GOVERNMEN'i 

61, La —13

Storage t

/`3

SUPPLEMENTAL DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

APPROPRIATION FOR 1965

.Afbp 

D 3b151 966 -2_ KSU LIBRARIES 

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

EIGHTY-NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

SUPPLEMENTAL DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

APPROPRIATION FOR 1965

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

EIGHTY-NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

47-430 WASHINGTON: 1965
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

GEORGE H. MAHON,

ALBERT THOMAS, Texas

MICHAEL J. KIRWAN, Ohio

JAMIE L. WHITTEN, Mississippi

GEORGE W. ANDREWS, Alabama

JOHN J. ROONEY, New York

JOHN E. FOGARTY, Rhode Island

ROBERT L. F. SIKES, Florida

OTTO E. PASSMAN, Louisiana

JOE L. EVINS, Tennessee

EDWARD P. BOLAND, Massachusetts

WILLIAM H. NATCHER, Kentucky

DANIEL J. FLOOD, Pennsylvania

WINFIELD K. DENTON, Indiana

TOM STEED, Oklahoma

GEORGE E. SHIPLEY, Illinois

JOHN M. SLACK, JR., West Virginia

JOHN J. FLYNT, JR., Georgia

NEAL SMITH, Iowa

ROBERT N. GIAIMO, Connecticut

JULIA BUTLER HANSEN, Washington

CHARLES S. JOELSON, New Jersey

JOSEPH P. ADDABBO, New York

JOHN J. McFALL, California

W. R. HULL, JR., Missouri

D. R. (BILLY) MATTHEWS, Florida

JEFFERY COHELAN, California

THOMAS G. MORRIS, New Mexico

EDWARD J. PATTEN, New Jersey

CLARENCE D. LONG, Maryland

JOHN 0. MARSH, JR., Virginia

ROBERT B. DUNCAN, Oregon

SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois

BILLIE S. FARNUM, Michigan

KENNETH SPRANKLE, Clerk and Staff Director

Texas, Chairman

FRANK T. BOW, Ohio

CHARLES R. JONAS, North Carolina

MELVIN R. LAIRD, Wisconsin

ELFORD A. CEDERBERG, Michigan

GLENARD P. LIPSCOMB, California

JOHN J. RHODES, Arizona

WILLIAM E. MINSHALL, Ohio

ROBERT H. MICHEL, Illinois

SILVIO 0. CONTE, Massachusetts

ODIN LANGEN, Minnesota

BEN REIFEL, South Dakota

GLENN R. DAVIS, Wisconsin

HOWARD W. ROBISON, New York

GARNER E. SHRIVER, Kansas

JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania

MARK ANDREWS, North Dakota
SUPPLEMENTAL DEFENSE APPROPRIATION, 1965

TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1965.

WITNESSES

HON. ROBERT S. McNAMARA, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

GEN. EARLE G. WHEELER, U.S. ARMY, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF

STAFF

Mr. MAHON. This afternoon we have met for the purpose of considering an urgent request of the President of the United States for

early action on an estimate of $700 million in additional appropriations for the Department of Defense. As the President explained to

us at the White House this morning, he felt that he had considerable

latitude under the current legislation already on the books. He has

emergency funds and other authorities available to him which have

been provided by this committee and the Congress.

There are ways and means to avoid an immediate action on a new

appropriation, but apparently the President feels, and I agree with

him, that affirmative action here to provide additional funds which

may be required would enable us to hold intact all other funds which

have been provided by Congress for the current fiscal year. This way,

there would be no serious disruption in regular programs or no deferral

or depletion of those programs for any special or extraodinary purpose.

Another thing that I think action by the Congress at this time

may accomplish is a showing of the resolution of the people of our

country in matters involving foreign 

international 

This committee has always advocated a policy of firmness in affairs.

We have always been opposed to a program of vacillation and appeasement and we have felt that a firm policy was safer from the

standpoint of the country, and more likely to produce peace, and would

make a greater contribution to our contest for men's minds throughout

the world.

We are pleased to have before us this afternoon Secretary McNamara. He has already testified before the Defense Subcommittee

this year for several days. and has submitted a statement—available

to all members of the committee—of more than 200 pages, which is

one of the most comprehensive statements about our defense requirements we have ever had presented to the Congress.

We have had about 2 or 3 months of hearings on the Defense

appropriation bill for the forthcoming fiscal year.

Mr. Sikes, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction has had about a month of hearings. There is some military _construction involved here as well as other requirements. So under those

circumstances, Mr. Secretary, will you proceed to tell us what your

requirements are?

(1)
2

Secretary MCNAMARA. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As you know, I am

accompanied by General Wheeler, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs

of Staff. We are both 'prepared to support the proposed legislation,

a draft of which I have just submitted to you, and to respond to your

questions relating to it.

Mr. MAHON. Might I at this point read the proposed legislation

which is now before the committee:

EMERGENCY FUND, SOUTHEAST ASIA

For transfer by the Secretary of Defense, upon determination by the President

that such action is necessary in connection with military activities in Southeast

Asia, to any appropriation available to the Department of Defense for military

functions, to be merged with and to be available for the same purpose and for the

same time period as the appropriation to which transferred, $700 million, to remain available until expended: Provided, That transfers under this authority

may be made and funds utilized, without regard to the provisions of subsection

(b) of section 412 of Public Law 86-149, as amended—

And so forth. There are certain citations there of the law. This is

the proposal which was made by the President at the White House and

this is the language upon which we will pass judgment after we have

heard your testimony.

STATEMENT OF SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

Secretary MCNAMARA. Mr. Chairman, I believe I last appeared be- fore this committee in early March, March 2, I think. Since that time,

the outlook for operations in southeast Asia has changed materially. This change in outlook has affected the rates of activity in both fiscal

year 1965 and the probable rates of activity for fiscal year 1966. It,

therefore, seems wise to us to request a congressional appropriation of $700 million principally to insure that in the future our inventories of

weapons, equipment, and supplies will continue to grow as they have in the past. This applies particularly to inventories of consumables,

petroleum, and ammunition.

Further, it seems probable that in order to support the increased

rates of activity, it will be necessary to introduce certain facilities into South Vietnam, such as additions to airfields, to petroleum storage dumps, to ammunition dumps, et cetera. The Services, within the

past 90 days, have submitted to me requests for certain additional constructionitems associated with the operations in Southeast Asia.

After going through those requests in detail, I think we can eliminate

a portion of the proposed construction at this time. But the remain- ing construction requirements, relating as they do primarily to pipe- lines, airfield expansion, ammunition storage dumps, petroleum storage facilities, et cetera, seems highly desirable in order to support the

very great expansion of air activity and military operations in that

area. I will be happy to review this for you in a little more detail in

answer to your questions.

In any case, there are, I believe, these bona fide construction re- quirements not foreseen at the time the fiscal 1966 budget was proposed

or discussed with this committee.

Of that amount, I think we can finance a part through the use of certain funds remaining unobligated in the fiscal 1965 program,

and the contingency authorization and appropriation requested in the
3

fiscal 1966 program, leaving, therefore, roughly $100 million for which

we seek funds today.

Second, as I say, the rate of activity has been much higher than anticipated. The steaming hours of the Navy, the flying hours of the Navy and Air Force fixed wing aircraft, the flying hours of the Army and Marine Corps helicopters have increased very dramatically in recent weeks.

(Discussion off the record.)

Secretary MCNAMARA. It is about 15 to 20 times the level of last December. This, of course, has increased our consumption of pe- troleum. It has increased our requirements for repair and caused other forms of additional operation and maintenance expenditures. Therefore, we believe that we will find it necessary to spend about $135 million for these purposes above the levels previously anticipated_ in the fiscal 1965 program. In the case of ammunition, bombs, rockets, artillery ammunition and small arms ammunition, the Congress has, as you know, appropriated substantial sums for this purpose in the last 3 or 4 years, sums in excess of previous levels. The ammuni- tion inventories have been building up. That is particularly true of modern ordnance for both the Air Force and Navy aircraft. But the consumption rates of these items are so great at the present time and have increased so dramatically in the last 90 days, that we think it will be wise to increase our procurement of ammunition immediately by about $275 million. For example, the expenditure of rockets

doubled, as I remember it, since January of this year. The expenditure of the flares for the Army doubled since January of this

year. The Navy and Air Force bomb expenditures have trebled and quadrupled since the earlier part of this year.

