. 11. Talked with Mr. Chester Smith, General Counsel, House Committee on Un-American Activities, and indicated that we were available to begin discussions with the HCUA staff regarding a possible appearance by before the Committee in executive session. Mr. Smith said, since the Committee will have a new chairman and be reorganized, he would prefer to delay this until around the 15th of January. He will contact us at that time. It was agreed that if should become anxious to make any public pronouncement before that time we would so advise the Committee. 12. Met with William Woodruff Senate Appropriations Committee staff, and briefed him on the substance of a recent bulletin item having to do with the Soviet defense budget. Additional material on this is being prepared by OSR and will be made available to Woodruff at a later date. Wi:P? Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 25X1A 25X6 25X1A Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA4RVeg364R000100190067-4 YORK TIMES ?AG Senate Unit Defies Tradition, Leaves Aid Sum LT p to Aui By FELIX BELAIR Jr. Special to The New Yark Tines WASHINGTON, Dec. 16?The iswtq Apprs2i2riations- 41thfiati,ed tradition today and V its approval of a foreign aid money bill whose level VrOttld be fixed by Senate and lIcuse conferees now consider- The authorizing legislation. e committee adopted with- attchange a total of $2.13-bil- lion recommended only an hour eater by its Foreign Operations Sullcommittee for the substan- tin economic and military ai pro,rams in the current fiscal year ending June 30. But the figure was arrived a' in _the interest of speed and subject to an understanding that it would be lowered before coming to the Senate floor to whatever figure the conferees on the authorizing legislation may produce tomorrow. It thus appeared that the ap- propriation on which the Senate would be asked to act would be about $1.75-billion? about the same as Congress appropri- ated last year. Conferees for the Senate and House reached tentative agree- ment earlier in the day on an authorization of $1,644,525,000 for all economic aid categories. This was about $561-million less than had been requested by President Nixon for helping less developed countries. Authorizing legislation sets spending ceilings and fixes poli- cies. Appropriation measures actually provide the money. aditionally, the Senate Ap- propriations Committee does not begin its markup process unto both legislative branches have adopted the compromise agreement reached by conferees on the differences between the Hotise and Senate versions of the authorizing legislation. rye on Recess If was clear that the Aprixtt7 n-LE-ions Commmittee action wa an effort to complete the appropriations agenda in time or he usual Christmas recess. ?redcient Nixon warned in a hews conference recently that he would call Congress back into extra session the day after Christmas unless it completed ill,aonev bills and several leg- ,s1L;Ive projects urged by the The $2.13-billion appropria- tion bill took the full commit- tee less than an hour to ap- prove. The subcommittee, head- ed for the first time this year by Senator Gail McGee, Demo- crat of Wyoming, held a single meeting on the bill earlier in the afternoon and completed its recommendations in two hours. As ordered reported to the Senate, subject to the ceilings fixed by conferees on the au- thorizing legislation tomorrow, the money 'bill provided about $1.7-billion of economic aid and about $375-million for military aid grants. Also included in the measure was $75-million to provide a reserve fund for the newly authorized Overseas Pri- vate Investment corporation. This reserve fund was con- Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 tamed in t ure as an without ai ing. The that the $' rovided or tion stage. The cor vide priva tive under the existh antee prog Agency fc velopment. The mi proved foi grame by priations million mc the House- measure. I $79.5-millic Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 thorization Conferees he authorizing meas. aid section of the House open-end item and ty fixed money ceil- kdministration asked 75-million finding be ily in the iippropria- poration wpuld pro- te enterprise initia- Federal suepices for tg investment guar- ram operated by the a- International De- )ney amounts ap- ? economic aid pro- the Senat. Appro- panel werc $486A. ire than provided in passed appropriation 3ut the group stripped rn from the military. measure. This cutback included a total disalowance of the $54.5-mil- lion voted in the House for a down payment on a squadron of F-4-D jet fighter planes for Natimalist China. A further cut of $25-million in general military aid funds by the Sen- ate ,:ommittee would have cut the total for the purpose t, But the panel then put baci into the money bill a S50-mil lion House provision for adde( military assistance to Soul Korea. This item ha been ap nroved by the House but the was stricken in the Senate al thorization measure. _ RIMEMBER THE NEEDVEST! Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 S 16782 McIntyre Murphy Packwood Pastore Pearson Prouty Approved For Retwagin3pL: 9,1ettlerT1BIgRA.11.%0010019q9Vekber 16, 1969 Scott Smith, Ill, Spong Stennis Stevens Talmadge Thurmond Tower Williams, Del. Young, N. Dalt. PRESENT AND GIVING LIVE PAIRS, AS PREVIOUSLY RECORDED-5 Cook, for. Metcalf, for. Saxbe, for. Mansfield, against. Magnuson, for. NOT VOTING--10 Anderson Cooper Jackson Miller Mundt Russell Sparkman Symington Tydings Williams, N.J. So the amendment of Mrs. SMITH of Maine was rejected. Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amend- ment was rejected. Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1969 Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on S. 3016. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid be- fore the Senate the amendment of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. 3016) to provide for the continuation of programs authorized under the Eco- nomic Opportunity Act of 1964, to au- thorize advance funding of such pro- grams, and for other purposes, which was to strike out all after the enacting clause, and insert: That this Act may be cited as the "Eco- nomic Opportunity Act Amendments of 1969". TITLE I?EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION SEC. 101. For the purpose of carrying out programs under the Economic Opportunity Act of 1961 for which there are no separate authorizations of appropriations in such Act, there are hereby authorized to be appropri- ated $1,563,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and such amount as may be necessary for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971. SEC. 102. Sections 161, 245, 321, 408, 615, and 835 of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 are each amended by striking out "1967" and by inserting in lieu thereof "1969". Section 523 of such Act is amended by striking out "June 30, 1968, and the two succeeding fiscal years" and by inserting in lieu thereof "June 30, 1969, and the three succeeding fiscal years". TITLE II?SPECIAL WORK AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS SEC. 201. Title I of the Economic Opportu- nity Act of 1961 is amended redesignating part E as part F, by renumbering section 161 (as amending by section 102 of this Act) as section 171, and by inserting after part D the following new part: "PART E?SPECIAL WORK AND CAREER DEVEL- OPMENT PROGRAMS "STATEMENT OF PURPOSE "SEc. 161. The Congress finds that the 'Op- eration Mainstream' program aimed primarily at the chronically unemployed and the 'New Careers' program providing jobs for the un- employed and low-income persons leading to broader career opportunities are uniquely effective; that, in addition to providing per- sons assisted w i M. jobs, the key to their economic independence these programs are of advantage to the community at large in that they are directed at community beau- tification and betterment and the improve- ment of health, education, welfare, public safety, and othei public services; and that, while these programs are important and nec- essary componeets oi comprehensive work and training provraros. there is a need to en- courage imagins .*ive and innovative use of these programs, -Ai enlarge the authority to operate them., a ad to increase the resources available for thein. "Ill-- CIA I. PROGRAMS "Sc. 162. (a) "f be Director is authorized to provide financial assis)ance to public or pri- vate nonprofit agencie, to stimulate and sup- port efforts to provide the unemployed with jobs and the by;income worker with greater career opporturnly. Pr grams authorized un- der this section hail alclude the following: "(1) A special program to be known as 'Mainstream' winch nvolves work activities directed to the tired, ol those chronically un- employed poor c ho have poor employment prospects and are unable, because of age, physical condita,n, obsolete or inadequate skills, declin ng economic conditions, other causes of a lack employment opportunity, or otherwise, to iectire appropriate employ- ment or training awisi aace under other pro- grams, and whirl,, in addition to other serv- ices provided. c 11 enable such persons to participate in pt leets for the betterment or beautification re tile community or area served by the progrfun, including without limitation activil tes winch will contribute to the managemern . con mrvation, or develop- ment of natural esom ces, recreational areas, Federal, State, aod loeal government parks, highways. and o sier lands, the rehabilitation of housing, the i*Iproveinent of public facili- ties, and the irm rovement and expansion of health, educatiot, ela, care, and recreation services; "(2) A spell , prop ram to be known as 'New Careers wi oh w:II provide unemployed or low-incorr e n..rsoir with jobs leading to career opportun tee. including new types of careers, in prop qns designed to improve the physical, social, conom lc, or cultural condi- tion of ihe con manity or area served in fields of public service, including without limitation heali I . education, welfare, recre- ation, day care, acigliborhood redevelopment, and public safe: i ch provide maximum prospects for on ,he-j, kb training, promotion, and nth:income) t and continued employ- ment with Fece ral essista,nce, which give promise of cant: outing to the broader adop- tion new mccl ods cm structuring jobs and new rnetliodf 01 arovirii ng job ladder oppor- tunities, and win ih or code opportunities for further occupiv ain ,1 'aiming to facilitate career advancers art " (b ) The Dirc; to.' ic athorized to provide financial anc. o, .er a s)stance to insure the provision of sup )orcice and follow-up serv- ices to supplern1, prnerams under this part including heal! Ties, counseling, day care for children . transportation assistance, and other spech serv-ces necessary to assist individuals to mu Mew success in these pro- grams and in Cl: ployment. "ADMIN s 1-1IA ru P. REGULATIONS "SEC. 163. Thu Director shall prescribe reg- ulations to assto e Liar, programs under this ate internal administrative tiny requirements, person- ;a1.),11, ion procedures, avail- 'ice *mining and technical km-, mid other policies as 10 promote the effective part have ailed, controls, accoui, nel standards. ability of in-ser assistance progr, may be necessin- use of funds "SEC. 164. (a) vide financial a: 'IA I . NDIT/ONS rho Ui rector shall not pro- - e for any prograni Un- der this part unless he determines, in ac- cordance with such regulations as he may prescribe, that? "(1) no participant will be employed on projects involving political parties, or the construction, operation, or maintenance of so much of any facility as is used or to be used for sectarian instruction or as a place for religious worship; "(2) the program will not result in the displacement of employed workers or impair existing contracts for services, or result in the substitution of Federal for other funds in connection with work that would otherwise be performed; "(3) the rates of pay for time spent in work-training and education, and other con- ditions of employment, will be appropriate and reasonable in the light of such factors as the type of work, geographical region, and proficiency of the participant; and "(1) the program will, to the maximum ex- tent feasible, contribute to the occupational development and upward mobility of indi- vidual participants. "(b) For programs which provide work and training related to physical improvements, preference shall be given to those improve- ments which will be substantially used by low-income persons and families or which will contribute substantially to amenities or facilities in urban or rural areas having high concentrations or proportions of low-income persons and families. "(c) Programs approved under this part shall, to the maximum extent feasible, con- tribute to the elimination of artificial bar- riers to employment and occupational ad- vancement. "(d) Projects under this part shall pro- vide for maximum feasible use of resources under other Federal programs for work and training and the resourc-is of the private sector. ''PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS "SEC. 165. (a) Participants in programs un- der this part must be unemployed or low- income persons. The Director, in consultation with the Commissioner of Social Security, shall establish criteria for low income, taking Into consideration family size, urban-rural and farm-nonfarm differences, and other relevant factors. Any individual shall be deemed to be from a low-income family if the family receives cash welfare payments. "(b) Participants must be permanent res- idents of the United States or of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. "(c) Participants shall not be deemed Fed- eral employees and shall not be subject to the provisions of law relating to Federal em- ployment, including those relating to hours of work, rates of compensation, leave, un- employment compensation, and Federal em- ployment benefits. "EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF ASSISTANCE "SEc. 166. The Director shall establish cri- teria designed to achieve an equitable dis- tribution of assistance among the States. In developing those criteria, he shall consider, among other relevant factors, the ratios of population, unemployment, and family in- come levels. Of the SUMS appropriated or allocated for any fiscal year for programs authorized under this part not more than 121A per centum shall be used within any one State. "LIMI=IONS ON FEDER A L ASSISTANCE "SEC. 167. Programs assisted under this part shall be subject to the provisions of section 131 of this Act. "AUTI-IuRIZ '.T1ONS "SEC. 161. For the purpose of carrying out programs under this part, there are hereby authorized to be appropriated $110,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and such amount as may be necessary for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971." Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 December 15, /9Approved nfteirrpsmaQiii/p1k3LOGSMVRDRM30064R000100190067-4 S16781 One of :he most fateful issues before us as a people at the present time is whether or not we should proceed with the construction of an ABM system. It is an exceedingly complee issue. to which there is no easy answer. 1.ast summer we enca red here in tire Fe note in a long and thorough debate of tee issue. When the roll was finally celled, we found ourselves evenly divided. do no regard this vote ;le a final nate pronouncement on the issue. Even if it had been more decisive, it would be proper, in my view, to reexamine the iseue at a later date. I do not believe, however, that now is an appropriate time for such a reexami- nation. Du? to the press cf business upon us as the holiday season approaches, we simply car not reopen our deliberations in the depth which our responsibilities require. Ur der the circumstances. I have decided to vote against today's amend- ment. 'Fbis vote should be nterpreted for what it is and no more. I voted last slimmer against the administration's proposal to move ahead with construc- tion of the Safeguard system. I stand on my vote. but I also feel we should abide OL this time with the result of last sum- mer's rollcell. My vote tcday, therefore, is directed against the timeliness rather than the substance of today's amend- ment. I simply do not believe that it would be proper to reopen the underlying iseue at thi.; time. SAFEGUARD IS NO SA ,EGUARII Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President. the safeguard hard-point ABM is. a system of many weaknesses. Nct the least of these is the missile site radar. or MSR. watch is se inadequate as to invalidate lire entire system. zSll four najor Safeguard components are carried over from the Sentinel and Nike-X city-defense systems: none are suitable for the hard-poirit defense mis- sion. Let us consider the missile site radar as an example. It is possible for the Soviet Union to mount an inexpen- sive reliable attack on the MSR' s which would render the entire Safeeuard sys- tem inopereble. Because of its high cost?current esti- mates run at about $1e5 million per copy?it is impractical as build more than one MSR for each Minuteman ICBM farm. An MSR is n ?eessary for all ABM intereeptions. Because of its short ranee. there is no overlap Let ween MSR's. Thus. destruction of a Minuteman farm's MSR would leave that farm without ABM proteetion. Destruction of all 12 of Safegua:ai phase 2's MS1Res would -ender the ntire system inoperable. Let us .te;sume the Safeauard ABM syetem will be 70 percent effective. Even aliewing to multiple interceptor firings at a single soviet wareeac, this is a leen- erie/S assumption of' ABM system effec- la mess =ler ideal test conditions. In CF' CO% text of a real-life heavy sophist i- ( .e men te attace. It is (?xtremely goa- lie folloving three estimate, oi Soviet offensive missile capabilite are based on official Pentagon statements. If. in fact, the Soviet capability is not as great as the Pentagon claims. our ICBM's are not seriously threatened and we do not need Safeguard. If the Soviet missile capa- bility is as good or better than the De- fense Department claims. Safeguard will not help us, as I shall now demonstrate. Pirst, let us assume Soviet missile ac- curacy will be such that a 5-megaton warhead will have a 95-percent nroba- bility of destroying a hardened ICBM silo. Since an MSR is only one-tenth as "hard" as a silo, a one-half megaton warhead will have a 95-pereent probe- bilitv? of destroying an MSR. Second. Let us assume 20 percent of the Soviet warheads will malfunction at some point. Third. het us assume the Soviet SS-9 missile is capable of carrying a single 20- to 25-megaton warhead, or three 5- megaton independently targetable MIRY warheads. From this it can be extrapo- lated that an SS-9 could carry 10 one- half megaton warheads and have some payload left over for penetration aids. Applying standard statistical proce- cedures to these three assumptions, one can calculate that an attack by 8 one- half megaton warheads would leave a 13-percent probability of MSR survival. An attack by 16 warheads reduces the probability of 1.8 percent; 20 warheads reduce it to a negligible 0.7 percent. Dr. Foster ofthe Defense Department has estimated the cost of a single war- head SS-9 at $30 million. Based on this. a 10-warhead MIRV SS -9 might cost $35 million. Thus, the cost of destroying an MSH would be two SS-9 missiles, or about $70 million. The entire 12-MSR Safe- guard system, which will cost at least $12 billion, can thus be rendered inoper- able by 24 SS-9's casting a total of $840 million. So each dollar we spend on Safeguard can be neutralized by a Soviet expendi- ture or 7 cents. Safeguard is a poor in- vestment indeed. Several alternative proposals have been smetested, some of which offer some hope of economical and effective hardpoint defense. But none of these have any major components in common with Safeguard. Therefore, if we even- tuaily decide to build an effective ABM defense, all money spent on Safeguard deployment will have been wasted. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the Smith-Cooper- Hart amendment. On this question the yeas aria nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll. I he assistant legislative clerk pro- ceeded to call the roll. Mr. COOK I when his name was called). On this vote I have a live pair with tee Senator from Iowa (Mr. MILLER . If he were present and voting. he would vote "nay." If I were permitted to vote, L would vote "yea." I therefore withhold my vote. Mr. SAXBE (when his name was called). On this vote I have a live pair with the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. MUNDT I . It he were present and voting. he would vote "nay." If I were permitted to vote. I would vote "yea." I therefore witiMoid my vote. Mr. MAGNUSON i after having voted in the affirmative). On this vote I have a live pair with the Senator from Georgia (Mr. RUSSELL). If he were present and voting, he would vote "nay." If I were permitted to vote. I would vote "yea." I therefore withdraw my vote. Mr. METCALF after having voted in the affirmative,. On this vote I have a live pair with the Senator from Washita"- ton (Mr. Jeer:Loa If let were present and voting. Ile would vote "nay.- If I weee permitted to vote. I would vote 'yea." I therefore withdraw my vote. Mr. MANSFIELD (after ins voted in the negative ) . On this vote I 'nave a pair with the distineuished Senator from Maryland I Me TYDINGS . If he were present and %Teener he would vote "yea." If I were net mated to vote, I would vote "nae." I therefore withdraw my vote. Mr. KENNEDY. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. ANDES- SN), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. RUSSELL) the Senator from Alabama (Mr. SPARKIM1N a the Senator from Mis- souri (Mr. SYMINGTON) the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Tveirees) ? and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Wit- trams ) are necessarily absent. I also anaounce that the Senator from Washington (Mr. JaciesoN) is ab- sent, because of a death in his family. On this vote. the Senator front New Jersey (Mr. Wirsearasi is paired with the Senator from Alabama (Mr. SPARK- MAN) If presert and voting, the Sen- ator from New Jersey would vote "yea." and the Senator from Alabama would vote "nay." I further enneunee that. if present and voting, the Senator from Missouri (Mr. SYMINGTON) would vote "yea." Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. MILLER ) 13 nec- essarily absent. The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER) is alieent because of illness in his family. The Senator from South Dakota (Mr. MuNeet is absent because of illness. ef present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky Mr. Coopea) would vote The respective pairs of the Senator frem Iowa (Mr. MILLER) and that of the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. alleNee) have been previously announced. The result was announced?yeas 36. 49, as follows: _No. 2,33 Leg. I YEAS-36 Ft, t lia h I o...?,ice , ('P (''h Cranston nfl jetkm. t:1:, rider Fe 1 Orletht (10 del! tic re 1(,. ? .1, All at Baker i,ea Ito'. net Bible Soega Burdick Byrd, Va. Byrd, W. Va. heid 7I ,hei? Live fl its SI ehia. M.?.3art y M-4;041 rn !'?,1 SAY-49 non 11(.1 Ion (to Ilia d 11, b! 13crnini-k Eas?:land Ervin Fannin Fong eieldwa ter 5t 'is Muskie Nelson 1,1.11 Percy Proxmire Randolph Ribicoff Schweiker Smith. 1\Caine Yarborot:!th Yon mj, Ohio Griffin Gurney Hansen Holland loll ml S Hruska Jordan, N C. Jordan, Idaho Long McClellan McGee Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 S 16780 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 CONGRESSION AL RECORD? SENATE December 15, 1969 satelliteS...aillke the_ fimetion U.S. satellites 111, sPace is to monitor prenaar tions around the Soviet ICBM aites,...4t is clear that we wouleLbe_in a dangerous situation if the Soviets achieve an_effic- Lye way to counteract our intelligence- carrying satellites. To sum up the Soviet capabilities, the Soviets are devoting '10 percent of their military budget to strategic forces. Sec- retary Laird says that they are out- :,pending the United States at the ratio of $3 to every $2 which we spend. In 1968, the Soviets passed the United States in expenditures for research and develop- ment. In fiscal 1970, the United States will spend about $15 billion for R. & D. The consensus of experts on the Soviet economy is that in the same period the U.S.S.R. will spend between $15 and $20 billion for research and development. SOVIETS GOALS In closing, the question remains, then, as to why the Soviets are putting on such a tremendous push in weapons development. Up to this point, I have said little about Soviet intentions. Our military planners must plan on the basis of their capability. We must plan to meet the Soviet capability not only at the present time, but 5 years from now. Historically, the United States has repeatedly under-estimated the Soviet intentions and capabilities on critical offensive items such as Soviet develop- ment of the A-bomb, H-bomb, and ad- vanced jet engines, long-range turbo prop bombers, airborne intercept radar and large-scale production of enriched fissionable material. At the same time, the Soviets have never displayed any serious interest in bilateral arms con- trol agreements which would include effective on-site inspection. But in the long run, in the light of such developments, it would be folly not to consider them as expressions of the Soviet drive for world domination. The Soviets have always proclaimed that they would triumph over the West and they continue to prepare for that outcome. As recently as April 21, Gen. Alexei Yepishev, Head of the Main Po- litical Administration of the Soviet Defense Ministry, laid down the party line for all to follow. Yepishev is a close friend of Brezhnev and he wrote in the official journal of the Soviet Commu- nist Party Central Committee. His ar- ticle clearly expresses the highest policy sanction. Echoing the speeches of Khrushchey, Yepishev declared that "The imperial- ists are hypocritically preparing ?for new world war", and he warned: A third world war, if imperialism is al- lowed to start one, would be the decisive class conflict between two antagonistic so- cial systems. He said that such a conflict would "guarantee the construction of socialism and communism." Finally, he said: Such a war would be a continuation of the criminal reactionary aggressive policies of imperialists . From the side of the Soviet Union, it would be a legal and justi- fied counter-action to aggression. I submit that this is the voice of the Soviet Union that has been preparing for war, that its Colidnued a tough drive to achieve strategic military superiority. In view of sue a an attitude, it would be folly not to ccnsider the deployment of the Safeguard ABM System to be essen- tial to our Nation's security. I hope tne amendment of the distin- guished Sen i- or I corn Maine will be defeated. Mrs. SMITi of Maine. Mr. President, I hope thei e v 11 not be a motion to table this amen:In-atilt, RI- that would confuse the issue. Instead. j would ask the Sen- ate to do the .;lear cut and direct thing by clearly vol ing this amendment up or down on the inernis, rather than on a parliament ary r ia iieuv er that merely confuses the i2suo. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques- tion is on agresing to the amendment of the Senator from Maine. Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, just to make certain 111141 everyone under- stands?and I shall not make a motion to table?this amendment would strike out all the money in the bill, including research and development, except funds for personnel The Senator from Maine has explained that ooint, but other Sen- ators have since come into the Chamber. This is a ;tweet) i-g amendment that takes out eve 'thin except personnel, as the Senator nas; related. I hope the amendment will be defeated. Mrs. SMITJ I of Maine. Mr. President, will the Sena tor from Mississippi yield? Mr. STENNIS. yield. Mrs. SMITE cf Maine. Is it not clear that there is research and development money, a classified tern but a substantial part of the $212 million for the Nike-X advance dove iprnent? ? Mr. STENNJS. ke-X? Mrs. SMITi I of Maine. Advance de- velopment Mr. STENNIS. 'I be Senator's amend- ment would net cover that. Mrs. SMITIT oi Maine. That is already in; so there is a substantial part of the $212 million 11 VailaWe that is in the bill for research a:ad development. Mr. STENNIS. Yias, that was a part of the old program. That could be used. But I mean to say The amendment would take out all the research and development money for 197(,. Mrs. SMIT; of Maine. It takes out all the research and cl.relopment money on Safeguard, bid, not on other develop- ments. Mr. STENN:S. That is right. It takes out the R. & D. on Safeguard, but not on the old Nik? prof ram. Mr. HART Mr. President, will the Senator yield' Mr. STENNIS. I ield. Mr. HART. Is it correct to say that the amendment a iminates the money for Safeguard? Mr. STENNIS. That is correct. Mr. HART There is in the bill, how- ever, money tor otber advanced antibal- listic missile concepts? Mr. STENN :S. That was the point I was making. It tares out the R. & D. money for Sal eguai d The PRES (DING OFFICER. The question is on a.g,reeing to the amend- ment of the Senator from Maine. Mr. STENNLS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk pro- ceeded to call the roll. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ORDER OF BUSINESS Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, be- fore the vote is taken on the pending amendment, I should like to make a spe- cial and personal plea to all members of the Appropriations Committee that after the disposition of the pending bill, they meet downstairs in room 5-128 with the distinguished chairman of the Appro- priations Committee, the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. ELLENDER), to consider the disposition, finally I would hope, of the HEW appropriation bill and the transportation appropriation bill. I make that plea because if we do not do something of that nature, we are not going to have any business to transact when we come in tomorrow morning. We have the mistletoe hanging over our heads. And we have the threat of a call- back if we are not finished by Christmas eve. I would like to get out by Christmas eve. With the concurrence of the Appro- priations Committee on the Senate, I think we can make it before that date. I think the plea will be taken to heart. Anyone whom I can see personally, I will ask to go there, and I hope that the chairman will do the same with respect to anyone whom I do not see. Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, that is perfectly all right. However, we have the whole HEW appropriations bill fin- ished at this time. There are two items which have been in some conflict. With respect to the so-called Whitten amend- ment, we have some other language. The Senator from Mississippi was perfectly willing this afternoon to finish that mat- ter and have a time limitation. However, because of the way the Defense bill went and the executive session, he had to be up here and the Senator from Louisiana had to be up here. So, we got everything ready. We thought that we could meet at 9 o'clock in the morning and have 1 hour In which to finish the matter. However, it is perfectly all right with me if we do It tonight. As long as we have to be here, we can meet tonight and get the matter com- pleted, if it is agreeable with the chair- man of the committee. Mr. MANSFIELD. It is very agreeable with him and also with the Senator from Mississippi. Mr. MAGNUSON. Then, I made my usual request. When we finish action on the pending bill, everybody on the full committee will please report down in the salt mines. Mr. MoINTYRE. Mr. President, I would like to make a brief statement in ex- planation of my vote on today's ABM appropriations amendment. Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 1PY?ember 15, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL i'aeorably on the ABM. SALT talks began and are now in progress. f know he President feels his hand tnitild be vastly strengthened in the \ LT talks if we acted favorably here on ABM eppropriation. I think those desperately want the SALT talks to , eietd?aid I am one of them?should in the position of supporting the ap- e. lineation on ABM and should oppose iimenc.ment by the distinguished i-,;:-iator from Maine. I say, I think it is essential to the eieninued :excess. or any decree of sec- or anticipated success, on our part the SALT talks, that ?xe do this, be- ise put sus in the right kind of Mim- i eiec position for us to be able to deal -nth the Soviets on this matter. eould like to again eepress my great esteem for the Senator from Maine. I teeinot think of anyone I would rather not oppose on an amendment, but I ask the Senate to approve thie appropriation le proceed with the ABM. Mr, THLRMOND. Mr. President, the most important weapon the Pentagon era develop, in my judgmmt, that would act as a deterrent to a nuclear war is an antiballistic missile system. This is not a weapon Coat will send a missile across Ate ocean and kill people and destroy property. It is purely a defensive weapon. if the Soviets?and they are the threat to the United States and the free world .',.viay?shaild send miss.iles over here nd we hate an ABM sys-em, we will be iiankfui that we do have a system to in iervene those missiles. I the Soviets do nue send missiles over here, then we have Oe' erred sane an attack and can be even wsire thankful. %Tr. Pres.dent. I regret that 1 am on tne opposing side from my distinguished leader on the Armed Seivices Commit- tee. the distinguished and beautiful Sen- ator from Maine, but I hype the Senate In this case will follow the committee and ..tooroye the ABM system. T had plepared an hour and a half -:setecii, but I have boiled it down to 14 minutes. What does the Safeguard system do? First. The Safeguard protects our TCBM's, thereby guaranteeing to an ag- ,ssessor Om:. the United States would re- tain the no ver of retaliaLon if attacked. ::he Safeguard posture avoids suggest .on that we may be preparing fir a first strike, as might happen if our ienture ape eared to be that of protecting cities attainst retaliation. Third. It provides early warning and defense of our boraber bases, by ntecting against a FOBS strike coming "tn the togit.h. The FOBS Is the frac- inai orbital bombing system, a satellite, ici the Eoviets have tested. It provides an increased pro- then against Soviet increased deploy- of submarine-launched ballistic fth. It protects against the acci- ,t,?iital firing of a few missiles by the ;ixtri.. It will be relatively cheaper in alitial phases. giving time to work any Mies before full eeployment. .''tenth. It gives the President time to tiethe ? the Soviets are serious about RECORD ? SENATE negotiations, while not delaying protec- tion. Eighth. It provides reasonable protec- tion against the capability the Chinese will hate by the mid-1970's. Ninth. It gives the United States a pro- tection which is similar to the protection which the Soviets have had for 6 years. Tenth_ It helps to reestablish the symmetry of the strategic balance. The Soviets have increased their offensive capability. They have more ICBM's in being and under construction than we do. and they are beginning a rapid build- up of nuclear submarines. Objections have been raised to this program. Critics have raised the point that it will not work. I will simply say that the parts have all been tested, ex- cept the perimeter acquisition radar, and all the component parts have been tested Individually, with the exception of that particular one. Some critics say it costs too much. My answer to that is that the cost as given here, $779.4 million and in the military construction bill, which includes $14.1 million. is less than 1800 million. This is lees than 1 percent of the military budg- et. and it is less than 10 percent of the amount we spend on welfare. Some critics say it will escalate the arms race. My answer to that is that the Soviets have It and they did not think it would escalate the arms race. Some critics say we have the sub- marines that can launch ballistic missiles and the B-52's if the ICBM's are de- stroyed, and we do not need the ABM. My answer is that we need a mix of systems and we must not rely on any one system. Some critics say we can rely on an ICBM deterrent. My answer to that is if the ICBM fails to deter, there is no option then but a nuclear war. Some critics say that it will delay arms control. My answer to that is that the Soviets asked for arms control talks when the ABM was announced. In other words, the more powerful we are mili- tarily the nearer we will come to getting arms control than if we are weaker mili- tarily or we do not have the ABM. Some critics say the Soviets have good intentions. My answer to that is that we must plan for capability, not intentions. although I do not subscribe to the belief that the Soviets have good intentions. My answer to that is that we must plan for capability, not intentions, although I do not subscribe to the belief that the Soviets have good intentions, because there is nothing to show they have changed their goal of world domination. 1 would remind the Senate of some- thing of the Soviet capability. If we ever had any doubts about the Soviet desire for power, the past year or so should have cast those doubts away, because the age of U.S. strategic superiority has passed. foe age of parity has passed. In the past few months. the Soviets have dramatically stepped up their produc- tion and deployment of offensive weapons. Listen to this: At the present time, the Soviets have 1,140 ICBM's; we have 1,056. Within the time frame of 5 years, necessary to get the Safeguard ABM in operation, the Soviets will have S 16779 the capability of deploying 2,500 ICBM's. In 5 years. the U.S. plans to have 1,056 ICBM's. Whether the Soviets will exercise their capability to produce 2,500 ICBM's In 5 years is beside the point. We cannot afford to second-guess about intentions. It is noteworthy that the Soviets did not stop at parity, as many predicted. liareaVar...._the_SOYietS have he-en con- centrating prof:3=10M_ OP the_SUper-size ss,a.jilTpwdve missiles, capable of -Car- wing, up tone, 25-megaton warhead or three...wee-heal-1e of J.fLemegations each. One megaton is equivalent to 50 times the explosive power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The Secretary of Defense says that the Soviets now have 200 SS-99's and will have 500 with- in the time frame we need to get our ABM deployed. At the present time, the Soviets are building one Polaris-type submarine a month. At this rate. the Soviets have the capability to exceed the 656 U.S. Polaris missiles by the end of fiscal year 1971. In addition, the Soviet Navy has a 2-to- 1 nuclear advantage over the U.S. Navy In attack submarines. The most effec- tive weapon against a nuclear subma- rine is the attack submarine. The U.S. position is even worse when we con- sider that nearly half of our attack sub- marines are of World War Ii construc- tion, while almost all the Soviet attack submarines have been built within the past 14 years. At the present time, the Soviets are teeting the FOBS, or the fractional or- bital bombing system. If the same ve- hicle with refinements is launched at a different angle, then the FOBS can become a full orbital bomb. The United States has rejected the development of such a system. At the preseet time, the Soviets have 700 medium and intermediate range ballistic missiles deployed against tar- gets in NATO countries. The United States has no MRBM's or IRBM's de- ployed against the Soviet Union. Be- cause of our commitments to NATO, any assessment of the strategic balance must take into the equation the MRBM's and IRBM's. The combined total of ICBM's, IRBM's, MRBM's and SLBM's is 2.750 for the Soviet Union as against 1,710 for the United States. At the present tune, the Soviets have had an ABM system in operation for 6 years. The Soviet ABM is now in its third generation of improvement. Each time it has been carefully evaluated and tested before the new deployments were author- ized. I cannot belleve that the Soviets would continue to deploy system after system in their ABM defenses if their ABM was, in the words of one critic, "A bunch of junk." I think that the Soviet scientists and military experts who ac- tually had the opportunity to test and evaluate the equipment on the spot would be in a better position to judge the effec- tiveness of the equipment than those who have only guesses to go by. There are nadications-that-the Soviet Union has gone beyond anti-ballietic- miseleeem Intifiiieislatectine testing anti-, spae.defen,aes i1esignedAQ?immobilue Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 S16778 CONGRESS1Or AL RECORD? SENATE December 15, 1969 One crucial element in the fragile structure of these deliberations has been the relation- ship between Soviet offensive forces, on the one hand, and the Safeguard response to their rapid proliferation, on the other. In this connection, the planned deployment of Safeguard is the President's trump card in the effort of our negotiators to bring a halt ti . the seriously destabilizing continued build-up of Soviet offensive power. For if Safeguard conveys any message to the Soviet Union it is this: "We are not prepared to sit by while you continue to deploy offensive missiles. We are determined to protect our deterrent force. The extent of the protection we require is related to the size and nature of your forces. The limits you place on your offensive forces will determine the limits we are able to place on our defensive deploy- ments." That is what Safeguard says to the Soviets. Safeguard, then, is a central element in the SALT talks. Without it, not only would our capacity to arrive at limits on offensive power be seriously diminished, but our ef- fort to control ABM itself would be hope- lessly frustrated. For it is almost certainly the case that the Soviets, like ourselves, must prepare for the day when the Chinese are capable of launching nuclear weapons at their homeland. The Soviets appreciate this fact; their record on ABM is clear. They have consistently favored defensive systems, in their military doctrine and their public pro- nouncements. They have deployed a system around Moscow. They are engaged in exten- sive research and development with a view to improving their present ABM capability. And they possess an extensive network of surface to air missiles that could well form the basis for an upgraded system with sig- nificant capabilities to intercept some bal- listic missiles. Our efforts to constrain these develop- ments?to contain them within stabilizing limits?are postulated on a concrete, visible and limited deployment of our own. Without Safeguard as a base system indicating our re- quirements, the talks might well end without established parameters to guide the future development of defensive systems for pro- tection from emerging nuclear powers. The situation we face today is very dif- ferent from the circumstances that sur- rounded the debate in the Senate on the military authorization bill this. summer. I trust that even those Senators who opposed Safeguard in August will recognize that our commitment to it is an inextricable part of our negotiating posture in Helsinki. To with- draw now the support that was approved in August would not only weaken catastrophi- cally our position in the talks, it would en- courage the Soviets in the belief that delay and procrastination will enable them to capitalize on the hesitancy to maintain our military position in the strategic balance. Those Senators who are today considering whether to deny the President a system he considers essential to our position in the SALT talks?or to substantially cut the funds for Safeguard and delay it further? must recognize that, in so doing, they must bear responsibility for any failure in Hel- sinki or Vienna that might result from the collapse of our position there. For this is what is at stake?quite apart from the stra- tegic importance of Safeguard in the event that the talks fail for other reasons. Many opponents of Safeguard were argu- ing this summer that we must take care not to prejudice the opportunity for a successful round of arms negotiations. We were urged to treat the Soviet Union gingerly?to refrain from a deployment that would create ill- feeling on the eve of the talks. I can find nothing in the history of negotiations with the Soviets that suggests they are influ- enced by anything other than their calcula- tion of advantage. They are not subtle. They do not determine their military posture by ref skenc-gee conceptions of "good will." They nen ler gIve nor expect to receive gestures of kin, ness. What more convincing proof of this vow id. I bring to bear than to point out. thr t their unprecedented build- up of strategir nuclear forces remains un- abated since ths summer, and since the talks in Helsinki beiiin in November? Not a single Soviet program i his been slowed down. On the contrary, ta are ate grave indications that they have in e development stage weapons that will take them tar beyond the parity some claim the, seek All across the boar.1 the latest intelligence is bleak: ni si, )maroies of the Polaris type and their assosiated missiles, in land-based missiles with ,!ncrmous megatonnage and improving ace, racy, in the development of ABM systems rile has lets are pursuing an aggressive end iienerously funded program of expansion. in one areas they are developing multiple systen s assIgned for the same oper- ational mission presumably with the inten- tion of selecting aiming prototypes in order to deploy the most effective version. If the Soviet, genuinely desire a stabiliza- tion of the strategic balance they will nego- tiate limits in the hiABT talks that are re- sponsive to thsr requirements, for strategic stability. Whil,i we roust hope that they fully intend ti do sc., we must recognize the grave consequences oi leading them to be- lieve that they need not negotiate?that rather than s andori their continuing of- fensive deployments limy can trust to our reluctance to inake the necessary sacrifices to insure our own security. These disturbing developments, coupled with tire delio.:te slate of the negotiations in Helsinki, fcri ce 1.1E 0 view the decision to deploy Safegu rd in is new light. No longer Is the issue, one in watch the international implications see tangenti : they are direct. They are Mime, Hate A weakenin today of the decision made in the Senate in A liStISI; would undermine the President in Helsinki and strengthen those voices in the Kremlin that have been promoting the. :tures trained expansion of So- viet strategic power This vacillation would be a clear inch satiom to the Soviets that we lack the will and r( solve to provide for our own defense. -uch. an "on-again, off-again" approach to i ndan.enta,1 questions of stra- tegic posture, far from eliciting reasonable and mutually fiesararile concessions from the Soviets, encou r tges their intransigence in an- ticipation of the next ' 'off-again". Mr. TOWE)C,. M2. President, during the course of the ABM debate I pointed out that the longer the debate continued and the longer it took to get an authorization and subsequent appropriation, we could expect some appreciation in cost. This is a matter thst was brought up by the distinguished Senator from Oregon a moment ago. think it is easily explained. I think the oelay in getting the appro- priation bill i'assed accounts for some of the increase in the long-range cost. It does not, hey 'ever, affect the amount of money that presei Cy appears in the ap- propriation h11. It does not mean 1 more dime will be appropriated. I ask unsnimous consent to have printed in the Rocoxn at this point a detailed anelysis of the matter of in- creased cost which amounts to about 6 percent. There being no objection, the state- ment was ot-dereo to be printed in the RECORD, ELS follows The latest formal cost estimates on Safe- guard tra?snetted to Congress were ones giving information as of 30 June 1969. These were sent to tire senate and House Appro- priations and Armed Services Committees In mid-October as one of the Department of Defense, quarterly, Program Status Reports, sometimes called "Selected Acquisition Re- ports." That Program Status Report on Safe- guard carried $4.185 H as the Department of Defense cost of Safeguard. This cost Included the total funding requirement for Research, Development, Test and Engineer- ing (RDT&E) , military construction (MCA), and procurement and checkout (PEMA) as of 30 June 1969. These were the estimated costs for RDT&E, PEMA and MCA for the seven-year period FY 68 thru FY 74, the time when the final Phase 1 site would be ready. Later in testimony to the House Appro- priations Committee on 17 November, the Secretary of Defense presented a tabular listing entitled "Selected Acquisition Report on 34 Major Weapon Systems, June 30, 1969, Cost Summary" which showed this same figure for the Safeguard. Department of Defense costs. The next Program Status Report on the Safeguard program is now in its final stage of review by the Department of Defense and will show the program costs updated to be as of 30 November 1969. It will be for- warded very shortly to the Chairman of the Armed Services and Appropriations Commit- tee. The Report will show a cost increase over the earlier Safeguard reports. The total increase will be $277 M to $4462 M total; or a percentage increase from the earlier re- ported total of about 62/, per cent. This in- crease is brought about by three things. a. First, the largest is the inflation that has occurred. In this regard, estimates of the 30 June report were based on the price levels as of 31 December 1968. The new Program Status Report has been updated to a 31 December 1969 level so that it will be in agreement with the budget and authorization submissions for FY 71 now being prepared. Approximately $136 M of the $277 M is due to this price level change, or 31/2 per cent of the earlier reported total program investment costs. b. Second, the Department of Defense has held back on major commitments for con- struction and procurement until after pas- sage of the authorization and appropriation bills. This has necessitated delaying the final Equipment Readiness Dates of the Phase 1 SAFEGUARD complexes by 3 months. Com- pletion of deployment of the second site complex is now delayed from the earlier scheduled July 1974 to October 1974. In other words, it has stretched out the deployment and the period over which our production/engineering base is maintained. This stretchout has caused an increase of $55 M or 11/3 per cent of the earl- ier reported total program investment costs. c. Finally, and the second largest, the DOD has continued analysis and refinement of the estimates prepared at and shortly after the March 14 announcement of the SAFEGUARD program. Certain changes in the estimates of several line items have been brought about by this further estimation and study and a few necessary design changes have been made. These together account for $86 M of the in- crease, or about 2 per cent of the earlier re- ported total investment costs. d. In summary then the total cost increase shown in the next Program Status Report will be one of about 62/3 per cent: of which nearly 31/3 per cent or half is due to inflation; 11/3 per cent due to stretchout; and, 2 per cent due to design and estimate changes. Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Mis- sissippi (Mr. STENNIS). I think one of the major features of the debate had before was that if we passed favorably on the ABM, it would delay prospect of the SALT talks. That has been disproven by the fact that not too long after we acted Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 December 15, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE S 16777 There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: Funds obligaisd under oontinuing resolution for Safegvarel as of October 31, 1969 R.D.T. & E $210.2 Procurement 2. 3 O. & M.A 9.5 Military personnel 3. 4 Total 252. 4 Mr. FLLENDER Mr. President, the distinguished Senator stated that there has been money allocated for Project Safeguard. Mr. STENNIS. Yes. Mr. ELLENDER. I wonder whether the Senator would put the authority for that in the RECORt. If I recall correctly, under the 1969 act, the money was provided for Sentinel for meeting the protection of our cities. Safeguard is an entirely new program to protect the missiles them- selves. I trust that the Senator will place in the RECORI the legal authority for hav- ing obligated the funds under the con- tinuing resolution for the Safeguard system, when the money was provided in 1969 for the Sentinel. Mr STEN/US. A quick answer there is that I just referred to the fact that we could have both sites under that 1969 money. The Sentinel money was in broad. elleiral language for a missile system of an anti-balli tic-missile type. I will get the book and page number .'or the Sena- tor. I believe that he hes taiced a rood point. It is not unusual for languaee as broad as this to be interpreted as being subject to the continuins resolution. Mr. ELLENDER. Then the Senator will have that pri tied in the RECORD? Mr. STENNIS. Yes: if not this even ins. 1. will place it in the RECORD at the earliest liossible time. Mr. Presidint, during the ABM discus- sion last summer. some concern was ex- oressed about the fact that the Army as a matter of ,aw could proceed and ac- quire real estate for the phase 1 portion of Safeguard since authority and funds were enacted in fiscal year 1969 for this purpose. The Senator from Virginia (Mr. Spoise) expressed to be some concern over this ma-ter. Insofar as I am con- cerned, the Safeguard program approved in the authojzation bill fcr fiscal year 1970. and in he appropriation bill, rep- resents an intent that the .krmy should not proceed ieyond phase 1 insofar as site acquisitien is concerned. The Army has furnished a feet sheet. dated December 12. 1969. which in effect states that ether than surveying and site investigations, there will be no action on phase 2 real estate sites. In other words. until Congress spe- cifically authorizes phase 2. there will be no real estate acquisition for these sites. Mr. President. I ask unanimous con- sent to have the fact sheet printed in the RECORD. There bein no objectich. the fact sheet was ordered to be minted in the RECORD, as follows: nitAsr 2 erre AcrtvtslEs I. Plans for :he phased Safeguard deploy- ment annoumed by the Prtsident on 14 March 1969 provided for the selection and acquisition of all twelve sites, although con- s' ruction and leployment was to be under- taken only for the two Phase 1 sites near Grand Forks APB, North Dakota. and Malm- strom APB, Montana. The acqmattion of all twelve sites was planned to avoid undue delay in the program In case it became nem- sery to move ahead rapidly with one of the Optional Phase 2 deployments. 2 As the Deputy Secretary of Defense tes- tified before the Senate Armed Services Com- mittee On 13 May. the approval of acquisition et' land for the twelve Kites had been re- quested is a part of Phase 1. At that tlme. uowever, secretary Packard stated ". I would not propose that it be used unless the Phase 1 request is approved by the Congress." im 22 May the Secretary of De- fense testiried to the House Appropriations Committee that he had on his own initiative " . held up all construction work on ABM sites and any further acquisition of land for these sites, pending Congressional decision on tees program." 3. The Army suspended all action toward survey or acquisition of all sites, including those of Phase 1. until Congressional action on the FY 70 Authorization Bill. Following such Retina on 3 October, the Army sub- mitted real estate acquisition reports cover- ing the sees at Grand Forks AFB, North Dakota, and Malmstrom APB, Montana. These submissions were preliminary to final survey and engineering activities at these sh PS However, in submitting these reports. the Army stated that no action to acquire land in these areas will be taken until en- actment of the FY 1970 Defense Appropria- ion Aut. On-site survey, exploratory ezcava- ilon and engineering has been underway Ei October 1969 on the Phase 1 sites 4 The Army will continue to withhold any survey and selection of Phase 2 sites until alter Congressional action is completed on the FY 1970 Defense Appropriation Bill. The Aenly then proposes to conduct preliminary :Airveys anti site investigations as necessary is make tentative selection of appropriate leentinns for peril of the remaining Phase 2 a. Safeeuard sites will generally be in re- mote locations, outside metropolitan areas. h. However, in the case of the site for de- lens.' ce the National Command Authority INCA} in Washington. D.C.. the Safeguard epability must be provided close to the city fe; to give protection to the NCA. At the preeent time, no final nor tentative Safe- eitard site in the Washington area has been chosen leer have the field surveys been con- ducted which would be a necessary pre- requisite to selection. If a site is later approved fer the Washington area, it will (ea.-est of a Missile Site Bader and a Spartan end Sprint missile field. The Sprint must_be Ines' ed reasonably close to the site defended: In this i7.FISP, the NCA. The Spartan can be located in a second field at a much greater distance front the site to be protected. 5. Final selection of any Phase 2 site and submission to the appropriate committees of Congress (4 it real estate acquisition report covering the site will be dependent upon approval by the President of a Phase 2 de- rieyinent requiring that site. In any case. l!nviever. anpliMt.1023 of land will be withheld pending Cengressional authorization of the additional clenloyments involved. Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President., I invite the Senate's special attention to the fact that the Senator from Washington (Mr. Jacissorsl, a very valuable member of the Armed Services Committee, was planning to be here today and had timely and forceful remarks prepared for that purpose. However. the Senator was called home on account of the passing of a very close and dear relative and could not be with us today. I therefore ask unanimous consent to have his remarks printed in the RECORD. There being no objection, the state- ment by Senator JACKSON was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: STATEMENT BY SENATOR JACKSON Mr. President. last August the Congress voted to authorize Phase I of the Administra- tion's plan to proceed with deployment of the Safeguard ABM system. The affirmative vote in the Senate followed more than a month of vigorous debate during which a wide range of issues were subjected to thorough, if not always dispassionate, dis- cussion. / need hardly remind you that the vote to approve Safeguard was a narrow one. But after extensive hearings in the Armed Serv- ices and Foreign Relations Committees, and an exhaustive national debate, Safeguard was incorporated into our national strategic posture on August 6. From that day to this the extensive planting effort that has gone en in the Department of Defense on our strategic posture. and the extremely complex and difficult planning that led to a position in the Strategic Arms Limitation talks, have proceeded on the assumption that we are committed to u limited and phased deployment of ABM defenses. After much delay?which was not without cost--one nAj(1->vreidincerteirhy effecting our planning was r One of the Many issues surrounding the decision to deploy Safeguard that -concerned a number of Senators had to do with the effect of an initial deployment on the talks now underway in Helsinki. It was my view then, and it remains my view now, that the only way to approach the negotiation of limits on ABM and other strategic systems was to place in the President's hands a con- crete program demonstrating our determi- nation to provide for the defenee_of our land- based missiles, our bomber bases and the national command authority In Washington, What incentive would the Soviets have had to consider seriously limitations on their offensive forces if we were to refraiu from undertaking a limit?d, defensive deployment capable of fruetrating any advantage that might result from their proliferation of 58-9 missiles? And why should they entertain limitations on their efforts to develop an ABM capability if we were to unilaterally abandon our own efforts? So our preparation for the Helsinki talks assumed a firm commitment to Safeguard as a phased, flexible deployment, consistent with President Nixon's intention to make an annual review taking account of the threat, technical developments, and the dip- lomatic context, Including the SALT talks. I am pleased at the early indications that the negotiations in Helsinki have indeed been serious and business-like. These are perhaps the most complex negotiations in the long and often discoureeing history of the effort to limit armaments. and / ant certain that we all welcome the constructive atmosphere that has attended their opening. 13ut the crucial consideration in these talks--and the fag; that makes them so complex---is the difficulty of negotiating an agreement on strategic armaments in a situ- elon where every element of our respective deterrent forces is related to every other ele- ment?where no sirgle system can be con- sidered in isolation. Thus our ABM defenses are critically related to Soviet offensive de- ployments, to the extent, size and accuracy of their ICBM force, to multiple warhead tech- nology and to present and future missile intercept systems. It is this array of interrelated systems that has determined the nature of the SALT tolks--in which we and the Soviets have been huilding toward identifying areas in which accommodation is possible in the interests of embilizing our recpective deterrent forces. Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 S 16776 Approved For Re 8N0219.K1?11)./if _ FMB? (wpm 100190067-4 iember 15, 1969 fiscal year 1970 all of the funds that were authorized for appropriation in the mili- tary procurement legisation as passed by the Senate and finally enacted into law. The amount of these funds in $759.1 mil- lion, consisting of $345.5 in procurement, $400.9 million in research and develop- ment, and $12.7 million for construction and test facilities at Kwajalein. Other appropriation items for personnel and 0. & M. bring the total to $779.4 million. I would point out, Mr. President, that of the $345 million in procurement funds only about $600,000 will be spent for mis- sile parts which are for certain long-lead components. The remaining funds are to procure the various radars, training equipment for phase land to provide the required production base support. Mr. President, as the Senate knows, the ABM matter was probably the hard- est fought issue on the floor of the 'Senate of the entire procurement authorization debate. I appreciate the earnestness, sincerity, and thoroughness of everyone who voted on that important matter. Whichever way they voted I respect them, of course, just as much and admire them for their earnestness and for the way they went into the matter. That certainly includes the distinguished Senator from Maine (Mrs. Sigirit) . She and I had a long con- sultation, not only on this matter but also on many other matters. I appreciate very much the contribution she made to the debate. I told her once that she scared half the life out of me at one time. There is no need to go into all the details here. Mr. President, I shall not take the time to repeat the various arguments of this debate which are already a matter of record, including the secret session which has been reviewed for security de- letions and printed. I do, Mr. President, however, wish to impress on the Senate a few thoughts which I consider to be in the form of new matter. Some of these points, Mr. Pres- ident, update the material of our pre- vious debate. It is an undisputed fact that the Rus- sian threat to our own second-strike nu- clear capability is continuing to develop. Last May, Mr. Laird advised the Con- gress of the Russian Missile program, the principal element of which is the SS-9, an ICBM with a 25-megaton warhead. The Russian program of development, construction, and deployment is continu- ing for the SS-9 program. There is no doubt about that. In terms of the threat to America the SS-9 system can have only one objec- tive?to destroy this country as we now know it. The purpose of the ABM sys- tem, of course, is to provide some degree of protection beginning in the mid-1970's for our land-based nuclear deterrent. Mr. President, I can appreciate the re- luctance of Members to vote funds for weapon systems which are most likely to protect foreign countries, rather than our own. The purpose of the ABM, however, Mr. President, is to protect our home- land?to protect our own people. The Al3M, I am confident, will provide a sig- nificant degree of protection and I might add, Mr. President, even if the Safeguard system is subject to all the weaknesses its critics indicate,_ it will be better than no system of pintection at all. Mr. President- as we all know, the SALT talks which have already begun between 'United. States and Russia are of critical importance to the present, as well as future generations of all countries. We all hope and pray that some meaningful result will be produced which will enable the United States and Russia, as well as other countries, to divert their resources to peaceful oursuits, rather than con- tinue an arms race which could result in the mutual incineration of our civiliza- tion as we kritw it, These talks, however, will be long and hard. We must have a discipline in terms of policy on the part of the Congress and the Executive which will enable the President, whoever he might be, to know that he can rely on a solid homefront. No one is going to follow those talks with any more concern and interest than I shall follow them. I think that, if at all possible, somewhere, sometime, and sometime soon, I hope it is going to be absolutely neeessary for the so-called great nuclear :3 owers to get some-kind of understanding and basic agreement that will give scum control and have a Meas- ure of certainty with respect to being able to detect a possible violation. One of the most significant issues in the SALT talks is the anti-ballistic missile matter. I urge in the strongest possible terms that the Senate not pull the rug from wader President Nixon in the SALT talks by refusing to approve the appropriatiOns for the Safeguard system. Incidentally, Mr. President, I would Point out to the Senate that under the authority of the continuing resolutions already enacted there has been obligated as of October 31, 1969, a total of $252.4 million for the Safeguard system; that is, of the money that is in this appropria- tion bill. Many of these are already obli- gated under the continuing resolution we passed. A continuing- resolution author- ity, Mr. President, permits the military departments, a well as other agencies of the Federal Government, to obligate moneys at the previous year's level of effort in anticipation of the funds to be appropriated for fiscal year 1970. When the appropriation is finally approved the funds already obligated under the con- tinuing resolution are taken out of the final appropnation This means that $252 million in effect has already been spent out of fiscal 1970 funds. Let me interject, Mr. President, that I personally do not like the entire con- tinuing resolution concept. This device has become necessary, however, in view of the lateness of the appropriations acts if the Government is to continue to operate. If all the funds were to be denied there will be the problem of finding the $252 million elsewhere in the appropriations bill to meet these obligations. Mr. President, there have been a num- ber of factors on which opposition to the ABM system ha ve been based. Some peo- ple believe we will not need it, others do not believe the system is technically workable. Another belief is that in view of the many domestic problems we now have the city crisis, runaway inflation, and the like, that too great a proportion of our Federal funds are being used for national defense. Mr. President, with respect to the reductions in the Defense funds over the course of just 1 year, I think the facts should speak for them- selves and should be quite briefly re- viewed. The oiiginal Defense budget submis- sion for fiscal year 1970 by President Johnson was $80.6 billion. This was sub- sequently reduced in two steps by Presi- dent Nixon to $75.2 billion. The Defense appropriations bill as passed by the House was $69.9 billion. The bill before the Senate today is $627 million below the House, or only $69.3 billion. Mr. Presi- dent, these are remarkable figures. From an original request of $80.6 billion, the Defense budget has been reduced to $69.3 billion. This represents a reduction of over $11 billion, or about 14 percent. It can be fairly stated, therefore, Mr. President, that the Defense budget this year has probably been the most carefully scrutinized of the various appropriations before the Congress. I say that as a member of several sub- committees on Appropriations. This year, we beat all of them in scanning the mili- tary items that run into big money. But, they will always run into big money. The Armed Services Committee and the Appropriations Committee have already scanned this ground. My prediction is that the new budget submitted will al- ready have a great deal of scanning done by the Department of Defense. I am not saying it will be as low as the figure in the bill now, but in my judgment, it will be far below what the first one was last year. I hope that next year there can be even?and I think there should be?fur- ther reductions and as one Senator I intend to use every effort to determine where greater savings can be made with- out critically affecting our defense pro- gram. Let me make clear that I am not prom- ising to stand for the total amount that is less than this bill, because we do not know what we will run into. At this junction, Mr. President, in view of the cuts that have already been made in the overall Defense budget and in view of the critical need for the Safe- guard system, I urge the Senate to sup- port the President in the position he took, and the Congress in its former position took, to provide funds for an ABM system that is aimed at protecting the American people. Mr. President, I emphasize again that this debate has been very fine this year on all major military items, especially this one. Everyone had a chance. I re- spectfully say that this matter has had its day in court. A decision has been made. There is only one thing we can do now and that is to move forward. I trust that there will be the necessary votes in the Senate and that the vote will come early. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent to have printed in the RECORD the first of the funds obligated under the continuing resolution for Safeguard as of October 31, 1969. Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 December 15, Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4.. 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 16775 opportunity to apply some of the re- sources, which all of us know not to be limitless to waging an all-out fight against the real threat which is reflected in the inadequate housing, insufficient education and the failure of effective medical delivery. We know the litany. It is a litany we recite frequently at lunch- eon clubs and when we go on campuses. But the test of our willingess really to begin this kind of war?a war that should be infinitely more exciting than all-out war against an enemy?thc only way we can launch that kind of war, is to direct more of the resources internally. I thank the Senator from Maine for giving us another chance to direct this element of our total resource away from the construction and away from the re- search on a system of doubtful value, against a threat of uncertain measure, to the real target and the real threat? that which is within our walls. Mrs. SMITH of Maine. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HART. I yield. Mrs. SMITH of Maine. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Michigan for joining me in sponsoring this amendment. I also join him in expressing our very. very deep sorrow with respect to Senator COOPER'S mother, a woman 91 years of age, who has been keenly interested in all that has been going on here, and I am sorry that he has to be away for that reason. Mr. FULERIGHT. Mr. ?resident, will the Senator yield? Mr. HART. I yield. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself especially with the reasons the Senator from Michigan has expressed so eloquently for support- ing the Senator from Maine. I think he has stated it extremely well. His point of calling attention to the report of the commission headed by Milton Eisen- hower and i,he statement of John Gard- ner is extremely well made. I agree that this is the last chance before we go down a road which is very likely to end up costing us anywhere from $30 to $50 billion, which will be wasted on another one of these missiles which proves to be ineffectual and useless. I wish to join the Senator from Maine in the report and the Senator from Michigan in the reasons he has given for supporting the Senator from Maine. Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota obtained the floor. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield without losing his right to the floor'? Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. I yield. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I re- gret that I am unable to handle this part of the bill for the committee. As is well known, I spoke against the ABM when we had extended debate on it However, I would vote for funds for the ABM if they were limited to research and development on the missile. But this is not the situation, for procurement funds are included. It Is not my purpose again to debate the issue, but I ask the distinguished Senator from North Dak- ota and the distinguished Senator from Mississippi to take part in the debate, since they are both in favor of the ABM and I am opposed to it. I expect to vote with the distinguished Senator from Maine. Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr. President, I usually find myself in an uncomfortable position when I am on the side opposite to that of the Senator from Louisiana. He is always very effective on the floor. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Maine and other Senators. I do not intend to take the time of the Senate to discuss the merits of the pro- posed Safeguard ABM system. That mat- ter was more than adequately discussed during the debate on the authorization bill. Basically, the issues today are the same as they were then. However, there are several points I would like to call to the attention of the Senate. The Soviet Union is continuing to increase its deployment of offensive weapons, especially the large SS-9 ICBM .T.bey are continuing with theirllighLtest les. ave _exidertee that the flovtets ? ? ? %It ?.' ists had two noclear tests?one on I e 22 w ich was their first undergrotind tea, lti teat was a surprise to the Intent ence Comm i y. a aanegateneviee the_igatzSalUe. a? ? events 11 us two things: First. ust and ment rem program an., secon is g? ns .e ommun WVAIErtYllItftl. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent to have included in the RECORD at this point a colloquy between Chairman RossEta and the Secretary of Defense on December 9. 1969, on these matters. There being no objection, the excerpt was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: nvIET CNION AND CHINA on their present course. This fact has a direct innuence upon the strategic arms limitations talks which have recently begun in Helsinki, Finland, with the Soviet Union. Chairman RUSSELL. LIAVe there been any further significant_ .deEeloDments_ in the So- ylet Union or China since your last appear- nn fntId to mention the new .0i7vert bomber. Please comment on this develop- Secretary LAIRD. I would be happy to, Mr. Chairman. Among the developments in the Soviet Union whith cause particular con- cern are, first, their continuing flight-test- ing.j.__u_muittote reentrv vehIcieszsagraw_late ulrea_cinniented titpo and second their coT-itint...? ITC St their ABM tech- nology. .-R-eiterdlTIR the listx-boDalker,--t120--saziet.s are believed LO Ilav_e begun night testa of a new medium bomber. The program is ex- pected to follOw a cycle similar Wthat of other-rriethudr nom%rs. The aircraft is ex- pected to b_e_le_ the 2/9_000-pound class. tIIUnder. It obably have a sat-Tid- o-stir ace m ad L.uet I 1,41,444.041 pess the di. Th. 'Run nuclear t.fIsy !MI r. tr. al-, tember are also ofLutereat_ The first on September 22. took us by .rle because ifeWr, lEtt"frrgrffiTdffg. cannot be sure as to tile purpose of that test. The Wood.. on belmentnef ay, was in the atmos- phere, and was III the U-TIletraCOrr-IWW. TUESC-EPRIarindiOnte-Vrat-121F-CIIITEFSAT-ralq continuing their nuclear developMent pro- gram and arereminders that we cane t nrn-to-fgrforir-range t t of a nurtxturzarisable C u China. Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr. President, we have representatives of our Government in Helsinki participating in talks with the Soviet Union on the /imi- tation of strategic weapons that seem to be making progress. I share the hope of every Member of this body that these talks will lead to a satisfactory limita- tion on the deployment of strategic weapons. However, I can think of noth- ing that would weaken the position of our representatives more than the adop- tion of the pending amendment. Mr. President, it is my hope that the pend- ing amendment will be rejected by a sizable majority in order that the rep- resentatives of the Soviet Union will Chairman Rosana.. It is my understand- know that we are willing to do whatever Ing that the Soviet Union is continuing to is necessary to maintain an adequate increase Its deployment of its large 5S-9 strategic nuclear capability. ICBM I wish you would comment on this matter, and especially its deployments over Mr. SPONC1. Mr. President, will the and above the number you discussed when Senator yield? you appeared before the subcommittee last Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. I yield. June. Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, the amend- Rlnc,Jun5 we ment of the Senator from Maine seeks rootIniud-deploracut above to amend certain figures appropriated tb.a_ratirs...AluVo te.._IgelL41_,,r1a:;;Eria.f3S-- unch- for deployment of the ABM. I believe the tocznatiottle-bierne-ia-gatat same figures appear on pages 5 and 6 usual& I no at that t nte. there have been approxirnateli ideletedi ad- of the committee report. I am concerned aitiener -starts, but exactly when___. _th to ese in clarifying Just one point. I would like stgruspcmili..1.0 etl,_zign know if any money provided in this icao.acience?Wg_olai.4_44.w.441160 have buist-1 __aLooT bill will be used for acquistion of land rrliat Inn hy for any sites other than the two sites oontinning-depn. in North Dakota and Montana? -.I also note that thetlioviets are continu- 4ng...61les? Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. No; no 1 n 0 money could be used to purchase sites oautipia-zseroxic-ausigalaa--faa---thex-largo except these two. These are pilot projects sass is gun not clear. The_ileld and accu- and no money will be spent for other riej pf these warheads is such that they sites. coul&-4Saaa-a-aiii?aw-trargat--t4-115-ICEW Mr. SPONG. I thank the Senator. it on steps to cou.nter them I do e ve- Ito ? ? ? 6 ? ? mu Mr. sTENNis. Mr. President. as the d Senate already knows, the Defense at)- i the strategic annforace 11 they continue propriations bill would appropriate for Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 816774 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 CIA-RDP71B00364R000100190067-4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE December 15, 1969 arguing it gives Russia the capability to knock out American strategic missiles in a first strike, - The local, American response, these officials argued in Winning congressional approval of the Safeguard antiballistic missile system this year, is to build missiles to protect some of our Minuteman ICBMs. Then they could retaliate if Russia ever attacked the United States first, providing the deterrent to any first strike. At the same time, Pentagon officials said the multiple MIRV warheads destined for our Minuteman and Poseidon -missiles were not big or ace-Li-rate enough to threaten Russian IC81Vls. The American MIRV, the argument Went, is basically for blowing up Soviet cities, not hard targets. Therefore, Russia need not build an ABM to protect its missiles. The Ryan testimony indicates the Air Force is working on an Improved version of MIRV which, like the SS-9, could be viewed by the Russians as a first strike weapon. TicTross-aEscrfox This is the kind of action-reaction phe- nomenon that Sen. Jacob IC. Javits (R-N.Y.) and other Senate critics warned about in opposing the plunge into MIRV and ABM. "Is not the SS-9 the Soviet Union's riposte te Our MIRV development?" Javits asked Deputy Defense Secretary David Packard in Senate Disarmament Subcommittee hearings March 26. "Are we not witnesSing here that every time we take a step or every time they take a step," Savits continued, "there is a cor- relative step accelerating the arms race and that, therefore, there is a great advantage in having one of the parties at some point when they are reasonably secure, if only for Six months or a year, saying, "This is it. We are ready to stop now . . .'?" Packard 'distinguished between the big Soviet SS-9, with hard-target capability, to American city-busting MIRV's and said the ,two superpowers had achieved "a hopefully stabilized level" conducive to arms talks. _ HARD TAncers When asked earlier this year what the Pentagon meant when it said it wanted to in- crease missile accuracy against hard targets, a spokesman for Laird cited such things as Steel mills?not missile silos The Ryan statement goes beyond improved accuracy by asserting the Air Force is out to increase the explosive power of its war- heads as well. Accuracy and yield are the key to first strike ability?also called counter- force. Former Vice President Hubert H. Hum- phrey and other political leaders have por- trayed MIRV as a menace to the nuclear balance of terror between the U.S. and Rus- sia. The argument of the IVITRV critics is that once one side figures the other can knock out its missiles in a sneak attack, it will be tempted to fire first. utp,v aecera:i, and big enough to "knock out a hardened IGBM site could be used 'to destroy any ronaining missiles after a nation attacked the LB. first. Therefore, mil- itary officials argue, an improved American MERV is not necessarily a first-strike weapon. The Air Force has awarded Singer-Gen- eral Precision Inc ,-yf _Lege Falls, N.J., a $3.9- million contract 7;-i work on improved guid- ance for MIRV we-hearls under a broad pro- gram called Tech,: )logy C. Mr. HART. Mr. President, I rise in support of the aknenement of the distin- guished senior Senate's from Maine (Mrs. Spann), the rankine minority member of the Senate Armed Services Commit- tee. We all understand_ with deep regret, the reason that occasions the absence of Senator CoopER. We trust that the news with respect to the -serious illness in his family is less alarming than that which occasioned his absence, but I am sure he would want me to express his apprecia- tion to the distinguished Senator from Maine as well as my cwri. Initially, Senator CoOPER and I had favored an amendment which would strike only the deployment funds for Safeguard; namely, $345,500,090. How- ever, on con,shltatiari with the Senator from Maine, _I int persuaded of the soundness of her position. If the Safe- guard ABM wilt not serve its purpose? or purposes, because the mission of the system blows north, east, south, and west from day to (fay and from month to month?then Pt us not devote further millions to this particular system. The bill before us. without the $769,- 600,000 which would be struck by this amendment, kill still provide ample funds for further, re_search, development, tast, and evaluation on anti-ballistic- missile systems. -The Senate report on page 6 points out that $12,700,000 has already been appropriated for research and development facilities at Kwajalein, and $1,400,000 br planning. Additionally, on page 114, the report outlines the pro- vision of funds for Nike-X advance de- velopment; the amount is classified but am told it is substantial. On page 134 is an item of $71,700,009 for strategic technology---befetider?a related item for other anti ballistic-missile systems. Thus, there ls ample provision in this bill, without the funds for Safeguard, to continue research against the possibility that we mighl one day need seriously to consider deploying an anti-ballistic- missile system. By eliminating funds An Air_ Force spokesman, when asked for specifically ear rna rlsed for Safeguard, we elaboration on the Ryan statement, declined in no way impair the security of the comment, Several disarmament leaders, United States, and, in a time of severe when queried, said the Air Force statement fiscal problems, permit ourselves to confirms their fears about ttv. take stock btu ore undertaking the thei d t t ex- Soviet strategists are bound give . . , penditure of still more funds on un- testimony close reading as they prepare needed programs. nis is very much to ful value. In the intervening months, I hope it has become increasingly clear that there is a much graver threat to America's security and survival than the possibility of a further deployment in Russia or Timbuktu of an anti-ballistic- missile system. In his interview on the CBS-TV pro- gram "Face the Nation" yesterday, Dr. Milton Eisenhower, Chairman of the President's Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, observed that our society is in at least as much danger from internal forces as from any combination of external forces. Dr. Ei- senhower was not speaking of the threat of violent overthrow by political subver- sives. He was talking about the accel- erating deterioration of our society through continuing neglect of basic hu- man needs?in housing, in education, and health care, a neglect that will con- tinue as long as this Government con- tinues to preoccupy itself with the ex- ternal threats it perceives to be greater, and continues to pour billions of dollars into wasteful and unnecessary items like the Safeguard ABM. Another highly re- spected Republican, John W. Gardner, chairman of the Urban Coalition Action Council, warned last Tuesday of the same misallocation of priorities and of national preoccupation. He said: Not only must Mr. Nixon propose social programs adequate to our needs, but when the legislation goes to Congress, he must fight as hard for it as he fought for the ABM and Judge Haynsworth. Mr. President, we are truly two faced in the ways in which we view our priori- ties and the manner in which we deal with them. When faced by a clear and present danger of destruction of our so- ciety through neglect of basic human needs we grudgingly propose half-loaf solutions or none at all; but when we are faced with the less clear possibility of a threat from without?the suggestion, in the face of most of the evidence, that the Soviet Union might be planning a first strike against the United States, we as- sume the worst and rush to spend billions on weapons programs which cannot be- gin to do the job of countering the ima- gined threat. Mr. President, the time is now to cor- rect this split-level thinking. If we do not, historians, noting the ruins of 20th century American society, will add it to the long list of great nations which fell because of preoccupation with external threats and neglect of internal weak- nesses. When we became so intent on protect- ing our "way of life" from external forces we forgot our main task, the constant enrichment and improvement of the quality of American life, without which "our way of life" becomes a concept with- out meaning. Let us remember that when history reports the fall of nations that were great and center stage, 19 of 21 of them fell not because the barbarians scaled the walls. They fell because within the walls they failed to do right by each other. Nineteen of the 21 crumbled for neglect at home. Adoption of the amendment offered by the Senator from Maine gives us an their positions for the SALTa s. The military contention is that the H.S. be desired, ipsd tic ularly when we are re- Air Forcemust hedge the nation's strategic minded so forcefully, as we have been i bil bet by continually working on weapons im- n e past fevr dalss, of the urgent need i ,- 4,, provernerits? To do less would be irrespon- to realign our :;pending priorities and re- sile, said one military official when asked direct our national preoccupation. about the improved MIRV. Mr. President,. the Senator from Ore- He sail the Soviet Union has not taken gon has ably i autioned us about the di- such steps as putting bombers on airborne rect economic implications. The Sena- alert, indicating Russian leaders have no Sena- worries about the U.S. striking first. The tor from 141a1/ e, and the long debate of military line is that doves in this country last summer, have made clear the fact A nod about WRIT that the Safeguard system is of doubt- are unlusti ab1 y concerned about For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000100190067-4 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 . December 15, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE S 16773 which 34, per cent is due to inflation; l' ACCOrding to October testimony by has been a moment when full debate has per cent due to stet/Wheat; and, 2 per cent Cien. John D. Ryan, Chief of Staff, U.S. been more vital, whether or not ABM oppo- due to design and estimate changes. Air POree, on Defellee appropriatiOnt3 nents?who failed by one-vote in August to IL As I mentioned earlier, we did want you _oo, halt Safeguard deployment--make a new to have We information as early as possible. A ``,1"e5I"3: effort to stop it now. Also, I should emphasize, however, that this The most Important factor in the threat The American delegation went to Helsinki does not change the requested amount for is the changing strategic relationship he- with instructions to make no substantive FY 70?the .amount carried in the current tween the United states and the 17-6.S.R- proposala. but to settle procedural matters Authorization Act and Appropriation Re- A primary Soviet objective is to overcome and probe Soviet views. The critical decisions questa. the U.S. lead In capabilities for nuclear war, are yet to be made on the position the United aloe Toward this end, the Soviets have built and States will take when the talks enter their Mr. GOODELL. Mr. President, this are deploying impressive offensive and tie- substantive stage in late January or Feb- morning an editorial ? entitled "Senate fensive forces. They will undoubtedly seek ruary. Before he makes those decisions, Presi- further advances In their relative strategic dent Nixon should have the advice of the and SALT- appeared :.n the New York position. Senate and know that he will find support Times. /t states, rightly so, that debate A primary aim of the Soviets is to over- if he takes some risks to head off a new on the nearly $70 billion Defense aPPro- come the U.S. lead in capabilities for nu- escalation in miseiles, priations bill offers another opportunity clear war. They are indeed making inapres- The crucial decision Is whether to freeze "not to be missed" to examine the arms sive gains. Their ICBM force continues to strategic missiles Immediately at about pres- ence. grow at a rapid rate. They continue devel- ent levels as a preliminary to negotiated The question of -Safeguard ABM de- opnaent of new and improved systems such reductions, or to leave some new weapons as multiple reentry vehicles. A fractional uncontrolled and to set "limits" on others ployraent involves many still unresolved orbit bombardment system has been tested, that would legalize a vast expansion of Wren- issues. As I stated on August 6, the day They continue a high priority program to sive and defensive delivery vehicles before of the vote on authoriaIng Safeguard: expand their ballistic missile submarine cut-off. If ABM and MLRV go unchecked we will force. TheLr long-range aviation continues to The issue turns on three weapons: MIRS- be in an arms race of proportions enknown be maintained at impressive levels, multiple warheads. the ABM and the Soviet In weapons history. We will be racing not Now, what are we doing in each of these 28-9 intercontinental missile. There is time only with the Russians and Red China but areas? First, in missiles. In recent years the to halt ABM or 88-9 deployment which, at with ourselves as well, introduction of Minuteman III into the force present rates, could not seriously alter the Today, we are to decide whether to deploy has been successively stretched out, nuclear balance for several years. But MIR17, the Safeguard ABM. . . . There has been criticism of Minute- which must be halted soon or not at all, No m,attar what the limited scale of Safe- man costa based on the fact that early esti- probably cannot be stopped without a sus- guard which has been proposed, we simply mates for earlier contemplated programs have pension of ABM and 88-9 deployment. cannot assume that there will be no Soviet been greatly exceeded. This criticism falls to Deployment of MIRV, which the Penta- response, take into account that the program has been gen plans to begin in May or June:Pronnses I Sear what is in store Is the inevitable a rapidly evolving one keeping apace with a four- to five-fold multiplication of the action-reaction cycle, technological changes--and that the Minute- 1,700 delivery vehicles in the American A natural response to an ABM deployment man In the Seld today Is a far different strategic offensive missile forces and un- by the United States would be further Soviet vehicle with greater capabilities than the one doubtedly would lead to an equivalent MIRV development and possible deployment. originally envisioned, escalation in Soviet missiles. MIRV can only In turn our own efforts in MERV capability Minuteman III will further Improve our be halted by a test-ban before deployment. would incraase, missile force by making possible the Intro- Once deployed, It. could only be controlled Then will both sides look to deploying duction of Multiple Independent Reentry by on-slte inspection more intrusive than land-mobile missiles? Vehicles (MIRVs) into operational use for either the United States or the Soviet Union Mr. President, escalating new elements of the first time. Plight testa of Minuteman III would be likely to accept. uncertainty can only weaken the stability have been highly successful In meeting test That is why the General Assembly's Polit- of deterrence with resulting peril to the se- objectives. !cal Committee voted, 67 to 0?with the curity of oar country. With respect to new ICBM developments, U.S., the U.8.8,11 and their allies among the Rather natio fill a "deterrent gap" as the we have only the Hard Rock Silo and a emelt forty abstainers?for a moratorium on all Pentagon claims it will, ASM could unleash advanced ICBM technology effort underway. 