Congressional Record

Move
Zoom

Try Mocavo Gold Risk-Free!

Try Mocavo Gold — Risk Free!

Upgrade to Mocavo Gold to search billions of names and save time having
to search through multiple ancestry sites to research your family history.

Try Mocavo Gold »


Text from Document

18596
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
July 8, 1969
it pertains to hardware only on Items
that we might see fit to use In Laos, Viet-
nam, or Thailand.
SAFEGUARD ANTI-BALLISTIC-MISSILE SYSTEM
Mr. President, I now turn to the pro-
visions of the bill relating to the Safe-
guard anti-ballistic-missile system.
Many details and ramifications of the
Safeguard anti-ballistic-missile system
will be discussed during the course of this
debate. Initially, I think, however, it is
highly important that the Senate under-
stand the extent and the purpose of the
funds in this bill as they relate to the
Safeguard system.
The Senator from Maine (Mrs. Smith)
paid me a compliment once by saying
that I explained a bill better by saying
what was not In it than by saying what
was in it. This is not arguing the ABM on
its merits but just outlining how the
money contained in the bill applies
I shall therefore outline these appro-
priate facts at the outset. The authoriza-
tions, for appropriations for Safeguard
are contained in three different elements
of the bill.
First. There is the authorization for
funds for research and development In
the amount of $400.9 million which is in-
cluded as a part of the research and de-
velopment authorization for the Army
and which as reported by the committee
totals $1,638,600,000.
Second. There is an authorization con-
tained in section 203 of the bill in the
amount of $12,700,000 which would au-
thorize the construction of certain test
facilities for Safeguard at the Kwaja-
lein Missile Range. Frankly, that was
just drawn out of the military construc-
tion bill and put here to go along with the
rest of the Safeguard system.
Third. As a part of the authorization
for missiles for the Army, the total of
which is $922,500,000 there Is new obli-
gatlonal authority In the amount of
$345.5 million which authorizes pro-
curement funds for the Safeguard
system.
The total of these three elements Is
$759.1 million. Within the committee
there was really no controversy on the
matter of the research and development
funds, nor for the related activity for
research and development of $12,700,000
for the construction of the test facilities
at Kwajalein.
PRECISE USE or THE FISCAL TEAR 1970 PROCURE-
MENT FUNDS FOB ABM
Mr. President, on pages 25, 26. and 27
of the committee report there is a de-
tailed discussion on the use of the fiscal
year 1970 procurement funds. I would
like to emphasize the following points.
First. The fiscal year 1970 moneys In
this bill do not contain funds for opera-
tional missiles, except for a total of
$600,000 which is for long leadtime
components on a small part relating to
the guidance system in the missile. In
other words, except for this small
amount which is relatively insignificant,
there are no funds for operational Sprint
and Spartan missiles in the bill.
Second. The procurement funds In
this bill represent what Is really only a
partial funding of phase 1 procurement
costs. They would be used for the five
elements set forth below: One missile
site radar, Grand Forks; one missile site
radar data processor, Grand Forks;
training equipment; advance procure-
ment for one other Perimeter Acquisi-
tion Radar—PAR—and one other mis-
sile site radar, Malmstrom; leadtime
missile parts, $600,000.
Third. I would emphasize, Mr. Presi-
dent, that up through fiscal year 1969
there had already been appropriated in
the form of procurement funds for the
Sentinel-Safeguard system a total of
$611,700,000, although reprograming has
reduced this sum to $468 million. The
major items to be procured with fiscal
year 1968 and fiscal year 1969 funds are
as follows: One perimeter acquisition
radar, Grand Forks; one perimeter ac-
quisition radar data processor. Grand
Forks; one perimeter acquisition radar
data processor—initial use at tactical
software control site; final use at Malm-
strom; data processor—tactical software
control site, at Bell Labs, Whippany, N.J.
Fourth. Mr. President, I would also
point out that the funding in this bill
does not complete all of the funds re-
quired for phase 1. The committee report
on page 26 sets forth the other elements
which must be funded in future years,
including the Sprint and Spartan mis-
siles themselves.
FURTHER DETAILS OF FISCAL TEAR 1970
PROCUREMENT
Mr. President, on page 27 of the com-
mittee report a further detailed break-
out of the use of the fiscal year 1970 pro-
curement moneys is set forth. I would
emphasize the following points:
First. Except for the $600,000 which I
have already discussed, all of the moneys
for Sprint and Spartan missiles go for
various activities which occur prior to
the production of the missiles them-
selves. These include all of the prepro-
duction expenses as set forth in the
chart.
Second. Of the total of $345.5 million,
$249.3 million will be spent for items re-
lating to the ground equipment and the
radars for phase 1 sites.
Mr. President, the foregoing comments
describe the use to which the funds pro-
posed for fiscal year 1970 would be used
for Safeguard. In other words, the de-
tails of the bill itself.
I have additional comments and justi-
fication for the Safeguard system which
will be given at a subsequent time.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have printed at this point in the
Record a table setting forth, in even
more and greater detail than I have
outlined, a breakdown of the vast in-
crease of funds already obligated, and
funds for fiscal year 1970 and for sub-