Our inventories have been expanding. We believe they should

continue to expand. But in order to insure that they continue to expand, we think we should plan not only to replace the current levels

of consumption, but also to anticipate continuing high levels of consumption and be prepared to replace those as needed.

Finally, we believe it would be wise to begin to think about the expansion of helicopter and aircraft production and the expenditure

of perhaps $175 million on certain long lead items associated therewith.

The aircraft losses to date have been very small, and particularly

small in relation to our inventory and in relation to our procurement.

For example, for the past 4/12years the total number of tactical.fighters, bombers and reconnaissance aircraft lost in southeast Asia is 157,

and during that same 4-year period we have taken delivery of 3,500.

The total helicopter loss in 4/12years is 152, and we have taken deliveryin that period of 3,276 helicopters. Our inventories of tactical aircraft today are very large in relation to these losses. For the types

of tactical aircraft I have just referred to, in the active forces, excluding reserves, we have something on the order of 5,500 active.tactical

aircraft compared to the 157 we have lost in our 4-year period. iii

terms of helicopters, we have in the active forces in the Navy and

Marines and Army alone, excluding the Air Force, about 5,200 helicopters compared to the loss of 152.

So our inventories are high, our rates of delivery have been high,

our forces have been increasing in number in both helicopters and

tactical aircraft. Our losses are small, but nonetheless we have so
4

substantially increased our sortie rate, we are now running something

on the order of 3,000 to 4,000 combat sorties a month, not all strike

sorties, but combat sorties a month, and although the rate of losses

has declined we think it is prudent to look to the future.

Therefore, in anticipation of that time, we think that provision

should be made to permit procurement of both additional helicopters

and fixed wing aircraft.

This, then, summarizes very quickly for you the reasons why we ask

.an appropriation of $700 million at this time in excess of the amount

.appropriated for fiscal 1965. The allocation of amounts within the

$700 million represents a tentative assessment of how the total may be

distributed.

Mr. MAHON. These funds would be available for the remaining

weeks in fiscal 1965 and generally also for fiscal 1966 because the

language of the resolution would so provide?

Secretary MCNAMARA. Except that certain of the funds to the extent they are transferred to annual appropriations such as operation

and maintenance which then would make them available only for the

fiscal year in which they were transferred. I will be very happy to

answer your questions, sir.

Mr. MAHON. General Wheeler this request has come rather suddenly. There has been some feeling that perhaps the budget for the

forthcoming year was too low. The disposition, generally, of the

committee has been to make sure that we had an adequate budget.

I still think that the budget is reasonably adequate, and I believe that

this appropriation at this time could be avoided, but we would have

to deplete some of our emergency funds and some of our resources,

and so forth. In view of the psychological situation and the need

to make abundantly clear to the whole wide world just where we stand

from the standpoint of will and determination, I think this is a good

move, and I am all for it. A virtue of. the proposal is that it gives

Congress, the military services, and the President an excellent opportunity to work as a team on a vital matter. •

I wish you would tell us what your view is in regard to this proposed

acceleration.

STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

General WHEELER. Mr. Chairman, I was present on Sunday evening at the White House when the President had a meeting with certain of the congressional leadership. At this time we discussed primarily the Dominican Republic situation. However, the matter of

Vietnam came up, and this matter which you are addressing today

was discussed, not in detail but in rather broad terms. Yesterday I

was able to discuss with my colleagues in the Joint Chiefs of Staff

the thought that the President might ask for a supplemental appropriation related to southeast Asia operations. I sketched out for

them the reasons therefor, substantially the reasons which you and

Secretary McNamara have expressed.

Mr. FLOOD. Are you talking now about both situations?

General WHEELER. This is addressed, I understand, only to southeast Asia. I said it came out of the discussion on the Dominican
Mr. MAHON. This has application to the whole world.

Mr. FLOOD. Except the language says "southeast Asia."

Mr. MAHON. It tends to increase our overall strength, and if it tends

to increase our overall strength this could be brought to bear wherever

we might want to apply it.

Mr. FLOOD. Just so we know.

General WHEELER. I might add that all members of the Joint Chiefs

subscribed wholeheartedly to the President's proposal. They accepted it without any divergence at all, or any reservation. They were

agreed on the psychological impact that such an action by the Congress would have worldwide, and they also thought that this would

permit the Services to get themselves into a better position, not only to

face up to the current levels of activity, but also into a better position

to cope with larger actions should they arise in the future.

I must say that I believe both the material and the psychological

aspects are such that action by the Congress would be most helpful

in our activity.

Mr. MAHON. You would like us to take favorable action on this

request?

General WHEELER. I would, indeed, sir.

,Mr. MAHON. You think it would be to the overall best interests of

the country from a military standpoint?

General WHEELER. I do, indeed, sir.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROPOSALS

Mr. MAHON. We are looking to the future and not to the past, and

we cannot predict the future, but how much of the funds involved here,

the $700 million request, would probably be allocated to military construction, which generally has to be authorized by the Armed Services

Committee and handled by the Military Construction Subcommittee

of the Committee on Appropliations ?

Secretary MCNAMARA. As we look at the problems today, Mr. Chairman, I believe about 15 percent of the $700 million that is to say,

approximately $100 million would be utilized to finance construction.

Mr. MAHON. Generally, what kind of construction would this be?

Secretary MCNAMARA. I can give you some of the details.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. FLOOD. They are existing airbases?

Secretary MCNAMARA. Existing airbases.

Second, we are going to have to add new airbases.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. SIKES. One of the problems that has been discussed before is

the shortage of land, landing facilities, not enough land for dispersal of aircraft. The Vietnamese Government has been reluctant to

make land available. Is that problem now overcome?

Secretary MCNAMARA. In this particular instance, we have already

received the approval of the Vietnamese Government to take over the

land required.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. SIKES. In connection with construction, will the new program

have any effect on the regular fiscal year 1965 program?

Secretary MCNAMARA. No. This would be on top of the regular

1965 program.
6

Mr. SIKES. Will it have any effect on the base closures that have

been announced?

Secretary MCNAMARA. No. This construction we are discussing is

associated with Southeast Asia. If I may mention the third category—I have already mentioned two categories, expansion of existing

airfields and construction of new airfields—the third category is expansion of other support facilities.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. SIKES. What type of reporting do you propose to make to

Congress on this program?

Secretary MCNAMARA. We would be happy to respond to any requests you make. The legislation itself, it was suggested to us, need not

include a reporting requirement, but we would be happy to see the

committee's report or, for that matter, the legislation itself refer to

it, and we will respond in any way you ask us to.

Mr. MArioN. I would like to say at this time, Mr. Secretary, we

would like you to report in accordance with the suggestion of Mr. Sikes.

Secretary McNAmARA. I would think perhaps a formal report

monthly would be best, although if that isn't satisfactory, we would be

happy to follow any other procedure.

Mr. 1VIAHoN. We will be glad to cooperate with regard to a reasonable reporting arrangement.

Mr. CEDERBERG. Mr. Secretary, you will recall about a month ago

you requested of our subcommittee authority to reprogram "Military

construction" funds to be used in this area.

Secretary MCNAMARA. Yes.

Mr. CEDERBERG. With the idea that you were going to report back

to us.

Secretary MCNAMARA. That is right.

Mr. CEDERBERG. At that time it was indicated that it was quite

urgent and that this authority would, last until the end of this fiscal

year.

I think there was approximately $40 million or so involved in that.

Secretary MCNAMARA. That is right.

Mr. CEDERBERG. We are getting very close to the end of this fiscal

year. I believe we have been advised of your intention to spend $11.6

million and part of this is POL and part of it is . My question

is, are these additional funds requested inclusive of the $40 million reprograming, or is it in addition to it?