'further testing and deployment of new of- a weapong race spiralling bsyond the possible We, thus, must rely on Minuteman until fen.sive and defensive strategic nuclear weep- control by nations, well in the seventies. ons systems" as the SALT talks proceed. Mr. President, on August 6 the Senate authorized initial deployment of Safe- guard by a vote of 49 to 51, after a 50 to 50 vote to deny deployment. Now we are being asked to appropriate funds for Safeguard. Today, we already hear of "cost over- runs" for this ABM system. Under the rubric of 'cost growth,' it is now esti- mated ths t phase I of Safeguard will cost $277 million more than the Depart- ment of Defense originally estimated. The Sena:or from Oregon (Mr. HAT- FiELD), who first disclosed the cost in- crease, hats indicated that at this rate, the cost of phase I may now reach over $13 billion by the target date of 1976. It should be recalled that last May, the Pentagon indicated that the full Safe- guard program would cost about $10 billion. Beyond spiraling costs for the Safe- guard ABM system, we raust come back to the basic question of spiraling arms systems. "Ma MIRV > RAIZ? Mr. President, will deployment of Safeguard ABM and the buildup in MIRY from city-target to hard-target capability oe so great as to render im- possible meaningful control of nuclear weapons at the Strategic Arms rAmita- tion Talks--SALT? Regarding MIRV developments, Gen- eral Ryan added: We have a program we are pushing to Increase the yield of our warheads and de- crease the circular error probable so' that we have what we call a hard target killer which we do not have In the inventory at the present time. Mr. President, I shall oppose the fund- ing of Safeguard ABM because of my conviction that we simply must halt this offensive 'defensive nuclear weapons es- calation: we simply must stop spending for false security. In view of the aims issues facing us today, I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times editorial "Senate and SALT" and an article entitled "AP De- veloping A-Weapon for 'Hard Targets' which appeared in the Washington Post be printed in the RECORD. There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: 8111,4ATE AND SALT The ;70-billion defense appropriations bill, which provides initial funds for deploy- ment of the Safeguard antiballistic missile (ABM, system, offers the Senate another op- portunity to debate the nuclear weapons race, an opportunity not to be missed. The Administration argues that nothing should be done that might weaken the American position in the strategic arms limitation talks (SALT) in Helsinki. Yet there never The U.N. appeal undoubtedly is broader than is necessary': A moratorium on the test- ing and deployment of multiple warheads and on the further deployment of ABM's and 38-9's is urgent, however, if the SALT talks are to halt. the arms race before rather than after an enormous new escalation in the missile forces. This is the issue that cries out for Senate debate, whether or not the op- portunity is taken to reverse the August ABM vote. AS' DEVELOPING A-WEAPON FOR "HARD TA Fulcra" (By George C. Wilson) The Air Force Is working on a new weapon bound to upset arms-control advocates in this country and likely to be viewed by Russia as a potential threat. Gen. John D. Ryan, Air Force Chief of Staff. Indicated his service is developing an Improved MIRV missile in testimony released this week by the House Defense Appropria- tions Subcommittee. "We have a program we are pushing to in- crease the yield of our warheads and decrease the circular error probable so that we have what we calls hard-target killer which we do not have In the inventory at the present time," Ryan said. The term "hard-target killer" connotes a warhead big enough and accurate enough to destroy missiles or command and control centers buried underground. FIRST-WIREEZ WEAPON Defense Secretery Melvin R. Laird and his Pentagon colleagues have been portraying the Soviet S8-9 ICBM as just such a weapon, Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 S 16772 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP711300364R000100190067-4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE December. 15, 196,9 However, I also feel that we have to be very clear in our own minds about certain things. We should realize that it has long been the practice of the Soviet Union to convey an attitude of cooperation and detente in one place?apparently there seems to be that kind of attitude in Helsinki?and at the same time to play the very dangerous game of brinkman- ship with peace without responsibility in another place?the Middle East. I have made my remarks today so that we may be conscious of the fact that the U.S.S.R. can carry on both kinds of poli- cies and that our policy must be adjusted accordingly. We cannot allow ourselves to be taken In by a cooperative atmosphere in an- other policy area so as to jeopardize the security of a very effective and durable ally. The adoption by the Soviet Union of an intransigent position, with which I have confidence the administration thor- oughly disagrees?that is the position of the Arab States?should not induce us to make unwarranted concessions. I think that under the guise of trying to be balanced and fair, we could be taken in. I have made my remarks today to call the matter to the attention of the Senate. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE /iBtsist rrICIIIS 19_70 The Senate continued with the con- sideration of the bill (HR. 15090) mak- ing appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and for other purposes. Mr. AAA:FIELD. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Maine (Mrs. Swam). I will be very brief here today because, as my colleague has pointed out, I think that most everyone has made up his mind and each has heard all of the arguments on the ABM question. In the 35 weapons systems, the ABM Safeguard was included. The chart which was released by the chairman indicated that the current estimate for the Safe- guard was the same as the original esti- mate?namley, $4.1 billion?and that, therefore, there had been no cost growth from the time of the original estimate to the time of the release, which was De- cember 1. Mr. President, I made some inquiries and I would like to report to the Senate some of the results of those inquiries. The total cost estimate of the Safe- guard ABM system has risen by $277 mil- lion since we last considered this issue. Although the Senate Armed Services Committee reported, as I have said, on December 1, 1969 that there had been no increase in the original $4,185,000,000 cost estimate, the Pentagon informed me Saturday, after persistent inquiry, that the cost had escalated by this amount. The Defense Department has claimed that this 6%-percent increase has taken place since its last program status re . port of June 30, 1969. I do not know why such a cost growth was not reported on December 1, unless an increase of more than a quarter of a billion dollars has th Increasing at a rate of 6% percent every 5 months, the phase I deployment of the Safeguard system will not cost the taxpayers $4.185,000,000, as orginally claimed, but rather $13,700,000,000 by its completion in 1976. Such a projection is not at all unrealistic, for recent history has witnessed the cost of weapons sys- tems growing by such proportions. Further, the Pentagon's $4.185 billion estimate was only for phase I of Safe- guard, or deployment at just two sites. Should we proceed with phase II of the system, the original cost estimate of $10.3 billion could well rise above $25 billion. These are the expenditures that are ulti- taken place in the 12 days since en. However, I should like to introduce a mately at stake by our decisions today. subject that was not involved in the We all know of the financial crisis previous debate?something that has within our land. All of us are alarmed by come tol be recognized as a new term by seemingly unchecked inflation. During the Defense Department, called "cost the debate on the tax bill last week, time growth!' We used to call it "overruns" after time, colleagues have spoken about or the other terms that were given to it. the absolute need for fiscal responsibil- They were meant to indicate that there itY? was a change from the original estimate For instance, some argued that we of a weapons system to the kind of figure could not give a deduction for the medi- we were dealing with when it finally cal expenses af those over 65 and not ended up, or When we were making con- covered by medicare; we could not afford tinning appropriations. the $255 million this would have cost us . Mr. President, I read from the state- in fiscal year 1970, it was said. But the ment of Mr. Pickard, Assistant Secre- increase in the ABM during just these tary of Defense, when he indicated last past 5 months exceed that, and the total spring, as appears in the RECORD of De- ABM funds in this appropriations bill cember 12, 1969, on page S16601: are more than three times as much. Neither the Department of Defense nor the In explaining the reasons for this cost Congress will continue to tolerate large cost increase to me, the Pentagon stated that overrun 6 which relate to unrealistic pricing 11/3 percent was due to "stretchout," 2 at the time of award, or to inadequate man- percent was due to "design and estimate agement of the job during the contract. One reason why the cost of weapons systems increases, then, is simply because massive funds are spent for them dur- ing this time of economic instability, becoming a primary cause of inflation. The reasons for not proceeding with ABM deployment at this time have been clearly set forth in the past. Today, in light of this new information, I wish to emphasize only one: We cannot af- ford it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that the fact sheet given to me on Saturday by the Pentagon confirming this cost increase be inserted in the RECORD. There being no objection, the fact sheet was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: FACT SHEET 1. Secretary Laird has placed great stress since coming into office on making the Pro- gram Status Reports submitted to the Armed Services and Appropriations Committees an accurate reflection of the major weapons system acquisition programs, characteris- tics, and costs. The last Program Status Re- port submitted to you with regard to the Safeguard program was as of 30 June 1969, and showed the DOD acquisition, or DOD investment costs, expected for the Safe- guard program as $4185 M. These costs in- clude the DOD RDT&E, PEMA and MCA for Safeguard Phase 1 for the period FY 68 through deployment of the last site. 2. The next Program Status Report on the Safeguard program is now in its final stage of review. It is expected to be forwarded shortly to the Chairmen of the Armed Services and Appropriations Committees. The Report on Safeguard will show a cost increase over the earlier Safeguard reports and we wanted you to have this information as early as possible. The total increase shown in the new report will be $277 M, or a percentage increase from the earlier reported total of about 6% per cent. This increase is brought about by three basic causes. a. The largest cause is the inflation that has occurred. In this regard, initial estimates of March and those of the 30 Tune report were based on the price levels as of 31 De- cember 1968. We have now updated those costs to a 31 December 1969 level so that they will be in agreement with the budget and authorization submissions for FY 71 now being prepared. Approximately $136M of the $277 M is due to this price level change, or 31/3 percent of the earlier reported total pro- gram investment costs. b. Then, too, as you realize, we have held back on major commitments for Construc- tion and PEMA until after passage of the authorization and appropriation bills. This has necessitated our delaying the Equipment Readiness Dates of the two site complexes by 3 months each. Completion of deployment of the second site complex is now delayed from the earlier scheduled July 1974 to Oc- tober 1974. In other words, it has stretched out the deployment and the period over which our production/engineering base is maintained. This stretch-out has caused an increase of $55 M, or 11/3 per cent of the earlier reported total program investment costs. c. Finally, and the second largest, we have had certain changes In the estimates of sev- eral line items brought about by further estimation and study and a few necessary design changes. These together account for $86 M of the increase, or about 2 per cent of the earlier reported total investment costs. d. In summary, then, the total cost in- crease shown in the next Program Status Report will be one of about 6% per cent: of changes," and 31/3 percent due to infla- The chairman of the Armed Services tion. I find this lost cause to be some- Committee, the Senator from Mississippi what ironic. (Mr. SrErnsns), on December 1, Issued a All of us would agree that a certain statement which included 35 weapons step toward the control of inflation is prograins and the differences which we the reduction of Government expendi- could expect to find with between the tures. But the truth is that the most original cost estimate and the current fiscally inesponsible Government spend- cost, because of any "cost growth." ing today is defense spending. Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 Decem5er Approved 15 1969 For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP711300364R000100190067-4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE S16771 ary personnel, which can be used else- where. The basic issue was debated at great length on the authorization bill and ended in a 50-to-50 tie vote. So this debate is not going to change anyone's mind. If there has been any change of mind, that change has come before this debate. The purpose of this amendment is the opportunity for those of us who oppose the Safeguard ABM system to register our continuing opposition. An incidental use will be gained in that the vote will offer an opportunity for some to record their change of mind on this issue in changing their vote from their vote on authorization of the system. I want to clearly record the fact that I have not changed my mind. In fact. from what I have been told by some working on the Safeguard system?told since the authorization vote?I am all the more convinced that spending funds for the Safeguard ABM system is a tragic waste of funds and resources. I am confident that the very near future will demonstrate the tragedy of the Safeguard ABM system and in con- trast the superiority of a laser defense system. In short, I simply cannot vote to spend money and resources on what I consider to be a defective system. THE SOVIET RESPONSE TO SECRETARY ROGERS Mr. JAVia.b. Mr. President, I had meant, during the morning hour today, to make a brief statement on the situa- tion in the Middle East, Since that op- portunity was not available to roe earlier in the day, I take the liberty of detaining the Senate for a few minetes to make the statement now. Today's reports of the Pravda article commenting on Secretary Roger's con- troversial speech of December 9 clearly reveals Soviet intentions with respect to the Middle East?intentions that are most disquieting. While the world looks for a spirit of cooperation and respon- sibility in the SALT talks, the Soviet Union can hardly make a good impres- sion when it continues to take the low road in Cairo and Damascus. while seek- ing to appear to take the high road in Helsinki, Secretary Rogers' speech contained strong overtures to the moderate Arab govermnents and foreshadowed a tough U.S. stance vis-a-vis Israel's substan- tive position on the outstanding Issues concerning a peace settlement, The ma- jor effort by the Nixon administration to go the extra mile to bridge the gap in the Mideast?even at the cost of undermin- ing Israel's position?was motivated, I have no doubt, by a genuine desire to promote peace. A Soviet diplomatic offensive against the U.S. Middle East ,policy, wiaich seems now to have been inaugurated, presents a challenge for debate on the international level, which the United States should not forego. The Soviet Union is either preaching to us or scolding us on our policy without itself making any contri- bution to peace in this area. The whole world agrees that there is a great dange in the Middle East, But the danger. I fee Is not so much between the great Powel as it is in the possibility of the whole are once again plunging into flames with re Percussions which no one can predie While the United States announced policy of "balance" and sweet reason ableness?a policy which I feel is wen intentioned but misguided?the Boyle Union engages in nothing more the Pandering to the most intransigent posi tions of its radical Arab clients.The ex ercise is strictly one of seeking to dis credit the United States without makin any contribution to peace in the area. Whatever may be the Soviet Union' intentions elsewhere, it obviously intend to play a strictly opportnrante, teeespon sible and power-grabbing role in the Middle East. The U.S.S.R. has now made It clear that its policy in the Mideast is to take a mile every time the United States gives an inch. Secretary Rogers' detailed state- ment of U.S. differences with Israel has not been paralleled by any Soviet indi- cation of any differences with the un- relentingly extremist position of its Arab clients. In fact, the U.S.S.R. in the few days since Secretary Rogers' speech has alined itself even More closely?if that is possible?with the straight propaganda line of President Nasser's United Arab Republic, even to the extent of backing the guerrilla movement in the Middle East. The U.S. concessions in Secretary Ro- ger's speech have been attacked in Pravda as "tricks" of "Washington prop- aganda" designed to "split" the Arabs. The new U.S. policy is described as one of "support to the Israeli ruling circles In their aggressive actions, in their stub- born attempts to annex territories." The U.S.S.R. obviously is seeking to draw the United States into a policy of entrapment there?one of extracting one U.S. "concession" after another? by constantly raising the bidding price. What is at stake is the very survival of Israel. No one can expect Israel to go back to the pre-June, 198'7 situation, with Syrian guns firing down its throat from the Golan heights, with Jordanese me- dium artillery able to interdict the 12- mile waist of Israel and cut the country in two, and with Egypt able to cut the entry to Elath and to mobilize in the Sinai desert. It is a matter of gravest concern and regret that the Soviet Union continues to pursue such a dangerous and irre- sponsible policy in the Mideast. It is a real understatement to my that the U.S.S.R. is not proceeding in the Mid- east with the spirit of cooperation and responsibility that we have some reason to suspect may be in the offing regarding the SALT talks and other overall U13.- U.S.S.R. issues. In my Judgment, it is time for the Kremlin to realize that if it does want to move?in President Nixon's memorable phrase?from the "era of confrontation to the era of ne- gotiation" it cannot make an exception of the Mideast. The issues are too seri- ous there. It is clear that the Soviets are not prepared at this time to respond in any e reasonable, just, or responsible manner I. to Secretary Rogers' high-minded?but -s in my judgment misguided?effort to a place the United States in an "even- - handed." "balanced," and intermediary i? Posture in the Mideast. The only visible a results thus far have been a strong So- - net reiteration of down-the-line support - of the radical Arab position. Also, the t Soviets have for the first time expressed n overt support for the Arab terrorist - guerrilla movement, In this context, the low-keyed request - of Prime Minister Golda Metz. to Presi- g dent Nixon. during her recent visit to buy additional defensive arms?hope- s fully on less onerous terms?assumes a S new urgency. If the United States does not lose its nerve and does not allow itself to be maneuvered into pressing Israel to ac- cept measures which could compromise its security, current radical Arab and Soviet policy will fail, the bankruptcy and total negativism of its premises will be exposed and a new era of opportunity and enlightenment can open in the Mid- dle East. But if Israel loses her viability as a free state--either because we unwit- tingly encourage her enemies to think they have a chance to wage one last holy war against her, or because our "balanced" policy forces Israel into bankruptcy to maintain her military de- fense against such a war?it would pose the gravest implications for the United States and for the peace of the world. Mr. MURPHY, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. JA'VITS. I yield. Mr. MURPHY. Mr, President, I asso- ciate myself with the remarks of the Senator from New York and congratu- late him for bringing the matter before the Senate today. I have also been interested in these developments. I have read with great concern the apparent further attempt at appeasement, which is exactly the thing that the representatives of Israel have worried about from the beginning. They were afraid that it would happen in the U.N. They asked to meet with the Arabs. The Israelis and the Arabs are the ones concerned. We seem now to be in the position of helping the real troublemakers in provid- ing them with the side entrance, so to speak, so that the real meeting between the Israelis and the Arabs could not take Place. I think this is a great mistake. I think that the attempt is badly taken. And I think that the wisdom of it is very ques- tionable. I am certain that the position the Sen- ator from New York and the Senator from California hese taken from the be- ginning is a proper position. I sincerely hope that the remarks the Senator has made today are transmitted forthwith to the Secretary of State so that he will know that some Senators are listening to this and are watching it and are knowledgeable and have some judgment as to the matter. Mr. JAvrrs. Mr. President, I am very grateful to my colleague. I will yield to no one in my desire for good relations with the Soviet Union. Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 S 16770 pinch was causing a major review of its en- tire defense establishment. This led to ru- more that the Germans were seeking to back out of the program. But Sources elose to the project say there Is no question that the development program will be completed jointly and that each will pick up half of the cost. It is possible, they say, that Germany will be allowed to stretch out its annual finan- cial contributions to the program and that there may be other changes on previous agreements such as on patent rights and the exchange of technical information. Negotiations on these matters began late last summer, but final agreements must be worked out at the defense secretary level, it is said. The gun-missile system is also experienc- ing difficulties, with the artillery element rather than the missile causing the trouble. The 152-millimeter gun tube on the MBT- 70, similar to a system being installed on the new American light Sheridan tank and on a Modified version of the M-60 tank, can Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-93711499,4,Toolooiggliker 15, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? The Army's test and evaluation command The PRESIDING OrriCER. The ques- ts planning joint tees in the deserts around tion is on agreeing to the amendment of Yuma, Ariz., at the Arctic test center in the Senator from Missouri. Alaska, in a nuctear environment in New The amendment was agreed to. Mexico, in a chemical warfare setting in Utah, in the hands of engineer troops at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland and in the hands of troops at Fort Knox, Ky. Similar tests aril be held in Trier, Meppen and Munster-Lager in Germany. -- - [From the New York 'fimes, Oct. 10, 1967] BONN SHOWS T.3.3,0ERMAN TANK; TURRET MALFUNCTION MARS TEST (By Philip Shabecoff) Boxer, October 9.?The West German De- fense Ministry unveiled today in Augsburg a prototype of the Midi, Battle Tank of the nineteen-seventiei. The demonstration of the tank, which is being jointly developed by West Germany and the United States, indicated that the MBT-70, as it is, called, still was not a per- fect, weapons system. launch Shillelagh guided missile at tar- After 30 minutes of a maneuverability test, gets from 1,500 yards to 3,000 yards away. smoke began pouring out of the turret. The The gunner merely keeps the crosshairs three-man crew jumped. out uninjured and of his sight on the target, and this causes called for fire extinguishers. corrective signals to be sent to the missile Apparently, a valve in the hydraulic Sys- to guide it to the bullseye. But the missiles tem of the turret malfunctioned. The tank are expensive,' coning $2,500 to $3,000 each, could not be used for the rest of the demon - So the ,system also fires a 152-millimeter stration, and a tank cha,ssis with a turret artillery round at closer or less vital targets. missing was used to finish the display. Instead of a brass cartridge case to hold the ORE RVERS IMPRESSED powder charge, the gun was designed to use Observers in Augsburg, however, were im- pressed combustible cartridge case made of the pressed by the tank, particularly its ability to same substance as the propellant but with rise and lower itself on a hydropneumatic a different molecular structure. In 'Sortie instances this combustible case system.Only a few officers and reporters witnessed has not burned completely and when the the demonstration. Tomorrow the tank will gun's breech was opened, propellant gas be shown to members of the Defense Com- mixed with air and was ignited by the burn- mittee of the Iiiinclesta,g, the lower house of ing residue. This caused a flareback of flame Parliament. that threatened to ignite other rounds in A spokesman for Bonn's Defense Ministry In a few instances, premature explosions the tank's turret. said that if the lvIl3T -70 met expectations, it would replace ha 1972 all the American-made are said to have occurred when a new round M-48 tanks now used by the West German was inserted while burning specks remained ?..._ in the chamber. "'my. Army engineers have developed and tested He said that if hopes for the tank were realized, the itundeswehr (armed forces) a device to flush the gun tube and breech would have the most technically sophisti- bl Its with jets of carbon dioxide gas. Still cated and militarily effective tank conceiva- more advanced using air or nitrogen gas are on the drawing boards. ? Meanwhile, the Army is also trying to de- velop a "more fully combustible propellant case. But as the United States has wrestled with this problem, the Germans have expressed second thoughts about having missiles at all. Some German tankers have said that they would rather have a rapid-fire 110-milli- meter or 120-millimeter conventional gun without the expense of training and equip- ping their tank forces with missiles, too. Tank battles in Germany have tradition- ally been fought at relatively close range, they say, and the Shillelagh is not very ef- fective close in; it has to fly out a certain distance before it is "captured" by its guid- ance system and directed to the target. An American source said that German of- ficials were now talking about the possibility of two Versions of the MBT-70, one having a gun only and the other a gun-missile capa- bility. The Germans have also developed an alter- nate engine for the tank, but American and German sources tend to agree that the United States engine will probably be used by both. DIS, LAY IN WASHINGTON With development well along, the two WASHINGTO October 9.?The United countries are negotiating an agreement to States Array also displayed today the MBT- cover the production of the tank in each 70, which it fieures is the world's fastest and country. Other allies, including Britain, Italy most sophisticated tank. and the Netherlands, have expressed interest "I don't really know what the Russians and are viewed as potential customers, have," said Maj. Gen. Edwin H. Burba, the A year-long test program is about to get top American officer on the two-nation team ?on'er way in Germany and the United that has guided development, "but I'd like to States, also on a joint basis. Each country place a bet ior a month's pay that this is will use eight pilot models in the tests, better." ble for the nineteen-seventies. According to German estimates, the MET- 70 will cost $550,000 to $580,000 each, based on a production run of 1,500 tanks. The West German estimates of the devel- opment costs ran as high as $750-million, figure that ineludes. the production of a number of vehicles. Some members of the German Government have expresser: dismay over the development costs, observine that they are two to three times the d.eveloginent costs of the new West German Leopard tank. which is being phased into the Bundeswehr. Some militlilY experts here have said that the Leopard cando the military job required in the seventies and thus makes the expense of the MBT-70 unnecessary. The West etermans are reported to have disagreed with the Americans on armaments for the tank, preferring conventional weap- ons to a missi le system. The result was a two- turret system, one turret mounted with a Shillelagh missile launcher and the other with a rapid-ere cannon. MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre- sentatives, by Mr. Bartlett, one of its reading clerks, informed the Senate that the Speaker had appointed Mr. STOKES of Ohio, Mr. ASHBROOK of Ohio, and Mr. BELL of California vice, Mr. STEIGER of Wisconsin, excused, as additional man- agers on the part of the House at the conference asked by the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill (S. 3016) to provide for the con- tinuation of programs auhorized under the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, to authorize advance funding of such programs, and for other purposes. The message announced that the House had passed, without amendment, the bill (S. 1108) to waive the acreage limitations of section 1(b) of the act of June 14, 1926, as amended, with respect to conveyance of lands to the State of Nevada for inclusion in the Valley of Fire State Park. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPRO- PRIATIONS, 1970 The Senate continued with the consid- eration of the bill (H.R. 15090) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970; and for other purposes. Mrs. SMITH of Maine. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER) and the Sena- tor from Michigan (Mr. HART) I send to the desk an amendment, and ask that it be stated. The legislative clerk read the amend- ment, as follows: On page 6, line 25, strike out "$7,185,- 841,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$7,- 162,641,000." On page 16, line 4, strike out "$4,254,- 400,000" anti insert in lieu thereof "$3,- 908,900,000." On page 22, lines 9- and 10, strike out "$1,600,820,000" and insert in lieu there- of" $1,199,920,000." The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator ask unanimous consent that her amendments be considered en bloc? Mrs. SMITH of Maine. I ask unani- mous consent that the amendments be considered en bloc. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. Mr. HART. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for the purpose of my asking for the yeas and nays? Mrs. SMITH of Maine. I am happy to yield. Mr. HART. I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mrs. SMITH of Maine. Mr. President, I shall be very brief in speaking in sup- port of this amendment. The issue is clear. The amendment would strike all funds for the Safeguard anti-ballistic- missile system except the funds for mili- Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 December 15, 1theRroved FcEcRale 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 SSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE the investment of any further funds ca bring Positive benefit. Mr. President, I wish to raise one othe consideration regarding this tank. This joint venture with the Federal Republl of Germany was signed in August of 1963 Conrad Adenauer headed the West Ger man Government, the cold war had been intensified by the Berlin Wall, and John P. Kennedy had completed his dramatic visit to West Berlin. No one was think- ink about a European Security Confer- ence, and few questionod the viability of NATO. Above all, relations between the East and the West?and between Moscow and Bonn?were frigid. Now we are moving into a new diplo- matic ere. Willy Brancit, during his in- itial weeks as the new leader of the country, has already opened up innova- tive foreign policy options in Europe. Bonn and Moscow are having cordial conversations, and even Ulbricht is speaking about new terms for some kind of understanding between the two Ger- manies. All of Europe is in a period of diplomatic flexibility that may possibly mark the cold war's last days on that continent. Now, of course, I am aware that changes in the international climate come suddenly and are not always de- pendable. But I wish to point out how radically the present European situation differs from the past. This, of course, is likely to continue into the decade ahead?the decade for which we are building the MBT-70 in partnership with West Germany. There are some reasons to believe that West Germans have had serious misgiv- ings in the past regarding this project. Newspaper articles from as early as 1967 hint to such developments. I ask unami- mous consent they be inserted in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks. In today's world, they may have even more reason to doubt the wisdom of this joint project. These comments are made only to un- derscore the fact that our defense pos- ture must always be responsive to the atmosphere of international relations. This is particularly true in such joint projects as the MBT-70. These circum- stances only further point out the wis- dom of reexamining the future of this program, I trust that such a reexamina- tion, initiated by the debate and agree- ment last August, will now be intensified by our action today. There be_ng no objection, the articles were order to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: (Prom the Washington Post, Oct. 10. 19671 NEW TANS: SHOWN; HELD WORLD'S BEST (By George C. Wilson) The Army yesterday unveiled the new tank it has been building with West Germany and predicted it will be the best In the world "for the next 15 years." The tank, designated the Main Battle' Tank 70, re,eresents the Pentagon's most ambitious attempt yet to Inspire a common market of weaponry among NATO allies. But the political roadbloclu In front of the tank look more menacing right now than any t natural obstailes the 51-ton vehicle will con- front once I:. becomes operational in the u 1970s. Germany, In revamping its military budg- c et, is expectel to trim some of the money n earmarked for the tank. Any cutback on tha aide of the Atlantic threatens to slow dow ? the whole program because it is a 50-5 project. The United States so far has spent 1180 ? million on developing 16 prototypes of th ? Main Battle Tank. Germany has not yet con - tributed as much?the Army would not be specific yesterday?but is obligated to kick in an equal share eventually. The development costs of the tank have outrun original estimates to the point wiser some German leaders claim the vehicle is taking an inordinate share of the military dollar. Army project chiefs are hopeful that the technical advances in the tank will overcome such objections. The Pentagon also may work out a delayed payment arrangement with Germany to soften the financial impact. An actual prototype of the tank is the star attraction at the Association of the U.S. Army three-day meeting, which opened yes- terday at the Sheraton Park. Maj. Gen. Edwin IL Burba, U.S. project manager for the tank, said it will be ahead of any of its competitors in Russia or elsewhere "for the next 15 years." The Army credits the tank with these five major technical advances: A suspension system that raises or lowers the treads to enable the tank to adjust to the terrain and lower its silhouette; a crew compartment that protects the three men against nuclear radiation and germ warfare poisons: a 152-mm. cannon for ammunition or missiles?the most accurate of any tank; a transmission that enables the tank to go forward or backward at four different speeds, with reverse just as fast as forward* unex- celled armor protection plus kits that en- able the tank to run under water. Allison Division of General Motors is head- ing the U.S. industry team while its counter- part Is the German Development Corp. Gen. Barba said the Main Battle Tank will replace the M-48 medium tank but will not take over the role of the heavy M-60 tank. Flanking the Main Battle Tank yesterday were new weapons. which dramatize the im- petus the Vietnam war has provided to Army hardware development. Two of these weapons are helicopters?the AH-1 Huey-Cobra and the AH-56A Cheyenne. The Huey-Cobra is a rework of the U11-1,, or Huey, which is the helicopter used now In Vietnam as both a troop carrier and gun ship. The Huey-Cobra has been streamlined and armed with a coordinated weapons sys- tem. It will see action in Vietnam this year. The Cheyenne Is the first helicopter built from scratch as a weapons platform. /t is now being flight tested, with a production contract expected to be awarded soon. The Cheyenne is designed to fly over 200 miles an hour?faster than any existing hellcop- ter?and carry 16,000 pounds of rockets and other armament. This payload is as much as that of the later B-17 bombers of World War II. S 16769 t der which the two nations have been pro- ceeding on the project. O But American tank experts who are close to the program insist that, despite its prob- lems, the MBT-70 will be the fastest, dead- e nest and most advanced armored combat ve- - hide ever devised and promises the allies a decided edge over Soviet armor. The American pilot model, produced in Cleveland by the General Motors Corporation, will go on display outside the Sheraton Park e Hotel here during the annual meeting of the States Army, an organization that sup- ports Army Interests. Germany is expected to show its model. built by a consortium of nine companies, to- morrow as well The MBT-70 is regarded with more than usual interest by top Government officials because it represents the most ambitious ef- fort to date by two nations to share equally the costs, technical know/edge and manage- ment decisions in developing a major new weapons system. U the experiment ultimately succeeds, it may well establish the pattern for other big joint development programs, Administration officials say. With the differences in language, indus- trial organization, tank doctrine and finan- cial resources. "It's a wonder things have gone as smoothly as they have," one Ameri- can planner says. A particularly ticklish problem, for ex- ample. developed because American and Ger- man industry use a different screw thread in their nuts and bolts. After considerable negotiation, the two parties agreed in the summer of 1965 that each would use its own screw thread in- ternally on all components designed for the tank. They decided that each component would be interconnected using the metric, or European, screw thread. The MBT-70, with a maximum speed ef about 40 miles an hour, is about a third faster than the United States' principal battle tank, the M-60. It uses an automatic amu mnition loader, thus cutting the crew size from four to three. Its chassis can be raised and lowered about 18 inches, giving it better traction in mud and snow. Infrared and starlight viewing de- vices enable the gunner to see the enemy at night and in bad weather. ALL-NEW DEVELOPMENT An advanced firing computer gives it better kill capability with either Its conventional 152-millimeter artillery shells or with its Shillelagh guided missiles. It has stronger armor, as well as special shielding and ventilation to allow it to move through a nuclear or chemical warfare en- vironment. A new suspension system enables it to absorb shock and to fire more accur- ately at the enemy while moving over bumpy terrain. 