sequent years. This is furnished because
there has been some confusion about the
subject, and the committee believes that
all Senators are entitled to the Informa-
tion. We believe that the information as
presented is correct. If any Senator finds
otherwise, we should be glad to have
him report it, and we will make the
proper correction.
There being no objection, the tabula-
tion was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
1. The DOD costs of Phase I including
RDT&E, PEMA, MCA. O&MA and MPA for
the period FY 1968 through FY 1974 are u
follows:
[In millions)
Fiscal year 1968 Fiscal year 1959 Fiscal year 1970 Fiscal years 1971-74 Total
R.D.T. & E. *383.9 »11.5 $400.9 $976.4 »2,072.7
PEMA 137.9 330.6 360.5 793.3 1.622.3
MCA 55.2 183.0 97.1 154.9 490.2
0. & M.A .. 10.3 30.3 23.2 170.1 233.9
MPA 4.1 6.0 9.8 61.0 80.9
Total 591.4 861.4 891.5 2,155.7 4,500.0
2. Of the amounts already approved In FT
1968, and FT 1969, the amounts obligated and
expended are as Indicated by the following
table. (Obligation and Expenditures as of 31
May.)
II n millionsl
Obligated Expended
Fiscal year 1968 Fiscal year 1969 Total Fiscal year 1968 Fiscal year 1969 Total
R.D.T. & E {383.9 $303.9 $687.8 $375.8 $109.2 $485.0
PEMA 131.2 302.3 433.5 79.5 55.6 135.1
MCA 35.9 5.4 41.3 24.4 2.1 26.5
OMA 6.5 22.6 29.1 6.5 14.6 21.1
MPA 4.1 8.4 12.5 4.1 8.4 12.5
Total.... 561.5 642.6 1,204.2 490.3 189.9 680.2
3. With regard to the amounts In para-
graph 2 above, obUgatlons for:
a. RDT&E have carried on the extensive
development, test and test program which
has been underway for a number of years.
b. Those for PEMA have been committed
for preproduction engineering, the initiating
of readiness of faculties and lines for pro-
duction, and for the actual procurement of
the foUowing:
Perimeter Acquisition Radar (PAR)
(Grand Porks)
PAR Data Processor (Grand Forks)
Data Processing Equipment for the Tacti-
cal Software Control Site at Bell Labs Whip-
pany, N.J.
c. The amounts for MCA have been Archi-
tectural Engineering, design effort, construc-
tion activities at Boston, procurement of
power equipment and construction of facili-
ties at Kwajalein.
d. The amounts for O&MA are for civilian
personnel costs to Include salaries and travel,
building rentals, and for contracts for de-
fense analyses and deployment planning.
e. The amounts for MPA are for pay and
July 8, 1969
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SEN ATE
18597
allowances of military personnel directly as-
sociated with the SAFEGUARD program.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I observe
the distinguished majority leader In the
Chamber. I wish to make some rather In-
formal remarks about procedure. I also
observe in the Chamber the distinguished
Senator from Missouri (Mr. Symington) ,
the distinguished Senator from Michi-
gan (Mr. Hart), and the distinguished
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Cooper).
I mentioned this matter to the Senator
from Kentucky as we came Into the
Chamber.
I consider this to be a very important
and difficult bill, even apart from the
ABM, and that, of course, is especially
difficult. There may be added issues with
respect to it. But the bill Is highly com-
plicated. In a way, it marks a turning
point.
The committee members are unusually
well qualified to discuss all phases of the
bill. I hope that in time the distinguished
Senator from Maine (Mrs. Smith), the
ranking Republican, will address the
Senate on the bill; in fact, I know she
will. Then it may be that the chairmen
of the subcommittees would have an op-
portunity to discuss their work, to be fol-
lowed by any other Senators who wish to
speak. I would not wish to exclude any
Senator. I am speaking ns I am because
the committee wants to make a complete
presentation.
It seems to me that we might just as
well leave the ABM out of the bill now
and consider it more or less as a special
order, for that is what it has grown to
be. We could then determine whether
we might reach an agreement to take
X days of debate on it. I do not know
how many days, but X days. That would
Include, as any Senator, under the rules,
has the right to seek, a closed-door ses-
sion. if that is desired; and then we might
determine Y time when we might vote.
I propose this plan without seeking
any advantage. I do not think any ad-
vantage would be gained by any Senator
in this procedure. I have merely men-
tioned it and am bringing it up infor-
mally. I would hope that a plan of that
kind could be arranged.
Many Senators are asking me, “When
will a vote come?” I do not know. No
Senator knows when the debate on the
ABM will end. I cannot answer that. We
all have some troubles along that line.
This thought occurred to me about
noontime. I do not make it in the form
of a request now, but I believe that it
would be the most practical way for the
Senate to proceed.
I would like to continue my presenta-
tion of these matters this afternoon,
leaving out the ABM, but having a closed
session to give me a chance to call the
attention of the membership to some
other facts that I think have a direct
bearing on other major parts of the bill.
I do not have in mind discussing or con-
sidering ABM. I shall not go into that
subject at all, if it can be understood that
we will have another closed session with
respect to it.
I had understood that some Senators
might not be quite ready to discuss ABM
now, either in or out of a closed session.
I make that statement as an observation.
I hope we may have a closed session this
afternoon to discuss other items in the
bill.
Mr. MAN8FIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I am glad to yield.
Mr. MANSFIELD. The distinguished
Senator from Mississippi, chairman of
the Committee on Armed Services, has
made a most interesting suggestion about