Secretary MCNAMARA. It includes it in this sense, that the total

additional construction program submitted to me by the services which

I alluded to earlier was over and above that in the fiscal 1965 and 1966

budgets. Of that total I concluded that some of the projects could be,

in effect, canceled for the present, that we could get by without those

facilities now. Of the remainder, we think we can finance a portion by

utilizing this remaining reprograming authority in the fiscal year 1965

budget. We believe we can finance a further share using the contingency authorization and appropriations requested in the fiscal year

1966 construction program. That leaves $100 million remaining to be

financed, and it is that $100 million that I mentioned a moment ago as

being part of the $700 million. Now, these are very rough estimates.

We are in a situation that is very fluid and changing rapidly. This is

my best guess at the moment.
7

Mr. CEDERBERG. The thing that concerned me was the urgency of the

letter at the time, and the indication this was going to be expended for

construction by the end of this fiscal year, and yet there seemed to be a

slowup in advising us of the amount of money to be allocated.

Secretary MCNAMARA. I think that reprograming will be expended by the end of this fiscal year. We have changed our priorities

and I held up going ahead on certain of those older actions.

Mr. CEDERBERG. What you are saying to us now is that you still want

to keep this authority that you have requested, and this is in addition

to that?

Secretary MCNAMARA. That is right. I have taken account of that

and offset it against the total.

Mr. MAHON. When you were before us and before the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Secretary, you were asked if the fiscal year 1966

budget should be increased on account of what appeared to be a move

toward an acceleration of the effort in South Vietnam.

You said that you didn't want to ask for any more funds at the

time of your previous appearance. I believe on one or two occasions

you said if the situation changed and funds were required, you would

be before us requesting additional funds. I believe those words will be

found in the hearings.

Now, here is a statement you made in response to a question from Mr.

Sikes, on March 2:

SECRETARY MCNAMARA. No. The budget was submitted to Congress on January 25 and I do not believe that any of it since that time or since the decisions

were made which were reflected in that budget require any change in the defense portion of the President's budget.

This was generally the position you took, as you will recall.

Do you consider that a substantial change in the situation has taken

place?

Secretary MCNAMARA. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The level of activity

in the month of April, measured, in terms of sorties, is certainly a very

substantial change since I testified on March 2.

Moreover, on March 3, in addition to that quoted answer in response

to Mr. Sikes, I also said, in answer to a query from Mr. Lipscomb,

that:

Beyond that, as you know, should it later develop that we need still larger

numbers of people and other expenditures, we have authority under certain contingency provisions in the budget to expend funds for that purpose.

It was therefore implied that we were not asking for it at that time.

Further in that same exchange with Mr. Lipscomb, I said that—

I don't know whether additional funds will be required, above what we have requested for fiscal year 1966. I don't want to try to make a guess, because it is so

difficult to look ahead 12, 15, 18 months to the end of fiscal year 1966. I only point

out that it will be our policy to supply in the form of military aid whatever South

Vietnam requires to carry out effectively its counterinsurgency program. * * *

Now, we were talking in that exchange particularly about the Military Assistance Program, but the same point affected the general discussion. We couldn't see clearly then, and we can't see clearly now,

the total requirements.

Mr. MAnoN. Mr. Laird is heavily involved in the "Labor, Health,

Education, and Welfare" appropriation bill which is being debated

on the floor of the House and we are now in the midst of a quorum
8,

call. I would like to yield to Mr. Laird to interrogate the Secretary

at this time.

Mr. LAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had hoped that we would

be able to postpone the action on HEW-Labor so that we could give

consideration to this request, because it is a request for a large amount

of money and it has a great deal to do with the overall national security policy of our country.

Secretary MCNAMARA. Surely.

Mr. LAIRD. Evidentally it was impossible to get a postponement on

the HEW-Labor appropriation bill, and that is the reason I am here

now, asking you these questions, and I appreciate the chairman giving

me an opportunity to ask at least a few questions on this $700 million

request.

First, Mr. Secretary, when will the justifications be before us?

Secretary MCNAMARA. I am justifying it now.

Mr. LAIRD. When will they be submitted to the committee in the

usual fashion, as far as the backup material on the $700 million is

concerned? I know the President, in his statement today, said that

plans were made to expend every dollar by June 30, 1965, so I would

assume that we have good information on that. In his statement to

us this morning he made it very clear the expenditures would be made

this year.

Secretary MCNAMARA. The appropriation request is for $700 million, and I outlined a moment ago the major categories in which it

would break as we see it at the present time.

I think it is important to recognize that this situation is changing

daily and we should expect some flexibility, therefore, in our procurement planning, so that I wouldn't wish to mislead you into thinking

that we could give you a detailed breakdown today that would be

exactly the way we would expect to expend the funds or that we would

expend the funds in the next 90 days. •

PROCUREMENT ON NONCOMPETITIVE BID BASIS

Mr. LAIRD. What percentage of this procurement that you will carry

on in the next 90 days will be on a noncompetitive bid basis?

Secretary MCNAMARA. You have to examine the categories in the

terms of the construction 

Mr. LAIRD. I am not talking about military construction, but about

procurement account. I would like you to address yourself to that

one point.

Secretary MCNAMARA. Let me break it down again. I think I may

have done this before you came in.

Mr. MAHoN. You can provide those details later.

Secretary MCNAMARA. I would like to answer the question because

the point is in terms of what Mr. Laird is thinking about, that there

is very little procurement susceptible to competition in this request.

There 

Mr. LAIRD. 

is roughly 

I can't 

$100 

see 

million 

how all 

of 

that 

construction, $135 millionconstruction can be expended in

1965. This bothers me.

Secretary MCNAMARA. When you say "expended," what it amounts

to is that we will put it on order.

Mr. LAIRD. The President said expended.
9

Secretary MCNAMARA. The word might better be "reserved." This

could mean either obligated or expended.

Mr. LAIRD. Obligated is quite different.

Secretary MCNAMARA. He didn't mean necessarily we could expend

it in 60 days.

Mr. MAHON. For the purposes of the record I think we ought to say

that regardless of the exact language of the President—and I heard

the President—I am sure that no one would expect this $700 million

to be expended in fiscal year 1965, because the year ends on June 30,

1965.

Mr. LAIRD. I was quite surprised that the President said that, Mr.

Chairman, and that is why I wanted to develop that.

Mr. MAHON. He undoubtedly must have had in mind obligations,

but I doubt that it would all be obligated. I rather hope it isn't obligated, but it will be there if required in the Vietnam problem.

Secretary MCNAMARA. The point is that we shouldn't go ahead with

a program, let's say, involving a major construction project, if we Tan

only finance a part of it.

Mr. LAIRD. I hope you don't go ahead with the expenditure of any

of this money unless you need to spend it. When you see a crash

program calling for an expenditure of money in a period of just 90

days, I don't think you can intelligently spend this amount of money

on that a kind of crash basist

The wording of the President has now been changed, and I understand we are now talking about an obligation, rather than an expenditure, and that makes quite a difference.

Secretary MCNAMARA. I want to make it perfectly clear that what

we are talking about is starting a particular project in the next 60

days. Now how much of that sum of money we can actually spend

in the next 60 days I can't tell you. How much we would actually

formally obligate in the next .60 days I can't tell you, but we will

definitely get the project going in the next 60 days.

Mr. LAIRD. You don't think you will obligate it? I wouldn't expect

you to.

Secretary MCNAMARA. It is a technicality.

Mr. LAIRD. I really didn't expect you to, but I was surprised at the

briefing this morning—

Secretary MCNAMARA. I don't recall his using that exact term, but

I do know what he wants to do in the next 60 days is get these projects underway. Maybe that is a better way of saying it.

Mr. LAIRD. I am glad to have this explanation of it.

Secretary MCNAMARA. Good.

Mr. LAIRD. What is the percentage of outright procurement that

will be placed on a noncompetitive basis? I haven't had that question answered yet.

Secretary MCNAMARA. There is $700 million total procurement. If

you spend the money, you procure something. To use the word procurement in that sense is one way. You are thinking of it in a different

sense.

Now, let me go down the $700 million 

Mr. LAIRD. I am thinking of it in the way that this committee 

Secretary MCNAMARA. May I finish?

Mr. LAIRD. Just a minute.
10

Secretary MCNAMARA. Excuse me.

Mr. LAIRD. This committee has always referred to the Procurement

Appropriations, Title III, of the annual bill.

