« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
this, and I think I have had all of the arguments on both sides : cluding those on the opposite side, from my constituents, who are so 5,000 miles away in central Europe, and they say, must we be aske pay additional taxes and tighten our belts down to maintain a st": posture in Europe when France does not think enough about it even remain in NATO?
Admiral MOORER. That is a good question.
Senator CANNON. And they are right under the gun. So we get toi sides of the argument. [Deleted.]
Admiral MOORER. Yes, sir; that is a good point [deleted].
All of these points that you bring up are very good ones, Senst they are dealt with all the time. [Deleted.]
Secretary LAIRD. The series of questions you are asking are o important questions and, of course, I have had discussions on to points over in Europe with General Goodpaster and others. I : sure that they are not satisfied completely with the final determ... tions that had to be made in this budget. But I think we are doing best job we can with this resource allocation in providing the kira deterrent forces that are needed to prevent war, and that is what are trying to do with the resources that are available.
Senator CANNON. As long as we do not have war, we can always s we had the right strategy and we have had that up to the present t. of course, but that sometimes is a question of which comes first, chicken or the egg.
PREPARED QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR SMITH
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, questions by Senator Smit: be put in the record for the usual answering.
(Questions submitted by Senator Smith. Answers supplied by Departure" Defense.)
Question. On page 20 of your classified statement you mention that *** also moving to redress pay inequities to persons on the retired list.” Towe elaborate on this? How do you propose to incorprate changes in this areas changes in ther parts of the military retirement system which I understand currently being considered in the Department of Defense!
Answer. An Interagency Committee appointed at the direction of the Pre" to review the military retirement system has recommended a one-time revc. tion of military retired pay. The President has approved that recommen: In accordance with established procedures, a draft of legislation and suppi documents to effectuate that recommendation will be forwarded to the 08 Management and Budget. On receipt of clearance from that office, the prima will be forwarded to Congress. Inasmuch as there is nothing in the recomputer proposal which would be inconsistent with any changes in the retirement T** which may be proposed there is no reason that separate action could not be tai by the Congress on the recomputation proposal.
Question. On pages 22 and 23 of your classified statement you state the believe in connection with our new thinking that it may also be posne eliminate some additional headquarters stafing." Since manpower costa de grown dramatically in the last few years and now represent a significant par of the defense budget, I would be very interested to know where some heads ters staffing might be reduced.
Answer. In order to effect further reductions in headquarters staffing. Fi" causing disruption and loss of efficiency, I think we must proceed method to streamline our headquarters activities to the greatest extent possibe “streamline" I mean elimination of duplicative activities at lower echelon consolidation at the highest practical level; elimination or reduction of action which are low in priority or of a non-productive nature; and personnel auth*
ions that are realistic in proportion to the work to be done. I realize the above nethods are general in nature, but I believe they constitute the most effective vay, overall, to proceed in the future.
Question. On page 13 of your classified posture statement, you indicate that "otal Force planning included "both Active and Reserve Components of the 7.8. (and) those of our allies. ." Would you comment specifically on the apabilities, readiness, etc., of the reserve forces of our NATO Allies? What, fany, progress has been made in this area?
Answer. Our NATO Allies provide substantial reserve forces to the common lefense. [Deleted.] The main purpose of many Allied reserve structures is to provide the support forces which provide sustaining power in a prolonged ouflict.
All of our Allies have highly efficient reserve call-up schemes and very letailed contingency plans. [Deleted.]
This NATO reserve system has deficiencies which are recognized by the Allies. [Deleted.]
The Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) has sent observers to the United tates to examine our National Guard and Reserve system in an effort to improve their own.
In summary, the NATO Allies have a significant reserve capability; their ystem has some deficiencies but programs are underway to improve this important element of the Total Defense Program.
Question. In your comparison of the United States and Soviet strategic bomb18 you mentioned that the Soviet Backfire had an unrefueled range of [deleted] rautical miles at high altitude subsonic speeds with a payload of [deleted] pounds. Is this a realistic scenario for a Backfire strike at the continental Cnited States?
Answer. An all high altitude, unrefueled subsonic cruise mission would be one of a number of possible Backfire missions for strikes against the continental Cnited States. Airfields in Cuba or Mexico could be used for post strike recovery.
If Backfire were staged through Arctic bases on the Chukotskiy Peninsula, opposite Alaska, it could strike targets in [deleted] the continental United States on unrefueled missions [deleted]. Extended coverage of the continental United States could be achieved if the Backfire were to have an inflight refueling prior o reaching the target area. [Deleted.]
Question. What is the number of air-to-air refueling tankers that the Soviets ind United States presently has? In this regard, what would be the tanker to plane ratio for the FB-111 A to make an intercontinental strike at the Soviet Union vith safe return?
