ARMY REORGANIZATION Mr. SIKES. Dr. Summerson, you have appeared for a number of times before this committee and always effectively as a witness. Do you wish to say anything on the situations resulting from the reorganization of the Department of the Army and its effect on the work of the Chemical Corps? Dr. SUMMERSON. I can tell you this, Mr. Sikes, that the program you heard today is the same program we would have presented under the Chemical Corps setup. There has been no impact on the R. & D. aspects of our program, of any significance. Mr. SIKES. Then, as far as you are concerned, it is working reasonably satisfactorily? Dr. SUMMERSON. Yes, sir. INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATES Mr. SIKES. What is the present intelligence estimate regarding the intent and capabilities of potential enemy nations with respect to the use of chemical and biological weapons in warfare? (The information is classified and has been submitted for committee use.) Mr. SIKES. What contributions can we expect from the CB program which will enhance the U.S. capability to wage limited war? (Classified information was submitted.) NAVY AND AIR FORCE CB PROGRAMS Mr. SIKES. To what extent do the Air Force and the Navy call upon the Army CB program for support at the present time? General DELMORE. During fiscal year 1963 and fiscal year 1964, the Air Force supplied funds totaling $2.4 million to Edgewood Arsenal for the development of - and for decontamination studies. Technical assistance is also supplied to the Air Force in evaluating contract proposals in the CB area. In the performance of the contract, associate project engineers are assigned from Edgewood Arsenal. The Navy funding during fiscal year 1963 and fiscal year 1964 totaled $0.7 million and supported chiefly the development of the Mr. SIKES. Have there been any difficulties in obtaining competent support from industry, under contract, for the CB R. & D. program? General DELMORE. The response of industry to the CB program has been generally excellent and at the present time many outstanding industrial organizations are under contract to Edgewood Arsenal in support of the CB program. Mr. SIKES. A year ago we were told about the active participation of Edgewood Arsenal in the Has this participation continued, and, if so, in what detail? General DELMORE. We have not participated actively in the operations referred to since last year. However, we continue to furnish technical information and guidance to the operations as required. We have continued our programs on the search for CONTRACT PROGRAM Mr. SIKES. What proportion of your current program is supported under contract with outside sources? How does this current level compare with the past practice and with anticipated future practice? General DELMORE. Approximately 45 percent of the current fiscal year 1964 R.D.T. & E. program of Edgewood Arsenal is supported under contract with outside agencies. This is to be contrasted with an approximately 10-percent contract level in fiscal year 1960. Present plans call for a continuation of contract support at the 45- to 50-percent level in the future. Mr. SIKES. What is the relative emphasis in your current program with respect to chemical weapons versus biological weapons? General DELMORE. Off the record. INTRODUCTION OF CB ITEMS INTO OPERATIONAL INVENTORY Mr. SIKES. What, in your opinion, can be done to increase the flow of end items from your R. & D. program? General DELMORE. There are two important factors concerned here. One is the state of the art with respect to meeting military requirements. The other is the degree of acceptance of new weapons concepts by the using services. It is the responsibility of the R. & D. laboratories to bring the state of the art to higher and higher levels, and to provide technical evidence regarding the superiority of improved weapons systems resulting there from. It is the responsibility of the using services to evaluate new proposed weapons systems and to place development requirements for such new items. Thus, a joint effort of both the R. & D. and using elements of the Army is required to promote the flow of end items from the CB program. Mr. SIKES. What is the relative emphasis in your current program with respect to ? General DELMORE. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) CB PROGRAMS OF ALLIES Mr. SIKES. What is the position of our allies with respect to R. & D. effort on chemical and biological weapons and defense, as contrasted to our own position? What, if anything, are we doing to assist allied nations in this respect? General DELMORE. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. SIKES. With regard to defense against CB attack on the battlefield, what are the major lessons learned from the Fort Ord exercise on protective equipment you mentioned in your presentation? What are we doing about the deficiencies in our present CB defense capabilities which these exercises revealed? (The information is classified and was submitted for committee use.) 30-741-64-pt. 5—29 Mr. LIPSCOMB. What type of nonprofit institutions does your group work with? General DELMORE. Institutions such as Batelle Memorial Institute, Armour Research Foundation, universities, and also various others. DEFOLIATION PROGRAM Mr. LIPSCOMB. Are there any other governmental agencies, other than the military, working in the defoliation research area? General DELMORE. The Department of Agriculture under their programs have growth regulators and weed control in some of these related programs. Not the purpose we are seeking for, strictly defolia tion. Mr. LIPSCOMB. What about other branches of the military? General DELMORE. No other branches of the military are doing the research. We are carrying on all the research for the Navy and Air Force. Mr. LIPSCOMB. Do you ever do it on a reimbursable basis? General DELMORE. It is mostly on a reimbursable basis. The Advanced Research Project Agency, of course, we do it for them on a reimbursable basis. Mr. LIPSCOMB. For the Air Force? General DELMORE. For the Air Force also. The Army's program on defoliation today is approximately Mr. LIPSCOMB. What is the total amount for the defoliation program? General DELMORE. Without looking in these books, in the neighborhood of around Mr. LIPSCOMB. What happens after all your research and development and everything is done? Are the results of your accomplishments used? General DELMORE. You mean in defoliation? Mr. LIPSCOMB. Yes. General DELMORE. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. LIPSCOMB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SIKES. Mr. Flood? Mr. FLOOD. How long does it take for defoliation? General DELMORE. Seven days. Mr. FLOOD. Too long. General DELMORE. We are trying to get it down to a matter of hours. Seven days is too long. Mr. FLOOD. In operational areas, it is much, much too long. (A film was shown.) Mr. SIKES. Gentlemen, thank you very much. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 1964. APPROPRIATION LANGUAGE CHANGES EDWARD M. WITNESSES RONEY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL (FISCAL MATTERS), OFFICE, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT L. TRACY, ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER OF THE ARMY (FISCAL POLICY) Mr. SIKES. Gentlemen, do you want to go through just the section on "General provisions" or do you want to discuss the changes as they occur? What is your pleasure? Mr. RONEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pinch-hitting for Mr. Lanman this afternoon. He is ill. Mr. SIKES. You are Mr. Roney? Mr. RONEY. Yes, sir. Mr. SIKES. We are glad to have you with us, and we already know Mr. Tracy well. We have been doing business at the same old stand with him for a long time. Are you in charge, Mr. Roney? Mr. RONEY. Yes, sir. With your permission, we would like to start with the language changes and end up with the general provisions. I think this ought to be rather short. Mr. SIKES. Proceed. MILITARY PERSONNEL CHANGES IN TRANSFER AUTHORITY Mr. RONEY. The first change is on page 10 where we propose for deletion authority to transfer $50 million from the Army industrial fund. The reason for this is that no such transfer is contemplated this year. The same thing appears in the Mr. SIKES. On a routine matter where there is just a change in the place where language appears in the bill, provide that information for the record and keep moving. Mr. RONEY. All right. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE The next change is on page 43, Mr. Chairman, under "Operation and maintenance, Army." Mr. Tracy will speak to that. Mr. SIKES. All right. Mr. TRACY. These two clauses which have been deleted on page 43 refer to contracts for maintenance of reserve tools and facilities and for payments in advance for rentals and options to rent land in connection with field exercises, which have been merely transferred to a general provision, section 506, for purposes of consolidation and simplification. There is no change in the program or funding. Similar changes referring to land rentals have been made under the Navy and Air Force appropriations. On page 77, we have a change under the appropriation, "Operation and maintenance, Army, National Guard." New wording has been inserted reading: Those necessary to provide reimbursable services for the military departments. This change has been made at the request of the National Guard Bureau to provide authority to utilize these funds to employ technicians to carry out agreements between the National Guard and the Reserve components for reimbursable maintenance of Reserve equipment in National Guard maintenance shops. In many instances where Reserve units have equipment which needs regular maintenance, it has been found more economical to do this work in existing National Guard maintenance shops rather than to set up special additional shops for the Reserve. To do this, the National Guard and Reserves have entered into a number of agreements whereby the Reserve units agree to pay for costs incurred by the National Guard in doing this work. This reimbursement is credited to "Operation and maintenance, Army National Guard," appropriation and used to pay the salaries of additional technicians who are hired to perform this work in the National Guard maintenance shops. We have about 280 of these technicians at the present time employed by the National Guard for this purpose. The system is working quite well. However, recently the Comptroller General expressed the opinion that there is no authority to use National Guard funds to employ technicians for the purpose of maintenance of Reserve equipment, even though it is done on a reimbursable basis. Therefore, the National Guard Bureau has requested we insert this wording here to permit continued use of these National Guard funds to hire the technicians to carry out agreements of this type with other components of the Department of Defense. Mr. SIKES. Proceed. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION, AIR FORCE Mr. RONEY. The next change is on page 143 under "R.D.T. & E." You will note we are proposing for deletion the proviso: ** of the funds available for obligation in this appropriation account, $125 million shall be available only for the DYNASOAR program and mach III aircraft program. The proviso is proposed for deletion since reenactment of this language in fiscal year 1965 appropriations in these identical terms and amounts would not change its effect since the language constitutes a limitation on the utilization of funds which were in the R.D.T. & E. account last year at the time of the enactment of this act. The limitation is still applicable this year. Mr. SIKES. Very well. GENERAL PROVISIONS Mr. RONEY. We now come to the "General provisions" on pages 155 and 156. You will notice we are deleting the $285 in section 506 and propose to insert $295 with respect to education of minor dependents in oversea schools. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Education provided a detailed justification on this item when he appeared before the committee. Mr. SIKES. That is correct. |