Secretary MCNAMARA. If you will 'permit me to break the tentative

allocation of the $700 million down, I think I can answer your question.

The $100 million is for construction. We can leave that out. The

$135 million is for operations and maintenance. We can leave that out,

I presume.

Ammunition is $273 million. Now, I think we should include that

as something normally considered as procurement. About $175 or $180

million is aircraft. That should be considered procurement. So,

therefore, there is something roughly on the order of $450 million out

of the $700 million that would be procurement. To the extent that that

procurement does not involve merely an extension or continuation of

existing contracts; such as, for F-4 airplanes, or ITH-type helicopters

that are coming from only one manufacturer, I think we can put the

bulk of that out on competitive buying. It would be our hope to do

that. I can't answer more specifically than that at the present time.

Mr. LAIRD. That is fine. That is the answer I wanted to get. As far

as aircraft go, you feel that you will go on a competitive basis?

Secretary MCNAMARA. Except to the degree that where we were

buying F-4's from McDonnell, for example, we would continue that;

but where we are buying ammunition from more than one source—and

we are in many cases—I would hope we could go out for competitive

bids and I think we can.

Mr. LAIRD. Isn't it true most of the ammo being used in Vietnam

right now is procured presently on a competitive-bid basis?

Secretary MCNAMARA. Yes.

Mr. LAIRD. My reason for asking the question is simply that most

of the stocks that were spent were in that particular area, in the competitive-bid field, where we have been procuring these items on that

basis and I was interested in finding out if that same procedure would

be used with this money.

Secretary MCNAMARA. Yes. I don't think we are so limited by time

as to make that impossible.

Mr. LAIRD. We aren't in the position of running out of ammunition stocks or any kind of ammunition or any kind of bomb c)r any

other kind of military equipment for Vietnam?

Secretary MCNAMARA. NO.

Mr. LAIRD. We have plenty of equipment—plenty of ammunition?

Secretary MCNAMARA. We do.

Mr. LAIRD. Plenty of every weapon of war that is needed now to

conduct the war in Vietnam so that we can have victory; is that true,

Mr. Secretary?

Secretary MCNAMARA. Right; that is correct.

Mr. LAIRD. So this does not in any way involve a step-up in the war

in Vietnam. The war can proceed even if this takes a week or 10

days to act on in this committee?

Secretary MONA1VIARA. Yes; that is quite true. And as you know,

we have emergency authority under the terms of which, were that

not true, we could expand our procurement and would have done so

before this.

Mr. LAIRD. I have to get back up to the floor on this bill.
USE OF MAP FUNDS

Mr. JONAS. With reference to the military construction phase, would

it not be more appropriate to use MAP funds than appropriated

funds?

Secretary MCNAMARA. This is an interesting question, and I can

only give you this answer: There are certain clear cases of construction that should be financed by MAP funds—let's say a barracks as an

illustration.

There are other clear cases that should be financed by Defense Department funds.

Mr. JONAS. Take a runway that we cannot move.

Secretary MCNAMARA. There are other cases that are marginal.

Frankly, this is one reason that I personally favor the consolidation of

the Military Assistance budget and the remaining Defense Department

budget and having the construction for both in one bill, because it is

extremely 'difficult to determine in these marginal eases whether the

item should be financed by the Military Assistance Program or by the

other portion of the Defense Department budget.

Mr. JONAS. Have we any MAP funds unobligated ?

Secretary MCNAMARA. No. We will spend in excess of the Military

Assistance Program authorized and appropriated funds for fiscal 1965

and we will cover the excess by the use for the first time in 4 years of

section 510.

• Mr. JONAS. You did borrow a lot of money from MAP for construction in South Vietnam for several years.

Secretary MCNAMARA. When you say "borrow" 

Mr. JONAS. That is the way it was explained. Maybe it is not necessarily borrow but used MAP funds.

Secretary McNANIARA. We did use Military Assistance funds; yes,

for construction in southeast Asia, and we are continuing to do so.

Mr. JONAS. I wanted to get-that on the record because I knew you

had been using MAP funds. What changed the situation? At what

point did we stop using MAP funds and start asking for appropriated

funds for military construction?

Secretary MCNAMARA. We are continuing to use Military Assistance

Program funds for military construction in southeast Asia. We are

now asking for military construction funds in addition for that purpose because we 'have U.S. troops deployed there and because those

U.S. troops need facilities.

Mr. JONAS. And because you have no more MAP funds available.

Secretary MCNAMARA. No; that is not the reason. We have a deficit

clause in the Military Assistance Program which allows us to expend

funds in excess of those authorized and appropriated, and we are

already utilizing that deficit clause. If it seemed appropriate to

finance by MAP funds some of the construction we discussed with you

today, we would simply use the authority of Section 510 of the foreign

aid bill to a greater degree than we already have.

Mr. SIRES. Mr. Secretary, can. new stocks of ammunition, rockets,

new aircraft, et cetera, be acquired under the foreseeable situation before serious shortages develop ?

Secretary MCNAMARA. Yes, without question, Mr. Sikes. This is

because we have so vastly increased the rate of production of these

items that our stocks are building all the time instead of declining.
12

TIMING OF THE REQUEST

Mr. SIKES. Let me be sure that I understood you correctly in your

response to a question by Mr. Laird. Do I understand that the timing

situation with regard to the enactment of the requested legislation is

such that the committee can have a grace period of several days in

which to carry out its work?

Secretary MCNAMARA. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I think it would be

a serious mistake to take a long period to review this.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. SIKES. I believe the term in Mr. Laird's question is "from a

week to 10 days". Do you feel that is a reasonable time?

Secretary MCNAMARA. This is for the 'Congress to d ecide, Mr. Chairman, but I think it is much too long. When the President states that

military operations in Southeast Asia require these funds, I would hope

the Congress would act promptly.

Mr. FLOOD. You have been around a long time with this subcommittee. What do you mean by "prompt," within the rule of reason under

all the circumstances?

Secretary MCNAMARA. This is a matter for the Congress to decide.

Mr. FLOOD. I understand that.

Secretary MCNAMARA. I would hope before the end of the week. I

would hope within a day or so.

Mr. FLOOD. Before the end of this week?

Secretary MCNAMARA. I would hope so.

Mr. SIKES. Mr. Secretary, with further regard to the matter of reporting of projects and activities involved, I have not had an opportunity to confer with the members of the Military Construction Subcommittee, but it is my personal opinion that 30-day reporting would

not be nearly so satisfactory for our purposes as the present system

which was put into effect following the agreement which we reached

with you some time ago on some reprograming in which immediate

reporting is made to the Congress after these projects are approved

in your office.

Secretary MCNAMARA. I would be very happy to do so.

Mr. FLOOD. Is this POL and ammunition to replenish stateside and

established reserves, or will this actually move into the line? Our reserves are not that low, are they?

Secretary MoNAmARA. No, certainly not. I was looking the other

day 

Mr. FLOOD. This is an inventory operation.

Secretary McNAmARA. That is correct.

Mr. FLOOD. For both rockets and regular ammunition?

Secretary MCNAMARA. And bombs and other ammunition. This is

to insure that our inventories not only are not rundown, but continue

to rise as we have planned.

Mr. FLOOD. In other words, I do not want anybody to think we are

in such tough shape that you are going to put this on a plane and fly

it to Da Nang. That is not the story.

Secretary McNAmARA. That is not the story.
tO

13

AMMUNITION DUMP AND CONSTRUCTION

Mr. FLOOD. You mentioned ammo dumps and construction. Are

they going to be above ground and exclusively in areas under U.S.

security? Are you going to build them? I am concerned about sabotage. You have a bad sabotage problem.

Secretary MCNAMARA. When you say in areas under exclusive U.S.

protection, strictly speaking, no. May I go off the record?

(Discussion off the record.)

Secretary MCNAMARA. We believe they will be well protected.

Mr. FLOOD. What do you mean, in a broader sense they will be well

protected? You have lost two dumps now. One week after the marines hit the beaches there, you lost a dump, either by accident or

sabotage. If we are going to build this, even under the emergency, can

we not build bunkers, can we not put some of this underground in such

a way that we are going to have natural protection as well as security

guards?