a possible time limitation. I think,
though, as the Senator has indicated,
that is something which might well wait
until the debate gets underway and we
see how we progress.
With the permission of the Senator
from Mississippi, I should like to ask the
distinguished senior Senator from Ken-
tucky what his plans are as to amend-
ments, which I think are expected to be
offered sometime this week.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President the Sena-
tor from Mississippi has been very open
in discussing the matter. I do not speak
solely for myself, but also for the Senator
from Michigan (Mr. Hart) and other
Senators who are interested in the ABM
and Sentinel.
This is largely our purposes: We ex-
pect to submit an amendment tomorrow.
We reserve to our own judgment whether
it will be called up for action on the fol-
lowing day, which will be Thursday. It is
possible that it will be called up on that
day.
As the majority leader has said, we are
not prepared now to make any agree-
ment at all about a limitation of time.
A great many Senators have expressed a
desire to speak on the amendment. Other
Senators may desire to offer amend-
ments. as, of course, they have a right to
do. So I should think it would not be until
after there had been rather extensive de-
bate that we would be ready to consider
a limitation of time. I think the distin-
guished Senator from Michigan, who is a
cosponsor of the amendment, will con-
firm that statement.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Mississippi yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I am glad to yield to
the Senator from Michigan.
Mr. HART. The able Senator from
Kentucky states quite accurately the
feeling of all of us who have spent many
months considering ABM. The day may
come when some limitation can be agreed
upon; but each of us, as does the Senator
from Mississippi, wants to insure that
there will be available to all of us the
fullest, most complete record, on which,
then, we can all make what will be a
prudent judgment. When that day will
be, I think time will indicate.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Do I correctly un-
derstand that the distinguished Senator
from Mississippi intends to move shortly
that the Senate go into closed session for
the purpose of being advised of certain
types of information apart from the
ABM?
Mr. STENNIS. Yes, entirely apart from
the ABM. That is my intention.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I assume that, very
likely, the distinguished Senator from
Maine (Mrs. Smith) , the ranking minor-
ity member of the committee, will lead
off tomorrow, to be followed by subcom-
mittee chairmen and other Senators who
will wish to speak.
Mr. STENNIS. We could not ask for
more, and that will get the bill before the
S6n&tc
Mr. MANSFIELD. I think it should be
said, for the Information of the distin-
guished chairman and the Senate, that
there will be a motion to go into closed
session when the subject of the ABM
becomes most pertinent.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator
very much.
Mr. President, in referring to the
members of our committee, and the
presentation of the bill, I did not Intend
to exclude anyone. There were other
Senators who worked on the bill a great
deal and I think there will be appropri-
ate time for all Senators.
Therefore, Mr. President, I move now
that under rule----
Mr. MURPHY and Mr. DOMINICK
addressed the Chair.
Mr. STENNIS. I yield to the Senator
from California.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, so that
I may understand clearly, it is my under-
standing that the chairman will ask that
the Senate go into closed session in con-
nection with the discussion of the basis
of the bill and then there is the possi-
bility of a second closed session in con-
nection with the ABM.
Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is correct.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes. There will be
a second request on the question of the
ABM.
Mr. DOMINICK and Mr. GORE ad-
dressed the Chair.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I yield
to the Senator from Colorado, who had
already spoken to me.
Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, I wish
to congratulate the Senator from Mis-
sissippi not only on his presentation of
the bill today but also on the work he has
done in connection with a very complex
and very difficult series of requests of
the administration for authorization.
Without equivocation I would say that
this bill was discussed in the Committee
on Armed Services without any partisan-
ship whatsoever. It has been a wholly
bipartisan effort. There has been an
effort on the part of all members to
scrutinize the request, to try to avoid
duplication of effort between the serv-
ices, and to try to make cuts where feas-
ible in light of circumstances around the
world.
I think the Senator from Mississippi
did a masterly job in leading this ef-
fort and in developing a bill which will
provide for the defense and security of
the people of the United States and still
effect cuts in the process.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator for
his generous remarks. I was only one
Senator who worked on the bill. Another
Senator who worked on the bill and who
did an outstanding job was the Senator
from Tennessee. I yield to the Senator
from Tennessee.
Mr. GORE. As I understand it, the
Senator Intends to make a motion, not
a unanimous-consent request, and.
therefore, once in cloised session, If any
other Senator wishes to bring up any
matter of security information, it would
be within the discretion of that Sena-

About This Document

Uploaded:
Total pages:
1403
Description:
This document has no additional description.