Answer. The Soviets currently have 50 Bison tankers, which would be used to refuel the Bear and Bison intercontinental bombers. The U.S. strategic tanker 'orce presently consists of 615 UE KC-135 tankers. The tanker to FB-111A ratio for an intercontinental strike is [deleted].
Question. What will be the Administration's position on a military survivor benefits bill this year? Specifically, I am interested in the Administration's posi'ion on H.R. 10670 which passed the House last October by an overwhelming vote. Do you think it appropriate to consider a survivor benefits bill with other anticipated changes in the military retirement area?
Answer. Last year during hearings before a subcommittee of the House of Rep"esentatives the Department of Defense on behalf of the Administration strongly supported enactment of legislation to provide an improved system of benefits for kurvivors of retired military personnel. As an outgrowth of those hearings the House passed H.R. 10670. While there are several provisions in that bill which liffer from those favored by the Department, the major features are consistent with the Administration position. A report expressing Administration support for the major features of that bill will be submitted to the Chairman of the Senite Armed Services Committee in the near future. While the Administration posifion with regard to this matter was developed in conjunction with a review of he military retirement system, the urgency of providing a realistic survivorship plan for military retirees is such that I would recommend legislation be enacted is soon as possible and without waiting for the proposed changes in the military retirement system which we are developing.
Question. On pages 20 and 21 of your classified statement you state that “rce are working on plans that will make it possible, in the next fiscal year, to return some thousands of physicians, dentists and other medical personnel to civilian communities." Does this mean that you will be reducing the number of physicians and dentists on active duty in the military? Would you please elaborate on this?
Answer. The statement on pages 20 and 21 refers to planning underway as part of our efforts to attain an all-volunteer medical force. Under our plans we would, through increased efficiency, be able to return large numbers of health professionals to civilian communities without replacement. Moreover, under our plans there would be no decrease in the high quality medical care which we provide for our beneficiaries. Our plans cover improvements in the number and quality of clerical help available, new equipment, new facilities with more treatment rooms per physician and more offices per dentist. They cover more and even better trained paramedical workers. They also involve the avoidance of duplication of effort within each service and between services. By the coordination of functions of adjacent health facilities of the same or different services, we believe we can improve physician and patient satisfaction. The implementation of some of our plans will also involve the enactment of legislative proposals now being developed. The committee's support of these proposals will, of course, vitally affect the degree of success we achieve in these matters.
The CHAIRMAN. On these questions Senator Cannon raised, I am going to read over your answers and also these other questions. I have decided since I have been debating this bill for 3 years that we have reached the point, it looks to me, where there is near balance on nuclear weaponry. At least they have enough to knock us out and we certainly have enough to knock them out, plus a decrease in the probability that they would be used, as Secretary Laird said.
A big question is whether we are going to have conventional war or nuclear war. I think in a conventional war it does not depend at all on what we have over there, it depends on what those people are going to do to defend themselves. That is the main thing and that is why we look weak. France is out of it and no one except Germany is making very much of a show. [Deleted.] This thing boils down to the point Senator Cannon raised; the number that we put there to serve this purpose.
On another subject, Mr. Secretary, I want to put this to you. This matter of the prototype concept and making new contracts is all to the future. Before the Congress is committed even by implication for the committee, I want to ask you to report to us in broad outline your plans as to what you propose to do with reference to a contract in weaponry. For instance, if you go to make another contract about this tank, this is very difficult to write into law, but you are committing us by implication when you enter a contract, even though it is written with the knowledge that it is dependent upon the annual appropriation by the Congress. We get in and then it is hard to get out. There ought to be a comity between the Department of Defense and the Senate and the committee here, that you will come here and explain in broad terms what you propose to do. I am not proposing that we have the power to make the contract or not make it; that is your responsibility. We certainly cannot do that. But I think we have got to have something yorked out here for assurance to the committee and to the membership of the Senate whom we represent that there will not be any contracts made that commit us, as I have said.
What is your response to that?
Secretary LAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I think that presently we are required to make such reports under the law to this committee and to the Congress. We have tried to fulfill that obligation. I think it is section 506 of Public Law 9.2–156. The Authorization Act now requires that I must make such reports to this committee and to other committees of the Congress. If the procedures we are presently following do not satisfy the requirement which you envisaged at the time the law was enacted, then we can modify them, I think it would be well for us to put in the record at this point a description of those requirements and our implementing memorandums.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
The procedures established in the following memoranda will be incorporated into a permanent Department of Defense Instruction.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
Washington, D.O., February 10, 1972.