Secretary MCNAMARA. Yes. One of our problems at the moment is

that the very rapid expansion of forces has led to storage of ammunition in ways that are not as well protected as if we had more permanent installations.

Mr. FLOOD. Is that of necessity, because of the circumstances, going

to take place again, or can we do something better?

Secretary MCNAMARA. I think we can do something better with

respect to the forces we have there but there may still be unexpected

changes in the months ahead.

Mr. FLOOD. What percentage as against 100 percent of the ammunition dumps will not be directly under U.S. security?

Secretary MCNAMARA. I would say not more than percent.

Probably not that high.

Mr. FLOOD. Will it be all kinds of ammo or just special stuff in

those areas?

Secretary MCNAMARA. All kinds of ammo.

REPAIRS ON AIRCRAFT

Mr. FLOOD. How are your repairs on aircraft being handled When

they are bad? All kinds of aircraft—Army, Navy, and Air Force.

We have never heard this. You are getting damage.

Secretary MCNAMARA. Yes, it is surprisingly light in terms of repair

requirements. To the best of my knowledge, it is being handled primarily by the Air Force and Navy second and third echelon shops.

Mr. FLOOD. Second and third echelon?

Secretary MCNAMARA. Yes.

Mr. FLOOD. Do you have enough ammo with the fleet for the Navy

guns?

Secretary MCNAMARA. I know of no shortage.

General WHEELER. None that I have ever heard of.

Mr. FLOOD. Are you building up good reserves on Navy ammo?

Secretary MCNAMARA. Yes.

Mr. FLOOD. We learned a lesson about this.

Secretary MCNAMARA. Yes.
14

USE OF HIGH-SPEED AIRCRAFT IN VIETNAM

Mr. FLOOD. What about the old: story from Korea, which we are

getting again, that your high-speed, hot-fighter bombers are the wrong

aircraft at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and the wrong kind of

war?

Secretary MCNAMARA. I think there is very little evidence to support that. The loss rate was running roughly 2 percent per sortie a

month or two ago in terms of combat sorties. I am taking all the

losses and dividing them by strike sorties as opposed to other combat

sorties. Were I to divide the total losses by the total number of combat sorties, the loss rate a few weeks ago would have been lower than

2 percent because I would have put in reconnaissance sorties over North

Vietnam as part of the divisor. Leaving out the nonstrike sorties and

dividing the losses by only the strike sorties, we had a loss rate of

around 2 percent. That now has come down to about 1 percent, as I

recall.

General WHEELER. That is correct.

Secretary MCNAMARA. That is a very acceptable loss rate. In terms

of losses, the high-speed jets that you speak of are not incurring unacceptable losses.

Mr. FLOOD. I am not talking about losses.

Secretary MCNAMARA. I realize that.

Mr. FLOOD. I am not talking about losses. That is a different story.

Secretary MCNAMARA. But this is oneMr. FLOOD. You have the wrong aircraft in the wrong place, at the

wrong time, and the wrong war. I am not talking about losses.

Secretary MCNAMARA. One of the charges made is that the highspeed aircraft, because of their complexity, were incurring high loss

rates because they were exposed to ground fire and the ground fire

would have to hit only a fuel line or a line 

Mr. FLOOD. Let's not talk about loss rate, but the effectiveness of the

mission.

Secretary MCNAMARA. In terms of effectiveness, the high-speed jets

are very effective against their fixed targets.

Mr. SIKES. Let us put it on this basis. Are there to be any changes

in the type of equipment, aircraft, et cetera, now being used?

Secretary MCNAMARA. No.

Mr. SIKES. Do you feel the right aircraft and equipment are now

being used?

Secretary MCNAMARA. I do

'

indeed. In terms of strikes against

fixed taregts, the high-speed jets are quite effective. In terms of coverage of helicopter operations, landing operations, for example, I think

there is some advantage to the propeller-driven aircraft that are being

used in South Vietnam today.

Mr. FLOOD. I do not think there is any doubt about that. I wondered what you thought about it.

Secretary MCNAMARA. In terms of coverage of troops who may be

facing ambush, that is to say, a convoy moving down a road, for

example, that may be ambushed, I think the propeller-driven aircraft

are very effective.

Mr. FLOOD. For strafing and fighter cover, what are we going to do?

Mr. SIKES. Are they available in sufficient quantities to do the job?
15

Secretary MCNAMARA. Yes.

Mr. FLOOD. What question did you say "Yes" to?

Secretary MCNAMARA. To Mr. Sikes.

Mr. FLOOD. What was the question?

Secretary MCNAMARA. Are they available in sufficient quantities to

do the job? , The answer is "Yes." I think the answer to your specific

question is that the high-speed jets are very effective for the use for

which they were purchased. They were not purchased to carry on

antiguerrilla operations and against fleeting targets.

Mr. FLOOD. I understand that.

Secretary MCNAMARA. For those, the propeller aircraft are quite

satisfactory.

MEDICAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. SIRES. Let me pursue another matter for a moment. Then I

will yield back to you, Mr. Flood, if you have further questions.

The President's statement on this subject which is now before us

has a paragraph from which I quote:

Just 2 days ago, we dispatched Gen. C. L. Milburn, Jr., Deputy Surgeon

General of the Army, to assist U.S. representatives in Vietnam in formulating

an ekpanded program of medical assistance for the people of South Vietnam.

The language of the proposed legislation contains no reference to

military assistance. In fact, it spells out specifically the military functions. What type of programs for medical assistance are included in

the $700 million request?

Secretary MCNAMARA. Only to the extent that it requires expenditures for equipment to be put in the hands of U.S. forces. For example, if we increase, as we well may, in that circumstance, our mobile

dispensary vans and put these in the hands of U.S. troops in order that

they might circulate through an area and provide some degree of

medical assistance to the South Vietnamese, that would be an appropriate charge against the $700 million'. TO the extent we purchase the

van and turn it over to the South Vietnamese, that would be an appropriate charge against the foreign aid program.

PAY AND CAPITAL EQUIPMENT INCLUDED IN THE REQUEST

Mr. SIRES. You used as a rough total, the amount $1.5 billion in

your press conference recently in connection with this operation, of

which $800 million was for direct U.S. military support. We need to

know whether your figures include or exclude pay and allowance of

military personnel.

Secretary MCNAMARA. They include pay and allowance of military

personnel directly assigned there.

Mr. SIRES. Do they include or exclude the cost of U.S. capital equipment—guns, ships, planes?

Secretary MCNAMARA. To the extent it is consumed, they include it.

As I explained at the time I quoted that figure, it is very difficult to

say what is the cost of the operation in Vietnam which draws upon

the full resources of this immense worldwide establishment we have.

I made the best possible estimate I could, and I included the pay of the

men actually assigned out there, and the loss of equipment and the 

consumption of equipment that is associated with those operations.
16

Mr. SIXES. I do not know that this is essential to our purposes. It

is impossible to determine what percentage of the cost of an aircraft

is used up in Vietnam if the plane is brought back to this country for

further use here. How would you deal with that question?

Secretary MCNAMARA. I did not include the cost of an airplane

whose life was not affected by its service in Vietnam.

Mr. SIKES. Is the same true for other equipment?

Secretary MCNAMARA. That is right.

It was a very imprecise estimate but the best I could make under

the circumstances.

COST OF SENDING TROOPS TO DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

Mr. SIRES. What has been the cost of sending 14,000 troops to the

Dominican Republic?

Secretary MONA1VIARA. I will supply it for the record, sir.

Mr. SIXES. Provide for the record the out-of-pocket cost.

Secretary MCNAMARA. I will be happy to.

(The information requested is being furnished separately to the

committee.)

Mr. SIXES. The service witnesses have been asked for an approximation of the value of training exercises and maneuvers which have been

canceled or reduced in scope so that money and time can be available

for direct military commitments. Have you comment on this?

Secretary MCNAMARA. It is not very great. I would say perhaps it

is $85 million at most.

EXPENDITURES IN SUPPORT OF SOUTH VIETNAM

Mr. SIKES. How much money are we spending in support of South

Vietnam for military assistance and for other assistance, economic assistance, direct military support, what are the figures for 1964, what

are they now estimated for 1956, and what do you estimate for fiscal

1966?

(The information is being provided separately to the committee.)

