was impressed by their years of service and their high degree of skill." Mr. Chairman, if the Army is allowed to make the transfer contemplated in this authorization request, the men Secretary McNamara talked about will be lost to our Defense Establishment. The Army itself, in the small arms mission study report issued by the Army Weapons Command, has said, that, if this transfer is made, 75 percent of the research and engineering personnel would not transfer with their functions. From my conversations with these men, I think this estimate is too low. Probably 35 percent will find other jobs. The Army Materiel Command said that Springfield has "an essential small arms R. & D. capability that is required by the Army." If we in Congress authorize this item in the budget before this committee, we will be helping to dissolve this team. The same report admits that if this function is transferred to Rock Island, the present team would dissolve. It would not go to Rock Island. The Army would be seriously weakened in its small arms R. & D. capability for at least 3 years. Nearly 700 new technicians and engineers would have to be recruited at Rock Island to accomplish this mission. This problem would not be so serious to the efficiency of the Army if competent workers could be recruited in the Rock Island area. But the local labor market in the Rock Island area is not particularly good for recruiting professional personnel of any type and such personnel with small arms experience is even more limited. I think that actually the employment figures in Rock Island are extremely revealing in supporting that evidence. The SAM's report admits Rock Island is having trouble recruiting personnel for its present mission. How is it going to recruit them for this mission as well? Not from Springfield. The SAM's report itself estimates that only 15 percent of the personnel asked to go to Rock Island will do so. Even if these men can be replaced, the replacements will not have the same capability and training. It will take 3 years to train new men to do the job that Springfield men are doing now. Personnel, important as they are, are not the only thing the Army will lose by transferring this mission to Rock Island. The Army will lose one of the most important factors in the procurement-support function. I refer to proximity to private manufacturing companies. Closeness to the factories allows the Government to keep a constant check on, and a continuing work relationship with, the companies producing the hardware. As the SAM's report says, the small arms industry is concentrated in the Northeast. General Electric, Saco, Nortronics, Colt, Kanaar, and Action are all in New England or Pennsylvania. The three major test locations for small arms are either in Massachusetts or Maryland. Because Springfield is so close to these facilities, a team of personnel from the Springfield Armory is available at any time. The Army Materiel Command says Springfield has "provided invaluable assistance and guidance on production problems to the small arms industry." The Army will also lose the advantage of having testing facilities close to its arsenal. From Springfield, the Army can use Quabbin Reservoir, only 25 miles away, or Otis Air Force Base for long-range outdoor firing, 139 miles away. From Rock Island, you have undeveloped sites at Savannah, Ill., 77 miles away, and at Camp MeCoy, Wis., 250 miles away. Furthermore, it would be necessary to invest more money in developing those facilities. I would like to insert at this point a detailed comparison of facilities at Springfield and Rock Island showing that the Springfield facilities are superior. Senator SYMINGTON. Without objection. (The chart No. 4 referred to follows:) CHART 4.-Comparison of existing test facilities at Springfield Armory with existing and proposed at Rock Island Arsenal 1 Plans for providing outdoor test firing (including armed helicopters) at Rock Island Arsenal are no firm, but $60,000 provided for Camp McCoy or Savannah Army Depot. 2 Indicates excess at Rock Island Arsenal. 82 firing positions in 1 chamber at Springfield Armory. Rock Island Arsenal has 1 small unit. 4 Indoor. Quabbin range has 600 yards to target. • Camp Edwards has 2,000 meters to target. Senator KENNEDY. As Congressman Boland put it so well, in his testimony before the House committee, the transfer of the small arms mission from Springfield Armory to Rock Island will result in a great loss in mission effectiveness. Springfield Armory now has important development programs associated with limited warfare, with emphasis on sky-cavalry armaments. These include automatic grenade launchers, machineguns with mounts, sights, remote control devices, and ammunition-feed systems, all for installations in helicopters. They also include special purpose weapons for counterinsurgency forces and infantry weapons. They include aircraft pad installation from 7.62 to 30 millimeter for Army and Air Force aircraft armament. There are now important procurement programs in process on small arms weapons items. These include two helicopter armament subsystems (the M-5 and M-6), three infantry weapons (the M-60 machinegun, M-79 grenade launcher, and M-16 rifle), two tank machineguns (M-73 and M-85), and several rebuild orders on the M-1 Garand rifle, and hundreds of secondary procurement items. Mr. Chairman, when the decision to close Springfield was made, the highest levels of the Defense Department, in my opinion, did not have a full realization of many of these factors. When these factors were brought to the attention of the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army, largely through the dedicated work of the employees at the armory, the Secretary of Defense called for a new review. This is now going on. It is intensive and exhaustive. It amounts to a reopening of the entire case. The Defense Department could very well decide to retain some or all of the present missions at Springfield. In view of this, Mr. Chairman, it would not be prudent to authorize this money until the final investigation is completed. For Congress to approve the authorization would be to approve the transfer-a transfer that many Members of the Congress have objected to; a transfer that is now under review; a transfer that may never take place; and a transfer which, in my view, should never take place if the best interests of national defense are to be served. It is not the function of this committee to decide the fate of the Springfield Armory. We respect that, Mr. Chairman, but neither should the committee take any action that would facilitate the closing of the Armory. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee. I know you will consider this item with the same thoroughness and good judgment which characterizes all your actions. Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. Senator SALTONSTALL. May I ask a brief question of Senator Kennedy? Senator SYMINGTON. Yes, indeed. Senator SALTONSTALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Kennedy, the position that you take, and I am confident Congressman Boland takes the same position, is that the House struck out this item of $3,510,000 and you want the Senate committee to also leave it out? Senator KENNEDY. That is correct. Senator SALTONSTALL. To accept the House position? Senator SALTONSTALL. Relative to your argument in favor of that I quote the Department of the Army: This item is required to provide the facilities necessary for the national small arms mission. This project provides for the minimum facilities required for research, development, engineering, testing, and procurement of weapons essential for national security. A lack of creative effort and ingenuity related to small arms improvement will have a detrimental effect in providing essential deterrent weapons. The need is presently being met by the utilization of facilities at Springfield Armory which is to be inactivated April 1968. Your point, which I support, and I know that Congressman Boland and others support, is that those facilities at Springfield Armory should not be closed." And furthermore is it not also true that the figures submitted by expert accountants in Springfield, indicate that the cost of moving to Rock Island is going to be substantially in excess of the construction alterations that will be required? Senator KENNEDY. Very definitely, Senator. Senator SALTONSTALL. Congressman Boland will bring that out in more detail. Is it not also true that Secretary of Defense McNamara has stated unequivocally to us that he would make this decision himself and make it on the facts and after the investigation now being made by the Booz Allen firm? Senator KENNEDY. That is correct. Senator SALTONSTALL. And that he has agreed to make that decision himself. What you are asking now, and what you are asking this Senate committee, is to leave this item out for the time being and support the House, until we know what the decision of the Secretary of Defense is. Senator KENNEDY. I think pending the decision of the Secretary of Defense, for the reasons which were outlined by the technical study and by the congressional delegation to the Secretary of Defense, in which the Secretary of Defense himself stated publicly that it was he felt the finest presentation of the factual material and evidentiary material that he had received, in the prospective termination of any Government facility that he ought to have the opportunity to review any material that came to him as well as take the results of the findings of this firm, of the Booz Allen firm, make that determination, and that he would sincerely urge this committee to withhold any authorization or appropriation of funds pending the outcome of that decision. Senator SALTONSTALL. And I repeat-he said he would make that decision himself. Senator KENNEDY. He said that he would make that decision himself, and has given that assurance to the members up at Springfield as well as to the members of the congressional committee. Senator SALTONSTALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no further statement. I would support the position of Senator Kennedy and that I have tried to emphasize by questions, and I am sure that Congressman Boland feels the same way. Senator SYMINGTON. Congressman Boland, we welcome you to the committee. Do you have any further statements you would like to make at this time? STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD P. BOLAND, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Chairman and Senator Saltonstall, I appreciate the opportunity of being invited here this afternoon to appear on the item that Senator Kennedy has just discussed. I don't want to belabor this committee. I know it is busy. It has a great number of witnesses here who are here on other matters, and I don't think that I could add anything to the very excellent, cogent, the persuasive statement that Senator Kennedy has made. As has been indicated by Senator Saltonstall, this is an item which was considered by the Armed Services Committee of the House and it was deleted, in the report which was made by that committee to the House last Thursday. Specifically the item is as the Senator indicated for $3.5 million to rehabilitate the facility at Rock Island, to transfer the research and engineering, testing, evaluation, and the pilot line production from Springfield to Rock Island. I know of no committee I would rather appear before on a matter of this kind, because the Senate Armed Services Committee I think has a great deal of knowledge of the Springfield Armory and the Senate Preparedness Subcommittee of this committee is completely familiar with the Springfield Armory, and what it has done, the excellent reputation it has and the performance that it has compiled over the many many years it has been in existence, actually since 1794. I might just add a couple of sentences, Mr. Chairman. The action in closing the Springfield Armory which was announced in November of last year was looked upon by the American Ordnance Association as the most incredible loss in the Military Establishment. Of the 669 military installations that have been targeted for closure, this is the one installation that was picked out by the American Ordnance Association as one which was the most unbelievable, and I think perhaps the most unjustified. I would like to leave with the committee my entire statement, and that statement does compare some of the figures which have been developed by the Department of the Army, which were presented to the Department of Defense, and these were the figures upon which the Secretary of Defense rested or implemented the decision to fade out Springfield Armory. Senator SALTONSTALL. Mr. Chairman, I think it will be helpful to the committee if the Congressman explained very briefly the breakdown. Senator Kennedy mentioned the total amount. Mr. BOLAND. Yes. Senator SALTONSTALL. I deliberately only mentioned the total amount, because I knew you had the breakdown. Perhaps you could present this very quickly for the chairman. Mr. BOLAND. The Army claims in the figures presented by the Department of the Army to the Department of Defense and the Department of Defense presented to Secretary McNamara, indicated that the one-time implementation costs of the move to Rock Island will be in the magnitude of $8 million. The Springfield Armory Technical Committee and the Massachusetts technical congressional delegation teamed together a pool of employees from the Springfield Armory who know the facts, who worked there, people from research and engineering, testing evaluation, and production. To this team we added a corps of certified public accountants, and it was chaired by Mr. Henry Dawney, one of the best known and one of the most respected certified public accountants in the Springfield area, and a member of the county bar, and the Massachusetts bar and the Federal bar. This committee working in conjunction with the employees of the Springfield Armory came up with the figure that the one-time implementation cost would not be $8 million. It would be $73,716,000, broken down into this area. Construction, alteration of facilities at Rock Island $4,594,000. The item which we appear on here today indicates that this cost would be $3,500,000, but as has been pointed out by Senator Saltonstall in the justification which he just read, the $3.5 million only pertains to minimum facilities and I don't know what the costs would be if they ever got into maximum facilities out there. The personnel move $135,000, the equipment move, all the machinery, the sale and the evacuation of the property would cost $38,730,000; personnel separation and replacement, forced retirement cost to the |