Memorandum for Assistant Secretaries of the Military Departments (FM) Subject: Reporting requirements under section 506 of Public Law 92–156. Reference: OASD (comp) memorandum, subject: “Congressional Data Sheets."
dated January 3, 1972. Section 506 of PL 92–156 requires that beginning in calendar year 1972 the Secretary of Defense shall :
1. Submit an annual report in conjunction with the President's Budget regarding development and procurement schedules for each weapon system for which fund authorization required by Section 412(b) of Public Law 86–149, as amended, and for which any funds for procurement are requested in such budget.
2. Submit a supplemental report to the Congress not less than thirty nor more than sixty days before awarding a contract or execrising an option in a contract for the procurement of any such weapon system, unless (a) source selection has not been made and the Secretary of Defense determines that submission of such a report would adversely affect the source selection process; or (b) the Secretary of Defense determines that the submission of the report would adversely affect vital security interests of the United States. Both of the above exceptions require written notification to the Congress accompanied by a statement of the reasons therefor.
Those portions of Section 506 relating to reports concerning operational testing and evaluation will be covered separately.
After discussion with the interested Congressional Committee staffs, reference (a) was published which outlined the format and requirements for the annual report. Necessary reports in support of the FY 1973 authorization request have been submitted to the Congress. These reports are referred to as "Congressional Data Sheets.” Further discussions have been held with these staffs to implement the thirty to sixty day reporting requirement (Section 506(b)) and the requirement to submit Congressional Data Sheets in support of reprogramming or supplemental authorization funding requests (Section 506(a)). This memo will establish procedures for implementing these two subsections of the law.
Items to be covered are major weapons systems for which a quantity is shown in the P-1, Procurement List, and which require 412(b) authorization. This excludes generic areas such as spares, modifications, component improvement etc., and all items which do not require authorization. Major weapons systems contracts are defined as the prime contract in a weapons system, (e.g. airframe for an aircraft system, basic construction contract for a ship, etc.) In the case where a major weapon system will have two prime contractors for a given fiscal year's procurement, e.g., (Sparrow 7F a directed and a competitive procurement and Sidewinder, two models, two contractors, 9H and SL) each will be listed in accordance with the general instructions.
By agreement with the committee staffs, the annual report which has been submitted in support of the FY 1973 authorization request fulfills the thirty to sixty day requirement through March 15, 1972. To satisfy the continuing requirement for thirty to sixty day notification the following action is necessary :
a. By March 9, 1972, each service should submit a letter report to QASD (Comptroller) listing all prime major weapon system contracts which are es. pected to be awarded within the succeeding ninety days. These will be consolidated by QASD (Comptroller) for the Secretary's approval and submitted to the Congress by March 15, 1972.
b. Subsequent reports will be required at sixty day intervals but will continue to cover the succeeding ninety day period.
C. To the extent that current information indicates that the contract will be in accord with the data shown in the annual submission of the Congressional Data Sheet, only the information required by section A of the contract report need be provided.
d. If costs or quantities of items covered by the annual Congressional Data Sheet exceed established reprogramming thresholds a revised Congressional Data Sheet should be appended to the contract report.
e. The March 15, 1972, report will be limited to any unawarded major weapons system contract funded under the FY 1971 and FY 1972 program.
f. In case of joint funding, the procuring service has the responsibility to notify the funding service of proposed dates of contract.
This requirement does not supersede or change established reprogramming requirements or SAR reporting requirements.
It is not the intent of Section 506 (b) to change our normal method of negotiating contracts. It is recognized that in some instances there will be slippage from the original projected contract date. Such slippage should be indicated in section B of the bi-monthly report with a brief explanation of the reason.
Any reprogramming request or supplemental appropriation request within authorization criteria submitted to Congress after the budget submission shall include an up-to-date Congressional Data Sheet.
Major weapons system contracts proposed for exclusion under the exclusion provision of the law are to be included in Section C of the contract report together with a statement of the reason therefor.
Enclosure (1) prescribes the format to be used to submit the report, Enclosure (2) outlines the schedule for recurring reports and enclosure (3) contains the full text of Section 506 of PL 92-156.
Three copies of the first report should be submitted on or before March 9, 1972, to OASD (Comptroller), P/B, Directorate for Procurement, Room 3D 883, Pentagon. Questions should be directed to Mr. John F. Cove, extension 52234,
ROBERT C. Moor, Assistant Secretary of Defense.
DEPARTMENT OF THE
CONTRACT REPORT FOR PERIOD MAR. 15 TO JUNE 15, 1972
A. New contracts:
1972 Contractor's name... Apr. 15, 1972 No.
May 30, 1972 Yes.
May 18, 1972 No.
Tracked combat vehicles.
B. Changes from last report: