( 

s 11NATIONS OF PAUL R. IGNATIUS TO BE SECRETAR

i‘

Y,.., .4•

OF THE NAVY AND TOWNSEND HOOPES TO BE

UNDER SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE

GOVERNMENT 

Storage KSU LIBRARIES 

IGINP4c 

(7•47-.rif,71vp-psy?-y

HEARING BEFORE THE

I PRA%

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

UNITED STATES SENATE

NINETIETH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

NOMINATION OF PAUL R. IGNATIUS, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE

SECRETARY OF THE NAVY

NOMINATION OF TOWNSEND HOOPES, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE

UNDER SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE

AUGUST 17, 1967

Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services

co

0

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

83-180 WASHINGTON: 1967
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

RICHARD B.

JOHN STENNIS, Mississippi

STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri

HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington

SAM J. ERVIN, JR., North Carolina

HOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia

STEPHEN M. YOUNG, Ohio

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii

THOMAS J. McINTYRE, New Hampshire

DANIEL B. BREWSTER, Maryland

HARRY F. BYRD, Ja., Virginia

WILLIAM H. DARDEN, Chief of Staff

CHARLES B. KIRBOW, Chief Clerk

II

RUSSELL, Georgia, Chairman

MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine

STROM THURMOND, South Carolina

JACK MILLER, Iowa

JOHN G. TOWER, Texas

'JAMES B. PEARSON, Kansas

PETER H. DOMINICK, Colorado
CONTENTS

Statements: rage

Hon. Harold Brown, Secretary of the Air Force 10

Townsend Hoopes, nominee to be Under Secretary of the Air Force 9

Paul R. Ignatius, nominee to be Secretary of the Navy 2

III

NOMINATIONS

THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1967

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in room 212,

Old Senate Office Building, Senator John Stennis (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Stennis, Symington, Young of Ohio, Byrd of

Virginia, Smith, and Dominick.

Also present: William H. Darden, chief of staff; Charles B. Kirbow,

chief clerk; T. Edward Braswell, Jr., professional staff member; and

Herbert S. Atkinson, assistant chief clerk.

Senator STENNIS. The committee will please come to order.

We have nominations for consideration this morning that I will

mention in a few minutes. But as we are assembled expecially for

this purpose, we want to take note of the fine public service rendered

by the late Mr. John McNaughton, whom we had approved to be

Secretary of the Navy. We certainly regret his untimely passing, and

his wife and son with him. The committee expresses appreciation

here for his public service and also great regret at his passing. We

also express our condolences to the surviving members of his family

as well as his friends.

Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to join in your expressions of sympathy, especially to the son.

Senator STENNIS. Thank you, Senator Smith. I know you express

the sentiments of all of us, too.

Senator SYMINGTON. I associate myself with those remarks. Mr.

Chairman.

Senator STENNIS. Thank you, Senator.

NOMINATION OF PAUL R. IGNATIUS, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE

SECRETARY OF THE NAVY

Senator STENNIS. Members of the committee, the chairman has

asked me to proceed this morning with the regular meeting for consideration of the pending nominations. The chairman has a slight

infection that takes a little time and will be back in the near future.

Mr. Paul R. Ignatius of California has been nominated to be

Secretary of the Navy.

(The nomination reference and biographical sketch of Mr. Ignatius

follow:)

1
2 NOMINATIONS

NOMINATION REFERENCE AND REPORT

IN EXECUTIVE SESSION,

SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,

August 4, 1967.

Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee on

Armed Services:

Paul R. Ignatius, of California, to be the Secretary of the Navy.

PAUL R. IGNATIUS

Paul R. Ignatius was born in Los Angeles, California, in 1920. He attended

public schools in Glendale, a suburb of Los Angeles. In 1942, he received an A.B.

degree with honors from the University of Southern California, and was elected

to Phi Beta Kappa.

During World War II, Mr. Ignatius served as a Lieutenant in the Navy,

principally as an aviation ordnance officer aboard the carrier, Manila Bay, in

the Pacific.

In February of 1947, Mr. Ignatius was awarded the degree of Master in Business

Administration from Harvard University. In the following three years he served

as a Research Assistant and as an Instructor in Business Administration at

Harvard. He resigned from the Harvard staff in 1950 to form, with two of his

Harvard Business School associates, the management consulting and research

firm, Harbridge House, Inc.

During the next eleven years, Mr. Ignatius played a major role in the development and expansion of Harbridge House. A great part of this effort was devoted

to consulting and research in military supply and procurement, and in the procurement responsibilities of a large segment of defense industry.

On 22 May 1961, Mr. Ignatius was appointed Assistant Secretary of the Army

(Installations and Logistics) and held that position until he assumed the office

of Under Secretary of the Army on 28 February 1964. On 12 December 1964 he

became Assistant Secretary of Defense (Installations and Logistics).

In 1947, Mr. Ignatius married Nancy Sharpless Weiser of Holyoke, Massachusetts. They have four children: David, Sarah, Amy and Alan.

Senator STENNIS. Mr. Ignatius has been in the Department of Defense since 1961, first as Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and Logistics, and later as Assistant Secretary of Defense for

Installations and Logistics.

Mr. Ignatius has written to the committee to inform us that he

owns no securities in companies doing business with the Department

of Defense. We have that letter in our files.

Mr. Ignatius, you need no introduction to this committee. But we

do want to welcome you here today. We congratulate you on your

nomination to fill a highly important position. Members of the committee have been furnished with your biographical sketch, but please

give us a brief oral summary of this biography, and add such other

points that you may wish. And then members of the committee will

have a chance to question you.

STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL R. IGNATIUS, NOMINEE TO BE

SECRETARY OF THE NAVY

Mr. IGNATIUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the

committee.

First let me say that I am here today because of the untimely

death of John McNaughton, who was a colleague of mine in the

Department. All of us who knew him and his wife and his son—whom

I did not know—regret the tragedy that took their lives. And I am

here because of that.

I have served in the Department since 1961, as you have indicated.

And except for a period of about 10 months when I was Under Secre-
NOMINATIONS 3

tary of the Army, my work has involved responsibility for installations and logistics, first in the Army, and over the period of the last

approximately 2Y2 years, in the Department of Defense, in the OSD

staff.

I have found this a challenging assignment, Mr. Chairman, as I

think all of us do who work with national security problems.

Prior to coming to the Department, I worked for a period of about

11 years in a consulting firm that did a great deal of its work with

elements in the Department of Defense and a large segment of the

defense industry. And I think I had some appreciation at the time I

came in for the magnitude and complexity of some of the problems

with which I have dealt over the period of the last 6 years.

I think it is fair to say that I have enjoyed this experience. The

hours are long, as they are here in the Congress. But I think there are

rewards of many kinds, one of which certainly is the reward of working

with very dedicated, patriotic, and effective people, both those in

uniform and the civilians in the Department. I really believe that

people like me who come from the outside to work in the Government

and in the Department of Defense in a sense really take away more

than we give. There is a reward, I think, in public service.

If I am confirmed by the Senate for this new post I certainly will

give it my best. I count myself particularly fortunate, I think, to

have the opportunity, if confirmed, to work with an officer of the

great ability of Admiral Moorer. I did not have an opportunity to

know Admiral Moorer until the past couple of weeks. In the past 10

days or so I have had a number of occasions to meet with him. He is

an officer of great ability. And as I say, I count myself fortunate to

have the opportunity to work with him if the Senate confirms my

nomination.

Senator STENNIS. All right. You have made a good statement.

I think the Secretary of the Navy is a highly important position,

extensive in its responsibilities and obligations. Even if it doesn't have

the so-called Cabinet level under the Reorganization Act, I think it

should be just as important as it was before we had the Reorganization

Act. And I think whether or not it is important depends partly upon

the man who fills the office.

Now, we want to know if you are confirmed, if you will feel free

always to give this committee or any committee of the Senate or the

House, and not only free, but under obligation to give us the facts, upon

any matter that you receive any inquiry about.

Mr. IGNATIUS. I would feel free to do that, and under an obligation

to do that. I can't conceive of the Navy operating without the understanding and support of the Congress and the committees of the

Congress most directly concerned with it.

Senator STENNIS. I like the use of the word "obligation." But I

want to go back to the idea that you would feel that it is an obligation

of yours, and a duty of yours, and at the same time you will feel free to

do it within your functions, and you will not desert that standard

that you apply to yourself. Is that right?

Mr. IGNATIUS. Mr. Chairman, I would be a member of the Department. I would be responsible to the Secretary of Defense for the

performance of my duties. I would expect to be a staunch and informed

advocate of the service which I headed. I would also regard myself

as a member of the team concerned with the national defense, and
4 NOMINATIONS

would in my appearances before these committees to which you make

reference testify on behalf of programs that were adopted by the

Department.

So far as presentation of facts in response to questions or requests

from the committee is concerned, I certainly would feel free to provide

whatever facts were requested by the chairman or individual members.

Senator STENNIS. All right, that was my question, would you

give us the facts. It is all right to espouse the cause. But my question

was, would you give us the facts. And you have said you would.

And that sometimes means to give facts whether you are called on

expressly on that point or not. Because to fail to disclose facts sometimes is misleading, as you know. I don't know what to ask you about.

But if it is anything that the committee needs, even if it is the answer

to a letter, you should disclose the facts, whether or not the man

dealing with the subject knows just what requests to ask. How do you

feel about that?

Mr. IGNATIUS. I would endeavor to be responsive in the manner

in which you have raised the question, Mr. Chairman, and provide

those facts that would give a 'balanced presentation of the subject

under discussion.

Senator STENNIS. And you will do that come what may, I mean

regardless of the circumstances, you will stick to that?

Mr. IGNATIUS. I think that there is one point that occurs to me

in connection with this. And that is, decisions are made by higher

authority as a result of a process of deliberation over hard problems.

And often proponents of a particular course of action do not finally

succeed in achieving their objective. I believe that when a decision

is made in any organization, the individuals in the organization

should carry out the decision cheerfully and affirmatively even though

it may have gone against them.

Senator STENNIS. That is true. That is a very different question,

though, Mr. Ignatius, from what I raise. I just raise the point of

giving the facts to us. And you have said that you would, even to

the extent of, when we didn't raise the point, you would feel obligated

to go on and give the facts that were relevant in particular to the

points involved.

Mr. IGNATIUS. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, if the particular question

elicited particular facts that did ont give a balanced or accurate

portrayal of the situation under discussion, I would want to provide

such additional facts in order to make the true situation known to

the committee raising the questions.

Senator STENNIS. That is good that you would want to do it. And

you would do it?

Mr. IGNATIUS. I would, sir.

Senator STENNIS. Now, expressed one way, the term we lawyers

use, we don't want to have to deal with you at arm's length. We are

serving the same country, and we have the same problems. We don't

want to deal with any official, I don't, and the committee doesn't,

I am sure, and have to feel that we are dealing at arm's length. Do

you share that sentiment? You don't want to have to deal with us at

arm's length, do you?

Mr. IGNATIUS. I do not, sir.

Senator STENNIS. Now, this is not a personal question. Why did

you accept public service, or seek it, accept it? Why have you been
NOMINATIONS 5

engaged since 1961 in this public service? Why did you take this

secretaryship? I won't ask you if you sought it. Why did you accept it?

Mr. IGNATIUS. I had thought before coming into the Government,

Mr. Chairman, that at some time in my life I would like to have an

opportunity to come into the Government. I had thought about

that for a number of years. I had guessed that it would have been

somewhat later in my life than when in fact it did occur. An opportunity presented itself to me in the early spring of 1961 when the

then Secretary of the Army, Elvis Starr, said he had heard about me

and asked me if I would come into the Pentagon and talk to him.

I told him at the time that I had been interested in public service,

but had not thought that I could embark upon that kind of a career

at that particular time.

Well, he said, why don't you come in anyway and let's talk about it.

And we did talk. And I went home and discussed the matter with

my wife and family. And we concluded that if this was something

that I wanted to do at some time in my career, maybe the time to

do it was when the opportunity arose. Since the opportunity was

present at that time I said that I would like very much to come in.

I have stayed on, Mr. Chairman, longer than I had thought I

would. I did not expect still to be here. I think the reason why I

have is that there is a job to do. I hope that in the discharge of my

previous responsibilities I have handled my share of this burden. And

because we are involved in a number of important things I have

elected to stay on for a longer period of time.

Senator STENNIS. Very good. You understand, I wasn't questioning

your motives. I have asked many people sitting where you are the

same question.

Senator Smith.

Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I haven't any questions. But Senator Tower, who had to attend the Banking and Currency Committee

meeting on the housing bill, asked me to express his regrets at not

being here, and to vest his approval of the two nominees.

Senator STENNIS. All right, Senator Smith.

Senator Symington.

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like the record to show that I have known Secretary Ignatius

since he came into Government. In the some 28 years I have been

associated with the Defense Department I have never known anybody

more sincerely anxious to help get the facts out with respect to particular situations nor anyone who understood better the problems we

in the Congress have with individual constituents and groups in our

States. I believe Mr. Ignatius is a superb public servant. In addition,

he has presented, in his statement this morning, why he is in the

Government in splendid fashion.

Mr. Secretary, with that premise there are questions I would ask.

What worries me today is the extent of the spreading around of

misinformation.

For instance, in one of our leading newspapers on the 25th of June

there was an article which said that according to a high planner in the

Government, all targets in North Vietnam that meant anything had

been attacked. The next day, in a local newspaper, was an article,

with a byline, stating that not only had this information come from

top civilian planners, but also from top military people.

83-180-67-2
6 NOMINATIONS

Inasmuch as in classified hearings we are getting exactly opposite

information, you can understand why these stories gave us apprehension. That is one of the reasons why you would have a consensus

on this committee that, at least to some extent, the relationship of this

committee has somewhat deteriorated with the Department of

Defense.

Last week, at the time that the distinguished chairman was holding

hearings incident to this question of attacks on North Vietnam, a,

statement was released which was about as misleading as any statement read. It said that 95 percent of all of General Westmoreland's

targets had been attacked. To the layman of course that meant 95

percent, of all military targets in North Vietnam had been attacked.

The truth is that General Westmoreland has nothing whatever to do

with those targets. They are under Admiral Sharp, both Air Force

and Navy. Westmoreland is given just a few miles north of the

DMZ, so he can control, in effect, the tactical area of that running

battle. But the target list is so inconsequential he doesn't even submit

a target list. As I understand it, he is just told and properly, not to

attack villages. But as a result of this article everybody was led to

believe, all around the country, that 95 percent of the North Vietnamese targets have been attacked.

You wouldn't approve any such business if you were confirmed for

this position; would you?

Mr. IGNATIUS. Senator Symington, I am not familiar with this

particular instance.

Senator SYMINGTON. I have been careful to express it to you

accurately.

Mr. IGNATIUS. The colloquy that I had earlier with Chairman

Stennis addressed the question of the presentation of relevant facts

in connection with appearances before the Congress, and I responded

by saying that I would certainly endeavor to do that. I can't appraise

this particular matter, because I have not been involved in it.

Senator SYMINGTON. I haven't asked you to appraise it. But you

might look into it. I hope the passing around of such misinformation

can be stopped in the future.

Another point more directly bearing on your position. You

mentioned the new Chief of Naval Operations, who I hardly know.

But if there has been a better Chief of Naval Operations than Admiral

McDonald I do not know who it was. For a long time it has been no

secret that he was synipathetic with the position taken by the chairman of this committee with respect to the utilization of a battleship

in the Vietnamese war, a war that is costing us so much in blood and

treasure. Now from what we are told it is going to be done. You are

taking a battleship out of mothballs. The question I ask with great

sincerity, not in any attempt to be snide is, Do you think this appointment is going to make you a military expert overnight?

Mr. IGNATIUS. Well, I hope I am aware of whatever strengths as

well as limitations I have, Senator Symington. And I have worked

with military people now for more than 6 years in an official capacity

in the Department. And I have worked with military people from

time to time prior to that in a consulting capacity. I believe that it is

possible for civilians and military people to work in close harmony

and in a productive and effective manner. And the basis of such a

relationship must be mutual respect.
NOMINATIONS 7

I would hope that I would work in such a manner with the Chief of

Naval Operations and the other senior uniformed people both in the

Marine Corps and in the Navy. That would certainly be my desire,

and hopefully, expectation to do so.

There are many matters that involve a degree of knowledge that

can come only from a long career in dealing with professional military

matters that I think become apparent to civilians as they penetrate

some of the problems.

By the same token, civilians must exercise the right of decision,

and they must seek the best military advice that they can obtain in

reaching those decisions. And I would certainly do that. And I would

not attempt to intrude my own judgment in a matter where it seemed

to me clearly there were purely military implications that my previous

experience had not acquainted me with sufficiently. But I have found,

Senator Symington, that it is possible to work with senior military

officials in a productive way. And I have always endeavored to do that

in my previous duties.

Senator SYMINGTON. You have had a great deal of business experience. Nobody believes more in civilian control than I. But people

who followed me were firm in such convictions as to how many

planes should be in a group, and attacks should be made, detailed

tactical operations of the military. Although there is nothing excessively modest about me—I never felt I was competent to make such

detailed tactical decisions.

I believe when such detailed tactical military decisions are made by

political appointees, they destroy many things, including morale.

There is an article recently in the papers which sums up some of my

apprehensions. It says that all generals have been wrong in all wars

at all times. That of course means all admirals too, the military. This

article is out this week in one of our leading magazines. It is a direct

attack on the military competence of our people over there.

One of the reasons is illustrated by this battleship. Senator Russell

has been on this committee for some 35 years. He is hard working,

dedicated to his job, and to the responsibilities of being chairman

of this committee. It was at least a year ago, closer to a year and a

half ago, that he urged we use our seapower, which is going to be your

responsibility, more effectively. It doesn't sit well with me that

at least a year after he made the suggestion—they now say they

are going to follow it, but it is going to take at least a year to put it

in force.

These are developments which worry me.

I see the Secretary of the Air Force sitting here, and I assure him

what I am saying is not critical of him. But in the past it has happened

this way.

Again let me emphasize that I believe in civilian control, but when

people work hard over a long period of years, to get to the top of

their services, and therefore presumably are the best in their services

in the minds of their civilian superiors, or they wouldn't have gotten

the job, I believe their opinion is worthy of some recognition on the

detailed technical tactical military side of the job they are trying to do.

.Mr. Chairman, I have no further comment or questions, except it

will be a pleasure to vote for the confirmation of one who has done an

outstanding job in all positions that he has held in the Department of

Defense since he made the sacrifices obviously he has made so as to

come into this Government.
8 NOMINATIONS

Senator STENNIS. Thank you, Senator, thank you very much.

Senator YOUNG of Ohio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I really have no questions. I know I shall be very happy to vote in

favor of confirmation.

I like very much the Secretary's attitude and his answers to the

questions, and the statement that it was his desire and hope to work

in harmony with the Chief of Naval Operations and with other officers

of our armed services.

But I like very much your statement, sir, that after all civilians must

make the decisions. And I take the view right now that too many

noncivilians have been making some decisions. I am very happy to

hear you make that statement.

I have an affection for the Navy. I have two boys who served in

combat in World War II. Both were wounded, and both have died

since. So I have an affection for the Navy.

But very definitely the people who wrote the Constitution of our

country- provided that civilian authority must always be supreme over

noncivilian authority. I am sure you will bear that in mind and try

to work in harmony. They are supposed to give expert advice, but

naval officers in the Army and Navy go along just the same as in

civilian life we go along on things. But you will keep that in mind as

I understand it, that it is for you and other civilians to make the

decisions in the end?

Mr. IGNATIUS. I will, sir.

Senator YOUNG of Ohio. Thank you. I am glad to approve of this

nomination.

Senator STENNIS.

Senator Inouye.

Senator INOUYE.

congratulating Mr.

ination.

I have no questions.

Senator STENNIS. Senator Byrd.

Senator BYRD of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First I would like to say that every comment that I have

heard about Mr. Ignatius in the last few years has been highly complimentary of his ability. And I feel certain that the Navy is getting

as a Secretary a very able individual.

I would like to ask a little bit about your basic philosophy. One,

do you approve or disapprove of the policy that has been followed

to date in the Vietnam war, that is, the policy of graduated response?

Mr. IGNATIUS. First, Senator Byrd, my responsibilities, as you

know, have not included any responsibilities for policy on the conduct

of the war. I will say that the President is faced with complex and

difficult questions in connection with the prosecution of the war. I

have supported the President and continue to support the President

in the decisions that he has reached.

Senator BYRD of Virginia. Do you feel that the time has come for

a reappraisal of basic strategy in Vietnam?

Mr. IGNATIUS. Senator Byrd, I don't think that I can respond to

that, because I haven't been close enough to respond to matters of

that kind. I am sure that questions of review of past activities and

looking at future possibilities go on from time to time and continuously. But what they are and the considerations that may be involved

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to join my colleagues in

Ignatius. I shall be pleased to support the nom-
NOMINATIONS 9

in such discussions and deliberations I have not been privy to, I have

not been involved in, because of the nature of my responsibilities.

Senator BYRD of Virginia. We are involved, of course, in a very

costly war in Vietnam, costly in the way of economic resources to our

Nation, and costly in the way of casualties. We had 43,000 U.S.

casualties during the first 7 months of 1967. And we have been involved in the war for quite awhile. Do you agree or disagree with the

assertion that a long war in Vietnam, a long war so far as the United

States is concerned, is to the advantage or disadvantage of the Soviet

Union?

Mr. IGNATIUS. Senator Byrd, I have never addressed that question,

and therefore I have no informed opinion on it.

Senator BYRD of Virginia. In other words, you have no judgment

as to whether a long war in Vietnam would be to the advantage or

disadvantage of the Soviet Union.

Mr. IGNATIUS. As I say, my responsibilities have not involved

consideration of questions of that kind, and therefore I have not

devoted thought to provide an informed answer to the question that

you are raising.

Senator BYRD of Virginia. Thank you.

No further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STENNIS. Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Ignatius, do you have any other statement you wish to make?

Mr. IGNATIUS. No, sir, Mr. Chairman, except to thank you for this

opportunity to appear before you.

Senator STENNIS. We are delighted to have you, sir. And you may

be excused now, and we will hear the next gentleman. You may stay

if you wish, but you do not have to stay to be courteous to the committee. You have other duties, I am sure.

(The nomination of Mr. Ignatius to be Secretary of the Navy was

subsequently approved by the committee in executive session and

confirmed by the Senate on August 18, 1967.)

NOMINATION OF TOWNSEND HOOPES, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE

UNDER SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE

Senator STENNIS. Members of the committee, we now have Mr.

Townsend Hoopes of Virginia, who has been nominated to be Under

Secretary of the Air Force, vice Norman S. Paul, resigned.

Please be seated at the committee table. You are accompanied, I

notice, by the Secretary of the Air Force.

Dr. Brown, do you wish to present Mr. Hoopes?

(The nomination reference and biographical sketch of Mr. Hoopes

follow:)

NOMINATION REFERENCE AND REPORT

IN EXECUTIVE SESSION,

SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,

August 4, 1967.

Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee on Armed

Services:

Townsend Hoopes, of Virginia, to be the Under Secretary of the Air Force vice

Norman S. Paul, resigned.

TOWNSEND HOOPES

Present: Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (International Security Affairs).
10 NOMINATIONS

1965-66: Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense/ISA (Near East-South Asia).

1958-64: Partner: Cresap, McCormick and Paget.

1955-57: Associate: J. H. Whitney and Company.

1953-55: Assistant to the President, Spencer Chemical Company.

1948-53: Assistant to the Secretary of Defense.

1947-48: Assistant to the Chairman: Committee on Armed Services House of

Representatives, Washington, D.C.

1946: Editorial Writer, Buffalo Evening News.

1943-46: United States Marine Corps.

Education: Phillips Academy, Andover, 1940, Yale University, 1944, National

War College, 1951.

Other: Member, Council on Foreign Relations; Consultant to the White House

on organization of the National Security Council, 1954; Consultant to the State

and Defense Departments on overseas military bases, 1957; Secretary of the Military Panel, Rockefeller Brothers Fund Special Studies Project, 1957-58; Consultant to the President's Committee on United ,States Information Activities

Abroad, 1960; Who's Who in the East.

Publications: Various articles in Foreign Affairs and The Yale Review, 1954-

1960, in Business Horizons and other publications, 1962-64.

Clubs: Yale Club of New York City; Chevy Chase Club, Maryland; The Links,

New York City; Federal City Club, Washington, D.C.

Residence: 7718 Georgetown Pike, McLean, Virginia 22101.

Born: April 28,1922.

Senator STENNIS. Mr. Hoopes had addressed a letter to the committee concerning his financial interest. He has indicated his intention

to dispose of his securities in companies doing business with the Department of Defense if he is confirmed by the Senate as Under Secretary of the Air Force. We have that letter.

Members of the committee, before asking Mr. Hoopes to give us an

oral summary of his background and experience, the Chair is glad

to recognize the Secretary of the Air Force, Dr. Brown, to present

Mr. Hoopes to the committee.

STATEMENT OF HON. HAROLD BROWN, SECRETARY OF THE

AIR FORCE

Dr. BROWN. In accompanying Mr. Hoopes in his appearance before

the committee I come to say that I am aware of his very distinguished

record of service to the United States, both in the military as an

employee of the legislative branch, and in the executive branch, as

well as his fine productive experience in private life.

Mr. Hoopes' reputation is extremely high and very well deserved.

I myself have known him only briefly during his tenure as principal

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security

Affairs. I have found his understanding of the world, of the national

security of the United States, and of military problems to be of the

highest. If he is confirmed, I am sure that he will make a very fine

Under Secretary of the Air Force. I will look forward very much to

working with him.

Senator STENNIS. • That is right, Dr. Brown.

Mr. Hoopes, we are glad to have you here before the committee.

And we ask you now to give us a summary of your background and

experience before we have questions by the members of the committee.
NOMINATIONS 11

STATEMENT OF HON. TOWNSEND HOOPES, NOMINEE TO BE THE

UNDER SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE

Mr. HOOPES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am greatly

honored to be here. Let me just proceed quickly with a summary of

my background.

I was born in Duluth, Minn. in 1922. My father was in the steamship business on the Great Lakes, my early life was really a migration

eastward, along them. I attended public and private schools in Detroit

and Buffalo. I was then sent away to Phillips Academy at Andover

and subsequently to Yale.

I graduated in the middle of the Second World War and went

immediately in the Marine Corps. I was a second lieutenant in the

5th Marine Division participating in the assault and capture of Iwo

Jima and in the initial occupation of southern Japan.

After the war in 1946 I was briefly a reporter and editorial wr'ter

for the Buffalo Evening N ews.

I came to Washington in early 1947 as assistant to the first chairman

of the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. Walter Gresham

Andrews of Buffalo. He was a personal friend and a counselor. You

may recall, Mr. Chairman, that President Johnson and the distinguished Senator from Maine, Mrs. Margaret Chase Smith, were

members of that committee at that time. I served a privileged

apprenticeship in that capacity for 18 months, following which Mr.

Forrestal asked me to join his then embryonic Office of the Secretary

of Defense.

I served in several different capacities between1948 and 1953 under

several Secretaries of Defense, first as a legislative assistant, and then

as a secretary of what was then called the Armed Forces Policy Council, and then as assistant for N ational Security Council Affairs. I

should say, as you perhaps know, Mr. Chairman, that the Office of

the Secretary of Defense in those days was rather like a medium-sized

law firm. There were something less than a hundred people, with

everyone doing a little bit of everything. In subsequent years, lf

course, it has become a more highly organized structure, and larger.

I was privileged to attend the N ational War College during this

period, and to serve a stint as the Executive Director of a Presidential

Commission on Universal Military Training. That Commission was

under the chairmanship of the late Senator James Wadsworth of New

York, Senator Symington's father-in-law. The membership included

Will Clayton, Carl Compton of MIT, and Admiral Kincaid.

During this period, roughly between my 25th and 31st years, I

had the honor of working rather closely with a number of the leading

and even the great men of the period. Secretary Forrestal, General

Marshall, Secretary Robert Lovett, the distinguished Senator from

Missouri, who was then the first Secretary of the Air Force, and Mr.

Carl Vinson the venerable chairman of the House Armed Services

Committee. I did determine at that time that I did not wish to be a

career civil servant, and I left the Government shortly after the end

of the Truman administration. But I was very clear that I wanted to

come back.

I spent the next 11 years in business in New York, including ft

period with the investment firm of J. H. Whitney & Co. I was subsequently a partner in the management firm of Cresap, McCormick
12 NOMINATIONS

& Paget in 1958 to 1964. During that period I was occasionally a

consultant to the Government, especially on military and foreign

affairs.

I returned to Government in January of 1965 as Deputy Assistant

Secretary of Defense for Near East and South Asian Affairs. And

about 18 months later I became Principal Deputy under the late

John McNaughton.

I am married to Ann Merrifield Cunningham of Southport, Conn.

And we now live in McLean, Va., with a good many children.

That completes my statement, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STENNIS. Well, you have a very interesting career.

Since you started out on the committee where Mrs. Smith was a

member, and you also served under Secretary Symington, I am

going to waive my privilege of asking the first question and call on

Senator Smith.

You were on the committee over in the House?

Senator SMITH. Yes. I was brought up by Carl Vinson, which was

a privilege.

Mr. Hoopes, I wish you well in your position, which I am sure you

will have soon.

I would like to say that you have some awfully big shoes to fill. I

have considered Norman Paul one of the best executives in the

history of the Department of Defense. I have personally witnessed

the courage that he and Secretary Brown have exhibited on different

and delicate personnel matters in relations with Congress. And I

again wish you well.

Mr. HOOPES. I appreciate that very much, Madam Senator.

I have known Normal Paul professionally for some time, and I share

your views fully. I am well aware of the comparison that will be made

between him and his successor.

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STENNIS. Thank you, Senator Smith.

Senator Symington.

Senator SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I associate myself with the

remarks of the distinguished senior Senator from Maine with respect

to Norman Paul, a good friend of mine and a fine public servant.

Mr. Hoopes has not completed his biography. It is always pleasant

to see a Yale man come into a Government so full of Harvard

people.

One thing Mr. Hoopes didn't mention which I think ought to be on his record, is that he was a football player in fact captain of the

Yale team.

Mr. Hoopes, I look forward to voting for your confirmation. You

have been an able public servant.

There are several things I would ask for the record at this time.

I personally have been gratified with actions of the present Secretary and the Chief. And what is more important people I respect now

and formerly in the Air Force feel he has done a great deal for the Air

Force. That is the acid test.

On the other hand, there are developments in the Air Force which

worry me. Going back a long time, when we ran into Pearl Harbor,

Admiral Davidson told me we not only did not know the Japanese

had hundreds of Zero fighters, we didn't know they had one. Later

on, in World War II our Curtiss P-40's were not as good as the best

the enemy had.
NOMINATIONS 13

Then we got into the Korean war, and had to borrow fighter planes

from Canada to start off. Their MIG 15's were better than our first

F-86's according to the pilots I talked to, especially at fighting

altitude.

So I have always worried about the development of airplanes. I

remember Assistant Secretary of Defense, Anna Rosenberg, coming

back from Korea, and saying to the Secretary of Defense, "Well,

Mr. Secretary, as I understand the situation, you have only one

problem. That is to teach our pilots how to fly blueprints."

In the first airshow the Russians have had since 1961 at Domodedovo Field outside of Moscow, they flew six new fighters including

two variable-wing units, and they also showed major modifications to

three others. Almost immediately I read a press story, "Pentagon

not impressed with recent air developments as exhibited in the Russian

show."

Thereupon I thought to myself, this is where I came in.

Don't you think it important for our air designs to increase at

least in pace and development with that of the Soviet Union?

Mr. HOOPES. I would think you are absolutely- right, sir. The

technological effort to maintain our qualitative military superiority

is the essence of our task.

Senator SYMINGTON. I know we have one plane, two planes,

depending on how you look at it, the F-111—A, and the F-111—B,

under intense development and production. But do we have any

other fighter plane you know of beyond the F-105's and the F-104's

under research and development?

Mr. HOOPES. I don't really think I am competent to answer that

question, Senator. I do not know what the answer to the question is.

I hope I will know in a few months.

Senator SYMINGTON. The Secretary is here himself. There is no other

plane in research or development. If this article is correct, our defense

people are not particularly worried about what the Russians showed

the other day with those six new fighters.

I know also that in 1965 in Thailand and off South Vietnam Navy

and Air Force pilots plead that some new fighter designs get underway.

But, we have nothing really underway at this time.

If we ran into trouble with the one country in the world capable of

destroying us, say in the 1970's, we could well be fighting with a 1952

airplane, they with a 1966 airplane. If we found ourselves in a position

of that character, based on our past experience with the Zeros and the

MIG-15's, that could be serious, could it not?

Mr. HOOPES. I would certainly give great weight to what you have

said. And I would look forward to the opportunity to examine this

situation personally at an early date.

Senator SYMINGTON. Now my final question, the same asked Secretary Ignatius, just because a man is military I have the title to this

newspaper story now—"Almost all generals are almost almost always

wrong in all wars."

Is this not somewhat comparable to saying, "Almost all doctors

are almost always wrong about all operations." That might have an

affect on the morale of the medical profession. You don't come in

with any preconceived idea that just because a man is a military man

you have to take what he says with a grain of salt relative to his own

profession, do you?
14 NOMINATIONS

Mr. HOOPES. I certainly do not, Senator. If I may say so, I have a

personal perspective on the development of civilian-military relationships that I value. I was here in a civilian capacity, as you know, at

a very low level immediately after the Second World War, when I

thought that the civilian-military relationships were extremely tense.

They were so for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was

ignorance of each other's basic motivations, purposes, and backgrounds. These two groups have now worked together under conditions

of continuing crisis for 20 years, they have exchanged students at

civilian and military colleges, and there has been much greater

intellectual activity on the subjects of military strategy and foreign

affairs, which has immensely broadened both groups. I found when I

returned in 1965 a really quite harmonious and remarkable change.

I believe that military advice should be sought and followed in particular areas, and I think with equal conviction that civilian authorities must exercise ultimate control, because this is a principle of the

Constitution.

Senator SYMINGTON. You were in the attack on Iwo Jima, so I am

sure you have seen a lot of action. As to whether or not Iwo Jima

should be attacked, of course, would be a civilian decision. But if it

was attacked, you would prefer, would you not, to have military

people handle the details of the operation?

Mr. HOOPES. I can't conceive of an alternate arrangement, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. That is refreshing. Although I believe fully in

complete civilian control under the Constitution, I am glad to hear

your observation incident to a tactical detailed military decision.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.

Senator STENNIS. Thank you, Senator.

May I ask you briefly a few questions here, like those I asked Mr.

Ignatius, and I don't want you to limit your answer, but would you

just be brief so we can get to the other Senators?

Mr. Hoopes, you are experienced in the Department. Would you

feel free in testifying before any congressional committee, or even in

response to congressional questions—would you feel free to give us

the facts of the case, just a statement of the facts, regardless of what

the policy decision might be, or anything else? I am talking about the

bare, hard facts that we are entitled to know. That is what I want

you to respond to.

Mr. HOOPES. Mr. Chairman, I should say my answer is a ringing,

"Yes." I would associate myself fully with what Mr. Ignatius said

earlier, that 1 just do not believe the Military Establishment can

work effectively without the cooperation and support of the Congress

and the appropriate committees, it seems to me that an exchange of

relevant information is the essence of this relationship.

Senator STENNIS. Well, we have to make decisions over here under

the Constitution. You say on the question of judgment, a man is

no better than his information. And we have a hard time getting the

facts. it is like chasing a comet's tail. But do you feel the obligation

to give us the facts, and will you do it?

Mr. HOOPES. I do sir, and I will.

Senator STENNIS. All right, you affirm that.

Now, we do not like the idea

'

as you heard me say, of feeling that

we have to deal at arm's length with those of you who represent any
NOMINATIONS 15

department. I am sure you don't feel when you come over here, that

you have to deal at arm's length with us—or do you? How do you

feel about that?

Mr. HOOPES. I do not, sir. I really look forward to a much closer

relationship with all the members of this committee than has been

possible in the past. One of my regrets of the past 3 years has been

that I have had only sporadic contact with the Members of the

Congress; it has accordingly not been possible for me to be as responsive to some of their lines of thought as it would have been had I

been in rather more continuous contact.

Senator STENNIS. You will have an opportunity now, I suspect.

We hope you do. And we welcome you over here.

Mr. HOOPES. I hope so, too.

Senator STENNIS. I asked Mr. Ignatius about why he accepted public

service, or why he sought it. And I think you have given us a rather

good picture of your feelings on those things.

Senator Young, may I call on you now, sir?

Senator YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have no questions. I shall be very happy to vote favorably for

confirmation.

Mr. HOOPES. Thank you, sir.

Senator STENNIS. Senator Dominick, do you have questions?

Senator DOMINICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to

associate myself completely with what Senator Symington said in the

questions that he raised, including his welcome of a Yale man to the

installation, or the establishment, as they call it.

I have just one or two questions. This pertains, I suspect, to policy

matters which you are probably going to have to get into later today.

But this includes the question of the type of armament and bombs

that we have available to us in the Vietnamese picture.

During my recent tour over there, it became apparent to me that

there was at least a quota system being used as far as some of our

armament was concerned. I am talking about the question of whether

there was an adequate number of 750-pound bombs, or whether there

was an adequate number of CBU's. Have you had a chance to go into

this at all?

Mr. HOOPES. Senator, I have not had a chance to go into that

matter. It is really remote from my present responsibility, and therefore I am not really competent to address the question.

Senator DOMINICK. In your future position, will you have any

programs or plans to return to that Asian theater area?

Mr. HOOPES. I would suspect that this is the case, and I look

forward to it. I imagine that the problems you just mentioned would

be central to my concern as well as to Secretary Brown's.

Senator DOMINICK. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STENNIS. Senator Byrd.

Senator BYRD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hoopes, I would like to welcome one who lives in Virginia,

with many children, to the committee today.

I might say for the record that I have not had the privilege of

knowing you, but I am very much impressed by your appearance

before the committee this morning.

I would like to ask one or two questions.
16 NOMINATIONS

Secretary Brown testified as to your understanding of the world and the problems facing the Defense Department, and particularly

the problems facing the International Security Affairs, a division of the

Department of Defense in which you, I know, have been the Principal

Deputy Assistant. This, I believe, includes and is primarily concerned with Vietnam.

Mr. HOOPES. I would say it is not primarily concerned with Vietnam. It is concerned with the world as a whole. And I should say,

as a disclaimer,. before I answer a specific question, that my profes- sional responsibilities have really been somewhat peripheral as regards Vietnam. I was responsible for Near East and south Asian affairs during the first 18 months I was in the Department.

I acquired broader supervisory responsibilities, which included

Europe, Latin America, and Africa, about 18 months later, in September 1966. My boss, the late John McNaughton, however, through

•a very natural circumstance kept the portfolio of Southeast Asia and Vietnam in his own hands. The decisions were being made at very high levels. The staff work was intensive. I rather imagine that during

the last year of his life he spent 60 or 70 percent of his time on this problem. As a matter of management necessity, it fell to me to look

after problems in other parts of the world; and it was not efficient for me to try to double team him on Vietnam.

I have not been a source of policy advice to the Government on

that subject, and I really doubt that I have authoritative or even

useful views.

Senator BYRD. You have had wide experience during the past 2

years with the economic problems throughout the world which confront the service?

Mr. HOOPES. Generally speaking; yes, sir.

Senator BYRD. And that would include Southeast Asia as well as

the areas that we mentioned a moment ago?

Mr. HOOPES. It would include Southeast Asia in a broad sense, particularly as far as the impact of what is going on there relates to

areas with which I had closer contact and for which I had closer responsibility.

Senator BYRD. In what areas did you have closer contact and closer responsibility?

Mr. HOOPES. I would say the broad area we call the Near East and

Southeast Asia. It includes the southeast flank of NATO, Greece, and

Turkey. It runs through the Near East, and includes Iran, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, and Ceylon; it stops essentially at the Himalayan frontier.

Senator BYRD. What about the Soviet Union?

Mr. HOOPES. I have had no direct responsibility for the Soviet Union, but of course, that is a pervasive factor in all our considerations.

Senator BYRD. That covers your consideration of all the other

matters?

Mr. HOOPES. It does, indeed, in every problem area.

Senator BYRD. Now, another question along that line. You agree,

.of course, that we are involved in a very costly war in Vietnam?

Mr. HOOPES. I do, indeed, sir.

Senator BYRD. Costly in regard to resources, economic resources;

.costly in regard to casualties?

Mr. HOOPES. I do, indeed, sir.
NOMINATIONS 17

Senator BYRD. And it has been a somewhat lengthy war?

Mr. H OOPES. Yes.

Senator BYRD. And I assume you will agree, too, that the end is

not now in sight?

Mr. HOOPES. I don't see any evidence of it.

Senator BYRD. Is it your judgment that a long war in Vietnam,

insofar as the United States is concerned, would be to the advantage

of the Soviet Union?

Mr. HOOPES. I would say not necessarily, Senator, because I think

the Soviets would calculate to some extent, as we do, that the longer

the war goes on, the larger the opportunity for an escalation. And. I

believe that the Soviet Union does not desire a confrontation with

the United States in any part of the world at this time.

Senator BYRD. IS it your belief that the Soviet Union would liketo see the war in Vietnam ended—on their own terms, naturally—do

you think that the Soviet Union would like to see the war in Vietnam

ended at an early date?

Mr. HOOPES. I would say that, on balance, the Soviet Union

would probably like to see an ending of the war in Vietnam.

Senator BYRD. Has there been any evidence that the Soviet Union

is decreasing the military materiel that it is sending to North Vietnam?

Mr. HOOPES. I don't believe there is. I have limited information

on that subject.

Senator BYRD. Am I correct in interpreting your response to my

questions to be that it is your view that the Soviet Union would not

be advantaged by a long war in Vietnam?

Mr. HOOPES. I would say from what I know of the prevailing

opinion in the Soviet Government that on balance it would like to

terminate the war, because it would fear that the longer the war

went on, the greater the risk of a military escalation which might

involve it directly.

Let me give you an example of why 1 believe the Soviet Union is

quite reticent about confronting the United States at this time, in

the recent Middle Eastern War in June, you may recall that Premier

Kosygin took the initiative on the hotline to make it completely clear

to us that there would be no Soviet intervention on behalf of the

Arabs. This was highly disappointing to the Arabs. But I think it was.

a clear signal of the Soviet reticence about facing this kind of military

situation with us.

Senator BYRD. I am pleased to hear you say that you feel the Soviet

Union is reticent in regard to a basic situation with the United States.

But that is not exactly the purport of my question.

The Soviet Union does not have to face the United States in Vietnam. It has not been facing the United States in Vietnam. The North

Vietnamese and the Vietcong have been facing the United States.

And the United States has been pouring resources and manpower in

opposition, not to the Soviet Union, of course, but to the Vietcong

and. the Vietnamese.

Now, is it not to the Soviet Union's advantage, in your judgment,

that we continue to pour resources and manpower in opposition, not

to the Soviet Union but to North Vietnam and to the Vietcong?

Mr. HOOPES. I would agree with that, sir. I think the Soviet Union

is not displeased by our expenditure of resources, human and material,

in Vietnam. But I don't believe that they would conclude from that
18 NOMINATIONS

that the United States is being severely weakened. It is a fact of history, I think, that every war we have fought in has rendered us afterward militarily and industrially stronger than before. And the Soviet Union is aware of this. I would say that the Soviets have to balance their desire to see us expend resources wastefully against their

fear that a wider war might involve them.

Senator BYRD. Is it your feeling then, that the longer the war goes

on, the stronger the United States would be?

Mr. HOOPES. No, sir; I wouldn't argue that.

Senator BYRD. You said a moment ago that history shows that after

each war we are stronger than we were before. Would that naturally

lead to your belief that if this war goes on 2 or 3 or 4 years longer,

we would be better off than if it were ended quickly?

Mr. HOOPES. I think it happens to be an historical consequence. But

I wouldn't turn it around and argue that it was therefore desirable for

us to 

Senator SYMINGTON. Would the Senator yield?

Senator BYRD. I yield.

Senator SYMINGTON. I think you are a bit mixed on that, Mr.

Secretary. At the end of World War II, this country had $24.5 billion

in gold, and owed $7 billion abroad redeemable in gold. Today we have

$13.2 billion in gold, and owe over $30 billion abroad that can be

called tomorrow morning. I think the Senator from Virginia is correct

in the implications of his question.

The gross national product of the United States does not neces- sarily have anything to do with our financial position, specifically

our fiscal and monetary positions. We had the dollar gap and other

things after World War II. Those problems are no longer with us

today.

To me, a great problem today is inflation. We will have a trillion

dollars' worth of life insurance out among the citizens by the end of this year. We have retirement plans, pension plans, and so forth. I

predict all these are going to be vitally affected, especially because of this $70 million-a-day expense in Vietnam.

So I would hope you would give full consideration to the implications of the questioning of the Senator from Virginia, because I

believe the longer this war goes on the more it is weakening the United

States, not strengthening it. I hope you never give the impression that

wars are what make capitalism work because that is exactly what

the Soviets have been preaching for a long time, the theory of Marx.

Thank you, Senator.

Senator STENNIS. Any further questions, Senator?

Senator BYRD. Yes.

Senator STENNIS. Proceed.

Senator BYRD. I want to say again that I feel that you are a tremendously able individual. I am not in any way discounting that.

I am interested in the philosophy, however, of those who are in a

high position of our Government, who make decisions regarding

Vietnam. And certainly, you have been in a position to influence

decisions, and you will be in a position to—in even a more important

position in regard to influencing decisions of Government. And I

am not clear in my own mind from your response to my various

questions, and I would be glad if you would correct. The best that I

can determine is that you do not agree with my assertions that a

long war in Vietnam is to the advantage of the Soviet Union.
NOMINATIONS 19

Mr. HOOPES. I would like to try to correct what may be a misunderstanding. I certainly am not, obviously, an advocate of war,

short or long.

Senator BYRD. I am aware of that; I am certain of that.

Mr. HOOPES. You asked me what I thought the Soviet judgment

would be on the question of U.S. involvement in a long war. And I

gave you my best judgment, which was that the Soviet Union probably does not believe that we are being decisively weakened by our

expenditures at the current level in Vietnam.

Senator BYRD. Do you think we are being weakened?

Mr. HOOPES. I believe we are expending very substantial resources.

Senator BYRD. Am I correct, though, in assuming that you do not

agree with me that a long war is to the advantage of the Soviet Union?

Leaving out what they think, what is your judgment? Does your

judgment coincide with mine, or is it contrary to mine?

Mr. HOOPES. If the Soviets could be assured that this war would

stay at a low level, a relatively low level, and would be contained,

that it would not escalate in a way that might involve them directly,

I think I would probably agree with you, sir.

Senator BYRD. Let me state it once more. My belief is that a long

war in Vietnam is advantageous to the Soviet Union. Now, is that

your personal view, or is it not your own personal view?

Mr. HOOPES. I would say it is not my personal view, in broad terms.

Senator BYRD. You do not agree with my assumption that a long

war in Vietnam is to the advantage of the Soviet Union?

Mr. HOOPES. I couldn't agree with the way you have stated it,

which is somewhat in isolation of other factors which would bear upon

Soviet considerations.

Senator YOUNG. Will you yield to me for one other observation?

Senator BYRD. Yes.

Senator YOUNG. We are talking about a long war. Our involvement

in the civil war—and I call it a civil war in Vietnam—while my

colleague, Senator Byrd, is talking about North Vietnam and South

Vietnam, historically., we all know that there has never been a North

Vietnam or a South Vietnam, and the Geneva accord specifically

stated this; there is not a natural boundary, but a temporary demarcation line. But this war is the longest war this Nation has ever

engaged in except the Revolutionary War.

Mr. HOOPES. I believe that is a fact.

Senator YOUNG. I just wanted to make that clear.

Senator BYRD. No further questions.

Senator STENNIS. Thank you very much, gentlemen.

Is there anything further you wish to say, Mr. Hoopes?

Mr. HOOPES. No, sir, except to thank the committee for its courtesy.

Senator STENNIS. We thank you for being here.

The committee will now go into executive session.

(Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the committee moved into executive

session.)

(The nomination of Mr. Hoopes to be Under Secretary of the Air

Force was subsequently approved by the committee in executive

session and confirmed by the Senate on August 24, 1967.)

0
,