NEED FOR ADDITIONAL HELICOPTERS AD COASTAL SMALL CRAFT

Mr. FLOOD. There is one problem I have been concerned about. I

have asked the clerk to check the figure. This is an old argument that

I have with you and your generals. The Air Force came in here the

other day and they asked for a reprograming of 24 choppers to cost

x dollars.

Then right behind them waiting in the hall was the Navy. They

wanted small patrol craft for coastal operations against junks

to cost x million dollars, and three air cushion vehicles, with which I

agreed.

I begged and pleaded with the Air Force and begged and pleaded

with the Navy, got down on my knees and said "Will you, please ask for

choppers to help the Army in South Vietnam?"
17

I said to the Navy, pretty please. Never mind the Norwegian

things but get something to handle the junk traffic coming down the

coast.

They told me the other day that the Air Force, listening to my pleas

of a year ago, heart rending as they were, did ask for 24 choppers and

Defense and Budget cut them out.

The Navy did ask for and Defense and Budget cut them out.

They reclamaed and were turned down the second time.

Do you mean to tell me that you could not foresee this? With my

astigmatism I could see the need within this fiscal year of additional

choppers and coastal small craft in the delta and along that coast

by the end of this fiscal year.

Secretary MCNAMARA. First, the answer is that we did foresee it and

we therefore have more than doubled the rate of helicopter delivery.

It was 415 in fiscal 1961 and we have taken delivery to date in 9 months

of 1965 of 

Mr. FLOOD. They told me that.

Secretary MCNAMARA. We are talking about 24 additional on top of

. It was not very much.

Mr. FLOOD. There is nothing special purpose about the Navy small

craft.

Secretary MCNAMARA. In the case of the Navy small craft there is no

question but what we need more. I doubt I have cut any out. I have

been adding them in the last 3 or 4 years and we still need more.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Mr. Secretary, was this request now before the committee handled in the usual way, that is, with the support of the Joint

Chiefs of Staff?

Secretary MCNAMARA. I ask the Service Secretaries to sit with

me, and they in turn with their Chiefs, to estimate the amount by which

we should probably increase our levels of procurement inclusive of

construction and operations and maintenance because of the very

rapid rate of increase in the last 60 to 90 days. The Chiefs are familiar with this, and, as General Wheeler said, thoroughly endorse it.

I do not wish to imply that it has had the same degree of intensive

development which extends over a period of 6 to 9 months that our

normal budget development does have.

ADEQUACY OF SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Is the $700 million request before us today less than

the military services had indicated they needed?

Secretary MCNAMARA. Because their future needs are so unclear at

this time, I don't think any of them feel very strongly about it. I

would say in one or two cases it is less; that is right. In the case of

the construction as I mentioned it is less. There are one or two

others where it is not exactly equal to what they would otherwise request.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. I believe the figures you gave us, I may have missed

something, add up to $685 million.

Secretary MCNAMARA. I didn't detail the $15 million of small items.

For example, there is conversion of a ship at $31/2 million; communications gear required for the Air Force of $5 million; certain miscellaneous procurement for the Marine Corps of $2 million, and a few

other miscellaneous items that add up to the total of $700 million.
18

Mr. LIPSCOMB. I think we are faced with a problem that we are

going to have to have some justification so we should be filled in on

the $15 million.

Secretary MCNAMARA. I can give them now. Communications gear,

$5 million; other procurement for the Marine Corps, $2 million; ship

conversion for the Navy, $3.5 million; there was a $5 million special

ammunition item which was a separate category; and aircraft flares.

These are tentative proposals.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. One of the items, I believe you said $175 million was

for helicopters and aircraft?

Secretary MCNAMARA. Yes.

PRODUCTION OF HELICOPTERS

Mr. LIPSCOMB. You described the aircraft as fixed-wing aircraft.

Secretary MCNAMARA. Yes.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. What do you have in mind here?

Secretary MCNAMARA. It might be F-4's for the Navy and Air

Force, for example.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. You further qualified it by saying long leadtime

items on certain aircraft.

Secretary MCNAMARA. Yes. We would like to work with the companies to raise their rate of production. In the case of aircraft, if we

decided on F-4's we might raise production by per month, which

would add an additional per year capability, and take the action

now to authorize that to be done.

In the case of the helicopters we are thinking of doing the same

thing. I think the production line rate is a month. We

would like to raise it to about per month and issue the orders

to do that now.

Mr. FLOOD. Those are Army?

Secretary MCNAMARA. Army and Marines.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. What does this do, then, to our fiscal year 1966

budget?

Secretary MCNAMARA. This would be added as a supplement to the

fiscal 1965 appropriation. It would not affect the 1966 budget.

Mr. LrPscoms. You mentioned just long leadtime items.

Secretary MCNAMARA. Yes, because we may want to carry on that

rate of per month and the expansion of some per month

on the helicopters for a more extended period. If so, we will have to

come back and get more funds next year.

AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS IN 1966

• Mr. Ln-scomB. Couldn't we plan right now for this contingency in

our fiscal year 1966 budget?

Secretary MCNAMARA. I think it would be very unwise. We cannot

see fiscal 1966 with sufficient clarity to make any estimate at the present

time of what change, if any, there should be in that budget.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. What is the situation under these circumstances—

suppose by good fortune Congress does adjourn earlier this year?

What would that do to your planning?
19

• Secretary MCNAMARA. We have emergency authority, as you know,

of varying kinds which would allow us to expend funds in almost every

category.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. You have that now.

Secre4ary MCNA1VIARA. That is correct. We are here because we

think we should bring to your attention thatwe are likely to undertake

a program expansion which could cost $700 million.

We could cover that by these emergency procedures and then report

to you next year, for example.

The President, however, has thought it unwise to do that, and I

thought it unwise to do that, assuming we can obtain rapid and unified

action by the Congress at this time. That is why we are before you

today.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Suppose we should like to, in a responsible way, assure the President and the Department of Defense that there were

adequate funds in the 1966 budget? Could it be done within reason?

Secretary MCNAMARA. Assuming you place in the budget the clauses

that you have placed in previous legislation I think we would have

that emergency authority so that when you are out of session we can

exercise that. If the requirement arises while you are in session, I

think you would prefer and we would prefer to bring it before you and

ask your specific approval rather than utilize this emergency provision.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. I am thinking of the time element here. Time is

very important, especially in an emergency situation.

Secretary MCNAMARA. I think the time element is important.,

In any case, while you are out of session we will have authority, if

you place in the 1966 bill the same provisions you have in prior bills, to)

take care of emergency requirements.

Mr. JONAS. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. JONAS. You see the problem I am discussing.

Secretary MCNA1VIARA. I do, indeed.

I think there is much merit to your point. The answer is that we'

have the authority now under the emergency provisions to expend

these funds, and therefore obtain our physical requirements. But (a)

it is unwise to do that, the President believes, and I surely agree, if

we can bring it to Congress and inform them of it and obtain their

approval; and (b) it is desirable to bring it to Congress if we can

obtain an indication of the strong support of the Congress and the

American people for the present U.S. policy in Southeast Asia.

Mr. JONAS. I would say one other thing only, and then end this.

The masses of the people do not understand, of course, but I am quite'

sure the leaders directing this aggression understand how we operate

on a fiscal year basis. They know what a supplemental appropriation

is. They know we are now considering the regular bill. They are

the people that you want to convince. I am not so sure in my own

mind, although I defer to your judgment and the President's—I do not

care to question it, except here in this hearing—I can visualize the

possibility that the very people we want to impress may get the wrong

idea about this haste.

Secretary MCNAMARA. I think not. My view is shared by Secretary

Rusk and the other members of the State Department who have been

intimately associated.
20

• Mr. FLOOD. Let me tell you something about that. If you ever tried

to do what you have the right to do under the law with this Congress

sitting up here on their dittybags, as the marine skipper said the other

night, there will be more wailing of more banshees than they heard in

Ireland since the English left, believe me. You are absolutoly right.

Mr. MAHON. Mr. Secretary, of course, we have appropriated at a

very high level for defense for several years. We have a very strong

Defense Establishment. It would, of course, be absurd and ridiculous to assume that a small action in Santo Domingo, and some ac-

,celeration in a contest that has been going on in South Vietnam for

.several years, has thrown us off balance and required us to immediately

,secure an additional appropriation of $700 million. This is a procedural matter to give Congress an additional opportunity to review the

.action and to oppose it or to approve it.

