Congressional Record


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

Total pages:
This document has no additional description.