'In the past, we merely added a few im- provements over the existing tank and called it a new one," one Army officer said. "This represents the first instance in which we have developed every component from the ground up." American and Cterman sources agree there Is no doubt that the MBT-70 offers signifi- cant advanes over present tanks. But certain differences remain. There is the matter of costs, for example. When the program got under way in August of 1963. a rough estimate of the development cost, to be shared equally, was $80-million. Later, after careful analysis, the estimate was raised to ?l:16-million. But technical problems in each country led to costly de- lays, and earlier this year the estimate was again raised, this time to $200-million. PACT CHANGES SEEN Sources say that German officials insisted this was too much of a burden for Germany to shoulder, coming at a time when its budget (From the New York Times, Oct. 9, 19671 U.S-GERMAN TANK ON DISPLAY TODAY?PAST Mrsartz-Pnurra MBT-70, CALLED DEADLIEST' ARMORED VEHICLE, IN WASHLNGTON (By William Beecher) WASHINGTON, October 8.?A futuristic tank with a low, fiat silhouette and a gun capable of firing missiles and artillery shells is to be unveiled tomorrow in the United States and West Germany after four years of joint de- eloprnent by the two countries. Called the Main Battle Tank of the nine- eels-seventies,the MBT-70, the armored ve- hicle has fallen about a year behind ached- le and is experiencing serious troubles with is principal weapons system. Development oats have risen so high that Germany is seeking modifications in the agreement un- Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 S 16768 -Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE December 15, 11969 And finally, the study summarized the more recent OASD (SA) study of the MBT-70's cost effectiveness, and came to conclusions?classified "secret." Essentially, as the MBT-70 is now constituted, it is amazing that it is seri- ously considered a viable alternative to meet a partially self-created threat? especially in light of the GAO report and various Pentagon studies. On September 9 of this year, Deputy Secretary of Defense Packard took the first hopeful step toward bringing this stange episode on weapons develop- ment and procurement to an end. He announced he had asked his de- sign people "to make a complete review of this program to identify what fea- tures could be eliminated while still re- taining adequate capability, to deter- mine whether further duplicate devel- opments could be eliminated, to assess the remaining technical uncertainties, and to undertake to have this study completed by December of this year. He then stated: At that time I will have the opportunity to review the entire program and make a deoLsion on whether we should go ahead, and if so, how. I have further directed that the expendi- tures between now and the December re- view decision date be kept at an absolute minimum consistent with getting the data needed for the decision. He specified that minimum as $12 million for R. & D. and promised to put a hold on the $20 million authorized for production-based support. Promising to report to the Congress, Packard concluded: I am not here today to defend the way this program has been handled in the past. I am here to ask you for the opportunity to re- organize this program in a manner which will give our army a superior tank at a cost which can be justified. I will, of course, keep you informed as my review progresses and of the decision we make in December. Mr. President, based on the foregoing analysis of the trials and tribulations of the MBT-70, it is my frank opinion that the funding of this program should be significantly cut. I realize, even if the Defense Depart- ment were to decide today to terminate the MBT-70, that some funds would be necessary to cover termination costs, and so forth. The September 2, 1969, GAO study previously referred to says in part: If decision is made to terminate the MBT- 70 program, . . . funds would be required to cover termination costs and development ef- fort on other programs. The $30 million EDT & E funding level could be used for this purpose. However, I can find little or no justifi- cation for the appropriation of $20,- 000,000 for production based support. This item, which would provide funds among other things for additional proto- type models, would be throwing good money after bad. I realize that at this point in time, while we are still awaiting Deputy De- fense Secretary Packard's December re- view, I would perhaps be assuming too great a burden of persuasion to ask the Senate te cut the entire $20,000,000 for production based support. Therefore, Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Hatfield which would cut one-half of the 320,000,000, that is $10,000,000, from the budget. I realize that when considered against the totality of the Defense appropria- tions bill, $10,000,000 may seem incon- sequential. But it is not. Early this session the Congress was asked to fund the MBT-70 at $44.9 mil- lion dollars for R. & D. and $25.4 million for production based support. The Senate Armed Services Committee reduced R. & D. authorization to $30 mil- lion, and the Senate House Conference reduced production based support to $20 million. The amendnieet which I along with Senator HATFIELD offer today will reduce production based support by another $10 million, bringing the total reductions for the MBT-70 program this year to more than $30 million?a 40-percent reduction from the original request. Speaking for myself and I think also for Senator HATFTELE, who was the prin- cipal cosponsor with me of the original MBT-70 amendment, and is the co- sponsor of the instant amendment, I be- lieve Congress will have acquitted itself well if this amendment is adopted. I would hope that the distinguished acting chairman, Senator ELLENDER, could see fit to accept this amendment as a sound one under the circumstances in which we currently find ourselves. Mr. ELLEN:DER. Mr. President, there is a parliamentaty problem we have to deal with:here. The distinguished Sena- tors from Missouri and Oregon are pro- posing to reduce an amount that is now In the bill, and f ()flowing the disposition of that amendment there will be an amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Maine (Mrs. SMITE) af- fecting the same figure. I ask unanimous consent that agree- ing to the amendment now being con- sidered will not affect the right of the Senator from Maine (Mrs. Spann) to amend the same figure. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. ELLENDER. With reference to the amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri, I wish to say that this matter was considered by the committee, and in a letter from Me. Packard to the chair- man of the committee, dated December 15, 1969, concerning the NBT-70 tank, in the closing paragraph of the letter, Sec- retary Packard states: Of the total tc--ids authorized of $50 mil- lion in the FY-70 Defense authorization ($39 million for R.DTotE and $20 million for pro- duction base support) it is now clear that in any event I wt,1 not authorize funding in excess of $40 million. The amendment offered by the dis- tinguished Senator from Missouri would reduce that amount from $50 million to $40 million. Beca-tnee of the letter from which I have just quoted, the committee is willing to accept the amendment of the Senator from Oregon. Mr. EAGLE :row. Mr. President, I ask unanimous coneent that the entire letter of the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Mr. Packard, addressed to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations (Mr. RUSSELL), be printed in the RECORD at this point. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, Washington, D.C., December 15, 1969. Hon. RICHARD B. RUSSELL, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate. DEAR SENATOR RUSSELL: I am responding to your Inquiry concerning my review of /VIBT- 70. Both the Department of the Army and De- partment of Defense staffs are analyzing in depth the 1vTBT-70 and alternative solutions. I am scheduled to receive their findings by the 18th of December. Based on Information to date, I have con- cluded that I will not approve development of MBT-70 under the current design.. By 15 January 1970, I will have made a decision between a new austere version bf MBT-70 and other options that are available and should by that date have a report in the hands of your Committee. It should be noted that this is a joint pro- gram under a basic agreement between the governments of the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany. The agreement prescribes that unilateral termination by either nation must be preceded by a 60 day notice of intent to terminate. Of the total funds authorized of $50 mil- lion in the FY 70 Defense authorization ($30 million for RDT&E and $20 million for pro- duction base support) it is now clear that in any event I will not authorize funding in excess of $40 million, DAVID PACHARD, Deputy. Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment with the Senator from Missouri to cut $10 million from the procurement budget of the Main battle tank. The Senator from Missouri has demonstrated extra- ordinary commitment, zeal, and deter- mination in his continual expression of concern regarding this expenditure of the taxpayers' money. It has been a priv- ilege to work with him as the principle cosponsor of the amendment to the au- thorization bill and now this amendment regarding the MBT-70. At the conclusion of the debate on the authorization bill, I stated, regarding the agreement we had reached: It is our hope that the report will be de- cisive, so that we can all agree to it; and if it is negative, we hope that we will then be able to reach seine agreement as to what our next action should be; but it would not prejudice any of the sponsors of the amend- ment from taking future action on the ap- propriation bill. As the Senator from Missouri has pointed out, the GAO study was nega- tive, confirming our doubts and suspi- cions. And we have now reached agree- ment regarding our next action: to cut $10 million from the procurement budget of the MBT-70, and to then await fur- ther review by Secretary Packard. I, like the Senator from Missouri, re- main convinced that the investment of any funds in this program is a mistake, but have agreed to this measure as the most practical action to take at present. Of course, we will continue to watch the future of this tank with the greatest in- terest, remaining deeply skeptical that Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 December 15, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SE.NATI: design configurations into which they put in the best eciantific engineering knowl2ow, The "designers" referred to in the in- terview' according to the DOD, are the contractors on both sides, plus the joint engineering agency groups not known to be overly concerned with cost. General Betts, Army Director of Re- search and Development, explained the spectacular rise in R. & D. costs in these terms: For the first estimate we did not have a design. We did not hale any really detailed idea of what would go into the tanks so the early estimates were very summary In na- ture. The most summary kind of cost esti- mates have become tie hallmark of the MBT-70. As a recent GAO report on the MBT- 70 states: In 1265 the joint 1,333T-70 program was es- timated to cost else million. The 1968 esti- mate was 1303 million, Estimated research, development, test and evaluaticn (RDT&E) costs for the United States participation increased from $83.7 million In 1965 to $178.3 minion in 1968, or an increi-se of 113 per cent. Additional oosta, such as turbine development. MST salary support, and Advance Production Engineer- ing (APE), were not included in the orig- inal joint estimate. These costa will be in- curred before production starts and will in- crease the total coat of the MBT-70 devel- opment, Including RDT&E and APE, by $440 million (to a total of $524 million 1, an in- crease of 325 per cent. In addition, $204.1 millon of this amount Is programed for development of the second and third generation MST pilot models and for ancillary vehicles, advanced component development, and a trainer, none of which were included under the joint program. The House report also warns of ex- cessive "gold plating." It states: Designe2s have placed far more emphasis on high performance than on the need for durable and damage resistant equipment. A continuously high percentage of inoperable weapons has become accepted as routine. The specifications for new weapons too often call for the selantifically possible rather than the militarily practical. Exce&dve "gold plating" has too of .en been the prtictice under which the last Lye per cent of the performance specified for a new weapon accounts for fifty per cent of the complexity and cost of the weapon. After a 525-percent increase in R. & D. cost in just 4 years?an increase which has driven the projected per-unit cost of the M13T-70 from $420,000 to $720,- 000?and after continuous technical dif- ficulties that have pushed the production date back at least 5 years from late 1969 to 1974 or 1975, almost everyone recog- nizes that something is wrong. And most agree that "gold plating- is a major fac- tor. General Betts describes the line that the Army .aas been unable to draw in re- gards to the IvLBT-70 in an interview in the July 1969 issue of Government Ex- ecutive: The most important prcblena is that we have given it a great deal of capability and that means a very expensive vehicle. The problem is whether we have put more in this vehicle than we require. The toughest ques- tion is whether we really need everything that's in this tank. In an exclusive interview with George Wilson of the Washington Post, Secre- tary of Defense Laird expressed dismay at the amount of gadgetry which has re- sulted in expensive breakdowns and re- pairs on the MBT-70. He wondered if we need all these extravagant MBT-70 de- vices when the Russians get along well with simpler equipment. On September 9, 1969, Deputy Secre- tary David Packard expressed similar doubts, conceding that? Clearly, insufficient attention had been given to the problems Involved: specifically. a number of possible trade-offs and cost ef- fectiveness factors had not been adequately considered. The House Defense appropriations re- port is even more specific. In appropriat- ing $30 million for continued research and development It admonishes: In its present design, the MST-70 tank is overly sophisticated, unnecessarily complex and too expensive for a main battle tank. The Committee feels strongly that when this pro- gram Is re-evaluated in December 1960 seri- ous consideration should be given to the pos- sibility of terminating the International as- pect of this Joint development program. The most prudent use of the funds provided for the MHT-70 this year could be for the U.S. to design a tank with far less sophistication, a tank that can be produced at about a third of the cost now estimated for the current de- sign. Mr. President, even if these basic?al- mast classic?mistakes can be corrected, there Is still substantial doubt about the tank's strategic rationale. As we have seen, the M.BT-70 was ap- proved on the basis of expenditure projections far below those which have occurred, and time schedules far better than those met. Once approved, the project gained momentum. It achieved a sort of self-perpetuating justification as the Army deemphaslzed alternative sys- tems, thus creating a greater need and urgency for a new system than would otherwise have existed. The Army now justifies the MBT-70 because of the quantitative superiority of tank forces in the Warsaw Pact as com- pared with NATO And yet this year's House Armed Services Subcommittee re- port indicates that the M60A1 tank, which is recognized to be equal or superior to the Soviet tank, is not being produced in quantity. The result is fewer tanks at higher cost?about $220,000 per unit. Another House Armed Services Subcommittee report states in part: Since 1959 the M60A1 main battle tank has been the mainstay of the Army armored units In Europe and the Army currently considers this tank equal to or superior to Soviet- designed tanks. . . Not only did the Army fall to maintain an adequate production rate of B160A1's during the 1960s. but they slowed down the produc- tion line and even closed it in 196'1 to produce the M60A1E2, which still cannot be deployed because of deficiencies. U.S. armored capability was further de- graded by the sale of 1460A1 's to countries other than NATO allies between fiscal year 1964 and fiscal year 1969. This year the Senate Appropriations Committee concurred in the House re- duction of $20,000,000 for procurement for the M60A1 while recommending $20,- S 16767 000,000 fto prototypes of the MBT-70? which at very best is 5 years away from production. If the threat is as grave as some would have us believe, this reduction is hardly responsible action. Antitank weapons, which are presum- ably an important part of our response to the Soviet tank threat, have been downeraded in U.S. defense planning and given low priority in the past. In the fiscal year 1969 Defense Appro- priations hearing, General Miley, Assist- ant Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics? Programs and Budget?stated: The Secretary of the Army postponed the fiscal year 1968 procurement of TOW anti- tank weapons for higher priority Items. The Dragon antitank weapon was sim- ilarly downgraded. So while the Army failed to produce enough M60A1's, it also failed to push for antitank weapons?a curious pattern of priorities which leads one to question the seriousness of the Soviet tank threat, a threat which is evaluated on pages 29 and 30 of the 'secret" portion of the GAO study of the MBT-70. It is entirely pertinent to ask whether the MBT-70 is truly a necessary and ef- fective means of countering the tank threat in Europe?however that threat is evaluated. Certainly the GAO raises some rele- vant questions. Its report points out: The need for and role of the complex, large, expensive tank in future warfare would ap- pear to warrant assessment. In the full text of the GAO report, be- ginning on page 24 of the "secret" mate- rial, there is an interesting discussion of the role of the tank which I commend to my colleagues for careful attention. And yet, in view of the overwhelming doubt, the MBT-70 rolls on. It was fund- ed up to authorized levels by both the House and Senate. On August 8, Senator HATFIELD and I were joined by Senators McGovaeis, MON- DALE, MOSS, PROXMIRE, and YARBOROUGH in introducing an amendment which would have temporarily delayed further development on the Main battle tank until the Comptroller General had an opportunity to report to the Congress on the practicability and cost effectiveness of the highly complex MBT-70. A comproniise was reached with the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, Senator STENNIS, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Our amend- ment was withdrawn, the chairman re- quested a study by the GAO, and the committee met again after the comple- tion of the study to decide the future of the tank. The full GAO report was very useful, and in my opinion, highly critical. It cast doubt over the future role of tanks generally, much less one so expensive and complex as the MI3T-70. The GAO study also discussed an in- telligence estimate, dated August 15, 1969, an estimate not available at the time of the first debate, which in my opinion cast further doubts about the future of the threat and the need for an MBT-70 to meet it. Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 S 16766 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE December 15, 1969 Looking over the shoulders of Pentagon officials, Stennis cautioned, will be members of his staff, and "where the situation requires a more extensive analysis, the General Ac- counting Office has been requested to review the data and accumulate such information as may be reel,' nixed." He feels this in part may force the Defense Department to exercise better stewardship over public funds. Already scrutinized by GAO, Stennis men- tioned, are the SRAM, Condor and Cheyenne programs. Under review are the Fill, Posei- don, P3C and Minuteman procurement pro- jects. The Defense Department has been asked by the committee to improve the quality and scope of its reports. Noting that "growing pains" in the reports were anticipated, Sten- nis said; "The Defense Department agreed that there is room for improvement in the reports and were working towards a complete pre- sentation of meaningful data to the com- mittee." Meanwhile, Proxmire said he believes the "exorbitant" profits contractors are realizing on small purchase contracts, taken in total, "could result in excessive profits exceeding those on major weapons systems." "The difficulty," Proxmire said, "Is that contracts and subcontracts under $100,000 are not subject to the requirement of the Truth in Negotiations Law for submission of cost or pricing data. The rationale is that on small purchases involving common small items, the government procurement unit can easily keep track of prevailing prices on the item." He said the GAO report which he received indicated that Lionel-Pacific Inc. of Ana- heim, Calif., was awarded 22 contracts from OCAMA between 1967 to 1968. It suffered losses 0/1 two contracts but for the rest net- ted profits ranging from 12.9 to 1,403 per cent. "The total dollar amount of the 22 con- tracts was $88,547 but of that amount only $25,612 rePresented costs incurred. All the rest, -a total of $62,935, was profit for an aver- age of 245.7 per cent." Proxmire said the Renegotiation Board, "which -could do much to correct abuses like this, is barred from initiating proceedings on contracts of less than $1 million.' GAO called the high profits garnered by Lionel Pacific "on some of the procurements we reviewed" largely the fault of "govern- ment and prime contract procurement offi- cials" who simply failed to get a realistic price. It said, "Similar findings were brought to the attention of DoD in a report of the sub- committee for special investigations, House Arineed Services Committee, in January, 1968, resulting froin its review' of small purchases at several procurement activities on the mili- tary departments, including the Defense Supply Agency (DSA)." And GAO told Proxmire that OCAMA is not "effectively" heeding instructions to im- prove buying practices. "In our opinion, this demonstrates the continuing need for management officials in DoD and the military services to closely mon- itor the procurernerit pre:races of the military buying activities and to, -take steps to insure that buyers make every effort to obtain reasonable prices." Elmer' 31. -stdiat,s, Comptroller General of the 'United States, Said GAO was pursuing its Investigations into the "award and admin- istration of contresets for small purchases in Dora, and will examine Into the purchases by OCAMA to determine what further action should - be taken to achieve reasonable con- tract prices." PROJ ECM/ COST OVERRUNS Cost Overruns Sheridan armored vehicle 548.0 141.6 Shillelelagh antitank missit, 380.3 192.9 Lance XRL missile 421.9 50.4 Safeguard ABM 4,185.0 (1) Cheyenne helicopter (R, & 0. only)_ 125.9 78.0 SSN-688 attack submarine 4,192.4 277.8 00-963 destroyer 1,737.6 1,684.5 CVAN-68 nuclear carrier. 427.5 116.7 CVAN-69 nuclear carrier. 519.0 (5) LI-IA landing helicopter ass, tdi ship _ 1,385.5 39.7 DXGN nuclear frigate. 3,335.0 1,539.9 Poseidon missile 4,272.0 1,379.0 Phoenix air-to-air missile. _ 903.4 595.5 Sparrow air-to-air missile 265.6 (2.9) Sparrow-F air-to-air _ 246.3 179.6 Walleye II TV-guided gill& _ 340.7 8.0 F14 A/B Navy fighter plane. 6,166.0 207.0 P30 land-based antistibma,,,e plane 2,265.3 (3.6) S3A carrier-based antisubmarine plane 7,891.1 (1) A7E Navy attack plane 1,432.8 484.8 Mark-48, Mod 0 torpedo. ___ _ 655.2 2,585.6 Mark-48, Mod I torpedo 63.8 69.0 Condor missile (R. & 0. wdy) 126.0 56.2 SRAM missile 421.0 1,049.1 Maverick m isslle_ 382.1 (15.1) Minuteman II ICBM 4,519.1 208.4 Minuteman III ICBM_ 4,375.9 760.7 C5A Air Foice transport 3,413.2 1,590.7 870 Air Force attack pia; 2,012.1 (1) 51 Air Force bomber__ 8,954.5 312.8 F15 Air Force fighter 6,039.0 1,661.0 AWACS airborne warning ond control system 3,266.6 4,011.0 F111 A/DICJE (fighter) 738.2 468.9 FB111 (fighter-bomber) 579.4 161.0 RF111 (reconnaissance pone) 74,240.1 19,888.2 f From ti-is Washington Post] DEFENSE DEL,ITES "COST OVERRUN" (By Bernard Nossiter) The Pentagon is banishing the term cost overrun from the language. In an unpublicieed memo of Nov. 26, David Packard, Deputy Secretary of Defense, pro- poses that "cost growth" be substituted in every instance in which the services now use the familiar phrase, -cost overrun." The memo, a copy of which has been ob- tained by The Washington Post, was ad- dressed to the sec,etart as of the three services and six other high officials involved with procurement. According to Packard, the term "cost over- run" creates "confusion in the minds of many" and "cael,(11) -improper reflection on the true status of events," His memo recalls that a "task force" was set to work on the problem. "The committee started with a general and imprecise term, coat overrun,' sold discarded it as unwork- able, and replaced it -with the term 'cost 'grovith," including a Structured set of defini- tions related to it, which are workable." "I would like to have your views," Packard concludes, "plata to taking further action to incorporate 'his set of terms in those direc- tives, instructions and regulations which re- quire reporting of cost growth, When adopted, the offsn misunderstood term 'cost overrun' will appear from use within the Department." Procurement specialists pointed out that the substitution will save the Pentagon from considerable embarassment. The term Pack- ard would obliterate has now becolne so much a part of the language that the House Appropriations Committee, explaining its 85.3-billion cut in the military budget, called this "the year of the cost overrun." The project to build more 0-5A airplanes ran into its first deep difficulties when it was discovered that high Air Force officials had suppressed from monthly reports the amount of the "cost overrun.' 'rho Air Force has now cut this prograiss back from 120 to 81 planes. Attached to the Packard memo is a list of nine causes for "cost growth." Like the term itself, they sugcest nothing that could be at- tributed to faulty or venal performance by the military or its suppliers. Among the nine "events causing 'cost growth'" are changes in the required per- formance of a weapon, changes in the de- livery date, changes In the economy and "acts of God." Procurement experts observed that the list did not include: poor estimating of original costs; "buying-in," the technique of deliber- ately under-estimating costs to sell a project to the Secretary of Defense and Congress; and inefficient management and control. Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, the Congress, too, is now cognizant of the enormous waste that goes on in the De- partment of Defense. . The report of the House Appropria- tions Committee on the Department of Defense appropriation bill, 1970, states: Whether it is termed cost overrun, or cost growth, or cost increase, fiscal year 1969 can well be characterized as the "Year of the Cost Overrun." While the Committee has consistently inquired into cost overruns from year to year, no single year stands out in which inordinate escalations in costs for Defense weapon system developments and procurements have been surfaced to the ex- tent they have been this year during the hearings . . ? This situation greatly disturbed the Committee and It most certainly has an unfavorable impact upon the American tax- payer. The main battle tank-MBT-70----has the dubious distinction of exemplifying most of the committee criticisms. The House discusses two of the major factors in cost increases-failure to plan adequately when a project is undertaken and the tendency to "gold plate" a weap- on system with many qualitative im- provements which add little to the over- all effectiveness. The House report states: Changes made in weapon system programs are a major contributor to cost Increases. En- gineering changes, system performance changes, and schedule changes during both the development and production phases have accounted for 39.4 per cent of the cost in- creases cited, according to figures provided by the Secretary of Defense. This practice points up the need for better definition of requirements. After such definition, "nice to have" or desirable changes cannot be made without pyramiding of cost increases. Engi- neering changes and system performance changes are not only costly in and of them- selves, but they may well cause a slippage or change in schedule which also results in added costs. Mr. President, the MBT-70 was started in 1963 as a joint venture with the Fed- eral Republic of Germany with few spe- cific requirements at all. It began as a quest for a "dream" tank, rather than as a weapon designed to ful- fill a specific mission or a specific threat. Indeed, the Army had no clear idea of what the configuration of the MBT-70 would be until R.D.T. & E. was well un- derway. According to Maj. Gen. Edwin H. Burba-former head of the 1VLBT-'70 project-as reported in an interview which appeared in the September 1967 issue of Armed Forces Management magazine: For the first time in the history of modern tank design, the designers of the MBT-70 were given carte blanche to optimize basio Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 Auroved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 December 15, 19 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE I further announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) is absent on official business. I also announced that the Senator from Washington (Mr. Jameson) is absence be- cause of a death in his family. I further announce that, If present and voting, the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH), the Senator from Ala- bama (Mr. SPARKSIAN , the Senator from New J3rsey (Mr. WILLIAMS), and the Senatos from Washington (Mr. JacksoN) would each vote "yea." Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. MILLER) is nec- essarily absent. The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER is absent because of illness in his family. The Senator from South Dakota (Mr. MUNDT) is absent because of illness. If present and voting, the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Mrtesai and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER) would each vote "yea." The result was announced?yeas 80, nays 9. as follows: [No. 234 Leg.) YEAS- -80 Aiken Allott Baker Bayh Bennett Bible Boggs Brooke Burdick Byrd, Va. Byrd, W. 17a. Cannon Case Church Cook Cotton Cranston Curtis Dodd Dole Dominick Eagleton Fannin Fong Fulbright Goldwater Goodell Allen Bellmon Eastland Gore Gravel Griffin Gurney Hansen Harris Hart Hartke Hatfield Holland Hollings Ifiruska. Hughes Inouye Javits Jordan, N.C. Jordan, Ids.ho Kennedy Magnuson Mansfield Mathias McCarthy McClellan McGee McGovern McIntyre Metcalf NAYS--9 Ellender Ervin Long Mondale Montoya Moss Murphy Muakie Nelson Packwood Pastore Pearson Pell Percy Prouty Proxmire Ribicoff Bathe 8thweiker Scott Smith, Maine Smith, n) Spong Stevens Talmadge Williams, Del, Yarborough Young, N. Dak. Young, Ohio Stennis Thurmond Tower NOT VOTING-11 Anderson Mundt Symington Cooper Randolph Tydings Jackson Russell Williams. N.J. Miller Sparkman So the Cooper-Manslield amendment, as amended, was agreed to. The PRESIDING OlstuCER. The bill is open to further amendment. Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, I call up my, amendment, which I offer on be- half of myself and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. HATFIELD). The PRESIDING OFI'ICER. The clerk will state the amendment. The AS:;ISTANT Lease/erns CLERK. It is proposed, on page 16, line 4, to strike out "$4,264,400,000" and insert in lieu there- of "$4,254,400,000". THE MET-10 Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, this year the Congress of the United States has begun to reassert its right, and in- deed its duty, to scrutinize spending on defense as carefully as it does 0th smaller, but no less important, programs In this vein, I wish to commend, as I sure the American taxpayer does, t.h Senate Appropriations Committee und its distinguished chairman, Senator Ru SELL, for cutting much of the fat fro Department of Defense requests. H.R. 15090 as reported by the Sena Appropriations Committee is $8,407,544 000 less than the original budget r quest; $5,945,544,000 less than the re vLsed budget request, a_nd $627,392,00 under the amount allowed by the Hous Conflicting pressures and reasons con verged this year to make these cuts, an even deeper ones, Possible The overriding need to control ramp ant inflation?causing prices to rise a more than 5 percent per year?at tins at 6.4 percent, the highest rate in years?and interest rates to climb to 8. percent?driving many young Americans out of the housing market and man senior citizens to the brink of despair? certainly was an important factor in de fense cuts. The need to exercise prudence in gov- ernmental spending of all public moneys especially the least economically produc- tive type?military spending?has never been more clear. Reasonable and responsible cuts, such as those recommended by the Appropria- tions Committee, will assist in curbing inflation?and should be hailed by every taxpayer. And yet the need for increased spend- ing in some domestic areas has never been more clear. Recognition of urgent domestic needs, so long untended, and domestic challenges so long unmet, make the redirection of Federal moneys all the more imperative. The Commission on Violence recently argued that $20 billion per year must be found to reconstruct American society If we are to avoid disaster. It cannot all be found in one year, but a start must be made now?and an important step toward that goal is the restoration of sanity to our search for security. We, as legislators, need only to reread the all-too-familler litany of pressing, recognized, and still unmet domestic needs to understand the urgency for ac- tion and the danger of continued inac- tion. And the citizen driving in polluted air on crowded, unsafe, often antiquated thoroughfares which run through the poverty-bound slums of our dilapidated cities to the fear-bound suburbs under- stands it, too. The time to channel public moneys to meet the domestic challenges of the lat- ter third of this century is now. And de- creased defense spending is necessary if funds are to be forthcoming. But perhaps the most important fac- tor in 1969 was the discovery that the De- partment of Defense is pursuing research and development of new weapons systems as well as their procurement in a manner that can charitably be described as often haphazard and sloppy. Taxpayers find themselves saddled with $20 billion in cost overruns on 35 weapons systems currently under devel- opment?and they are angry. They S 16'16'5 er recognize that substituting the term "cost . growth" for "cost overrun," as the De- am partment of Defense apparently plans to e do, is not enough. Waste is not a rose er by any other name and no amount of "Pentagons" can make it one. m Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following article from the De- te cember 17, 1969, edition of the Federal ,- Times be entered in the RECORD at this e- time along with a recent article entitled - "Defense Deletes 'Cost Overrun,'" by 0 Bernard D. Nossiter of the Washington e. Post. - There being no objection, the articles d were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: - [From the Federal Times, Dec. 17, 1969J t COST OVERRUNS OF $20 BILL/ON SEEN FOR 35 es CURRENT WEAPONS SYSTEMS 8 WASHINGTON.?A Defense Department re- 5 port indicates taxpayers are to be saddled with about $10.9 billion in cost overruns on y 35 weapons systems currently under devel- opment The quarterly reports, which cover only major procurement projects, are the first to be received by the Senate Armed Services Committee, And, Sen. John Stennis, fl-Miss., chairman, said be is not very happy with the way the reports are prepared. Just before Stennis announced the massive overruns. Sen. William Proxmire, D-Wis., said a Government Accounting Office in- vestigation revealed massive profit margins In smaller defense contracts. Citing one example, Proxmire said GAO had found that an "Air Force procurement unit, the Oklahoma City Air Materiel Area (OCAMA), has been so lax in keeping track of prevailing prices in the market that a California contractor realized a 1,403 per cent profit on one small-item contract negotiated by OCAMA." Stennis said programs covered In his re- ports are "estimated to coat a total of $94 billion with additional programs to be added In future periods." He said the largest overruns occurred in eight project areas. 61.379 billion Ils the Poseidon submarine- launched ballistic missile program. $4.011 billion in the Fill series aircraft program. $1.661 billion in the F15 aircraft program 91.049 billion In the SRAM missile pro- gram. $2.586 billion in the Mark-48 torpedo pro- gram. $1.540 billion in the DXGN nuclear frigate program. $1.685 billion in the DD963 destroyer pro- gram. $1.591 billion for the C5A program, which does not include 81 planes dropped by the Air Force. Stennis pointed out that the Navy's Mark- 48 torpedo project experienced the greatest overrun, rts costs have grown 395 per cent over the initial estimate. Prediction of cost growth over original estimates. Stennis said, is difficult. He said, "One factor is that both the original and cur- rent estimates are projections into the future which is a challenging and not very exact science." Factors with which Pentagon cost experts must content include inflationary factors, technological improvements to weapons sys- terns, increase of the initial estimate cost baseline and program delays. He did not arbitrarily excuse overruns es- pecially those "which are due in whole or in part to poor or inadequate managment or fiscal control." Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 S 16764 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE December 15, 1969 tee headed 'by Sen. Stuart Symington (D- M0.), show that the United States is "enor- mously over-committed" in Laos, Fulbright said, and "I don't think there is any author- ity for it." Symington declined to make any direct comment at this time on his Laos inquiry, except to say, "I've never -known him (Ful- bright) to make a misstatement in this field." In Rogers' testimony yesterday, Fulbright said, "There was no effort whatever to deny what was in the papers" about U.S. clandes- tine operations in Laos, and Pulbright's com- ments on them. The Symington subcommittee now has finished taking testimony on Laos. The ques- tion is how much of a struggle there will be between the subcommittee and the Nixon administration over making the testimony public. 4 ipajor witness 1 the_infroiry on,, Tuesday was CIA Director Richard Helms. There is disagreement about the degree tb which Congress has been aware of the clan- destine U.S. operations in Laos in support of anti-Cominunist forces there. Senate Demo- cratic leader Mike Mansfield (Mont.), a spe- cialist on Southeast Asia, was quoted yester- day as saying that "I've really found noth- ing new in the (Laos) hearings that I didn't know," But Fulbright and other senators said they had no indication that covert U.S. activity in Laos was more than what Fulbright called "very minor, peripheral," apart from "the bombing of the Ho Chi-Minh trails." With the present administration's contention that it thought Congress "understood" what was going on in Laos, pressure is now likely to mount for official disclosure of the details of the IA- n operation there. Mr. ELLEN-DER. Mr. President, it will be recalled that before we went into ex- ecutive session, I suggested that the amendment be taken to conference, and it seems that this amendment places the Senate in a very confusing position. I note that this amendment is based on a contingency which is legislative. I make the point of order that this amend- ment is not in order, in that it is legis- lation on an appropriation bill. The PRESIDING OrriCER ,(Mr. HUGHES M the chair). The Chair sus- tains the point of order. Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk pro- ceeded to call the roll. Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OnICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. CHURCH. Mr, President, it is the understanding of the Senator from Idaho that the inclusion of the phrase "without the prior consent of Congress" at the very end of the proposed amend- ment renders it legislative in character and therefore subject to the point of order. The PRESIDING OreICER. The Sen- ator is correct. Mr. cittrACH. I invite the attention of the Senate to the fact that the final phrase is not necessary, in any way, to carrying out the full intent of the Senate In regard to the real question before us. The defect in the amendment, as it is pre,sently, written, can be cured simply by striking this final phrase. Mr. JAVITS. The Senator is correct abont that, because this must be read with the commitments resolution, which does call for the way in which Congress may consent to such a situation. Mr. CHURCH That is correct. I ap- preciate the conMent by the Senator from New York. Therefore, I offer the amendment in new form, striking the words "without prior consent of Congress" from the text. So that the revised amendment would read: SEC. 643. In line with the expressed inten- tion of the President of the United States, none of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be used to rinaride the introduction of American ground ,i;ombat troops into Laos or Thailand. I ask for the year; and nays on the amendment, Mn President. The yeas and 'Lays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques- tion is on agree: ag to the amendment of the Senator from Idaho (Mr. CHURCH). On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll. The assistant, legt-lative clerk called the roll. Mr. KENNEDY. I announce that the Senator from 'New Mexico (Mr. ANDER- SON) , the Senator from Georgia (Mr. RUSSELL) , the Senator from Missouri (Mr. SYMINGToN),, the Senator from Maryland (Mr, T'T DINGS) , and the Sen- ator from New Jersey (Mr. WILLIAMS) are necessarily ebSent. I further announce that the Senator from West Virginia' (Mr. RANDOLPH) is absent on officiat business. I also armounce that the Senator from Washington (Mr. JACKSON) is absent be- cause of a death inhis family. I further announce that, if present and voting the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPIO , the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. WILLIAMS), and the Senator from Washingt(h (Mr. JACKSON) would each vote "yea." Mr. GRIFFIN. 1 announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. MILLER) is necessarily absent. The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER) is absent because of illness in his family. The Senator from South Dakota (Mr. MUNDT) is absent because of illness. If present and voting, the Senator from Iowa (Mr. MILleR> yvhild vote "yea." , The result t. as announced?yeas 73, nays 17, as folIcws: I :eo. 233 Leg.] FBAS --73 Allott Do ,e Javits Baker Dvininick Jordan, N.C. Ilayh Ea: idton Jordan, Idaho Hellman Fpairtin Magnuson Bennett Fong,_ McClellan Bible McGovern Boggs McIntyre Brooke Ce,vel Metcalf Burdick Griffin Mondale Syrd, Va. Grney Montoya Byrd, W. Va. Ilaesin Moss Cannon lIe ris Murphy Case EL,,,tke Nelson Church IV Maid Packwood Cook Pastore Cotton Ho-lings Pearson Cranston lin 'ski% Pell Curtis fighes Percy Dodd irIUye Prouty Proxmire Ribicoff Saxbe Schweiker Scott Smith, Maine Aiken Allen Eastland Ellender Ervin Fulbright Smith; m. Sparkman Spong Stevens Talmadge Thurmond NAYS-17 Gore Hart Kennedy Long Mansfield Mathias Tower Williams, Del. Yarborough Young, N. Dell. McCarthy McGee Muskie Stennis Young, Ohio NOT VOTING-10 Anderson Mundt Tydings Cooper Randolph Williams, N.J. Jackson Russell Miller Symington So Mr. CHURCH'S amendment was agreed to. Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to. Mr. ALLOTT. I move to lay that mo- tion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Cooper amendment, as amended. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, before we proceed with the vote on the amend- ment, I would like to announce that we shall try to complete action on the bill this evening. As far as I know there are only two more amendments. One of them Is sponsored by the Senator from Mis- souri (Mr. EAGLETON) , and deals with the main battle tank '70. The committee is willing to accept this amendment because of a letter received from the Deputy Sec- retary of Defense in respect to a cutback of $20 million from the $50 million rec- ommended for this tank. The next amendment will be offered by the Senator from Maine (Mrs. SMITH), and it deals with the ABM. Since there has been so much discussion on the ABM heretofore, I am very hopeful that we can get through with these two amendments this evening. I understand the distinguished Senator from Maine (Mrs. Smrrn) has a speech which she will make. I hope other Senators will not take too much time in discussing this matter in- asmuch as we had this matter before us for 2 months. Mr. ALLOTT. I have one short matter, not an amendment but a legislative clari- fication. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the Cooper-Mans- field amendment, as amended. On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. KENNEDY. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. ANDER- SON) , the Senator from Georgia (Mr. RUSSELL) , the Senator from Alabama (Mr. SPARKMAN) , the Senator from Mis- souri (Mr. SYMINGTON) , the Senator from Maryland (Mr. TYDINGS), and the Sena- tor from New Jersey (Mr. WILLIAMS) are necessarily absent. Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 December 15, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE S 16763 whose son was killed flying a combat mission over Laos: On May 23, 1969 we buried an unopened casket in Arlington Natienal Cemetery. We hava written repeatedly inquiring more detailed i iformation We would like to know who recovered our sons aody, Americans or Laotians er whoever it was. We also under- stand that they were losing CIA pilots like flies in that particular area. We would like to know why they tend ora planes unarm (like the one our son piloted to his death) in heavily entrenched entiny territory" We have written to our congressman, bu he has been unable to receive much informs tion excest that its classified inforanatiOn. There seems to be an awful lot of hush, h about Laos and I would like to see it co out in the open. Or take the dilemma of this worn whose hi.sband was lost over Laos, missing road perhaps captured: Do you see how all of this secrecy help ardIsee any chance of ever hearing about these men? They are no doubt rotting (if still alive) in some Jungle stockade prob- ably tended by Pathet La. Can you imagine what tbeil is? It Is enough to send men off to thee questionable "commitment" in Viet- nam, but for a military man to then end up missing in a country in which we do not admit to activities, loses him all his rights. To who :n can we turn to beg for informa- tion and mercy for the men missing in Leos? My husband has been. ill still alive) captured for Ws years. How much longer can he live? When will someone admit to the truth of the war in Laos? Can we send men to Wiz and then disclaim reeponsibillty for them once they are taken by the w- eaned enemy? Mr. PresMent, we are not an Asian kingdom Nb President is a king or prime minister, entitled to make secret arrangements and send American men into war with the understanding their activities will not be publicly acknowl- edged. ?4Lr._24eaddral,...thr?Accma_sacr_01x -IBI921U1Ittptlejf.inantirtipas inane_orajzio kIng tEREISCtta...121,,..tlag...SZMIBSICiLLAULICan: znitzteta detailed 4earinas on Laos would liaIrgagin released Dv now nermitting tha?Seellitt?filladatlatalilibUre?Ans=9r- b.C.46111e. The&en ration, however has re- ro...m to . And the .311.0 Wsaa=osicir.?-eat Therel ore, because I deeply believe that Members of this body should be aware?as I am?of what they are vot- ing on when they approve the bill we have before us, I have sought to have the administration?through the man- agers of the bill--proxide basic factual Information on our aolvities in Laos. ? - : - w uld join ? ? 3 km k jinn to provirip the inieoLmation. fl X- Pantlye eerodann CRD- he eglipti?ji so elPqrPa?.443.4a0214 th iZclis,sion of that wmfeortol nainicfraffort rein- ed. I believe the public has a right to know eversthing it can. But Z mor strongly believe the Senate and each of Its Members has a personal responsi- bility to his constituents to learn the facts on this matter before he votes. PrisAions. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECOR.D. as follows: DICEESSER 12, 1969. Hon. Rieseetio B t: rrn< om tee an A ppropr Lotions, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC DEAR Ma. Cnaraman: During the past few weeks some members of the Committee on Foreign Relations have examined in depth the nature of American military involve- ment in Southeast halm with particular emphasis on Laos arid Thailand. It had been our impression that American supported mil- itary activities there were directly related to the war in Vietnam and it was with deep- ening concern that we learned that the United States is becoming directly involved in escalating military activities in Laos. Furthermore. what once night have been viewed as a small, secret intelligence-type operation has now become of such magnitude that I feel strongly that, the Senate should be aware of its size and possible future costs in men and money. Under these circumstances, I would appre- ciate it very much if. during Senate discus- sion of the Defense Appropriation Act, the managers of the bill would provide Mem- bers of the Senate who must act on the legislation with answers from the Adminis- tration to the questions which I have at- saehed. 11 the only way this information can be raade available to the Senate would be a an executive session, I would hope this could be arranged. I am sending a copy of this Letter and enelosure to Senator Milton Young as rank- ling minority member of the Defense Appro- priations Subcommittee. Sincerely yours, J. W. Felaeucirr. ..g.I.PREPINNwn.s.ORMOM, Chairman. Wrra ErtrAllig 1. What treatleit agreements or declare- provide the basis for our defenae com- mitment and military assistance to the Royal Laotian Government? 2. What comraltment, written or implied, exists between the United States or its agen- cies and the present Royal Laotion Govern- ment or its Prime Minister, Souvanna Phouxna? 3. What military assistance. Including man- power, material and training, is the United States providing through thi.s bill? 4. As of today, what is the total number of United States military personnel in Laos and describe the manner in which the operate. 5. Describe hi detail activities over Laos o the united States Air Force, including both than) activities, If any, based in Laos and those. if any, based in Thailand. If pertinent, include: a. What, if any, is the current monthly sortie rate over northern Laos for the United States Air Force aircraft? b. How does that rate, if any, compared to a year ego and two years ago? a The contemplated sortie rate, if any, over northern Laos in the corning 12 months. d. How these sortie rates, if any, compare to United States Air Force sorties directed to- ward the Ho Chi Minh trail. 6. What, if any, have been the total num- ber of United States military personnel killed, wounded, and missing in northern Laos since 1962? 7. How does this total compare to personnel lost in operations solely against the Ho Chi Minh trail? S. What is the amount of personnel, oper- Ong and maintenance and military assist- funds included in this bill for Laos and elated activities? Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD an article entitled, "Rogers Admits Laos Arms Role." There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: _ giefirrw AliThErra LAOS ARMS ROLE (Ba Murrey izerder) Secretary of State William P. Rogers in- directly conceded yesterday that for years the United States has financed, armed and trained a clanciestine army of 36,000 guerril- la Laos. In the first acknowledgement ever made on the public record, Rogers treated the U.S. involvement in the semi-secret war in Laos as a matter of common knowledge. But Rogers avoided explicitly stating precisely what he was acknowledging, and said there are no plans to stop or change present opera- tions in Laos. "I had thought that the Congress was fa- miliar with the developments In Laos,," Rogers said. "Certainly they are familiar with them now . . . I thought Congress under- stood it." "This is reily quite extraordinary," said Ben. J. W. Fulbright (D-Ark.). Both were commenting after Rogers testified behind closed doors for three and a half hours be- fore the Senate Foreign Relations Commit- tee, which Fulbright heads. "It is quite ordinary for a dictatorship." said Fuibright, "but to be conducting quite aa large a war as this (in Laos) without authorization is quite unusual," Pultaight said in an interview Tuesday through the Central Intelligence nay. the United States, under three ad- tzations. has been supplying, arming. raining and transporting the clandestine Ian army of Meo tribesman headed by is yang Pao. Tres cost to the United States for military nee to Laos. Fulbright said, is be- sea $50 and $160 million this year. Other ces said yesterday that about half this cunt is used to LinAnn. the Meo guerrilla mac and the rest goes to other military eeds in Laos. But uncounted in the $160 Mien total this year, these sources said. are the costs of tr.a bombing support from Thailand for operations ha Laos. Rogers, when newsmen put Falbright's specific statements to him said: "Well, the operations in Laos. as you know, were started in the time of President Ken- nedy" and continued through the Johnson and Nixon administrations. When he was asked if they win be halted now, Rogers re- sponded, "No. I don't think there is going to be a change in policy. not now." There are no U.S. "ground ferees in Laos." Rogers reiterated, but there are still "45,000 North Vietnamese forces in Laos." It con- tinues to be the United States' hope, he said, that an end to the war in Vietnam will solve the problems of Communist penetrations into Laos and Cambodia as well. Newsmen asked Rogerrs for comment on Fulbright's charge Tuesday that the extent of the U.S. Involvement in Laos may be un- constitutional. "I doubt very much if it is unconatitutIonal," replied Rogers. "What about the public's 'right to know?'" asked a reporter. Said Rogers, "Well, I think the public, if they have been reading the papers, know." Fuessight, when told later that Rogers said he expects no change In U.S. policy in Laos. said: "I regret it, if that's what he said." Hearings on Laos, which have been con- ducted in executive session by a subcommit- Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 Approved For Release 20Q6/0J/30 ? ClArRDP71R003itili000100151pA7A S 16762 CONGREsSioN Rilwitu "Mr, MUSKIE. Let me put this proposi- tion. It seems to me that by being silent on the question of possible enlargement of our land activity in Laos or Thailand, the Senator's amendment may, in effect, approve that kind of enlargement of our activity in Laos or Thailand. Mr. CHURCH. I think that the ex- change between the Senator from New York and myself negates such an inter- pretation. The legislative history is being written right here on the floor. It would not be practical to attempt to legislate in a way that would unduly hamper the President in relation to the delicate problems he faces in Thailand and Laos. We have only one objective of saying, at this time, that we do not intend any of the funds we vote in this bill to be used for the purpose of introducing American ground combat troops in Laos or Thailand. There are many other things we might do, but they are not covered here. Mr. IVILISKIE. That indicates one rea- son why the distinguished majority leader prefers the ambiguity of his lan- guage rather than the language offered In. the closed session. Mr. CHURCH. No one was certain of what the other language meant. If we are going to act, we should act with sufficient certitude that the Govern- ment and the people of the country know what we mean. Mr. MUSKIE. We all respect, and I re- spect, the intention on that point. I do not challenge it. I think this colloquy and the other col- loquy has suggested the difficulty of reaching an absolute decision. Mr. CHURCH. There is that difficulty in any action we take. We have tried to draft the language that expresses pre- cisely the intent we have in mind. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. touLBRIGHT. Mr. President, this evening, with great public fanfare, the President of the United States is sched- uled to make a statement in which? according to all the reports I have seen? he will announce further withdrawal of troops from South Vietnam. Similar widely publicized announce- ments have been made concerning earlier cutbacks in troop levels not only in South Vietnam but also in Thailand. This administration's announced pol- icy of a lessening direct military involve- ment in Asia has also been given a good deal of publicity. It is against this chorus of administra- tion public announcements of a policy in one direction that I voice my apprehen- sion over continuing administration silence over policy in Laos where our military Involvement appears to be grow- ing rather than declining. As in Vietnam, the Nixon administra- tion inherited a Laotian policy. Unlike Vietnam, where some changes appear underway, the new administration seems to have accepted everything we have done and are doing in Laos. Id im ortant for us in the Congress, hi.- -r t e .resent : !rims ra date seems ?M,4Atimt:a? ? con nue potentially ? . ? ! 8 Dart of tha po - icy?the official _see-ITU _ill which our military activities are wrapped?insti- LIAM a/1ring -MO -1C-enngrig=intiaStra tion_astd_continued daring--th.e-..T.cdanson years. *Mr. President. at Ws late date. isjj tcua_much Ao..ask_iliat__ the administra- tion come forword_toint5enate a t_laant, and give to-the ropjority of the Mernhera There-the mei .edriti lis-voinmoppro r_actiiat isanvistieAscitn bLeafo:re? us._thienees_thopc activities This money hill ia the nnly opportunity the Senate will _have to din-ass and in any way effect theseantiviti PS j') 1.12,0F. To my knowledge there is no treaty or joint resolution granting any Presi- dent authority to send military air or ground forces into. Laos. We have been told by the State, Department there are no executive agreements or written commitments of any kind which have led to our involvement. Why then are we there and what are we doing? These questiez,3 are not unique to me. For almost 2 months--since the ques- tion of Laos was first raised in the Sen- ate Foreign Relations Committee?I and other members of the committee have received a steady flow of letters from peo- ple asking the :same question. Most of them are concerned because of what they read in the newspapers. But a few are worried because of their direct personal knowledge. Last week, far example, I received the following from a young man in the Army: I recently completed a course at Ft. Hua- chuca, Ariz., called_ [deleted]. This is a classi- fied course dealing with a new method of electronic war f an to combat guerilla (sic) warfare. During this co-arse. I asked an instructor, Lt. [deleted], if there was a good chance we would get sent to Laos or Carnbodia. He said there was. Now, my question Is this, "What is our relationship to Iaos and C,ambodla?" and "Are we ,allowed to., have combat troops in either Laos or canibodt??" If the Army's action is illegal, I hope that you will expose -a the American people the dangers of spreadirg. the war in S. Vietnam to all of Indochina. Or, take these words from an Air Force officer in Thailand: In the last few :months we have had dozens of Laotian Army las,tile casualties in our USAF hospital here. In the last few months, I have looked an.I listened: I have seen and heard much. Although I do not have a top secret se- curity clearance abd most of what goes on here requires thet). any airman can count the numbers oi jet fighter-bombers taking off fully loaded with ordinance. Anyone here can pass the runway and see dozens of unmarked Micro irt parked at the Air America and Continental Airlines ramp. Any drunk- en pilot will tell Of the fighting, bombing, and killing for Whibli we, here at Udorn, are responsible. Not in Vietnam, not in an open war, but in Laos, 35 miles to the north. There are Many things which I have learned to accept here_ The censorship of our radio and TV station: the application of arbi- trary curfews; ortiiizary rules and regula- tions, so that we may not badly impress this foreign country from which we wage war. These I can ac::ept, though I think them regulations of Unsteady minds. Wha.taLha-aa-bnialLitifficulty accepting is a secret mar_in vit tab lion."111Ititiry CIA soon- er 15, 1969 anreafigLita.LII ay the groundworkator HS. military destructiou. I appeal to you and your fellow congress- men to stop the foolishness of the American involvement in Southeast Asia. Stop the secrecy, stop the fighting, stop the death. In a few short months, my presence in Thailand has assured me of the wrongness of our position here. We will never win by supplying arms and soldiers. We will only win by destroying the corrupt governments that we now support and by getting our wealth into the mouths of the people instead of into the hands of dishonest leaders of indigent countries. Or the following from a Navy man aboard a carrier off Vietnam: It would be conservative to say that at least half or perhaps three-quarters of our sorties, expended ordnance and time for the past six months has been trained solely on Laos. Yet, current military and administra- tion policy forbids the reporting of such ac- tivities. It seems evident that the attack aircraft carrier Navy is no longer a force used against North Vietnam but rather is engaged in a private but related war in another country. The enormous amount of money expended in keeping these carriers operational plus its manpower consumption obligates the mili- tary to make public Its mission. But of more importance is the long range effects of be- coming more deeply committed in Southeast Asia and perhaps the loss of more American lives in the future. Thus, I encourage you to bring these activities before the public as soon as possible. Or the following from an AID con- tract employee in Laos who freely dis- cusses the mercenary Lao Army teams that call in U.S. Air Force bombing and concludes: All of this, although it seems to be more or less common knowledge here, is denied by the Embassy. They have "no comment" on the bombing which is apparently "free" throughout the territory held by the Pathet Lao and North Vietnamese, directed at any- thing they can see, whether military or not. It appea.ks that once again the U.S. is involved in something of which it has reason to be ashamed, which it does not want the world or its own people to know. I do not like to see an agency of our gov- ernment maintaining its own mercenary army in Laos, not subject to the public con- trol intended by our Constitution. I wish to help the people here, and I be- lieve the U.S. should help them. But if we cannot find any way to help them that does not also require indiscriminate bombing at them and maintaining a mercenary army in their midst, then I do not believe we should be here. Or the following from another AID contract employee who finished his tour and remained in Laos: While military activity has de-escalated to some extent in South Vietnam over the last year, it has greatly intensified here in Laos.Restraints which were in force on both sides since 1964 have been lifted. The future pres- ages continued escalation and increased American involvement. The recent investiga- tion of your committee could not have been more timely, and I wish to contribute in any way possible to them. There is another group of letter writ- ers, women who have a different type of firsthand experience with Laos. They are wives and mothers whose loved ones have been killed or are missing in a war they never knew existed. The following came from a woman Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 December 15, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE S 16761 than that some substitute has been sug- gested for the idea they presented to the Senate. I am confident that my col- league would agree with me in that. Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I cer- tainly concur in what the Senator from New York has said. This amendment was really offered reluctantly. 1:31e...aenate has made itsa ecisio to sneak_ out in YPieding_tjae .na_ga_to table. It Is ncw intend to take a Position-ou-thiLYITY . : ? : 4 -131. al-.1211.4.1filge-that-PositianallzuaLga precise P..res_ident a ? a a e ad- ia.Ainfilla ? u erican peop ? - stai?a..? We should avoid a repetition of Th?istake we made in the Gulf of Ton- kin resolution, when we carelessly drafted it, only to discover later that it was much broader than many who voted for it intended. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. CHURCH. I yield, Mr. FULI3RIGHT. That one having been broader than we thought, we ought to be careful lest the one that restricts it be broader than we thought. Is the Sen- ator's proposal to be ',.nterpreted as an authorization for continued bombing, or expansion of the bombing, in the north? Mr. CHURCH. No. I would say, after the debate we had in the Senate during the closed session, that no one was quite certain what the original amendment meant. This substitute amendment is purely limiting in its terms. The bill provides money for local forces both in Laos and Thailand. All my amendment does is to make it clear that none of the money in the bill is to be used for the purpose of financing the introduction of American ground combat troops into Laos or Thailand. As such, it is a limitation in the bill. It Is in line with our constitutional respon- sibility. I think it avoids the flaw in the Tonkin Gulf joint resolution which was drafted in much broader language than intended at the time Congress voted in such haste. Mr. FIJLBRIGHT. Mi. President, to me the important significance is that that was assumed to be a grant of authority. This is a restriction. I am not at all sure that there is, and I do not believe there is, really authority for doing what we are doing now in north Laos. There is a very great question as to whether there Is authority. I wonder what the effect of this will be on the granting of authority by having only a restricted application to ground; that is, the combat troops only. Mr. CHURCH. No. Nothing in this amendramt grants any new authority to the Government. The question the Senator raises is a separate one. All this amendment does is to limit the use of the money in the bill to make certain it is not employed for the very purpose the Senator from Ar- kansas does not want. Mr. FITLBRIGHT. There may be other activities in addition to using ground troops for which I do not want them to employ it. The Senator from Mississippi said a moment ago that he thought the amend- ment of the majority leader would re- strict bombing disconnected or not di- rectly connected with Vietnam. I do not know as between the two amendments. I do not wish to authorize the President to use ground troops or air- power in a local war in northern Laos which is not directly connected with the Ho Chi Minh Trail and the war in Viet- nam. Mr. CHURCH. I think the Senate should speak plainly or not at all. The substitute amendment is intended to make our purpose plain. The amend- ment offered by the distinguished ma- jority leader. I think, is ambiguous and unclear. If we are to act at all, we should act- in a way that is understandable to the Government and to the American peo- ple. For that reason, I would hope that the Senate would adopt the substitute amendment. Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, to be precise and clear, does the amendment say ground troops or ground combat troops? I am trying to get to the point of the Senator from Texas. Mr. CHURCH. It says ground combat troops. Mr. HOLLINGS. It says only "ground troops" here. Could the Senator by unan- imous consent change that to read "ground combat troops"? Mr. CHURCH. Yes, that is how my amendment reads. In line with the ex- pressed intention, the pertinent part should read: None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be used to finance the introduc- tion of American round combat troops into Laos or Thailand without the prior con- sent of Congress. If the text of the amendment at the desk does not conform with my read- ing of the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that it so conform. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. HART. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. CHURCH. I yield. Mr. HART. Mr. President, I hope this is not repetitious. We say that the moneys shall not be used to finance the introduction of American ground combat troops. What about American aircraft and American ships? Are we saying that is all right? Mr. CHURCH. We are simply not un- dertaking to make any changes in the status quo. The limiting language is pre- cise. And it does not undertake to repeal the past or roll back the present. It looks to the future. Mr. HART. Is the existing status quo Inclusive of the action by air, ground, and ships, and are we saying now we should cut out the ground forces? Mr. th tent we re striving tot...woven} Lana Ana Thailand from hpparnitiw nu Viptrinisks ThaL-is_tjagjaignase-of...the-amendment. And f thtnk it is wall riraftari carve tiatiLilitrPose. Ur. HART. We could make it more explicit by eliminating the other features of American might. Mr. GOODFT.L. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, how much time remains? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ator from Idaho has 2 minutes remain- ing. Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I would prefer not to yield the remainder of my time. Could the other side yield some time? Mr. FrJENDER. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New York. The PRESIDING OFrICER. The Sen- ator from New York is recognized for 2 minutes. Mr. GOODv.14, Mr. President, would the Senator agree that his amendment grants no authority, that it in no way approves or disapproves of what is going on, but that it is simply directed toward making sure that in the future no ground combat troops will be introduced into Laos or Thailand? Mr. CHURCH. Without the prior con- sent of Congress. Mr. GOODELL. That is correct, That will not be done without the prior con- sent of Congress. Mr. CHURCH. The Senator is correct. That is the intent. Mr. GOODELL. That is vital. The im- plication has been raised that we are giving some kind of approval to the status quo of what is going on. This is a prohibition against the future occur- rence of what is now going on. This grants no authority or approves nothing that is going on. Mr. CHURCH. The Senator is cor- rect. There is nothing in the text of the amendment itself, or the debate upon it, that could give any basis for such an Interpretation. The Senator has correctly construed the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President. will the Senator yield? Mr. Ent .F.NDER. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Maine. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ator from Maine is recognized for 2 minutes. Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, is it the intent of the amendment to prohibit or. at least, to inhibit the introduction of any additional elements of American mil- itary strength in Laos beyond the present level of military support for our allies in Laos and Thailand? Mr. CHURCH. The intent of the amendment conforms with the language used. And the language used, the opera- tive language used, is as follows: None of the funds appropriated by the Act shall be used to finance the introduction of American ground combat troops into Laos or Thailand without the prior consent of Congress. Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 S 16760 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE December 15, 1969 NAYS-48 Aiken Hart Moss Bayh Henke Muskie Boggs Hatfield Nelson Brooke Hughes Packwood Burdick Inouye Pastore Byrd, Va. Javits Pell Byrd, W.Va. Jordan, Idaho Percy Case Kennedy Prouty Church Magnuson Proxmire Cranston Mansfield. Ribicoff Eagleton Mathias Saxbe Fulbright McGovern Schweiker Goodell McIntyre Spong Gore Metcalf Yarborough Gravel Mondale Young, N. Dak. Harris Montoya Young, Ohio NOT VOTING-11 Anderson Miller Symington Cooper Mundt Tydings Jackson Randolph Williams, N.J. McCarthy Russell So Mr. McGEE's motion to lay on the table was rejected. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now recurs on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Ken- tucky and the Senator from Montana. Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Aza eon') , the Senator from California (Mr. CRANSTON), the Senator from New York (Mr. JAVITS) , and myself, I send to the desk a substitute amendment, which reads as follows - The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated. Mr. CHURCH. I ask unanimous con- sent that I may read the amendment to the Senate instead of the clerk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. Mr. CHURCH. The amendment reads as follows: On page 46, between lines 8 and 9, insert a new section as follows: "DEC. 643. In line with the expressed in- --tellierealgentaLki e United States, Jutat,..211, a ? ro ? riatiTS?Thirret shall b.e,..ligecl to financ then r..n.c on of American ronncLtroops into Laos or-Thai- land withoat_tnt of ConEress." Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that the name of the distinguished senior Senathr from Arkansas (Mr. Me- CLELLAN) be added as a cosponsor of the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. CHURCH. I ask for the yeas and nays on the substitute amendment. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. CHURCH. I ask unanimous con- sent also that the name of the Sena- tor from Tennessee, (Mr. BAKER) be added ai a cosponsor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. CHURCH. I am happy to yield. Mr. TOWER. Does the amendment mean that we would have to immediate- ly withdraw all ground troops we now have in Thailand? Because we do have Ariny troops and pre-positioned equip- ment in Thailand. The way the substitute amendment is written, it would seem to meafi the troops We have there now would no longer be permitted. ' Mr. CHURCH. I think the answer to the Senator's question is clearly con- tained in the language of the proposed substitute. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator suspend, so that we may have order? Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield another half minute? I hope the members of the Appropri- ations Committee, if we are going to have a discussion on the substitute, will see if they cannot cane down to the committee room, end we can come back for the rollcall. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I wonder if it would not be possible to vote on this question in 5 minutes. It should not take much discussion. Would that be sufficient, :he time to be equally divided? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, re- serving the right to object, we should extend it a little longer than 5 minutes. Mr. CHURCH. E ask unanimous con- sent for 15 minutes on each side. Mr. MANSFIELD. One-half hour, to be equally divided. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The :hair hears none, and it is so ordered. Mr. CHURCH Now. Mr. President, I ask for order. The PRESIDING ototileER. The Sen- ate will be in ordt Mr. CHURCH. tn response to the ques- tion of the Senator from Texas (Mr. TOWER), the pertinent part of the amendment reams: None of the fitqcls appropriated by this Act shall be used so butt oce the introduction of American grc,trid troops into Laos or Thailand. It is true that, we have personnel there. But the amendment conforms to the ex- pressed intention of the President; it reinforces the presidential position; and yet it asserts the constitutional right of the Senate, in in appropriation bill, to determine how public funds will be used, and makes it Near that the Senate is opposed to the introduction of ground combat troops into either country, un- less we first haee an opportunity to pass judgment on that question. Mr. TOWER. Will the Senator yield for a further question? Mr. CHURCH. I am happy to yield. Mr. TOWER. The term "ground com- bat troops" still could include those that are there, because those that we have there are capa ole of engaging in combat. They are trained for combat. They are not actually in combat, true, and it is not anticipated that thee ever will be. We hope they will eot be. But they are com- petent to engaee in combat. Mr. CHURCH. As the Senator knows, we presently rave no ground troops in Laos engaging in com bat. Mr. TOWER. That is true. Mr. CHURCH. The President has said so. The language conforms to the Presi- dential position, and if there is any question concerning our meaning or in- tent, it should be cleared up by the dis- cussion we are now having on this floor. Mr. TOWER. That is all I am trying to do, establish the legislative intent. - Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. CHURCH. I yield. Mr. PASTORE. If we have any linger- ing shadows of doubt, why not use the words "to support local forces"? Why not say "the introduction of American com- bat troops to support local forces"? Then we will have no ambiguity. Mr. CHURCH. I respectfully say to the Senator that the bill authorizes money, which is now being used, to support local forces in Thailand and Laos. There is no question about that. What we are trying to achieve here is a limitation on the use of money for the purpose of financing the introduction of American ground forces into these two countries. I think the amendment should be supported. It is in line with the ex- pressed intention of the President and accords with our constitutional respon- sibilities. Moreover, it puts the President on notice that, if there is ever a change of policy that might involve the possible introduction of American combat forces into these two countries, then, in accord- ance with the Constitution, that question should be brought back to Congress, and Congress should exercise its will. Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. CHURCH. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Arkansas. Mr. McCLELLAN. In the executive session, I raised some questions about the original resolution. This substitute amendment, together with the state- ment by the distinguished majority lead- er in executive session in response to my questions, answers the questions that I had in mind, and I am happy to support it. I commend the Senator for its word- ing and its purpose, and for recognizing that the President has given his pledge, and that we support the President in that pledge. Mr. CHURCH. I thank the Senator very much, and I appreciate his support. I now yield to my distinguished co- sponsor, the Senator from Colorado (Mr. ALLOTT) . Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I joined in the cosponsorship of this amendment because I believe it is preferable to the very vague, in my judgment, amendment now pending before the Senate. I think it says what the Senate would like to say, ?and I sincerely hope that Senators will support it. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. CHURCH. I yield to the Senator from New York. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, just 1 minute. I think we are trying hard? and I hope the majority leader is listen- ing?to deal with a situation in which, he, feeling bound by the language of the Senator from Kentucky?and I do not blame him?did not want it interfered with, and yet to express what we sense to be the will of the Senate. I think that has been done best by the combined brain- power of a number of us here, and I hope very much that the Senator from Montana (Mr. MANSFIELD) and the Sen- ator from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER) will feel they have been successful, rather Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 December 15, Mm Mr. PULBRIGHT. Then, is it not fol lowing a pattern very similar to wha happened in Vietnam? Mr. MANSFIELD No; because, unde the Geneva Accords of 1962, all for eign troops agreed to withdraw exceP for a small French military mission which was located partly in Vientiane and partly around Savanna khet. It is the only treining mission o: that type which was allowed under the Geneva Accords of 1962, but we did withdraw our forces in 1962 in accordance with the accords. The North Vietnamese did withdraw a small contingent of their troops, but since that time they have not only re- stored that withdrawal, but increased the number by, I would say, 150 percent. Mr. FULBRIGHT. I am -not sure in view of the attitude of the Senator from Arizona and the manager of the bill. These questions, I thought, would have been more properly asked in executive session, but if they prefer that they be asked in open session. I suppose we should proceed. Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FT LBRIGHT. I yield. Mr. TOWER. Does he not think we may get into highly sensitive matters that should not be publicly disclosed? Mr. FULBR.IGHT. I thought so, but the Sena;or from Arizona and the Sen- ator front Louisian.a did not think so. I understand the Senator from Montana thought his was a matter better dis- cussed in open session. I had suggested, and I thought the majority leader was of the view, that we should go into execu- tive session. Mr. MANSFIELD May I say that all this information is public. All one has to do is read the newspapers. All that has been suggested is carried in public print. Mr. TOWER. Yes, but a good deal more could be said that perhaps should be said in closed session. Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is what I said before. I thought It should be in execu- tive sessida. Perhaps they have changed their minds. For example, the distinguished Senator lf? this.....bas,fstrssullikELAwaiwaLLAQ_Aue.' Laiskigtsa,? leen y e on in BancaLudinthapley. I wonder if i vz kg olurualitbffl Is it for the U.S. Air Force missions in Laos? Is there any way the Senator can identify that amount? Mr. rtJ,ENDER. Xise_190 million is sexeralausrenriations. Mr. FULBRIGHT. isprssie es Mr. ELLZNDER, gatr...hutsassIsau&- t wesgatp nothbsgsislusazipLA ses- sion_sasst_ssateguk_while ago, as man- con- gjp2 jist more roved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 ONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE S 16759 -t 21ga with t,...x.itja.lia*e.jLtgtit,v.L.t1L_.Li kinct of Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, a t r v ? to parliamentary inquiry, tke, they ousht teal-any. The PRESIDING OFFICER, The Seri- r I have been hornswogg led long ator from Montana will state it. - enough?ever since the previous admin- Mr. MAN:Us/S.W. What is the pending t ',titration and its Tonkin Gulf Resolution, motion? when I did not know the administration The PRESIDING OlerICER. The ques- was misrepresenting the facts. All I am tion is on the motion to table the amend- saying is that all Senators should know ment by the Senator from Montana (Mr Ken- Vote. what they are voting for before they Msrqsersser and the Senator from ??? ? ? est acearditudy, ? ja_wis at the Dresen thrtL b,embers of the Senate, aside from the ?erha s who are on ce - taizuwagrcs_ou ees of the_C-I.A. _closnotskeuesshettsgeiseag One in this bill.inzaga.s.1-to-Laoss.t.thinks in.? In my view, there is a lot of money In this bill for activities which bear a very great probability of involving us in another full-scale war in Laos, if it is not already a full-scale war. We are dees- calating in Vietnam. but I shall read some letters a little later, which are not classified, which came from soldiers and wives of soldiers which I believe con- clusively prove that we are escalating the war in Laos just as much as we are deescalating it In Vietnam. I think it is a very serious matter; it Is not something that ought to be pushed under the rug merely by saying, "I will accept the amendment and take it to conference," and then let it be buried there. Mr. MANSFIELD. I do not think that Is what the Senator from Louisiana said. As I recall, he and the Senator from North Dakota said they were in favor of the amendment uc y (Mr, Cooesa). Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, a point of order. We should not begin voting until the Chamber has been made open. Mr. MANSFIELD. The Chamber is open. It was opened 2 minutes ago, I understand. sla ? ? ? a a : ? - Blejla&LICIN...Legumed_its japan_sessicw. The question is on agreeing to the motion to table the amendment of the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Kentucky. On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. KENNEDY'. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. ANDER- SON), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. MCCARTHY), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. RUSSELL), the Senator from Mis- souri (Mr. SYMINGTON), the Senator from Mr. F'ULBRIGHT. He said, -I will ac- Maryland (Mr. Tyonsosi , and the Sena- cent it," meaning that he would take it tor from New Jersey (Mr. WILLIAMS) are to conference in order to avoid further necessarily absent. discussion here. I further announce that the Senator Mr. ELLENDER. Why does not the from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) is Senator from Arkansas proceed to give absent on official business. the Senate the information he has heard I also announce that the Senator from from soldiers? Washington (Mr. JACKSON) is absent be- Mr. FULI3RIGHT. I submitted a ques- cause of a death in his family. tionnaire to the chairman and the rank- I further announce that, if present and ing minority member of the Committee voting, the Senator from New Jersey on AppropriatSons last week and asked (Mr. WILLIAMS) and the Senator from questions that related to this activity. West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) would had linderstood that th &wife woula vote "nay." ?? a - I further announce that, if present and voting. the Senator from Washington ? It? , should come from the sponsors of the proposed- le: onzors. the members of the --ConnisiApit,ee - nrepa,.ed with oil- desired for. .at is all in the w - am mi ?1?T'o?propose: t w en tilts...corn- usInsvote fgr B11110fit billion_ we ought to.lsomessting for. It is that SigaPle, this point, the Senate went into se fi. ? ? 'oceedi oce sae Mr, MANSFIELD Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, to last only as long as it will take to ring the two bells. The PRESIDING oFFICER The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. MANSFIELD, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (Mr. JACKSON) Would vote "yea." Mr. GRIPrIN. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. MILLER ) is nec- essarily absent. The Senator from Kentucky f Mr. COOPER ) is absent because of illness in his family. The Senator from South Dakota Mr. Mutter, is absent because of illness. The Senator from Iowa (Mr. MILLER ) is paired with the Senator from Ken- tucky (Mr. Comma). If present and vot- ing the Senator from Iowa would vote "yea" and the Senator from Kentucky would vote "nay." The result was announced?yeas 41, nays 48, as follows: Allen Allott Baker Beilmon Bennett Bible Cannon Cook Cotton Curtis Dodd Dole DOldinick Fastituid f NO. 232 Leg.) YEAS-41 ElletUter Ervin Fannin Fong Goldwater Gritlin Gurney Hansen Holland Hollings Hrttaka Jordan, N.C. Long McClellan McGee Murphy Pearson Scott Smith, Maine Smith, Ill. Sparkman Stennis Stevens Talmadge Thurmond Tower Williams. Del. Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 S 16758 -Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SEN duty or the termination of his civilian em- ployment, as the case may be. (7) The date on which he was released from 'active duty or the termination of his civilian employment with the Department of Defense, as the case may be, and the date on which his employment, as an employee, con- sultant, or otherwise with the defense con- tractor began and, if no longer employed ty such defense contractor, the date on which such employment with such defense contrac- tor terminated. (8) Such other pertinent information as the Secretary of Defense may require. (2) Any employee of the Department of Defense, including consultants or part-time employees, who was previously employed by or served as a consultant or otherwise to a defense contractor in a,ny fiscal year, and whose salary rate in the Department of De- fense is equal to or greater than the mini- Mum salary rate for positions in grade GS- 13, shall file with the Secretary of Defense, in such form and manner and at such times as the Secretary may prescribe, a report containing the following information: (1) His name and address. (2) The title of his position with the De- partment of Defense. (3) A brief description of his duties with the Department of Defense. (4) The name and address of the defense contractor by whom he was employed or Whom he served as a consultant or other- wise. (5) The title of his position with such de- fense contractor. (6) A brief description of his duties and the work performed by him for the defense contractor. (7) The date on which his employment as a consultant or otherwise with such con- tractor terminated and the date on which his employment as a consultant or otherwise with the Department of Defense began there- after. (8) Such other pertinent information as the Secretary of Defense may require. (c) (1) No former military officer or former civilian employee shall be required to file a report under this section for any fiscal year In which he was employed by or served as a consultant or otherwise to a defense contrac- tor if the total amount of contracts awarded by the Department of Defense to such con- tractor during such year was less than $10,- 000,000, and no employee of the Department Of Defense shall be required to file a report under this section for any fiscal year in ?rhich he was employed by or served as a consultant or otherwise to a defense contrac- tor if the total amount of contracts awarded to such contractor by the Department of Defense during such year Was less than $10,000,000. (2) No former military officer or former civilian employee shall be required to file a report under this section for any fiscal year on account of active duty performed or em- ployment with or services performed for the Department of Defense if such active duty ?or employment was terminated three years or more prior to the beginning of such fiscal year; and no employee of the Department of Defense shall be required to file a report under this seption for any fiscal year on account of employment with or services per- formed for a defense contractor if such em- ployment FM terminated or such services were performed three years or more prior to the effective date of his employment with the Department of Defense. (3) No former military officer or former civilian employee shall be required to file a report under this section 'for any fiscal year during which he was employed by or served as a consUltant or othepyipe to a cieferise contractor': at a salary rate of less than $15,- 000 per year; and no employee of the De- partment of Defense, including consultants or part-time employees, shall be required to file a report under thii.section for any fiscal year during which he was employed by or served as a consultant or otherwise to a de- fense contractor It a talary rate of less than $15,000 per year. (d) The Secretary of Defense shall, not later than December 31 of each year, file with the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the HouSe of Representatives a report containing, M list of the names of persons Who htiva filed reports with him for the preceding r:bal sear pursuant to sub- sections (b) (1) and ' tb) (2) of this section. The Secretary sluill include after each name so much inforrnation as he deems appro- priate and shall Z1st the names of such per- sons under the defense contractor for whom they worked or for whom they performed services. (e) Any former military officer or former civilian employee whore employment with or services for a defense contractor terminated during any fisea' year shall be required to file a report piir::uitnt to subsection (b) (1) of this section br such year if he would otherwise be required Lc ille under such sub- section; and an, person whose employment with or services for the Department of De- fense terrninatetl during any fiscal year shall be required to file a report pursuant to sub- section (b) (2) o this section for such year if he would otherwise be required to file under such subsection. (f) The Secretary- shall maintain a file containing the information filed with him pursuant to subiecticn (b) (1) and (b) (2) of this section and such file shall be open for public inspec..ion end at all times during the regular workcjay. (g) Any perscai Who fails to comply with the filing requir((ments of this section shall be guilty of a irdsderneanor and shall, upon conviction theref,"be punished by not more than six months in prison or a fine of not more than $1,001, br both. (h) No person shall be required to file a report pursuant (b -this section for any fiscal year prior to the fiscal year 1971. Mr. ELLE;NDER. Mr. President, these funds are for ihe Support of the Royal Laotian Army and are comparable to the funds included es the Military Assistance Appropriations prior to fiscal year 1968. In that connection, I may further state that these funds are made available in the same manner as they were made available under the foreign aid bill. Under the foreign aid bill it was clearly understood the; it did not involve man- power but only the materials of war. Now I have often criticized the Gov- ernment in the past for having sent to many countries. where aid is given, peo- ple to teach the defense departments of the countries how to use the materials of war sent to them. This has been done for many, many years now. Personally, I see no objection to that, but it is some- thing which hen e occurred in the past and I do not beievt that we should go any further now Wan we have in the past. The history co the increase in the funds is significant. During the period of the fiscal years 1985 through 1967, when the funds were included in the military as- sistance program, as I have just said, the sum recoienneeded in the bill rep- resents an inc rease of approximately 16.7 percent of the amount included in the Department of Defense appropriation amount for fieeal year 1969. As I have said, the bill ireiludes approximately $90 Million for the support of the Royal Laotian Army. ATE December 15, 1969 The purposes for which these funds will be used are classified, and I cannot disregard that classification. However, I have the information at my desk and will be glad to make it available to any Senator who desires to see it. I recognize that I have not answered all the questions that may have been raised by the Senator from Arkansas. However, I feel that I have fulfilled my responsibilities to the Members of this body as floor manager of the pend- ing bill. As I said, I can see no objection to the acceptance of this amendment, which, as I understand, is to be read in context with section 638 of the present bill. This will give the conferees an oppor- tunity to review thoroughly all of the is- sues invoved and make any perfecting aniendments that are required. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I would like to address a question, too, for the purposes of clarification, to the ma- jority leader and/or the acting chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Would this amendment prohibit the U.S. aircraft based in Thailand from flying tactical missions in support of the Laotian army in Northern Laos, having nothing whatever to do with the interdiction of the Ho Chi Minh Trail? Mr. MANSVIELD. Mr. President, I am afraid that I am not in a position to give the kind of definitive answer I would like to the question raised by the dis- tinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. There is no question that air support would be allowed to be continued to de- crease or to stop the infiltration of men and materiel down the Ho Chi Minh Trail through the Laotian panhandle. It is a moot question as to whether or not the support missions, or the sorties, as they are called, and which number in the hundreds, very likely the thousands, in support of Royal Laotian troops, would hold. That is another matter. Those sorties are not so much against the Pathet Lao as they are against the North Vietnamese troops, who are the backbone and support of the Pathet Lao forces. They outnumber the Pathet Lao by at least 3 to 1. They are far more vigor- ous fighters, and they are the ones who determine what shall be done. The question is, How do you look at the North Vietnamese in Laos in relation to the North Vietnamese along the trail and in South Vietnam itself? Mr. FULBRIGHT. If I understand the Senator, his amendment would prohibit the use of American Air Force and other personnel related to flying tactical mis- sions in support of the Laotian army in the civil war now taking place in north- ern Laos. It has nothing to do with the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Mr. MANSFIELD. "Civil war" is a term you have to use with discretion. If it were a struggle between the Pathet Lao and the Royal Laotian forces, it would be a civil war; but when 50,000 North Vietnamese are backing up and support- ing the Pathet Lao, then you have to rec- ognize that a foreign government has in- tervened in what had become up to that time a civil war, but what, with this in- tervention, became other than a civil war. Approved For Release 2006/01/30,: CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 December 15, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE S 16757 either on a percentage of the cost basis, per- centage of sales basis, or a return on private capital employed basis, the Comptroller Gen- eral and authorized representatives of the General Accounting Offen are authoriaed to audit and inspect and tc make copies of any books. accounts, or other records of any such contractor or subcontractor. (d) Upon the request of the Comptroller General, or any officer or employee designated by him, lbs Committee cu Armed Services of the House of Representatives or the Commit- tee on Armed Services of the Senate may sign and lame supenas requiring the pro- duction of such books, accounts, or other records as may be materal to the study and review cr riled out by the Comptroller Gen- eral under this section. (e) Any disobedience bo a subpena issued by the Carcunittee on Armed Services of the House of Representative or the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate to carry out the provisions of this section shall be punishable as provided in section 102 of the Revised Statutes. (f) No book, account, or other record, or copy of any book, account, or record, of any contractor Or subcontractor obtained by or for the Camistroller General under authority of this section which is not pecessay for de- termining the profitability on any contract, as defined in subsection (a) of this section, between such Contractor or subcontractor and the Department 01 Defense shall be available for examination, without the con- sent of such contractor cc subcontractor, by any individual other than a duly authorized officer or employee of the General Accounting Office: and no officer or employee of the Gen- eral Accounting Office stall disclose, to any person nat authorized by the Comptroller General to receive such information, any in- formation obtained under authority of this section relating to cost, expense, or profit- ability or any nondefense business trensac- tion of any contractor or subcontractor. (g) The Comptroller General shall not dis- close in any report made by him to the Con- gress or to either Committee on Armed Serv- ices uncles authority of this section any con- fidential Information resting to the cost, expense, or profit of any contractor or sub- contractor on any uonclefense business trans- action of such contractor or subcontractor. Sec. 40e (a) The Secretary of Defense shall submit semiannual reposts to the Congress on or before January 31 and on or before July 91 of each year setting forth the amounts spent during the preeedirg six-month period for research, development, test and evalua- tion and procurement of all lethal and non- lethal chemical and bee ogical agents. The Secretary shall include in each report a feel explanation of each expenditure, including the purpose and the necessity therefor. (b) None of the funds authorized to be ap- propriated by this Act or any other Act may be used for the transportation of any lethal chemical or any biological warfare agent to or from any military installation In the United States, or the open air testing of any such agent within the United States until the following procedures have been imple- mented. (1) the Secretary of Defense (hereafter referred to in this section as the "Secretay") has determined that the transportation or testing proposed to he made is necessary in the interests of national security; (2) the Secretary has beought the particu- lars of the proposed transportation or testing to the attention of the Secretary of Health. Education, and Welfare, who in turn may direct ttui Surgeon General of the Public Health &nice and other qualified persons to review such particulars with respect to any haaards to public health and safety winch gush transportation or testing may pose and to recommend what precautionary measurers are neeeseary tc protect the public health and safety. (3) the Secretary has implemented any precautionary measures recommended in lc- conlance with paragraph (2) above (includ- ing, where practicable, the detoxification of any such agent. if such agent is to be trans- ported to or from 3. military installation for disposal): Provided, however. That in the event the Secretary finds the recommenda- tion submitted by the Surgeon General would have the effect of preventing the pro- posed transportation or testing. the Presi- dent may determine that overriding consid- erations of national security require such transportation or testing be conducted. Any transportation or testing conducted pur- suant to such a Presidential determination shall be carried oat in the safest practicable /Timmer, and the President shall report his determination and, an explanation thereof to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives as far in ad- vance as practicable. and (4) the Secretary has provided notification that the transportation or testing will take place, except where a Presidential determi- nation has been made: (A) to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives at least 10 days before any such transportation will be commenced and at least 90 days before any such test- ing Will be commenced; (B) to the Gover- nor of any State through which such agents will be transported. Such notification to be provided appropriately in advance of any such transportation. (c) ii) None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or any other Act may be used fpr the future deployment, or storage, or both, at any place outside the United States of ? (A) any lethal chemical or any biological warfare agent, or (Ii) any delivery system specifically de- signed to disseminate any such agent, Unless prior notice of such deployment or storage has been given to the country exer- cising jurisdiction over such place. In the ease of any place outside the United States which is under the jurisdiction or control of the US. Government, no such action may be taken unless the Secretary gives prior notice of such action to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. As used in this para- graph, the term "United States' means the several States and the District of Columbia. Cl) None of the funds authorized by this Act or any other Act shall be used for the future testing, development, transportation, storage, or disposal of any lethal chemical or any biological warfare agent outside the United States if the Secretary of State. after appropriate notice by the Secretary whenever any such action is contemplated, determines that such testing, development, transporta- tion, storage, or disposal will violate inter- national law. The Secretary of State shall report all determinations made by him under this paragraph to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Represent- atives, and to all appropriate international organizations; or organs thereed, in the event such report is required by treaty or other international agreement (d) Unless otherwise indicated, as used in this section the term "United States" means the several States, the District of Columbia, and the territories and possessions of the United States. (e) After the effective date of this Act. the operation of this section, or any portion thereof, may be suspended by the President during the period of any war declared by Congress and during the period of any na- tional emergency declared by Congress or by the President. (t) None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act may be used for the procurement of any delivery system specific- ally designed to disseminate any lethal chemical or any biological warfare agent, cr for the procurement of any part or compon- ent of any such delivery system, unless the President shail certify to the Congress that such procureiamit is essential to the safety and security of the United States. Sec. 410. (a) As used in this section? (1) The term "former military officer" means a former or retired commissioned of- ficer of the Armed Forces of the United States who? (A) served on active duty In the grade of major (or equivalent) or above, and (B) served on active duty for a period of ten years or store (2) The term "former civilian employee" means any former civilian ?niece or employee of the Department of Defense, including consultants or part-time employees, whose salary rate at any time during the three- year period immediately preceding the ter- mination of his last employment with the Department of Defense was equal to or greater than the minimum salary rate at such time for positions In grade GS-13. i3) The term "defense contractor" means any Individual, firm, corporation, partner- ship, association, or other legal entity, which provides services and materials to the De- pertinent of Defense under a contract di- rectly with the Department of Defense. (4) The term "services and materials" means either services or materials or serv- ices and materials and includes construc- tion. (5) The term "Department of Defense" means all elements of the Department of Defense and the military departments. (6) The term "contracts awarded" means contracts awarded by negotiation and in- cludes the net amount of modifications ? to, and the exercise of options under, such con- tracts. It exeindes all transactions amount- ing to leas than $10.000 each. (7) The term "fiscal year" means a year beginning on 1 July and ending on 30 June of the next succeeding year. (b) Under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of Defense: (1) Any former military officer or former civilian employee who during any fiscal year, (A) was employed by or served as a con- sultant or otherwise to a defense contractor for any period of time, (B) represented any defense contractor at any hearing, trial, appeal, or other action In which the Urdted States was a party and which involved services and matreials pro- vided or to be provided to the Department of Defense by such contractor, or (C) represented any such contractor in any transaction with the Department of De- fense Involving services or materials pro- vided or to be provided by such contractor to the Department of Defense, shall file with the Secretary of Defense, in such form and manner as the Secretary may prescribe, not later than November 15 of the next succeeding fiscal year, a report con- taining the following information: (1) His name and address. (2) The name and address of the defense contractor by whom he was employed or whom he served as a consultant or other- wise. (3) The title- of the position held by him with the defame contractor. (4) A brief description of his duties and the work performed by him for the defense contractor. (5) His military grade while on active duty or his gross salary rate while employed by the Department of Defense, as the case may be. (6) A brief description of his duties and the work performed by him while on active duty or while employed by the Department of Defense during the three-year period im- mediately preceding his release from active Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 S 16756 propriated pursuant to this authorization, conduct a competition for the aircraft which Shall be selected on the 'basis of the threat as eVatuated and determined by the Secretary of Defense, and (2) be authorized to use a ttortion of such funds as may be required for research, development, test, and evaluation. aerssILES Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDE CONGRESSIONAL R ECORD7-113 0010019nN 99Pietb el. '5, i 1969 For missiles: for the Army, $880,460,000; for the Navy, 4851,300,000; for the Marine Corps, $20,100,000; for the Air Force, $1,486,- 400,000. ? NAVAL VESSELS For natal vessels: for the Navy, $2,983,- 200,000. ? TRACT-me COMBAT VEHICLES 'For tracked combat Vehicles: for the Army, $228,000,000; for the Marine Corps, $37,700,- 000; Provided, That none of the funds au- thorized_ herein shall be utilized for the procuternent of Sheridan Assault vehicles (M-551) under any new or additional con- tra-a. TITLE II---RESEARCH, DEVELOriVIENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION SEC. 201. Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated during the fiscal year 1970 for the use of the Armed Forces of the United States for research, development, test, and evaluation, as atithorized by law, in amounts as foTiows: For the Army, $1,646,055,000; For the Navy (including the Marine Corps), $1,968,235,000; For the Air-Force, $3,156,552,000; and For the Defense Agencies, $450,200,000. SEC. 2d2. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Defense during fiscal year 1970 for use as an emer- gency fund for research, development, test, end evaluation or procurement or produc- tion related thereto, $75,000,000. Sze. 203. None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act may be used to carry out any research project or study un- less such project or study has a direct and apparent relationship to a specific military function or operation. SEC. 204. Construction of research, develop- ment and test facilities at the Kwajalein MtSailelange is authorized in the amount of under contraer.. entered Into subsequent to $12,700, 00, and funds are hereby authorized the effective da .,e of his Act for any amount in excess of per centum of the total to be apPropriated for this purpose. amount cool emplated for use for such pur- 'TITLE' ITT?RESERVE FORCE'S pose out of I nd.s authorized for procure- SEC. 301. For the fiscal year beginning JulY ment and he reeeereh, development, test, 1, 1969, and ending June 30, 1970, 'the Se- and evaluate( It. The foregoing limitation Reserve component of the case of (1) formally increased by the totiSauthorized strength of States for any research, development,- test or such units and be the total number of such evaluation, or after December 31, 1965, to individual member& or for the use of any armed force of the SEC. 303. Subseetion (e) of section 264 of United States for the procurement of tracked title 10, United etates Code, is amended as combat vehicles, or after December 31, 1969, . follows: to or for the use of any armed force of the In the last One of the last sentence of sub- United States for the procurement of other section (c) after the werd "within", change weapons unless the appropriation of such the figures "60" o, *Ire". e- funds has been authorized by legislation TITLE ENNeati., PROVISIONS enacted after such dates." SEC. 401. Sube( ction (a) of section 401 of SEC. 406. Section 2 of the Act of August 3, Public Law 89,-00 approved March 15, 1966 1950 (64 Stat. 408), as amended, is further (80 Stat. 37) as .3rnentied, is hereby amended amended to read as follows: to read as fonov : "SEC. 2. After July 1, 1970, the active duty e, . "(a) Not to exceed $2,500,000,000 of the personnel strength of the Armed Forces, ex- funds anthori zs'd for appropriation for the elusive of personnel of the Coast Guard, per- use of the Armed Purees of the United States sonnel of the Reserve components on active under this or are other Act are authorized to duty for training purposes only, and person- be made available for their stated purposes to, nel of the Armed Forces employed in the support: (1) Vietnamese and other Free Selective Service System, shall not exceed a World Forces ib Vietnam, (2) local forces in total of 31285,000 persons at any time during Laos and Thalia od; and for related costs, dur- the period of suspension prescribed in the ing the fiscalymr 1170 on such terms and first section of this Act except when the Pres- conditions as the Secretary of Defense may ident of the United States determines that determine." - ' - the application of this ceiling will seriously SEC. 402. (a) Prior to April 30, 1970, the jeopardize the national security interests of Committees on armed Services of -the House the United States and informs the Congress of Representate qes end the Senate shall of the basis for such determination." jointly conduct and complete a comprehen- ' ' SEC. 407. (a) After December 31, 1969, sive study and .-J.vestigation of the past and none of the funds authorized for appropria- projected erste and effectiveness of attack tion by this or any other Act for the use of aircraft carriers and ,-,heir task forces and a the Armed Forces shall be used for payments thorough review of the considerations which out of such funds under contracts or agree- went into the Ctt-Ci. n Lo to maintain the pres- merits with Federal contract research centers - ent number of t ttack carriers. The result of if the annual compensation of any officer this consprehel,eive al sty shall be considered or employee of such center paid out of any prior to any authorization or appropriation Federal funds exceeds $45,000 except with for the produce ion ' or procurement of the the approval of the Secretary of Defense nuclear aircraf ,-, carrier designated as CVAN- under regulations prescribed by the Presi- 70. dent. (b) In carryi,7g out such study and investi- (b) The Secretary of Defense shall notify gation the Ceenmittees on Armed Services the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the Souse ol Representatives and the Sen- of the House of Representatives promptly ate are authoneed to call on all Government of any approvals authorized under subsec- agencies and such outside consultants as 'Linn (a), together with a detailed statement such committees mass deem necessary. of the reasons therefor. a SEC. 403. Fu ds authorized for appropria- SEC. 408. (a) The Comptroller General of tion under the, provisions of this Act shall the United States (hereinafter in this section not be avaitabit, fur payment of independent referred to as the "Comptroller General") research and ervelaprnent, bid and proposal, is authorized and directed, as soon as pra,c- and other tee'inicif effort costs incurred ticable after the date of enactment of this section, to conduct a study and review on a selective representative basis of the profits made by contractors and subcontractors on contracts on which there is no formally ad- vertised competitive bidding entered into by the Department of the Army, the Depart- ment of the navy, the Department of the lected Reserve 'of each shall not apple in Air Force the Coast Guard, and the National - the Arrned Forbes will be programed to at- advertised coteracts, (2) other firmly fixed Aeronautics and Space Administration under - fain an, average strength of not less than contracts comdetittvely awarded, or (3) con- the authority of chapter 137 of title 10, - the fojlowing: . tracts Under $',110,-000. ' - United. States Code, and on contracts en- , (1) the ' Army Natibnal Guard of the SEC. 404. (a) Section 136 of title 10. United tered into by the Atomic Energy Commission United States, 393,298. States Code, a (mended-- to meet requirements of the Department of (2) The Army Reserve, 255,591. (1) by Beni, Mg out "seven" in subsection Defense. The results of such study and re- (3) The Naval Reserve, 129,000. (a) and insert mg in lieu thereof "eight"; and view shall be submitted 1,0 the Congress as (4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 49,189. (2) (5) The Air National Guard of the United . by Insetting after the first sentence , . ? in sulasectdh (b.) else lollowing new sera - States, 8 6,624. soon as practicable, but in no event later than December 31, 1970. tences: "One of tee Assistant Secretaries (b) Any contractor or subcontractor re- (6) The Air Force Reserve, 50,775. shall be the 4.94,2tent Secretary of Defense ferred to in subsection (a) of this section (7) The Coast Guard Reserve, 17,500. for Health Affaira re shall have as his prin- shall, upon the request of the Comptroller SEC. 302, The average strength prescribed cipal duty the. overall supervision of health General, prepare and submit to the General _ _ by section 101 of this title for the 'Selected affairs of the Deparment of Denfense." Accounting Office such information main- Reserve of any Reserve component shall be (b) Section 5315 of title 5, United States tattled in the normal course of business by proportionately reduced by (1) the total au- Code, is amer. ,led bq striking out item (13) such contractor as the Comptroller General thorized strength of units organized to serve and ineertng n lieu thereof the following: determines necessary or appropriate in con- es units of the Selected Reserve of such com- "(13) A.5Si Si : nt Si cretaries of Defense (8). ducting any study and review authorized by ponerie SEc. 405. Section 412(b) of Public Law 86- which are on active duty (other than subsection (a) of this section. Information for training) at any time during the fiscal required under this subsection shall be sub- year, arid (2) the total-num-tier of individual 149, as erne) 'led, is amended, to read as mitted by a contractor or subcontractor in follows: Menabers nelt in units organized to serve as response to a 'written request made by the units Of the teleCted Reserve of stich corn- "(b) No fu, ,ds may be appropriated after Comptroller General and shall be submitted ponent, vqhe are on active duty (other than December 31, LOCO, to or for the use of any in such form and detail as the Comptroller , for training or for unsatisfactory particips- armed force n - the United States for the pro- General may prescribe and shall be submitted tion in: training) without their consent at curement oi mreraft, missiles, or naval ves- within a reasonable porhx1 of time. any tiMe during the fiscalyear. Whenever eels, or alter Dee,emoer 31, 1932, to or for (e) In order to determine the costs, includ- any tuah tfhitii or such individual members the use of any armed force of the United ing all types of direct 'and indirect costs, of ? are related from native duty during any States for till research, development, test, performing any contract or subcontract re- ? fiscal Year,- the riverage strength 'for suCh or evaluation of aircraft, missiles, or naval ferred to in subsection (a) of this section, fiscal Year ' for' the Selected Reserve of such vessels, or afler December 31, 1963, to or for and to determine the profit, if any, realized Reserve component shill be proportionately the use of any armed force of the United under any such contract, or subcontract, Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000100190067-4 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 December 15, 1909 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 16755 That means congressional con.Sultation before an action is taken which would go beyond what they are doing now. Mr. JAVITS. If it is of any major char- acter necessitating congressional action, whatever that may mean? Mr. MANSFIELD. That is right, so far as that is concerted, and under the SEATO organization we can only be- come involved, at least it says so, through the constitutional processes of this coun- try. That is something which we have been prone to forget in recent years, and something which I think we should re- member constantly from now on. Mr. JAVITS. I should like to identify myself with my colleague's Statement on that score, and also express to him my support of the amendment. Mr. President. I ask unanimous con- sent that a statement prepared for de- livery by the senior Senator from Ken- tUcky, Senator Coors, concerning his amendment regarding Laos and Thai- land, be printed in the RECORD. Senator COOPER is not able to be present on the floor for the debate. Mr. President, in my Judgment Sena- tor COOPER?as always?has made a wise and knowlacigable statement which de- serves the close attention of the Senate and the Nation. As my colleagues will recall from the RECORD of the debate on Senator COOP- ER'S amendment to the Defense procure- ment authorization bill, I find myself in great agreement with my colleague on this vital matter. There being no objection the state- ment by 'Senator Coopea was ordered to be printed In the RECORD, as follows: azazzgiarr DT jralATOR CI:nese On August 12, I introduced an amend- Ment to the Military Procurement Authori- zation Sill Itch would have prohibited the use of funds to support US. personnel Laos or T:ialland in support of 1 forces engaged in the local war there. amendment provided that supplies, m 'banal% equipment and facilities, inclu Ing mainteaance thereof and training, could be given to local forces in Laos or Thailand. Or. September 17. the amendment was adopted 86-0, and although its pur- pose was clearly understood, the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Stennis, manager of the bill, was of the opinion that my amendment did not cover all the funds available for programs in Laos and Thailand. The AmenelMent was de- leted in conference, have offered once again an amendment to the pending Appropriations bill for the Department af Defense which reads as fol- lows: "None of the funds appropriated by this Act Mall be used for the support of local forces n Laos or Thailand except to provide supplies, material, equipment, and facilities, Inc: wing maintenance thereof, or to provide training for such local forces." The purpose `of the amendment is again the same, to prevent the United States from backing into a war that has not been con- sidered or approved by Congress. It is evi- dent from newspaper reports and from the testimony given on the Symington Subcom- mittee that there is a serious danger of becoming more deeply involved in the situ- ation In Lam. My amendment would pro- hibit all actions not already approved by the Congress that are now 'Akins place in Laos and Thailand. The situation in Laos Is very complex. insofar as the bombing In Laos affects the war In Vietnam, such opera- tions as the intertUction of the Ho Chi Minh Trail would not be affected by amendment. Our military personnel w of course have the right of self-dete The other bombing operations that are taking place, however, are of such a na- ture and magnitude that the Senate should fully understand from the Ariminlatration why such operations are being undertaken before approval is given and funds appro- priated. There are dangers of escalation of the kind that have taken place in Vietnam The United States should not be involved An a widening of the war in South Asia. Because of the tragic experience of Viet- nam, I felt it necessary that through full discussion in closed session, if required, that the facts essential for sound judgment would be obtained. I regret that the serious illness of my mother has prevented me from being in the Senate today. My good friend and colleague, the majority leader. Senator MAtissIELD, has kindly agreed to introduce the amendment for me in my absence. There is no better expert on Asian affairs in the Senate. His wisdom and knowledge on this issue will give the Senate a full understanding of the pur- pose of the amendment introduced today. Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Montana yield? Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield. Mr. GOLDWATER k the iu,aJori ? ? - ? 11 ? -1 0 why they feel that any meeting of this body on ect should be secret? Mr. MANSFIELD. I just raised' the question, may I say, to the distinguished Senator from Arizona, in case the chair- man and the others of the committee on both sides felt it would be more applica- ble. Frankly, I have read about this for so many years in the public prints that It is my belief that not much that is known would be made known. Mr. GOLDWATER. LinithLarty,113ALI awashean re wasmaloing. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President,,am illIIIMong11._agteenient with the dis tinguished Senator from Ajlgona on th liagt mime that if we do ittlyg session_ in a matter not hours but minutes, the it. So far as I am personally concerne ? I do not see anything wrong with accept- ing the amendment. As I suggested to the distinguished Senator from Arkansas, this matter can go to conference and no doubt the con- ferees could delve into that matter them- elAnother thing. as I understood the answers to the questions propounded by the distinguished Senator from Arkan- ? sas, the Senator from Montana is in agreement, evidently, with the wording of section 638(a) on page 43 of the bill which states: Sac. 888. (a) Appropriations available to the Department of Defense during the cur- rent fiscal year shall be available for their stated purposes to support; (1) Vietnamese and other free world forces in Vietnam; (2) local forces in Laos and Thailand; and for related costs, on such terms and conditions as the Secretary of Defense may determine. Mr. MANSFIFTD. That is right, but what this does is spell out what the Sec- retary of Defense may determine in an area with which we are all In accord. Mr. ELLENDER. If that ever comes about, the matter can be brought to the Senate and to the President, and he can act upon it. Mr. MANSFIELD. That is the strength of the amendment about which there really should be no discord. Mr. PrINNDER. It was suggested a while ago that I give to the Senate a short resume of the amount of money, and I now read from the statement: commendations of he subconamit- aum., son en Ion er thp ? ? ? ?? ? ? . ? ? I realize that there are some things. as there are some matters in all military operations, that we cannot and should not talk about but I think that if the American public is to be informed, we would be better off talking about it on the floor, as to what the commitments are, and why we feel those commitments to be right, and so forth and so forth. Frankly, I would be more in favor of an open hearing than I would be in favor of a secret hearing, because I think it is pretty much public property now, with the exception of testimony that I would expect would be kept confidential. Mr. MANSFIELD I would agree with the distinguished Senator. So far as I am concerned, I would rather it be out in the open, but If for some reason mem- bers of the particular committees affect- ed?and I refer to the Appropriations Committees, both subcommittee and full committee?felt it would be advisable to have an executive session, I would go along with it; but, speaking personally. I agree with the distinguished Senator. Let it be out in the open and let everyone know about it. Mr. GOLDWATER. I thank the Sena- tor. nted in Mellt_of....nefenan_Ecocur.assisist,--attd--Ressasch_ andj2ged2piRttit Act of 1970. Mr. President, at this point I ask unan- imous consent to have printed in the RECORD the entire text of that act. There being no objection, the act was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: DEPARTMENT Or DEFENSE PROCUREMENT AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORIZA- Tkow Acr, 1970 (Ptretic Lew 81-121i TITLE I--PROCUREMENT SEC. 101. Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated during the fiscal year 1970 for the use of the Armed Forces of the United States for procurement of aircraft, missiles, naval vessels, and tracked combat vehicles, as authorized by law, in amounts as follows: AIRCRAFT For aircraft: for the Amy $570,400,000; for the Navy and the Marine Corps, $2,391,200.- 000; for the Air Force, $3,965,700,000: Pro- vided, That of the funds authorized to be appropriated for the procurement of aircraft for the Air Force during fiscal year 1870, not to exceed $28,000,000 shall be available to initiate the procurement of a fighter aircraft to meet the needs of Free World forces In Southeast Asia, and to accelerate the with- drawal of United States forces from South Vietnam and Thailand; the Air Force shall (1) prior to the obligation of any funds ap- Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP711300364R000100190067-4 S16754 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE December 15, 1969 now going to Laos, it would have fallen a long time ago; that the Pathet Lao on paper wOuld have been successful, but in reality North Vietnam, with its huge con- centration of troops, would have assumed actual and physical control; and that if that happened, we would be confronted with a situation with the Laotians or North Vietnamese, whichever group was In control, at the Mekong. I would point out that we have a treaty relationship with Thailand which is a full-fledged member of the Southeast Asian Treaty Organization. The head- quarters are in Bangkok. Unlike the situ- ation applicable to Laos, Cambodia, and South Vietnam there is no question but that we would be involved under the terms of the Southeast Asian Treaty Organization, but involved only through constitutional processes because that is included toward the ends of the treaty. So we have a situation there which is delicate, difficult, dangerous, extremely hard to explain. It is tied very closely to the war in Vietnam in which we never should have become involved. It is not only" a mistake; it is a tragedy, on the basis of these complex factors we find that the situation developing in Laos has increased our participation and activity there. It has been responsible for the questions raised by the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations and other Members of this body who are fear- ful of what might happen in the future if a curb is not established in this body. Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr. President, like the Senator from Mon- tana, I was very much opposed to be- coming involved in a war in Vietnam. I want to make sure we do not get involved in any more Vietnams. I could support the proposal. This would not prevent assistance to a coun- try like Indonesia which fought off com- munisin. We could give them assistance, such as military or economic, but no manpower assistance. Mr. 1VIANSIelkiLD. Yes, in Laos, too. These items, which are allowable, fit in very nicely with the Nixon doctrine which says, in effect, we are primarily a Pacific power with peripheral interests on the Asian mainland. The purpose would be that our friends would receive logistical help and economic assistance, but no further use of American man- power on the Asian mainland, no further use of American military power unless there were a nuclear confrontation and then all bets would be off. This amendment would strengthen the President's hand because it says to him "The executive branch cannot go be- yond what is now being done; the sit- uation may have already gone a little too far but you said that there are no U.S. combat troops in Laos." Secretary Rogers, in his appearance before the National Education Television commentators, on a television show, stated that the President did not intend to become involved in Laos. I am para- phrasing, but that is what he said. Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. I be- lieve the acting chairman of the com- mittee said, regarding the money in this bill, that it could be used in Laos. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, if it is agreeable with the Senator, I would like to yield o the Senator from Ver- mont briefly. Mr. AIKEN. VII-. President, as a matter of fact, I have seen no evidence that this administration desires to engage in any more Vietnams in Laos or anywhere else; and if he administration should change in the future I am satisfied the Senate would never approve of any more Vietnam like conflicts. However, I ose to speak in reference to what the majority leader said earlier in regard to Vietnam. As of December 11, last Thursday, I find that our troop strength in South Vietnam was 472,500. That indicated a reduction of 2,700 for the week of December 4 to December 11. Previous to that, the previous week, there was a reduction of 4,500. This means a totai of something over 71,000 troops having been withdrawn from South Vietnam, largely within the last 3 months, at a rate of about 28,000 a month. That Yate of withdrawal may not hold good for each of the months ahead, but at the present time the withdrawal program is 11,500 ahead of schedule, ahead of what was projected for Decem- ber 15, with 4 days yet to go. It is quite apparent tha , at anywhere near the present rate ot withdrawal, 80,000 troops will be withdrawn before the beginning of the year; and probably 100,000 by the first of February and possibly more. I just do not know, but that is my best guess at this time. I thought those figures would be worthwhile to place in the RECORD at this time for the benefit of Members of the Senate, as well as for those who read the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for performing a com- mendable service. I am delighted that he has placed the figures in the RECORD. I congratulate the President for being 11,500 ahead of schedule, 4 days before the withdrawal date, December 15, which is today. Mr. AIKEN, That is right. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I wish to quote now from the statement by the distinguished Secretary of State in a National Education Television net- work interview. He was asked about whether or net Laos would develop into another Vietnam-type conflict. He said: The Presiden. won't let it happen. Continuing, he said: I mean we nave learned one lesson, and that is we are not going to fight any major wars in the roAniand of Asia again and we are not going to send American troops there, and we certainly aren't going to do it unless we have the .Americr,n public and the Con- gress behind Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield very briefly? Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I think what I wish to say would fit in before the explanation by the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. tLLENDER) as to the money. I wish to ask a question, which I arranged to ask on behalf of the Sen- ator from Kentucky tMr. COOPER) . It is a fact, when he allows materiel and training you must contemplate cer- tain American personnel in the training or logistical handling of the materiel. Is that correct? Mr. MANSFIELD. I did not get the last part of the question. Mr. JAVITS. When you assume in Laos or Thailand we will be giving some support, actively training, and so forth, there will be American manpower in- volved, will there not? Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes, there would be American manpower involved; there_ is American manpef;er7Involveri, There are the-intelligence activities which the. tinalitshed chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations referred to, and timid, to be understood", Mr. JAVITS. Correct. Mr. MANSFIELD. But as far as the training is concerned, most of it would be in Thailand, to observe the concept of neutrality. We have an extra large military mission in Laos, and I suppose in view of the circumstances that may be understandable. Mr. JAVITS. One of the questions the Senator from Kentucky and I want to clarify is: If our advisory people, who are military representatives, advisers and so forth, come under attack, should not the record be perfectly clear that U.S. advisory troops are free to defend them- selves; that is, they have the right of self-defense but again we should utter caution that that should not represent general authorization to engage in com- bat operations or to draw us in because U.S. troops have been attacked who are engaged in some advisory role. Would the Senator care to give a response? Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, U.S. troops in any country in the world would have very right to protect themselves and I would hope they would. We do not have too many?and we really have no troops, as such, in Laos, but what we do have is a military mission which represents the four services, the Marine Corps, the Navy, the Army, and the Air Force, sta- tioned at Vientiane. From what I gather, they attend, pretty much, to their own knitting. Mr. JAVITS. The Senator from Ken- tucky and I wanted to know the effect on this amendment of the commitment resolution. Is it not a fact that that is intended here is an actual implementa- tion in advance of our being faced with the issue of the commitment resolution which has already passed the Senate and which says that matters that will in- volve us in any major military respon- sibility must be referred to the Senate under the constitutional processes which relate to Congress. Mr. MANSFIELD. Without question. I think that Secretary Rogers made that tacit recognition when he said in effect? and I quote it again, because it is a very important passage from his interview: I mean we have learned one lesson, and that is we are not going to fight any major wars in the mainland of Asia again and we are not going to send American troops there, and we certainly aren't going to do it unless we have the American public and the Con- gress behind us. Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 December 15, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE S 16753 They ajrryin nn e1ngest me ac- bits. fnnetion The impoit thing,- and I believe this is the intention of the Senate and the administration, is shat one Korea Is more than enough, that one Vietnam Is more than enough, and that this country dces not want to become involved in any other area on a basis approximat- ing that in which we find ourselves in Vietnam at the present time. / do not think anyone would doubt, or at least very few would doubt, the fact that it was a miv.-.ake to go into Vietnam. And it is just as well to state It publicly. My view does not agree with that of some of my colleagues, because I think the difficulty arose with the assassina- tion of Nso Dinh Diem in 1963. And many of my colleagues looked upon Ngo Dinh Diem as a dictator and as a hard man. Well, he may have been hard, but at least he nanished a timely civilian sta- bility to that goverrunent which kept us from going in and which was able to function on the basis of only a relatively few American advisors being there. I use the term relatively few American advisers in comparison with the figures today. However, with the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem, began a continual succession of military dictatorships. And that is what we still have in Vietnam today, I believe, despite the so-called elec- tion in Sentember 1966. Under that suc- cession, we have been ground down in that area. We have spent well in excess of $100 billion. Our total casualties up to December 11, 1969, amounted to 307,242, and of that, number, 206,420 have been wounded in battle, 39,742 have died ..n combat, and 7,080 have died in other than combat situations. The total number as of De- cember 11 is 307,242. While the figures are declining, the end is not in sight, even with the sizable withdrawal of forces which this administration has under- taken and which I hope A will speed up and move as rapidly as is possibly can. May I say in that respect that I am delighted that this administration has brought about a deescalation of the war and that, rather than a step-up, or a continuing increase in forces, or a stabil- ising at the 548.000 or 550,000 level. The figure now is somewhere, I believe, be- low 480,000. The move in he right direc- tion, the acceleration, is rot fast enough. I wish it could be faster. I I had my way, it would be. The final responsibility rests with the President and I am sure he is doing all he can to bring about a decel- eration of this war, a deescalation of this war, and h trying to find a pathway to peace which will bring about, in time, a total withdrawal on the part of this country. Nevertheless the black boxes are still coming horae. Men are still dying in com- bat, even though the deaths are de- creasing. Too many Americans are involved in a country in which we really have no vital interest. It is an area in which the South Vietnamese themselves, of all kinds and all sorts, will have to make the final decision as to what kind of goy- eminent they want, What kind of future they envisage, and what kind of life their people will lead. It is not up to us; It is up to them. So I hope that this amendment, offered by the distinguished senior Senator from Kentucky and myself, will be agreed to, as a means of indicating that we do not wish to become involved in another Vietnam in Laos or Thailand or any- where else. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MANSFIELD I yield. Mr. FULBRIGHT. I congratulate the distinguished majority leader for offer- ing this amendment. I expect to support It, I should like to ask one or two ques- tions by way of clarification. If I correctly understand the amend- ment, it does not prohibit money in this bill to provide training for local forces in Laos. Is that correct? Mr. MANSFIELD. In Laos or Thailand. Mr. FULBRIGHT. It does not prevent supplies, materiel, equipment, and facil- ities being supplied to those forces? Mr. MANSFIELD. It does not. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Is there anything In the hearings or in this bill that indi- cates to the Members of the Senate what we are doing by way of providing train- ing to local forces in Laos? Mr. MANSFIELD. I would have to refer that question to the acting chairman of the committee, who has been called on, on short notice, to handle this bill. As I recall, some information was given. I do not know the details even though I happen to serve on the particular sub- committee. It had to do with training pilots, servicing planes, and other activi- ties carried on primarily in. Thailand and not, in Laos itself, because of the Geneva accords. Mr. FULBRIGHT. May I ask it in a lit- tle different way. Does the majority lead- er believe that Members of the Senate should be called upon to vote for the appropriation in this bill, which is just under $80 billion? Incidentally I want to congratulate both committees for having cut what seems tome a reasonable amount. My question is whether Mem- bers of the Senate are being called upon to vote to appropriate money to pay for a program which they are uninformed. Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes, I think we should, in view of a situation which has developed over the years. After all, the United States was responsible in large part for bringing about the Geneva ac- cords of 1962, which supposedly divided Laos into a tripartite kingdom?the so- called neutralists, the rightist groups, and the Pathet Lao?who agreed to di- vide the representation of the country into three. Since that time, this fiction has been kept alive, at least on a theoretical basis, and one-third of the seats in Vientiane have been set aside for the Pathet Lao to occupy, which they are loath to do. Furthermore, in connection with that, I think it should be pointed out that there is stationed permanently in Vienti- ane a 100-man Pathet Lao company? for what purpose, I do not know, but at least it is there. We have involved the Laotians to such an extent that we have created an obligation which is most diffi- cult for us to get out of at the present time. What I oppose is the stepup of activi- ties there which carries with it the threat of greater participation and which car- ries with it the possibility that if it gets out of hand or goes too far, we may be- come involved in another Vietnam. Mr, FULBRIGHT. I agree with the Senator that it might amount to another Vietnam. not how than.9gilate?Cala_Eggsclaa_anurnuen.j.tidg- .mtniU,Isisnsat..aaensanasisamect as to what is being done AIM') the moneys In this31nOgnaISI, e o I know of outside of a s. in e 1- gence operation in which we are expected to act without detailed_ information. I AnLianisaligggaiing_thataza.shaaniseake arni=k24.14 What.TemsnmzeRthlg =at, In pw.entivp coccton, lalOulgUrjujagmed by jjae_spulasiu, of the4kropased_kolglatinn and hy tnesad- sninistcationnas?to_adsassaae_aza _wag. asked in_operat- Asia . ? : n.rmall call the typical ? - i ? - - ? Ron ... ale mans : dititanany_me_hale jaatiazumacsuator- even in ? t se ? ? 1:47'141ff?? c_all, however, we did have one execu- essaslings__sancetsmanaCiaaat But very large sums of money are in- cluded in this bill. I believe they are con- cerned with the activities that are men- tioned in the amendment. But they are not identified and no Members of the Senate, or at least very few, know what they are voting on. It strikes me that we have come to such a pass?as we became involved so deeply in Vietnam?that we are threatened to become involved in Laos. The Senate should be informed. The Senator from Montana congratu- lated the President on deescalating the war in Vietnam. But what good is this going to do if we are escalating the war in Laos at the same time as much as we are deescalating in Vietnam? Mr. MANSFIELD. That is a valid ques- tion, and the Senator makes a fair com- parison. I would be prepared?this may come as a surprise; I just happened to think of it?to sugge.q at an appropriate time that the Senate go into executive session to listen to this information, and in that way to educate ourselves to a greater ex- tent covering this particular matter. Mr. FULBRIGHT. I appreciate that from the majority leader. Cln last Satundasn:Isses- ma etter asking basic allPstfolla on MOIley And commiatajsassos.?.nskinpaizisgase ? II ? a . ? tilt, ba Ire ran . ? : . he Committee on .pronriation,s, I think that the Senate oulci have such infor- mation before it is called upon to vote. Mr. MANSFIELD. May I say?if the chairman will pardon me?that, in my opinion, without the American assistance Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 S 16752 Approved For ItfteR2M/am: ittgieTtpREANNooi ooi 9q9wegiber 15, 1969 other reductions on the MBT-70 tank should be made. Mr. President, there are many other mental items of military hardware that have been reduced. Combat opera- tions in Vietnam have been curtailed severely during the first 5 months of this fiscal year. The Secretary of De- fense ha e cut the fiscal year 1970 pro- gram by $3 billion. Our nation cannot expect to make any further cuts in the foreseeable future. Efforts have been made to defer the procurement of the F-14 aircraft for the Navy, The House disallowed $275 million for this program. In my view, this is a fatal mistake. Funds have been restored in the Senate bill to provide for a total of 12 F-14's for the test pro- gram. This is a bare minimum. The _Navy must be permitted to go forward with this modern fighter for the fleet. Mr. President, there has been some talk of not approving the funds for the ABM which have been authorized. In view of the extensive previous review and approval of this program by the Senate, I strongly recommend that such ideas be forgotten. Our urgent need for this defense has been further document- ed since my distinguished colleagues ap- proved the minimum deployment of the ABM to defend against the Soviet ICBM's. Anyone who proposes to cut funds for the ABM will face strong op- position. The C-5A super transport has been cut back from 123 aircraft to 81. This will seriously reduce our flexibility for response to reinforce our overseas forces in time of peril. This bill is already a compromise which reveals risks to our national se- curity due to the pressure of domestic problems. Our present as well as our future capabilities have been reduced. Unanticipated requirements in South- east Asia cannot be met with our re- duced military capability. Mr. President, the slowdown of new weapons development and the critical reduction of our force structure are coming at a perilous time in our his- tory. For the first time, the Soviets are moving ahead of us in military capa- bility. The Russian naval fleet totals 1,575 vessels, as opposed to 894 for the United States. Moreover, 58 percent of the U.S. Navy's Combat ships are 20 years old or more; but only 1 percent of the Soviet navy is that old. S have 143 ? tKaeire; the Soviets xnclre -375. We have 81 nuclear sowered units; tile nth ave fie, but the are si..igonebEIM'' Sub -Tr mon , en may surpass iff-137-the-enid of 1970, By 1978, they may well have constructed between 100 and 150. This year, for the first time, the Soviets er nt eeek.. Mr. President, the security of our Na- tion must not be exposed to any further *sks to accommodate domestic needs. The appropriations bill before us today n view of pervious reductions is already a grave risk. I strongly appeal to my col- leagues not to propose further reductions. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, it was my intention to offer the Cooper amend- ment on Laos at this time but, pending receipt of a copy of it for my own use, I suggest the absence of a quorum, without relinquishing my right to the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The bill cleri( proceeded to call the roll. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I call up the amendment at the desk and ask that it be stated. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated. The BILL CLERK. The Senator from Kentucky (Mr_ COOPER) and the Senator from Montana (Mr. MANSFIELD) propose an amendment as follows: On page 46, between lines 8 and 9, insert a new section as rallows: "SEC. 643. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be used for the support of local forces in Laos or Thailand except to provide supplie;, materiel, equipment, and facilities, including maintenance thereof, or to provide training for such local forces." Mr. MANSFIELD_ Mr. President, I join with the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, who is absent because of un- avoidable circumstances, in sponsoring the amendment. As this knows, there have been aoinseekearinge held._ on the situation whiieiiiifsiil -Laos as_Tifeedatee_te_aig .4agrtioi If my memory serVes me correctly, the number of sorties, so-called, which have emanated from these bases has increased considerably in recent months. We know that the situation in Laos has developed into a two-sided affair. It seems that the main factors there are the North Vietnamese on the one hand, backing up the Pathet Lao, who number something in the order of 50,000 and who have been in constant violation of the- Geneva accords of 1962 since the agreement was made. On our part when the Geneva accords were reached, we withdrew what uniformed elements we had in Laos. However, with the passage of time and the difficulty which beset the royal Laotian army, we have stepped up our activity in that unhappy kingdom. Much of this activity is centering around the infiltration of men and sup- plies down the so-called Ho Chi Minh trail, which goes through the panhandle of Laos. There has also been air .suport to- the Royal Laotian Farces in the carrying out of activities in the Plaine des Jarres and elsewhere in that country. It is safe to say, I believe, that the Pathet Lao wculd not be able to function , ? without the support of the North Viet- namese on the ;one hand and, on the other, that the Royal Laotian Army it- self would be plalced in a very precarious position without- the air support of the United States and the training given to the few pilots which the Laotian king- dom has. T think theieeshould be brought out alaalneaegeneral...desee?sien_at Laos. the _fasAewhich hes- ben known_f_or some UT ? ass I US ? a e - IiiinitaleillilMf? a months now, that the Chinese under an agreement, tacit or otherwise, with a pre- vious Laotian Government has been building a road down from Meng.lien in Ylinnan Province into Laos itself. And _ther Muong oul. There are shafts in both directions. The one on the left. IoCkIng south. is an extenatonavelatela has been begun along Routel9 toward nien RierepjaueAndethe one on the right, extending toward Thai- land, has been exten d ed onlyeasaiarealeort distance, despite the reetoetaewhichehaye c.01neeeiit recently that great activity is underway in that partiCurgir-aler-a-nd that thPlabagaajaiLeINO divisibirs-The're. When I was in Laos in The figure was anywhere from three to 10 battalions of Chinese along the road, mostly labor troops and antiaircraft personnel. The consensus was that a figure of four or five battalions would be closer to the truth. I note in the press recently where Souvannah Phouma, the Prime Minister of Laos has indicated that there is no such thing as two divisions in Laos. And he sets the number at five Chinese bat- talions along the road primarily extend- ing from Menglien in Yunnan down to Muong Soul in northern Laos. I was happy to note that the President on several occasions has stated definitely and without qualification that there are no U.S. combat troops in Laos. I believe that to be a true statement of fact, if by that we mean the foot soldiers as such. There are, of course, other types of activities going on. Certainly airlines are in operation there. They are operating, at least in part?perhaps in large part?on Ameri- can funds. .A.uid what I am saying is nothing secret, beepease it .Eas been careierilis and itis rmialicienewleate The fact that the United States has been carrying on additional sorties against the North Vietnamese coming down the Ho Chi Minh trail and is in support of the Royal Laotians around the PIaMe des Jarres is, of course, open knowledge. The point of the Cooper amendment is that we do not want to become in- volved in Laos. We do not want to be- come involved in another Vietnam, no matter where it would be. And, while there is perhaps some justification for what is going on at the present time, there certainly is no justification for this country getting involved deeper and deeper and, in effect, becoming the keeper of the keys as far as the King- dom of Laos is concerned. Providing supplies, materiel, equip- ment, and facilities, including the main- tenance thereof, and the providing of training for local forces is being under- taken at the present time. We are pro- viding supplies. We are providing ma- teriel. We are providing equipment and facilities. We are providing training for local forces, those belonging in the Royal Laotian Army as well as those that operate on a small indepedent bas- is, the Meo and the other tribesmen who have been supplied by us. Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 December .15, .1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE S 16751 was attempting to get across to the Sen- ate, about these young men operating as lawyers and going around in Arizona and New Mexico and engaging in anything but legal aetivities. The letter reads as follows: DEAR Ma. Eirinuesr: I am wilting to express my opposition Di the atrongust possible terms to the patriotism program underway at Church Rock, as described at tonight's Gal- lup Independent. You are quoted as saying: "These kids don't know the Star Spangled Banner. They ought to have an awareness of the greatness of their country". This is true. but they ought to have an awareness of the faults and errors of their country, as well, of which there have been, and are, many. It is especially appalling to realise that these are Tnrlian children who are being forced to par- ticipate in this program, when it is their people who have been treated most shabbily of all by the United States. Are you In agreement with the statement attributed to Mrs. Stanfield-- Mr. President, I digress to say here that the Mrs. Stanfield referred to is not Mrs. Stanfield but Mrs. Stafford, who happens to be a Negro. Continuing reading: who is quoted as Baying: "We should indoc- trinate ever;, child with the Idea of being loyal to his ?2tatuatry."7 (My emphasis.) II so, I think that this is a sorry philosophy for a public school, which should be dedicated to the concept of free inquiry and exchange of Ideas, as well as the presentation of all sides of disputed .ssues. I find it particularly offensive that you are apparently associating "patriotism'' with support of the war in Viet Kam, which is, unquestionably, the most controversial war of our time, and, in the opinion of many, the most brutal and unjustified. Young chil- dren are subjected to enough pressures from the media, tJaair parents, churches, etc. to hold the view "my country, right or wrong". The least you could do is to refrain from adding to the imbalance in presentation of viewpoints. I note among the pictwes appearing in the Independent some of drawings of sol- diers with guns and several with the phrase "God Bless America". It le, indeed, unfortu- nate that you are encouraging these children to glorify war and an its attendant inhu- manity. Likewise, it is deplorable for you to stimulate the express of what is, in effect. a prayer, in wiolation of the Supreme Court's ruling that ;ohne schools are to refrain from any such activities. There ts simply no need to offend the sensibilities of some persons by indirectly stimulating the establishment of the Christian (or Jewish) faith among a people who have traditionally held conflict- ing religious beliefs. This does not even take into consideration these people who have no faith whatso?.ver, or who simply wish to have the business, of religion and politics kept out of the schools. I would ant) suggest that you take a good hard look tc: the sponsorship of the orga- nization the Independent says your "Patri- otism Comm..ttee" is affiliated with, the Free- dom Foundation. I could be mistaken. but I believe that this organization is one of the extreme right, either affiliated with, or simi- lar to, the Birch Society, Minutemen, or similar paramilitary and far-right groups. If you are not willing to demonstrate that your program is a balanced presentation, and to remove nay hint of relgious exercises from the curriculum. I shall take whatever steps I can to investigate the matter my- self, and, if necesaary, Institute legal pro- ceedings. Kindly show this letter to Mrs. Stanfield? That is Mrs. Stafford? and any other interested parties. Sincemly, STEPJEZEN B. EterCx. Mr. President, the program referred to in the letter was a Veterans' Day pro- gram held in a school whose enrollment is 99 percent Indian children, at which two Vietnam casualty bkrttiliPS were awarded medals and various patriotic displays were in the school., Including one bulletin board display that read "God Bless America." / read this letter into the Reunite to help to prove that these young lawyers, engaged against the wishes of the Navajo tribe, are not practicing law out there .They are practicing disruption of the American way of life. I am amazed that the Republican head of the Department that controls the 0E0 would allow such things to go on. I am going to continue to be critical of him, even though he is a Republican. I believe that-he has a resPongihiltty to the peo- ple of this country to consider the feel- ings of the people of this country long before he has any obligation to a bunch of formerly unemployed lawyers. ORDER OF BUSINESS Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. THURMOND, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT Messages in writing from the President of the United States submitting nomina- tions were communicated to the Senate by Mr. Leonard, one of his secretaries, EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED As In executive session, the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry nominations, which were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (For nominations this day received, see the end of Senate proceedings.) MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre- sentatives, by Mr. Bartlett, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House had passed the bill (S. 3016) to provide for the continuation of programs authorized under the Economic Oppor- tunity Act of 1984, to authorize advance funding of such programs, and for other purposes, with amendments, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate; that the House insisted upon its amend- ments to the bill, asked a conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and that Mr. PERKINS, Mrs. GREMS, Mr. PUCINSKI, Mr. BRADEMeS, Mr. O'Hane, Mr. Ceagy, Mr, amities. Mr. Weeenate D. FORD, Mr. HATHAWAY, Mrs. IS/LINK, Mr. MEWS, Mr. CLAY, Mr. AYRES, Mr. QUIZ, Mr. REID of New York, Mr. ERLENBORN, Mr. SCHERLE, Mr. DELLENBACK, Mr. Ezell, and Mr. STEIGE.R of Wisconsin were appointed managers on the part of the House at the conference. The message also announced that the House had disagreed to the amendment of the Senate to. the bill (H.R. 14580) to promote the foreign policy, security, and general welfare of the United States by assisting peoples of the world to achieve economic development within a frame- work of democratic economic, social, and political institutions, and for other purposes; agreed to the conference asked by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and that Mr. MORGAN Mr. ZABLOCKI, Mr. HAYS, Mr. PASCELL, Mr. ADAIR, Mr. MAILLIARD, and Mr. PRELINGIWYSEN were appointed managers on the part of the House at the conference. ENROLLED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTION SIGNED The message further announced that the Speaker had affixed his signature to the following enrolled bills and joint resolution: S. 2884. An act to amend and extend laws relating to housing and urban development. and for other purposes; }LR. 210. An act to eliminate requirements for disclosure of construction details on pas- senger vessels meeting prescribed safety standards, and for other purposes; 1I.R. 4244. An act to raise the ceiling on appropriations of the Administrative Con- ference of the United States; and H.J. Res. 10. Joint resolution authorizing the President to proclaim the second week of March 1970 as Volunteers of America Week. DEP_ARIMPwr rW-DK;ruEZI.S,E APPROPRIATIONS ,...1a243. The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R. 15090) making appro- priations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and for other purposes. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I would like to warn my distinguished col- leagues that funds for national defense on most items have been cut to the low- est acceptable risk. In my personal opin- ion, we have already cut entirely too much in the face of ever increasing Soviet military power. This bill has been reduced by $5.9 bil- lion from the estimated requirement. Our worldwide forces are being cut back. It is reported that President Nixon to- night will announce further withdrawals from Vietnam. Mr. President. we have a very unique and unusual situation this year in view of the tremendous reductions already made in our national defense pro- grams. The manned orbiting labora- tery?MOL?program has been termi- nated. This amounted to a $400 million reduction. I might point out that this is one of the Soviet's main experimental programs. The Cheyenne helicopter program has been stopped. This amounted to a reduc- tion Of $429 million. The Army's main battle tank program has been cut back with more than a $20 million reduction. A letter from Secretary Packard to Chairman RUSSELL indicates this might be reduced another $10 million but no Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 Approved For Release 2006/01/30': 'CIA-RDP71B0064R000100190,067-4, S16750 CONGRESS1ONA L -RECORD - SENATE vecemner 15, 1969 Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. That is correct_ _ Mr. M_ANSFIEL.D. I thank the Senator. Mr. W./LING of North Dakota. Mr. President,' as always, it has given me great pleasure and satisfaction to have been able to work closely with our es- teemed chairman. I fully support this de- fense appropriations bill which makes a major contribution toward reduction of our overall 1970 budget, yet will not af- fect the support of American servicemen in Vietnam and permits us to make some progress in the modernization of our Armed Forces. Mr. MENDER. Mr. President, I should like to present the usual motion: I ask unanimous consent that the com- mittee amendments be agreed to en bloc and that the bill as thus amended be considered as original text and that no points of order be considered as waived. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendments agreed to en bloc are as follows: - On page 2, line 10, after the world "else- Where," strike out "$8,312,000,000" and insert "$8,107,600000." On page 2, line 18, after the word "cadets," strike out "$4,370,000,000" and in- sert "$4,368,400,000." On page 3, line 10, after the word "cadets," strike out "$5,835,300,000" and in- sert "$5,821,000,000." On page-3, line 19, after the word "law", strike out "$308,000,000" and insert "006,- 700,000". On page 4, line 2, strike out "$131,4000,000" and insert "127,900,000". On page 4, line 2, strike out "$131,400,000" strike out "03,400,000" and insert "$81,200,- 000". On page 6, line 25, after the word "GoVern- ment", strike out "$7,214,417,250" and insert "$7,185,841,000"; and, on page 7, line 2, after the word "facilities", insert a colon and "Pro- vided, That not to exceed $142,165,000, in the aggregate of the unobligated balances of ap- propriations made under this head for prior fiscal years, and subsequently withdrawn un- der the Act of July 25, 1956 (31 U.S.C. 101) , may be restored and transferred to the ap- propriation account under this head for fiscal year 1966." On page 8, line 14, after the word "Gov- ernment", strike out "$5,037,300,000" and in- sert "$5,129,200,000"; and, Inline 20, after the word "stations", insert a colon and "Provided, That not to exceed $66,000,000, in the aggre- gate of uriobligated balances of appropria- tions made under this head for prior fiscal years, and subsequently withdrawn under the Act of July 25, 1956 (31 U.S.C. 701), may be restored and transferred to the appropria- tion account under this head for the fiscal year 1966." On page 9, line 15, after the word "facili- ties", insert a colon and "Provided, That not to exceed 0,500,000, in the aggregate of un- obligated balances of appropriations made under this head for prior fiscal years, and Subsequently withdrawn under the Act of July 25, 1956 (31 U.S.C. 701) , may be re- stored and transferred to the appropriation account under this beast tor the fiscal year 1966.". On page- 10, line 21, after the word "Gov- ernment" strike out '$6,954,500,000" and Insert 16;445,900,000". On page 12, at the beginning of line 1, strike out :"$1,074,600,000" and insert $1,069,- 400,000". On page 12, line 9, after t e word "Bu- reau'', strike out "and services of personnel rtecesory. to provide reimbursable serviCes for the military departments"; and, in line 20, , after the word "r !reran.", strike out "6300,- 000,000" and nisei1 "8297,800,000". On page 13 at the eeginning of line 15, - strike out "servic:es of personnel necessary to provide reimbiesalelc services for the mili- tary departments, '. On page 14, aftii- line strike out: "NATIONAL BOAT, I FOR THE PROMOTION OF RIFLE 2RACTICE, ARMY "For the necessary expenses of construc- tion, equipment. and maintenance of rifle ranges, the instimetion of citizens in marks- manship,_ and prienotion of rifle practice, in accordance with leAr, including travel of rifle teams, military oerlionnel, and individyals. attending regional, national, and interna- tional competitions, and not to exceed $10,000 for incidental expenses f-d- the National Board; -$62,750: Provideci , That, travel expenses of civilian members of the National Board shall be paid in accordance with the Standard- ized Government Travel Regulations, as amended.". On page 14, inc 24, after the word "thereof", strike out "811,000,000" and insert "$37,000,000". On page 16, a: the beginning of line 4, -- -strike out "$2,696 e00.000" and insert "62,465,- 400,000"; and, In line 6, after the word "available", strike out -for obligation until June 30, 1972' and 4nsert "until expended". On page 16, line 18, after the word "plants", strike out '12,696.C:00,000" and insert "62,465,- 500,000"; and, in line 21, after the word "available", strik e out "for obligation until June 30, 1972" and insert "until expended". On page 17, line 8, after the word "amended", strike out "$2,588,200,000" and insert "6,2242.771,300"; and, in line 9, after the word "availalee", rike out "for obliga- tion until June 30,-1874" and insert "until expended-. On page 18, line. 9; after the word "plants", strike out "81,4t3.800,000" and insert "61,- 524,6011,000"; and, in licm 10, after the word "available", strik: out -for obligation until June 30, 1972' and insert "until expended". On page 18, LIE( 20, slier the word "avail- able", strike out 'for obligation until June 30, 1972" and inecrt_"until expended". On page 19, line 12, alter the word "things", strike out "$3,41 !,700,000" and insert "$3,- 380,800,000"; and, in line 16, after the word "available", strilic out "for obligation until June 30, 1972" and insert "until expended". On page 20, line 9, after the word "things", strike out "$1,401,000,100" and insert "$1,- 448,100,000"; and, in line 10; after the word "available", strut: out "for obligation until June 30, 1972" and insert "until expended". On page 21, line 4, after the word "amended", striko cut $1,636,000,000" and Insert "$1,576,201,000"; and, in line 5, after the word "avaificole", strike out "for obli- gation until Jun, 30. 1:372" and insert "until expended". On page 22, line 9,- slier the word "law", strike out "61,5'i. .36n4i)fe0" and insert "$1,- 600,820,000"; anti, in line 10, atter the word "available", SIZi1:,1 d'-_11 'for obligation until June 20, '1971" and -invert "until expended". On page 22; 17, )(ter the word "law", strike out "$2,041l,400.000" and insert "62,- 193,251,000"; and, in line 18, after the word "available", strike out "for obligation until June 30, 1971" and 'insert "until expended". On page 22, 111.,1 25, after the word "law", strike out -$3,056,L,06,0,03' and insert "$3,062,- 026,000"; _ and, ()T. page 23, line 1, after the word "available", strike out "for obligation until June 30, 3171" end insert "until ex- pended". On page 23, 1.1a- 1,2, after the word "avail- able", strike out 'fpr obligation until June 30, 1971" and insert 'until expended". On ,page28, after the word "year", strike out the sen.-cOlelll and "(k) pay and al- lowarices'ef not :a illiEsed nine persona, in- cluding Persorinel detailed to International Military Ileadqu,o tars and Organizations, at , rates provided for under section 625(d) (1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended". On page 44, after line 10, strike out: "Sze. 642. Appropriations heretofore made available for Procurement of Equipment and Missiles, Army; Procurement of Aircraft and Missiles, Navy; Other Pro,',/reMellt, Navy; Procurement, Marine Corps; Aircraft Pro- curement, Air Force; Missile Procurement, Air Force; Other Procurement, Air Force; and Procurement, Defense Agencies shall not be available for obligation after June 30, 1972. Appropriations heretofore made avail- able for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, shall not be available for obligation after June 30, 1974. Appropriations heretofore made available under the headings Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army; Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy; Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation., Air Force; and Research, Devel- opment, Test, and Evaluation, Defense Agen- cies shall not be available for obligation after June 30, 1971.". And, in lieu thereof, insert: "SEc. 642. (a) Amounts, as determined by the Secretary of Defense and approved by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, of any appropriations of the Department of Defense available for procurement (except Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy) which (1) will remain unobligated as of the close of any fiscal year for which estimates are submitted and (2) which have been avail- able for obligation for three or more fiscal years, shall be proposed for rescission. "(b) Amounts, as determined by the Sec- retary of Defense and approved by the Di- rector of the Bureau of the Budget, of any appropriations of the Department of Defense available for Shipbuilding which (1) will remain unobligated as of the close of any fiscal year for which estimates are submitted and (2) which have been available for obli- gation for five or more fiscal years, shall be proposed for rescission. "(c) Amounts, as determined by the Sec- retary of Defense and approved by the Di- rector of the Bureau of the Budget, of any appropriations of the Department of Defense available for research, development, test and evaluation (except Emergency Fund, De- fense) which (1) will remain unobligated as of the close of any fiscal year for which esti- mates are submitted and (2) which have been available for obligation for two or more fiscal years, shall be proposed for rescission.". Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I sug- gest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING lato.EICER. The Clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OPTICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. QUESTIONABLE ACTIVITIES OF - 0E0 LAWYERS Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, dur- ing debate on the 0E0 bill, I introduced an amendment which would have al- lowed the Navaho Tribe to use legal serv- ices of that office at their choosing. I pointed OM at the time that 0E0 lawyers were engaging in highly questionable ac- tivities and were making themselves obnoxious to the Navaho Tribe. In this connection, I wish to read a letter into the RECORD addressed to -Claude Hinman, principal of the Church -Rock Elementary School at Church Rock, N. Mex., on November 12, 1969, because it shows how correct I was in what I Approved For Release 2006/01/30': CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 December 15, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 16749 will earn, effective missiles to do battle with enemy interceptors at long range and have the radar to see them at these long ranges. We strongly hope that the Air Force and the Department of De- fense Can bring about its operational capability at the earliest practicable date. Mr. President, we must remember that our requirements for national defense are to a large degree determined by our commitments and obligations to other nations. I ask unanimous consent to in- sert at this point in the Ramie an ex- cerpt from the Department of Defense hearings before the subcommittee which Is a checklist of U.S. defense treaties and other defense arrangements wjth 46 nations. There being no objection, the excerpt WM ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: PARTIES TO DEFENSE TREATIES AND OTHER DEFENSE ARRANGEMENTS Agreements and parties RIO Multilateral treaties Bilateral NATO SEATO ANUS treaties Bilateral exeurtIve agreements of general treaty Argentina X Australia Belgium iris X Brazil Canada Chile X China X Colombia X Costa Rica X Cuba' X Denmark Dominican Ret ublm X ERuador X El Salvador France Germany, Federal Republic of. Greece X Guatemala X Haiti X Honduras._ . X Iceland X Iran X Italy X X Japan Korea Liberia X X Luxembourg . . X Mexico X Netherlands, lb. X New Zealand Nicaragua_ X Norway X Pakistan_ Panama X Paraguay Peru Philippines, Tin X X . ..... _ .. Portugal . a. X Rain X ailand_ X Trinidad and lobago X Turkey X United Kingdom X X Uruguay X Venezuela X 'Cuba was excluded from participation in the Inter-American System by Resolution VII. 8th reeling of Foreign Ministers, Punta del Este, 1962. Mr. YOUNG of South Dakota. Mr. President. we have been able to report a bill which is $627.4 million under the House, $5.9 billion under the revised Nixon administration budget estimate and $7.2 billion below the outgoing John- son administration proposed budget. The military services themselves in present- ing a budget to the Secietary of Defense for what they believe would give the United States full and adequate defense proposed a budget of approximately $109 billion. Our top military men such as the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who are charged with the responsibility of defending our country against any possible military threat, naturally would request what they believed was necessary to meet this ob- jective. Limitations on cur economy and resources of every nature made it neces- sary for the Nixon administration to sharply reduce these expenditures. The Joint Chiefs of Staff under all the cir- cumstances involved agree and approve of President Nixon's military budget for the Defense Department. This is a very austere budget. It would be a misrepresentation to lead you to be- lieve that the Congress can make reduc- tions of this magnitude in future defense budgets and provide a defense that will equal or even compare favorably with that of the Soviet Union. This year we saw the cancellation of two major pro- grams subsequent to the budget submis- sion: the Air Force's manned orbiting laboratory program was terminated al- lowing a $400 million reduction, and the Arm.y s Cheyenne helicopter program was canceled permitting another reduction in the amount of $429 million. In addi- tion to the cancellation of major pro- grams we have reaized a decline in com- bat operations in South Vietnam which Permits the reduction of large sums vshich were included in the original and revised 1970 budget estimates for sup- port of activities in Southeast Asia. Mr. President, in subsequent remarks I may discuss the funds in this bill for the ABM program. Whether or not this Nation should embark uppn an ABM program was discussed for nearly 2 months on the Senate floor earlier this Year. It would seem that further extend- ed debate would serve no necessary pur- pose at this time. The House feels very strongly about the need for embarking upon a very limited pilot-type ABM pro- gram such as was contained in this bill. The Senate itself approved the Safe- guard ABM system earlier this year. The total amount in the bill for the Safeguard is $753.3 million?$400.9 mil- lion is for research and development and $352.4 million is for procurement for the various components. I shall discuss this part of the defense appropriations at a greater length later if necessary. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. I yield. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, first I wish to emphasize again, as I did with the acting chairman of the committee, the fact, as has been pointed out by the distinguished senior Senator from North Dakota, as well as the senior Senator from Louisiana, that the present defense appropriation request before the Senate marks a decrease of approximately $6 billion below the Nixon budget and ap- proximately $8 billion below the Johnson budget. Both budgets were submitted this year. I think this is a good indication of how the administration and Congress, working in tandem, so to speak, can bring about sizable reductions within the De- fense Establishment without reducing in any way the effectiveness of the defense which is needed for the security of this country. Second. I, wish to raise this question. Is it not tfue that as far as the ABM construction funds are concerned, ap- proximately $200 million was available for use in connection with sites in North Dakota and Montana this year? Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. From previously appropriated funds. Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes, carried over; and the figure carried over to the fiscal year 1970 program is $60 million or more. Is it not true, regardless of the out- come of this bill, that activities will be- gin this winter at the Grand Forks area and will begin this coming spring in the Great Falls, Mont. area. Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. The Senator is correct. There has been con- siderable activity there already. Mr. MANSPieLD. I just wanted to make the record clear that the funds affected in the pending appropriations measure will in no way conflict with the Army's desire and plans to go ahead with the work which has already been started at the so-called pilot plants in Mon- tana and North Dakota. Is that correct? Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. The Senator is correct. The program would have to go on in a more limited way if no funds were appropriated in this bill, but for both necessary components and research and development for the first stages of the program we would have to have the funds in this bill. Mr. MANSFIELD. In order to carry on these programs, it is my understand- ing, based on the evidence presented by the senior Senator from North Dakota. that in excess of $300 million is being asked for in this year's appropriation bill. Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 S 16748 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE December 15, 1969 special purpose communications for very low frequency communications during and after a nuclear attack. I might state at this point that the committee does not anticipate any addi- tional requests from the Department of Defense for funds during the remainder of fiscal year 1970 except for those funds needed to implement increased pay costs. That is good news, Mr. President. The bill before the Senate is the result of the distillation of efforts of two ad- ministrations, the House of Representa- tives and the Senate committee. For our part, we have devoted long weeks to a detailed examination of the programs contained in this measure. I believe that the magnitude of the reduction that we recommend will certify to our sincerity of purpose, just as the six volumes of testimony on the desk of each Senator will demonstrate the committee's indus- try of application. I wish to thank all the members of the Subcommittee for their devotion to this task and their guidance in our decision- making. In particular, I want to thank the yanking minority member, the senior Senator from North Dakota (Mr. YOUNG), and the chairman, the senior Senator from Georgia (Mr. RUSSELL) for their earnest participaiton and great assistance. Also, Mr. President, I attended vir- tually all the hearings. We sometimes have to throw bouquets at ourselves. I am glad to say that I tried to attend every Meeting, and I missed very few of them. That is %vhy I am able to discuss today some of the many reductions and addi- tions that we made in this program. I am very hopeful that the Defense Department will restudy many of these programs and try to do a little more re- search before they come to us for money in order to build new systems of defense and ask us to fund expensive military hardware that may not perform as ex- pected. It strikes me- that if that had been done in the past, there would have been much less money wasted by the Defense Department. I hope that the Senate will pass this bill in its present form, for it represents, in the opinion of the committee, the best resolution possible to the multitude of defense problems with which it deals. Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr. President, I feel it appropriate to open My brief remarks with well-deserved praise for the inherent ability, broad knowledge, and untiring devotion of the distinguished chairman of the Commit- tee on Appropriations, the Senator from Georgia (Mr. RUSSELL), who also chairs the Subcommittee on Appropriations for the Department of Defense. Also, I wish to pay My respects to the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. ELLENDER) , who has a very fertile mind, is a hard worker, and Is always on the side of economy. It is due to his efforts that we have effected , some real economies in this bill. Only one week ago today, the House passed the Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 1970; only 6 days ago, the bill was referred tothe committee. Our skillful chairman had arranged and con- ducted hearings and directed the pre- liminary work of the staff in such Man- ner that it was possible for the full com- mittee to report the bill last Friday, a mere 72 hours after referral. I completely support the provisions of the bill as reportedy the committee, but realize that some Members may de- sire to increase specific programs while others may oppose certain programs. Each of us weft remembers the many hours of debate which took place during consideration of the Department of De- fense procurement and research and de- velopment authorization 'bill for fiscal year 1970 last summer. Each issue was thoroughly explored, and the Senate worked its will in due legislative process; thus, I trust we may now continue in the spirit of prompt, efficient dispatch which the committee has demonstrated and pass this bill, go to conference, and send It to the President before the week is out?at least, before Christmas. We started hearings on June 10, when Secretary Laird appeared before the sub- committee and concluded these hearings only last Tuesday, when the Secretary again appeared. The testimony heard during these eatensive sessions has only reinforced my sincere concern over the minimal efforta that, we have taken to improve our strategic offensive capa- bility in the past decade or more. For this reason, I am gratified to report that we have included 5100 million in the bill for the development of an advanced manned strategic aircraft, the B-1. Development of this strategic bomber can take ad- vantage of the many recent improve- ments in airframe and engine design to give it the short takeoff and landing capability needed for dispersal and the payload, structure, and speed necessary for penetration. In reiterating my deep concern over our lagging strategic offensive capability, I in no manner intend to cast aspersion on our strategic intercontinental ballistic missile and our submarine-launched bal- listic missile systems; however, these sys- tems do not afford the opportunity to train and exercise as a bomber force can. Minuteman and Polaris is actually in a wartime postute at any minute of the day?you e1thr-i7 fire the missile or you do not fire it. A first-rate strategic bomber force can be exercised and dis- persed to provide the additional flexi- bility required to fulfill our strategic of- fensive requirements. May I point out that the Air Porde has yet to be success- ful in launching a Minuteman II missile from an operational silo. The funds pro- vided in this bill for continued advanced development of the B-1 strategic bomber are vital to our overall defense posture. As the distinguished Senator from Louisiana has pointed out, the bill is $627.4 million under the House allow- ance and $358 million of the reduction results from the committee's recommen- dation to provide funds in fiscal year 1970 for the conversion of two Polaris nuclear submatines to the Poseidon con- figuration instead Of the six as requested in the budget estimate and approved by the House: I agree with the commit- tee recommendation, but wish to clear- ly express my uriqbalified confidence in the Polaris program. This weapons sys- tern has proven to be the most accurate and dependable strategic delivery system known and has far exceeded expecta- tions. For this reason, the committee is most apprehensive to proceed more rapidly in converting the proven Po- laris submarines to the Poseidon sys- tem until the flight test program of the Poseidon missile has clearly established its reliability. As a continuation of the submarine launched missile program, the bill con- tains $10 million for the underwater long-range missile system?LTLMS. The committee recommends that the execu- tive department and Congress give seri- ous consideration to the development of a more efficient, survivable, sea-based strategic offensive system, capable of launching long-range ballistic missiles from improved design, quieter subma- rines. The Soviet Union has concentrated on the dynamic expansion of its naval pow- er with emphasis on the modernization of their submarine force, making it the world's largest. Following a period of large-scale shipyard expansion, new classes of Soviet ballistic missile sub- marines and nuclear attack boats are becoming operational. This threat re- quires that research and development in antisubmarine warfare capabilities be given prominent attention. Only through the expenditure of research dollars can we achieve the desired breakthroughs in target detection, improved torpedos ca- pable of outrunning and going deeper than the new Soviet high performance nuclear submarines, torpedo counter- measures, and other antisubmarine war- fare systems. The F-14 is an aircraft designed to provide protection for the fleet. This air- craft will be a tandem-seat fighter in- corporating the Phoenix missile system and will be superior to current Soviet fighters. The missile control system will also permit the employment of Sparrow and Sidewinder missiles, guns, and nu- merous air-to-ground weapons. The Senate bill provides $450 million, the full budget estimate, and an increase of $129 million over the House allow- ance. This amount will procure nine air- craft, which together with three aircraft previously funded will provide the 12 air- craft which the committee deems re- quired for an adequate flight test pro- gram of the aircraft. We have long been aware of the So- viet development of high performance aircraft and only recently has the devel- opment of a new strategic bomber been revealed. This caused grave concern par- ticularly since the previous administra- tion did not see fit to develop the F-12, leaving our current air pasture without an adequate interceptor aircraft. Future research and development funds must be provided within this area. The bill includes the full revised budget estimate of $175 million to con- tinue development of the Air Force's F- 15 air superiority fighter aircraft. The F-15 is the first Air Force airplane de- signed to achieve very high levels of per- formance while in turning flight. It is designed to penetrate enemy skies in roles such as escorting a strike force and Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 December 15, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 16747 and for which funds are not recom- mended. An explanation of Cant can be found in the report. The mem reason for this Increase is that we wen able to use modi- fied exisang planes for the intended pur- poses, and new purchases were not needed. I ask, unanimous con.;ent that the per- tinent report language be amended at this point. There being no objection, the report language was ordered to be printed in the RECoRD, as follows: XA-6D tanker aircraft modifications.?As indicated above the committee hen recom- mended concurrence in the House disallow- ance of $57,600,000 requested for the pro- curement of KA-6D tanker aircraft. and $4,800,000 requested for advance procurement of this aircraft. In recommending the disal- lowance of these funds the House commit- tee suggested that existing A-8A aircraft be modified for the tanker mission, but did not recommend the funds required for these modifications. It is the view of the oornmit- tee that the Navy should modify these air- craft for the tanker mission and recommends the allowance of $14,500,000 for this purpose. Mr. ELLENDER. There is also a resto- ration of $16.6 million to Navy and Air Force appropriations in order to main- tain the production lines for the Shrike antiradar missile. A full explanation of the restoration can be found on pages 36 and 103 of the committee report. I ask unanimous consent that these be Included at this point. There being no objection, the report language was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: Department of the Navy: Shrike antiradar missile.?The House dis- allowed the request of $9,500.000 for the procurement of Shrike antradar missiles The committee htie expressed Its disappointment with the performance of this missile on pre- vious occasions. However, it is the view of the committee that we should maintain an active production line for this missile, and restoration of the House reduction of $9.- 500,000 13 recommended. The effect of this recommendation is to increase the House al- lowance by $9,500.000. These funds along with the $7,100,000 recommended for the procurement of missiles by the Air Force will provide for minimum sustaining production rate for the Shrike missile. Department of the Air Force: Shrike cntiradar missile. The House dis- allowed the request of 89,500,000 for the -Co ntin ua tIon of procurement of the Shrike antiradar missile. The committee recom- mends restoration of $7,100,000 for this pur- pose. The committee's action represents a reduction of $2,400,000 in the revised budget estimate. The recommended appmpriation of $1,- 448.1 million plus $132.4 million estimated to be made ivallable from other sources will provide a total program of $1,580.5 Million. ? ? ? AGlif-454 Shrike antircdar million is secommended for the procurement of Shrike antiradar missiles, This is an air- to-ground nonnuclear missile designed to home on and destroy and impair enemy radar installations, It is used on the P-I05 and F-4 aircraft. ? ? ? ? ? Mr. ELLENDER. There is also a resto- ration of $27.8 million for Mark-48 tor- pedo proeurenaent in order to sustain effective competition, provide an UP-to- date conventional torpedo at the earliest Possible date, and to expedite early test- ing; An explanation of this restoration can be found on page 82 of the report. I ask unanimous consent to include pertinent report language at this point. There being no objection, the report language was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: Ordnance support equipment.?The House made a reduction of $240,200,000 in the bud- get activity entitled, "Ordnance support equipment," oflItthich $75,700,000 was applied to the request of $174,200,000 for the two versions of the Mark-48 torpedo. The com- mittee recommends restoration of $27,800,000 of this reduction. This action represents a re- duction of $212,400,000 in the revised budget estimate. Mr. ELLENDER. There is also a resto- ration of $10 million for the Air Force's short-range attack missile (SRAM) for preproduction funding when and if pend- ing tests support a decision to proceed with production of this missile for the FE-111 and 8-52 aircraft. The explanation for this restoration can be found on page 101 of the report. I ask unanimous consent for inclusion of pertinent report language at this point. There being no objection, the report language was ordered to be printed in the Recoae, as follows: Short-range-attack missile: The House dis- allowed the request of 820,400.000 for the short-range-attack missile (SRAM). It is the view of the committee that funds should be made available to support a decision to go into production on this missile, U such a de- cision is made by the Secretary of Defense. For this reason, the committee recommends the allowance of fi10 million for this purpose. This action represents a reduction of $10,- 400.000 in the revised budget estimate. ? ? ? ? ? Short-range attack missile (SRAM): 810 million is recommended for the SRAM missile program. The SRAM is an air-to-ground nu- clear missile designed for defense suppres- sion and standoff attacks against soft- to medium-hard targets, surface-to-air missile sites, and ground radar facilities. It is to be carried on the FB-111 and B-52 aircraft. Due to the development of a number of technical problems, it has been determined not to ini- tiate production of the SRAM missile as orig- inally planned. The funds recommended will allow for the initiation of production In the last quarter of fiscal year 1970 if the testing program indicates that these technical prob- lems have been solved. Mr. ELLENDER. Here is also a restora- tion of $5 million for the Army's Lance division support missile in order to avoid a readiness and deployment delay. There is also a restoration of $5 mil- lion for the Navy's underwater long- range missile research?ULAIS?pro- gram designed as a submarine launched missile system follow-on to the Polaris/ Poseidon system. I ask unanimous consent to include pertinent report language at this point,. There being no objection, the report language was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: Underwater, long-range missile system (ULMS): The revised budget included a re- quest of $20 million for the initiation of the underwater long-range missile system. (ULMS) program. The authorization act made a reduction of *10 rafillon in this re- quest, and the House made a further reduc- tion of $5 million. It is the view of the com- mittee that this program should be funded at the authorized amount, and reetoration of the $5 million reduction is recomemnded. Mr. ELLENDER. That is what I re- ferred to a while ago when I said that moneys were being provided for the de- velopment of better submarines to suc- ceed both Polaris and Poseidon models. It may be that in the future more war- heads could be added to the Poseidon or a better system developed. It is my belief that the research can go on so as to be able to provide for such other missiles as may be developed in the future if they are needed. It is my sincere belief that more and more research should be made in that effort so that we do not again make the mistake we made when we started to construct the Polaris several years ago. As we have seen, it is already being re- placed by Poseidon, and the submarines built for Polaris are being adapted to use this newly developed multiwarhead missi le. A restoration of $8 million was ap- proved for the Navy's Condor air-to- surface missile program to avoid ter- mination of the program designed to de- velop a medium-sized conventional warhead to be employed on tactical tar- gets from a stand-off distance out of range of protective weapons?a descrip- tion of this missile and the reasons for the restoration can be found on page 117 of the report. I ask unanimous consent that the per- tinent report language be included at this point. There being no objection, the extract was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: Condor missile: The House disallowed the request of $12,900,000 for the continuation of development of the Condor standoff missile, and recommended that the project be ter- minated. The committee shares the concern expressed by the House committee with re- spect to the delay and increases in the cost of the program. However, the committee feels that there is a valid requirement for a mis- sile with the capabilities of the Condor, and restoration of $11 million of the House reduc- tion is recommended. This action reflects a decrease of $4,960,000 in the revised estimate. Mr. ELLENDER. A restoration of $2 million was allowed for the Air Force's A-X close-air-support aircraft research to permit relatively early operational ca- pability?a description of this restora- tion and the reason for it can be found on page 124 of the report. I ask unanimous consent that the per- tinent language be included at this point. There being no objection, the report language was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, OS follows: AX close air support aircraft: The revised budget estimate included a request of $12 million for the development of the AX close air support aircraft. The authorization act made a reduction of $4 million in this re- quest and the House disallowed the balance of $8 million. It is the view of the committee that work should proceed on this program. and restoration 01 32 million is recommended for this purpose. Mr. ELLENDER. There was also a res- toration of $3.6 million for Air Force Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 S 16746 Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE December 15, 1969 requested in the revised budget. This matter Is discussed on page 7 of this report. The committee recommends an increase of $40 million in this appropriation to cover that portion of the cost of these four overhauls that is funded under this appropriation. The action represents an increase of $40 million In the revised budget estimate. Polaris-to-Poseidon conversions.--$92.7 million is recommended for the Polaris-to- Poseidon conversion of two submarines. The sum recommended and $61.6 million advance procurement will provide for a i 1 of $153.8 million for these two conversi . This is a continuation of the program initiated in fiscal year 1968 for the conversion of 31 of the 41 Polaris submarines to carry the new Po- seidon missiles. Two of these conversions were funded in fiscal year 1968 and two in fiscal year 1969. These four submarines are now in the shipyards undergoing the con- version Work. ?? * Polaris-to-Poseidon conversion.?The re- vised budget included $458.9 million for the Polaris-to-Poseidon conversion of six sub- marines and advance procurement to support this program in future years. The committee has recommended $136.7 for this purpose, which is based on the conversion of only two sularnarina during fiscal 1970. This matter is discussed on page 7 of this report. The com- mittee actions represent a reduction of $322.2 million in the revised budget estimate. OTHER REDUCTIONS Mr. ELLENDER. Reductions made by the committee also include the follow- ing: A $17 million reduction for the Army's M-16 rifle as a result of reduced produc- tion costs. It will be remembered that 2 or 3 years ago we had only one manufacturer to produce the M-16 rifle. And because of the needs that grew out of the war in Vietnam, we were able to have two addi- tional manufacturers produce the M-16 rifle. As a result of that, we were able to reduce the cost of the manufacture of the rifle. This cut really represents a savings in the amount to be paid by the Government for this weapon. There was also: A $25.6 million reduction for the Navy's Standard Arm missile, in view of ade- quate inventories of this missile; A $80 million reduction in Navy pro- curement of aircraft and missiles made possible through the utilization of prior year funds; A further reduction of $5 million in the Navy's communications and electronics procurement, made with the acquiescence of the Department; and A reduction of approximately $54 mil- lion as a result of a revision in the plan- ned buy of the Air Force's F-111 air- craft. As we all know, there was quite a bit of difficulty several years ago concern- ing the TFX as the F-111 was then called. It was found that it was impossi- ble to produce aircraft that could be used by both the Air Force and the Navy. I ask unanimous consent that report language on the Air Force's F-111 pro- gram be included in the RECORD at this point. There being no objection, the report language was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: F-111D /F A ERCRAET PROGRAM The revised budget includes requests to- taling $871.1 miliion for the Air Force's F-111D aircraft program, of which $797.4 million is included in the procurement ap- propriation anti qr,:i.7 is included in the re- search and development appropriation. The recommendations of the committee include $817.2 million, of which. $743.5 mil- lion is in the procurement appropriation and $73.7 mission is in the research and devel- opment appropemtiOn. The sum recom- mended represents a reduction of $53.9 mil- lion in the revised budget request. After the submission of the revised budget the Air Force revised its procurement pro- gram for this aireraft. The revised budget was based on the procurement of 68 F-11113 aircraft, and the current plan cans for the procurement of only eight F-111D's and 60 F-111F's. The F-.1 i1F will be equipped with a modified version of the Mask NB avionics system in lieu of the Mark II avionics sys- tem. The Air Force has advised that this change will result in a saving of approxi- mately $1 million per aircraft, and the com- mittee recommends a reduction of $53.9 million based on these savings. The total reconimencied by the committee includes the following: IDollar amounts in thousands] Procurement: Recommendation Program cost_ $583, 200 Less 1969 advance procurement 37, 300 Net requirement Fiscal year 1069 and prior year over target cost Advance procurement to support fiscal year 1971 buy 545,900 71,400 56,000 Subtotal, .1 rerar t program__ 673, 300 Aircraft spares_ 70, 160 Total procurement '743, 160 73,700 Grand tots! 817,160 Mr. FT JENDER. A further reduction of $56.8 million was made by the committee for Air Force munitions and related equipment. The reason for that is the reduced bombing in the Vietnam war. We were able to make the reduction because of that. -145 FIGHTER The largest and most significant addi- tion made by the committee is for the Navy's F-14A fighter aircraft program. The revised budget included $450 million for this program; $275 million in pro- curement and $175 million in the re- search and development appropriation. Incorporated in this request were funds for the procurement of nine test aircraft. Three aircraft were funded in fiscal year 1969. The House disallowed the procure- ment funds, but increased the appropria- tion for research and development by $146 million for a total appropriation for six aireraft of $321 million. The commit- tee recommends $450 million for nine F-14A aircraft, believing that a total of 12 aircraft are required for the flight test program. In other words, instead of funding the number of ai reran prototypes that the House recommended, it was felt that we should increase that number to the 12 included in the budget so as to secure a proper evaluation of how this new air- craft would work. A full explanation of the reasons for the increase and why the committee recommended 12 prototypes can be found in the report of the committee. I ask unanimous consent to have the pertinent report language printed at this point in the RECORD. There being no objection, the report language ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: F-14A FIGHTER AIRCRAFT PROGRAM The revised budget estimates included a total of $450 million for the Navy's F-14A fighter aircraft program, of which $275 mil- lion was in the procurement appropriation request and $175 million was in the research, development, test and evaluation request. The total included funds for the procure- ment of nine aircraft that are required for the test program. Three such aircraft were funded in fiscal year 1969. The House disallowed the total of $275 million requested in the procurement appro- priation and increased the research and de- velopment appropriation by $146 million to provide for a total of $321 million for the procurement of only six aircraft. The committee recommends appropriations totaling $450 million for this aircraft, as follows: Procurement of aircraft and missiles, Navy (advance pro- curement to support the fiscal 1971 procurement plan) _____ $8, 500, 000 Research, development, test, and evaluation, Navy 441, 500, 000 - The committee's recommendation is based on the procurement of nine aircraft, as re- quested in the revised budget. These to- gether with the three aircraft previously funded, will provide for the total of 12 air- craft, which, in the view of the committee, are required for the flight test program of this aircraft. The committee desires to make it clear that its action does not indicate any dis- agreement with the position of the -House committee with respect to the premature commitment of this aircraft to production. Furthermore, the committee has been as- sured by the Secretary of Defense that the funds provided will not be used for tooling in excess of that required for the one air- craft per month rate currently authorized in the research and development program. F-14 fighter aircraft?The revised budget estimate included $275 million in this appro- priation for the Navy's F-14A fighter aircraft program, including $14,400,000 for advance procurement to support the fiscal 1971 pro- curement of this aircraft. The House dis- allowed the full request of $275 million and provided additional funds in the appropri- ation entitled "Research, development, test, and evaluation, Navy." This matter is dis- cussed on page 7 of this report. It is the view of the committee that funds should be provided in this appropriation for advance procurement to support the fiscal 1971 pro- curement program, and $8,500,000 is recom- mended for that purpose. The net effect of this action is a reduction of $266,500,000 in this appropriation which is offset by a com- parable increase in the Navy's research and development appropriation, OTHER INCREASES Mr. ELLENDER. Other increases in the bill include the following: Fourteen million five hundred thou- sand dollars for modifications to 12 of the existing A-GA Navy aircraft to fit them for the tanker mission previously designated for the KA-6D tanker aircraft Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 Decor ber 15, 1Aivroved FceMtneshOapa 1/3R0 cCol AR- DR 7s1EBNOA0319E4R000100190067-4 basically in accord with the Authorize tion Act. cozirspis ON WHICH COMMITTEE ACTED Since the bill contains some of th largest overall reductions in recen years. I believe it pertinent to review briefly the fundamental concepts the influenced the committee's decisions. the co Above rriz nittees pdrimi want contoceern7vas to iz this as strongly as words can express? provide an adequate national defense transcend this in importance. Second, despite whatever reservations individusl members may have about the war in Vietnam, the committee recog- nizes the necessity of providing all needed funds for our troops in Southeast Asia. 7 wish to say that has been done. None of the reductions in this bill will jeop- ardize in any manner or way the security of our men in combat. Third, the committee also recognized the national requiremtnt for economy In Governments a requirement made pressing by continued inflation and the demands of an expanding Wan other nationwide needs. Reductions made by the committee refieo; this desire, but let me reemphasize that these reductions were made only after the most careful consideration of Defense requirements, Including testimony and investigation of the effect of such actions, We have rec- ommende(I economy?yes--but have not let down our guard. National defense is still our first priority. We do not need to recall the famous dictum attributed to Jefferson to remind us that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. - Mr. ELLENDER, On August 21, the Secretary of Defense announced plans to reduce fiscal 1970 Department of Defense e expenditures by an additional $3 billion_ t It is estimated that approximately $5 billion of the reduction recommended by t the committee is the result of actions taken by the Department of Defense to effectuate this announced reduction of $3 billion in expenditures. Most of these reductions were made in the House bill: however. approximately $408 million of the additional reductions recommended by the committee are the result of these actions. usSYORY OF REDUCTIONS A variety of actions account for the reductions made. First of all, let us re- member that the original budget sub- mitted in January contained $77.7 bil- lion. This was reduced in the revised budget to $75.2 billion, a reduction of $2.5 billion. This reduction is fully ex- plained on page 1 of the report. I ask unanimous consent to have in- serted in the RECORD at this point a sum- mary of the action on the bill from page 4 of the report. There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: SUMMARY OF THE BILL The committee considered revised budget r estimates fcr the fiscal year 1970 totaling a a75,278,200,0)0 for the various military de- partments and other activities of the Depart- b meat of Defense, exclusive of the regular military assistance prog,ram, military con- j ertruction and civil defense. which are in- cluded in other appropriatioa bills. The committee recommends appropriations totaling $69,232,656,000. 0 The new obligations' authority recom- mended by ,he committee is 58,407,544,000 0 under the en 4.1nel budget requests, $5,945,- P 544,000 under the revised budget requests r and .627,392 000 under the amount allowed w by the Rouse. c0 The bill as it passed the Rouse of s Repre- sentatives includes appropriations totaling S69.960,048,000, a decrease of $5,318.152,000 from the revised estimate. The appropriations recominended by the committee are $5,060,593,427 under the total M appropriation for fiscal year 1969 of 474.402.- WI 249,427. R ZODMMENDATIONS BY DEPARTS! ENT By ser vice, the reconun ded appro- priations are as follows: For the Department of the Army, ap- proximately $22.1 billion: For the Department of the Navy, ap proximately $20.5 billion: For the Department of the Air Force, approximately $22.2 billion: and For Defense agencies, apprOXiMately $4.4 billion. MAJOR REDUCTIONS The committee has accepted preen esily all of the reductions offered by th Department of Defense and most of those made by the House of Representatives The Department of Defense requested o the committee restoration of approxi matety $427 million of the House reduc tions and the conunittee reconunends a restoration of approximately $271 million of the amount asked by way of reclaina The most substantial reductions may be attributed to the lessening of hostili- ties in Southeast Asia, and the recen termination of certain major defense systems?notably the Manned Orbiting Laboratory, for which $525.3 million had been requested, and for which $125.3 mil- lion is recommended for termination costs, and the Cheyenne helicopter pro- gram, for which $429 million was asked. and $88 million reeommended for Cobra armed helicopter replacements. Mr. President, the record will show that several years ago many of us felt that a good many of these programs were being carried without a sufficient amount of research. It was later found necessary to cut back on sonic of these programs and reduce the proposed ex- penditure because of a lack of proper esearch. I shall cover this a little more t length when we get to a program in which one of the reductions was made the committee. The committee also reduced the Po- aris-to-Poseidon conversion program, econunending the conversion of two submarines in the 1970 program instead I the six requested in the budget.. Pro- sion is made for the overhaul of the ther four Polaris submarines. Since the olaris missile system is one of the most enable in our inventory, the committee as reluctant to proceed full scale on nversion until Poseidon tests demon- trate conclusively reliability equal to hat of the Polaris system. Mr. President. I point out at this point hat about 7 years ago, when the cosn- ittee met to decide as to the rapidity th which this Polaris missile program as to proceed, I raised the question as S 16745 to whether we should not go a little more slowly with the construction of these Polaris missiles and submarines. I pointed out that we were living in an age of electronics, where changes are made almost every 6 months on many of the programs that we envision. It struck me that the Poles's missile, although it was a good one, might, be superseded by a better one very shortly. Therefore, in my opinion, it would be better to go a little slower on such programs than to go full speed in the construction of the submarines, and then find that we might have a better missile to put into those submarines The inevitable happened, and the plan now is to convert 31 of the Polaris sub- marines for the use of Poseidon missiles. The Poseidon is a missile which has a number of heads. In order to accomplish this change, it will be necessary to make substantial changes in the submarines in order to provide for the Poseidon mis- siles. It was the position of the committee at we should go slowly in making these changes so as to install the new weapons. A Therefore the committee recommends that we utilize two of the submarines for that purpose. Those two submarines must be replenished with atomic energy ? cores anyway, and the cost of doing that job would be about $45 million to $50 mil- - lion per submarine. By adding about $20 million to $25 million per submarine more, we shall have the Poseidon missile ? installed in those two submarines and two that were ordered last year. As to the t others' the committee recommends that their conversion to Poseidon be deferred until reliability is assured. Funds have been provided, however, for replacing the atomic cores. It is my personal belief that the com- mittee acted wisely In not following the House recommendation to put on the docks as many as six of these submarines. The submarines are effective nuclear weapons, and it strikes me that we ought to keep as many operative as possible. Perhaps it might be wise to consider having new submarines constructed to carry this new missile with multiple heads, if the Pentagon and the President feels they are needed in the future. How- ever, we have provided funds for two conversions, and I hope that the Sen- ate. as well as the House of Representa- tives, will go along with the position taken by the committee. I may state further that the multipla warhead missiles are still being tested and there is doubt in my mind as to whether or not there has been sufficient research in that direction. But I do be- lieve that with the funds we have pro- vided in this bill, it will be possible for us to have more research performed. I ask unanimous consent that report language dealing with the Polaris,' Poseidon programs be included in the RECORD at this point. There being no objection, the report was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: Polaris submarine overhaul.?The commit- tee has recommended the overhaul of four Polaris submarines In lieu of conversion as Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 proved W,,,fatiSSIZ9fIgq,l/AtCateERDPRINA01364R000100190067-4 1-6743 December 15, 19 proved for storage on Okinawa?" a woman asked Hatfield in a letter from. send, Ore. "Deceit and incompetence have character- ized handling, transportation and storage of these highly destructive poisons in Utah, in Denver and elsewhere," she continued. "We in Oregon are entitled to as much considera- tion as the Japanese." Another constituent wrote Hatfield: "If the stuff is unsafe for the people where it is, it will be no more safe for Oregonians." "KEEP POISON GAS OUT" "Keep poison gas out of Oregon," wired another constituent. "Recommend returning to manufacturing state." Oregon is 51st in the nation in Pentagon contracts?ranking behind Washington, D.C. The new regUlation?signed into law Nov. 19?requires the Army to notify Congress in advance about planned shipment of chemi- cal warfare agents to and from American bases, The Oregon shipment is the first dis- closure under the new law. The public reaction?Hatfield said yester- day that only two of 50 letters received on the issue in the last three days have en- dorsed the storage of gas in Oregon?has put Oregon and Washington politicians on the spot. ? Sen. Warren G. Magnuson (D-Wash.) op- poses the shipment of the Okinawa nerve gas through his state of Washington. Sen. Henry M, Jackson (D-Wash.), an outspoken hawk on most military issues, is in an un- comfortable position on the issue. CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- pore. Is there further morning business? If not, morning business is concluded. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS, 1970 Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate pro- ceed to the consideration of the un- fmished business. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern- pore. The bill will be stated by title. The ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (H.R. 15090) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and for other purposes. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern- pore. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill? There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill. ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9 A,M. TOMORROW Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern- pore. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I sug- gest the absence of a quorum. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern- pore. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk pro- ceeded to call the roll. Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi- dent, I ask Unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OPFICER (Mr. Mc- INTYRE in the chair). Without objection, it is so ordered THE INAUGURATION OF FERDINAND unbroken for longer than any other free E. MARCOS AS THE SIXTH PRESI- government in the Far East. It has pro- DENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE vided stimulus and coherent form to the PHILIPPINES determination of the Filipino people to Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I did evolve their own political life. not wish the session to end without It seems to me that the unprecedented reference to an event which will take reelection of President Marcos under- place while the Senate, I believe, will be scores that determination and indicates in recess. On December 30, Ferdinand E. that the Philippines will stay on the Marcos will be inaueurated as the sixth present course which is pointed toward President of the Republic of the Philip- full national realization. A decisive ad- pines. e _ ? vance in that direction has already taken The occasion is a historic significance. place. During the past 4 years, there has It will be the firsjerime that an incumbent been progress on a broad front, in agri- will asssume,,, -for a second term, the culture, in industry and trade, in road- office of PreAdent of the Philippines. This building, and in education. In these inaugurat years, for example, new school instruc- n comes, moreover, after an tion has equalled that of all the pre- 1,vhich President Marcos was ceding years of the past half century. to succeed himself by an un- The experience in modern road con- nted majority of Filipino voters. _ struetion is similar. Significant advances ppened to be in Manila last sum- have been made, too, in public adminis- hortly after a. visit of President tration, in social services to young and and Secretary of State Rogers. At old and in the enrichment of cultural time and throughout the ensuing life of the islands. of the Philippine presidential cam- These achievements are important in I followed President Nixon's ex- themselves because they relate to the aleoiding eomment on the p0- themselves well-being of the Filipino peo- 'on in the Philippines. That, ple Even more they a,re important as election chosen /to I h mer, Nixo that week paign ample litical sitit I believe, is appropriate course for symbols of the creative potential in the officials of this Niyernment to pursue Republic. They are the portents of a to- with respect to an etsction in any free morrow of self-reliance, dignity, and nation and President Nam. is to be com- mended for setting it equality and of full mutuality in rela- However, the votes in the PlaWppine tions with this Nation and the rest of election are now long since in and new the world. political era is about to begin.I wantl discernible the hand of a firm and pur- In these achievements, there is clearly take this occasion, therefore, to spea nful out of a long personal acquaintance with\ ose leadership. For 4 years, Presi- - the Filipino people, a continuing interest in the evolution of the Philippine Re- public, and a high respect for the Presi- dent who will head its Government for another 4 years. I first came to know the Philippines a long time ago. As a Pfc, in the Marines I served in what was then a colonial pos- session of the United States. I developed an admiration for the Filipino people at the time and it has grown stronger in fre- quent renewals of contact with them over the years. These have been years in which the Philippines have had to work through -maze of adaptation in the changing r - latienship with the United States. C - plek' political, cultnral, econom , and other adjustments have be. olved in the shift froltirerefir Spain to colony of the United States, to commonwealth, to independent republic. The Filipino people have prevailed with great forti- tude in this evolution. They have pre- vailed, notwithstanding the intervention of World War II, with its devastating se- quence of abrupt Japanese invasion, brutal military occupation and fierce struggle for liberaeion. That conflict brought widespread hu- man exharestion and social unrest. It brought dislocation and stagnation and a desperate interim dependency on the continuance of errtain quasi-colonial economic tics with the United States. However, in the aft ermath of World War IT, there also came national independ- ence under- a d.emoctatic constitutional structure. Notwithetancling its flaws? the Philippine system is modeled on our own and ours, toe, has its flaws?not- withstanding severe assaults on its foundations, that :;ystern has persisted ent Ferdinand E. Marcos has worked isely and well and with great personal dication. He has had, in his efforts, the couragement and support of an intel- nt, sensitive, and energetic partner, elda Romualdez Marcos. To both of m, on the eve of the inauguration, I end my heartfelt wishes for the fur- r realization of the promise of prog- s which the leadership and the labors o the past 4 years have done so much to ndle throughout the Republic of the hilippines. ORDER OF BUSINESS Mr. MANSFIELD. I suggest the ab- sence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk pro- ceeded to call the roll. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. THE CALENDAR Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate pro- ceed to the consideration of Calendar Nos. 601, 602, and 603. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. HOURS OF SERVICE AMENDMENTS OF 1969 The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (H.R. 8449) to amend the act en- titled "An Act to promote the safety of Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4 S 167-44 Approved For fteildltiggwAR :/ciedipirlia9swooi ooi Ng; ;Ser 15, 1969 employees and travelers upon railroads by limiting the hours of service of em ployces thereon," approved March 4 1907 which had been reported from th Committee on Commerce with amend meals, On page 2. line 15, after the wor "the", strike out "operation- and inser "movement"; on page 4, line 10, after the Word "device", strike out "directs or controls the movement of any train o who by the use of any such means"; on page 6, line 2, after the word "such" strike out "district' and insert "United States"; and at the beginning of line 4 inser. "but no such suit shall be brought after the expiration of two years from the date of such violation". Mr YARBOROUGH. Mr. President. I take this opportunIty to urge all Sen- ators to give their full support to HR. 8449, which incorporates S. 1938, of which I am cosponsor, The bill amends the 1907 Hours of Service Act so as to limit the number of hours railroad workers can be required to work to 12 hours. This amendment has been needed for a long time. Under the present statute which was enacted in 1907 and has not been changed since, railroad workers can be required to work as long as 16 hours a day. Not only is this 16-hour day un- reasonable; it it also dangerous to the workers and to the public which comes in contact with the radroad industry. In :.968, 2,359 perions were killed and 24,608 persons were injured in railroad accidents. One of the major causes of these tragic accidents was human errors in the operation of the equipment. Ex- perts who have studied the causes of raill road accidents have found that long working hours and fatigue contribute greatly to these errors In operation? To remedy this problem, it is necea- sary that the working day of railro4d workers be shortened to a reasonal4e number of hours. The bill before us todzy represents a great step forward toward bringing working hours and conditions In the railroad Indus-ay in line with othe Industries. More specifically, this bill makes it unlawful for a railroad, first, to require its workers to work more than 12 hours unless the employee has had at least 18 consecutive hours off duty; and second, to make an employee go on duty or continue on duty when he has not had at least 8 consecutive hours off duty dur- ing the preceding 24 hours. Furthermore, the bill would require that any suit for a violation of this law be brought by the appropriate U.S. dis- trict attorney withir. 2 years of the vio- lation. I wish to commend the Senator from Inciter a (Mr. HARTKE) and all the other members of the Committee on Com- merce for their hard work on this Im- portant bill. I am proud to be a cospon- sor of this measure, and I urge its prompt approval. The amendments were considered and agreed to en bloc. The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time. The bill was read the third time, and passed, raittee also made some reductions. I shall REVOCATION AND SUSPENSION OF - MOTOR CARRIER OPERATING AU- THORITY The bill (S. 2244) to amend section 212 (a) of the Interstate Commerce Act, as ? amended, and for other purposes was considered, ordered to be engrossed for a ? third reading, read the third time, and passed, as follows ? Be it enacted by the Senate and Rouse of Representatives a/ the United States of Amer- inc In Congress assembled, That subsec- tion a) of section 212 of the Interstate Corn- Act (49 U.S.C. 312(a)), is amended as follows: (1) The second sentence is amended by Inserting after the phrase "promulgated thereunder", the words "or undek sections 831-835 of title 18, United States code, as amended". (2) The first proviso is amended by insert- ing immediately after the phrase "or to the rule or regulation thereunder". the Words "or under sections 831-835 of title 18, United States Code, as amended". (8) The second proviso is amended b/ in- serting "215", immediately after "2111e)". AMENDMENT OF SECTION .510 OF INTERNATIONAL CLAWS SETTLE- MENT ACT OF 1949 The bill (H.R.,111-11) to amend section 510 of the International Claims Settle- ment Act, of 1949 to extend the time within ..which the Foreign Claims Settle- ment Commission is required to complete Its affairs in connection with the settle- nient of claims against the Government of Cuba was considered, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed. ORDER OF BUSINESS Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk pro- ceeded to call the roll. ? Mr. MANSFIELD Mr. President, I ask % unanimous consent that the order for the Quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without oNction, it is so ordered. DEPAY-63/0 The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (HR. 15090) making appro- priations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending June 30. 1970, and for other purposes. Mr. =LENDER Mr _preside/II the tinguished senier. time, and he asked me to proceed with rieEato an the Tlefensa_araprovjation itnriPrstand that he will be here bider. I wish to state that the Senate Appro- priations Committee gave close consid- eration to this huge bill. At the outset, let me state that many of the cuts made were suggested by the President as well as the Defense Department. The corn- be glad to review them in the statment I shall make. I wish to add further that the report that accompanies the bill is very exhaus- tive. All the reasons given for the actions taken by the committee are reflected in the report. / hope Senators will refer to that document as we go along, because it explains in detail the various reductions made and the amounts added to the bill. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ELLENDER. I yield. Mr. MANSFIELD, Mr. President, I think this is a most important question, and I think it advisable also to get the answer at the beginning of the debate on this huge Defense appropriation bill. My question is, Mr. President, How much has been cut from the budget re- quest by the Senate Defense Appropria- tions Subcornmitte and the full Appro- priations Committee? Mr. ELLENDER. As I will state in my remarks, $5.9 billion from the revised budget. It is included in the short state- ment I will make. Mr. MANSFIELD. I know the Senator does, but I want that figure put out in neon lights, because what it means is that the allowance is approximately $6 billion below the budget request. Mr. ELLENDER. Almost, The Senator is correct. In presenting HR. 15090, the Depart- ment of Defense appropriation bill for the fiscal year 1970, I shall speak of the most important aspects of the bill, and then be available for such questions as may arise. I wish to say that the senior Senator from North Dakota (Mr. You've), who is the ranking Republican member on the committee, took a very active part in all the deliberations by the committee. I am sure he has a very important state- ment to make on the bill. I hope that both of us will be in a position to an- swer such questions as may be Pro- pounded. The committee report that you have before you is most comprehensive and will probably answer many of the ques- tions that come to mind. COMMITTEE REDUCTION Your committee recommends a total appropriation of $69,332,656,000. This is. _ a reduction of $627,382,000 from the amount allowed by the House of Repre- sentatives. It is a reduction of $5,945,544,000 from the revised budget estimates sub- mitted in April. It is a reduction of $8,407,544,000 from the original budget estimates submitted In January by former President John- son. And it is a reduction of $5,069,593,427 from the total appropriations provided for fiscal year 1969. Many of the major programs and proj- ects for which the committee recom- mends funds were the subject of ex- tensive debate during the consideration of the authorization bill earlier in the session. The committee's recommenda- tions with respect to these projects are Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP71600364R000100190067-4