This is my interpretation of this matter. It is not a show of weakness, but a show of strength, laying our position on the line for the

purpose of letting the country know and the world know the attitude

of Congress. I think I know what the attitude is but we will know

, better when we have a vote on this proposal for the additional funds.

Would you comment on that?

Secretary MCNAMARA. Mr. Chairman, I think that is very well expressed.

Mr. IVIAnoN. Mr. Lipscomb, the ranking member on the Defense

Subcommittee.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. I think Mr. Laird covered this before but I think it

would be well to clarify it again.

The President said in his statement which has been issued now,

the entire $700 million is for this fiscal year. At the same time the

wording of the proposed legislation indicates that $700 million will

remain available until expended. Is there any inconsistency in these

two statements?

Secretary MCNA1VIARA. No. The legislation says to be merged with

and to be available for the same purposes and for the same time period

as the appropriation to which transferred. What we are trying to say

is to the extent that this is used for operation and maintenance purposes, the same rules would apply to it as apply to the "Operation and

maintenance" appropriation accounts.

To the extent that it is used, for example, for aircraft procurement

and is not expended by the end of the year, the funds would carry over

and be available to cover subsequent purchases of aircraft. It is a fiscal 1965 item and we would hope and believe that the committee would

wish to insert reference to that in the introductory statements that

would precede the bill lying before you.

I have such an introductory statement, but we do not customarily

send that forward. It is customary for the Congress itself to add it.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. I believe you may have covered' this also. Is any

,portion of the $700 million to be used in the AID program?

Secretary 1VIcNAmARA. None.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MAHON. Mr. Cohelan had a question.

Mr. COHELAN. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. MAHON. You can amplify that for the record.
21

Mr. Cederberg had one question, I believe.

Mr. CEDERBERG. IS it reasonable to state that this entire request for

$700 million generated from the top and went down to the Joint

'Chiefs.

Secretary MCNAMARA. No. Normally the requests come from the

Services, not from the Joint Chiefs as such. The requests originate

in the Services and go to the Chiefs as a body for their review. In this

instance the request came to me from the Service Secretaries after discussion with their own Chiefs and then I eliminated a certain portion,

such as the amount I mentioned for construction.

Mr. CEDERBERG. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Secretary MCNAMARA. At some point along the way you have to say

we have emergency authority, we have been utilizing it, we will have to

utilize it in the future, but we better stop and take a quick check

on how much we think we should add now, present that to the Congress, and sometime in the future if the rates of activity continue to

expand, again go back to the Congress. I think we should anticipate

that if we have expansion in our rate of activity, we will have to

come back to you and ask for additional funds.

Mr. CEDERBERG. That answer, Mr. Secretary, removes the urgency

for me from this whole thing.

Secretary MCNAMARA. It removes the urgency from the appropriation action because we can use the emergency authority I have today

and we can use it tomorrow.

As Mr. Flood pointed out 

Mr. FLOOD. You better not.

Secretary 1VIoNAmARA. If we do that extensively, it would be very

unwise. Moreover, there is the value of an affirmative vote of support

of the U.S. policy today. This is, important and perhaps I should

take just a moment, Mr. Chairman, to point this out to you.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. CEDERBERG. That. is what I thought we would do. I thought

this was the route the President was using.

Secretary MCNAMARA. There is a very clear and proper financial requirement we are presenting to you.

Mr. CEDERBERG. You mentioned a reduction in construction.

Secretary MCNAMARA. Yes.

Mr. CEDERBERG. What was reduced in this area?

Secretary MCNAMARA. I thought we could defer certain facilities at

the present time.

Mr. CEDERBERG. Are they in our 1966 budget?

Secretary MCNAMARA. No; these are not. These are over and above

that. They involve the expansion of rear-base areas.

Mr. 'CEDERBERG. We are getting some of that in our budget now.

Secretary MCNAMARA. Yes; in the $100 million there are facilities

which I think we require. There were still additional requirements

of rear-base areas which I took out on the grounds that I do not think

their need is sufficiently pressing at this time and if it develops into a

pressing need in the future, we can come back to you then.

Mr. CEDERBERG. I do not understand how you can take them out.

You are not taking them out of the 1966 budget.
22

Secretary MCNAMARA. Perhaps I did not make clear. I took them,

out of the total of the projects submitted by the Services for consideration for inclusion in this fiscal year 1965 supplemental request.

Mr. CEDERBERG. This is a future takeout, in other words.

Secretary MCNAMARA. After the 1966 budget was prepared and submitted to you, the Services submitted to me a list of additional construction projects not included in the fiscal 1966 budget. I have in a

sense validated most of them. The rest I have said I do not think we

need ask Congress for authority for that now. We may have to come

up in the future but I did not think we need do it now.

Mr. MAHON. Mr. Sikes has a question.

Mr. SIKES. Mr. Secretary, will you make available for the record a

listing by services of the amounts requested by the respective service

Secretaries in this estimate?

Secretary MCNAMARA. Yes; with the understanding, Mr. Chairman, that this total amount I have stated to you today is but a tentative estimate. I think, assuming you appropriate the $700 million,

we should watch carefully as we go along and add and deduct specific

items and not do anything that is not required by the circumstances at

the time. The situation is changing so rapidly I cannot predict what

will be required next month.

Mr. SIKES. I am speaking of the entire $700 million.

Secretary MCNAMARA. Yes.

(The information requested is being furnished separately to the

committee.)

Mr. MAHON. Mr. Secretary, as these figures are refined for the entire $700 million, will you keep the committee advised?

Secretary MCNAMARA. I will be happy to and I will be happy to

testify any time you wish, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MAHON. This is good. We realize that we are operating on a

short time schedule and you cannot completely refine these figures..

But on the broad question of whether or not it might be desirable to

appropriate $700 million in addition, in view of the changed world:

situation and the presentation made to us by the President, I see no

barrier at all. So on that broad premise I am completely in favor

of this action here. But with respect to the details which we normally

get, we realize they are not immediately available to the extent we

would want to get them. So will you keep us advised, and we will be

in touch with you, and if necessary we will ask you to return.

Secretary MCNAMARA. I will be pleased to.

Mr. SIKES. I have one final question: It is assumed that this money

will be obligated during the remainder of the current fiscal year.

War is always costly. Is it to be assumed that if the situation continues on the current level or on an expanded level in southeast Asia,

that you will have to come back early in the fiscal year for additional

funds?

Secretary MCNAMARA. First let me say I am not certain we can

obligate in a formal sense the entire $700 million before June 30. We

will obligate it in the sense that we have plans to utilize it and we will

have started to move on those plans.

Second, as to what additional funds will be required in fiscal 1966,

I frankly cannot even estimate it today. As an illustration of the,

problem, the rate of sorties has increased in this fashion since January::
23

,January, 325; February, 1,125; March, 3,038; April, 4,700. A sortie

rate change of that kind is very difficult to predict for 1966.

Mr. MAHON. I would like to say in connection with this whole matter that I personally do not believe that you will be able to obligate

judiciously the entire $700 million during the current fiscal year.

Certainly I do not want you to be put under pressure, and I am

sure the members of the committee would concur, to make unwise commitments. The point is, if we can improve our position and avoid

using our emergency funds by the utilization of the $700 million this

is all to the good. We realize that there are many unknown factors

involved here and I am sure we all have that in mind.

Mr. Lirscomn. I was just going to say, Mr. Chairman, in view of the

fact that we are considering the 1966 budget now if the Secretary

could take a look at the 1966 proposals and see if there is anything we

should do, now.

Secretary MCNAMARA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to cooperate in

.every way I can, but I do not see how we can possibly estimate what

the situation will be in 1966 with this kind of acceleration in. our combat

:sorties.

Mr. MAHON. Mr. Lipscomb's point is well taken. If there are additional funds which you can now clearly foresee that ought to be added

in the 1966 budget, which will be handled by Congress within the next

.3 or 4 or 5 weeks we ought to have that information.

Secretary MATAmAnA. This I will be very happy to provide to you.

If there is anything that clearly requires adjustment, we will submit

it to you.

Mr. MAHON. And if there are any significant changes that need to

be made, we are in a position to make them because we have not marked

up the bill or taken any final action yet.

Secretary MCNAMARA. This I will be very happy to do, with the

understanding if we do not come forward with some items, or with an

incomplete list, you will understand why.

Mr. MAHON. We are not trying to preclude you from asking whatever may be necessary in the future, but we want to do this in as businesslike a way as possible.

Secretary MCNAMARA. Very good.

Mr. MAHON. Mr. Long has a question.

Mr. LONG. Mr. Secretary, to what extent is our present combat

capacity under strain as a result of the action in Vietnam and the

Dominican Republic ? Are we approaching the point where more actions of this kind may require a major enlargement in the number

of men under arms?

Secretary MCNAMARA. I do not think we would say we are under

strain today. Just to take one very rough measure of it, for example,

we have roughly 400 combat battalions in our Active Forces and what

we call our priority Reserve Forces, and in relation to that 400 combat

battalions we have currently battalions in South Vietnam and

in the Dominican Republic.

So I think you can see, just in those terms, it is very, very small.

The same thing is true in our aircraft. We have a capability far in

excess of what we are currently applying.

Mr. LONG. Perhaps you have answered my next question. Are any

of the expenditures here going to take some pressure off the military
24

construction budget in future years? Will any of this money reduce

what you would otherwise be asking for next year or the year after?

Secretary MCNAMARA. No, because these expenditures would not

otherwise have been in the,military construction budget next year or

the year after, or the year after that.

Mr. MAHON. Thank you very much.

Mr. MINSHALL. I have one question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MAHON. Yes.

Mr. MINSHALL. I know it is difficult to anticipate just what is

going to happen in any single battle, especially in an area like South

Vietnam, Mr. Secretary, but in the past month we have increased

our sorties out there, as you said, by percent.

Secretary MCNAMARA. Not in the past month.

Mr. MINSHALL. In the past several months.

Secretary MCNAMARA. Ninety days; that is right.

RESPONSE TO VIETCONG'S TACTICS AND LEVEL OF ACTIVITY

Mr. MINSHALL. We have been more or less calling the shots. Are

we not going to continue to call the shots pretty much?

Secretary MCNAMARA. We are responding, in part, to changes in

the Viet Cong tactics and level of activity. They have greatly increased their infiltration of men and equipment into South Vietnam. This has led us to increase our strikes against their infiltration

routes. So it is not a unilateral program, and hence we cannot predict 10 or 14 months ahead with accuracy.

Mr. MINSHALL. Their effort has not increased by percent in

the last 90 days, has it?

Secretary MCNAMARA. Their infiltration itself has not increased

percent, but their concentration of troops has grown materially

in the last, say, 2 to 6 months, particularly in the central highland.

areas, and it has become clear to us it would be wise to seek to cut

off that infiltration by these bombings, and that is what led to the

percent increase in the 90-day period.

Mr. MINSHALL. What do you mean by the growth of concentration? What are you talking about there?

Secretary MCNAMARA. In the central highlands, for example, we

have identified now a regular North Vietnamese Army battalion.

Mr. MINSHALL. 800 men?

Secretary MCNAMARA. That is correct. And we are using jet aircraft against these areas.

Mr. MINSHALL. That is several hundred men, is it not—a regiment?

Secretary MCNAMARA. It is quite different, yes; or in this case a

battalion, not a regiment. But it is quite different than the scattered

guerrilla bands that were the practice previously. In the Tay Ninh

area of South Vietnam they built a very substantial base system, and

we ran 1 raid of 450 aircraft sorties against that single base concentration, for example. So, when I say concentration, this is what I am

talking about.

'They appear to have been infiltrating equipment and arms on a much

larger scale recently than heretofore. We saw it in the boat at Vung.

Ro Bay where there were over 4,000 Vietcong weapons on 1 boat. This
has led us to set an expanded sea patrol. We are using aircraft

in that, for example. So the increased activities on their side have led

to expansion of activity on ours. And if they continue to expand

their activity, I would assume ours would also expand.

Mr. MINSHALL. You are just trying to "keep your head above

water"?

Secretary MCNAMARA. No, no. But we assume the military program

is not a unilateral program and, therefore, I cannot predict to you

what we will be doing 14 months from now. What we will be doing

14 months from now depends in part on what they are doing.

Mr. MINSHALL. In other words, they are calling the shots and we

are not?

Secretary MCNAMARA. No • I would not say that at all. I am sure

they do not think they are caning the shots. They did not call the shot

with respect to our bombing them. They would have loved to have

avoided it and would love to see it stop.

General WHEELER. May I comment on that?

Secretary MCNAMARA. I wish you would.

General WHEELER. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. MINSHALL. This present request you have made for additional

money, is that going to just keep us on an even basis or give us a little

advantage?

General WHEELER. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. MINSHALL. I mean the funding, not the activities.

General WHEELER. Increasing inventory, I would say.

Secretary MCNAMARA. The fiscal 1966 budget provided for further

increases in our inventory of bombs, for example. We want to be

able to continue those planned inventory increases rather than see the

stocks level off or the planned buildup slowed because of consumption rates higher than we anticipated when we set that 1966 program.

So this $700 million will allow us to continue to expand our bomb

inventory despite the high rate of ordnance expenditure we are

presently incurring.

Mr. MINSHALL. Mr. Secretary, in briefings you have made publicly,

and in executive session before the Defense subcommittee, you have

described in great detail the 10 bridges knocked out, and so forth.

Secretary MCNAMARA. Right.

Mr. MINSHALL. What percentage of their transport facilities and

communications have you knocked out? Ten bridges. How many

bridges must go to materially damage them?

Secretary MCNAMARA. First, let me deal with the major bridges

south of the 20th parallel. Hanoi is the 1st parallel. The Thanh

Hoa Bridge, the major rail-highway bridge, runs on the 20th parallel,

and the infiltration system is supported basically by the rail and road

lines south of the 20th parallel. I would say there are about 25 major

bridges there in this rail and road system, and we have knocked out

about 23. The Thanh Hoa Bridge itself, while not usable by railroad traffic at the present time, is not fully knocked out. So I am excluding that, although it is not currently usable because of the damage

we have done to it. There is one other, Kim .Cuong, which I would

call a major bridge. Roughly, there are 25 major bridges and roughly-
26

23 of them have been knocked out at the present time. This does not

mean all traffic has come to a standstill, by any means, because they

will construct ferries or fords and bypass the bridges. But it does

mean that we have taken out the bridge system.

Mr. MINSHALL. How about ammunition dumps, petroleum, oil, and

lubricant supplies, and all the rest?

Secretary MCNAMARA. There are substantial remaining targets in

ammunition dumps and petroleum, oil, and lubricant supplies.

Mr. MINSHALL. Why have we not gone after those?

Secretary MCNAMARA. We are now. We did this past week. I

would say roughly we have knocked out 10 or 15 percent.

General WHEELER. 

Mr. FLOOD. Of course, you don't want to take everything out this

afternoon, do you?

Secretary MCNAMARA. 

Mr. MAHON. Are there further questions?

Mr. MINSHALL. No further questions.

Mr. MAHON. Mr. Andrews had one question.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Secretary, isn't this your position, you plan to do

everything necessary to accomplish the mission; namely, get rid of

the Vietcong in South Vietnam, without regard to the cost? You have

used your 1965 money, plus this $700 million, if you get it, and if you

run out of money, you will come back here, but you will accomplish

that mission?

Secretary MCNAMARA. We will do two things. (a) We will accomplish that mission and (b) we will maintain a readiness for whatever

other missions are required, which means we will not allow our stocks

to be depleted or our plans for continuing to build up those stocks to

be deflected.

Mr. MAHON. The members of the Subcommittee on Military Construction and the members of the Subcommittee on Defense will remain for purposes of further discussion.

Secretary MCNAMARA. May I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the

members of your committee, for your willingness to allow us to come

here and interrupt your busy schedule. I am very grateful for this opportunity, and I will be pleased to respond, by further appearance or

personal discussion with you or any member of the committee, to further questions.
N0