Mr. RONEY. Again in section 506 we propose to insert the language: * * * leasing of buildings and facilities, including the conduct of field exercises and maneuvers. Mr. Tracy just explained the reasons for that. It is being lifted out of the O. & M. appropriation and inserted as a general provision for the purpose of uniformity and simplification. We propose also under section 506 to add a new subsection (f) which would read: Payments under contracts for maintenance of tools and facilities for 12 months, beginning at any time during the fiscal year and here again Mr. Tracy explained that to you. This would cover all maintenance of tools and facilities instead of just reserve tools. In other words, we are broadening it a little to that extent. On page 162, section 515, there is a proviso with respect to a limitation of 11,000 pounds on the amount of household goods personnel can ship back from overseas. That was effective on and after July 10, 1952. We have one officer, General Norstad, who finally came back so the provision is no longer operative. On page 172 we propose the deletion of section 532 which provides that none of the funds provided herein shall be used to pay any recipient of a grant for the conduct of a research project in an amount for indirect expenses in connection with such project in excess of 90 percent of the direct costs. Mr. SIKES. I believe that has been thoroughly discussed. DELETION OF "DOMESTIC PEACE CORPS" LANGUAGE On page 172, section 540, this provision precludes the use of appropriations for salaries and administrative expenses, in the conduct of research activities related directly or indirectly to the establishment of a National Service Corps or similar domestic Peace Corps-type program. Mr. SIKES. As I recall, this was added on the floor last year, was it not? Mr. RONEY. Yes, sir. I believe it got in several of the appropriation bills last year. Mr. SIKES. Supply a statement for our records showing the reasons why this should come out, if that is the case. Mr. RONEY. Yes, sir. Mr. SIKES. Go ahead. (The requested information follows:) This section should be deleted since no funds for this purpose are included in the budget estimates for the Department of Defense. REQUEST FOR STOCK FUND TRANSFER AUTHORITY Mr. RONEY. On page 172 you will note we are proposing a new section 539 which, in effect, would provide flexibility to meet emergencies or unforeseen requirements in case of major cost deviations in any one of the stock funds. In other words, it would permit transfer between the various stock funds. Mr. SIKES. If the committee adopts the general provision proposed with respect to transfers between stock funds, is it necessary to name more than one stock fund in the various military personnel appropriations where transfers are provided? Mr. RONEY. I would say it is not absolutely necessary; no, sir. It is a matter of convenience. It is programed that funds to be transferred to "Military personnel, Army," for example, will come from two sources the Army stock fund and also the Defense stock fund. As a matter of convenience it is preferable to make one transfer from these stock funds direct to the military personnel appropriation. Mr. SIKES. The proposed section 539 in connection with transfers between stock funds appears to be unlimited with respect to the necessity of effecting a transfer. What would the effect be of language which would limit this transfer authority to only such transfers as would be required to comply with transfer requirements imposed in title I of the bill; that is, the military personnel appropriation items? Mr. TRACY. Section 539, Mr. Chairman, is designed to permit transfer of cash between stock funds in all instances where such transfers of cash may be needed to carry on the operations of that stock fund. If the cash of the fund should fall to such a level that it would be impossible to continue operations without violating section 3679 of the Revised Statutes, section 539 would permit the transfer of the necessary amount of cash from other stock funds to keep that particular stock fund in business. If the section were limited in the way you have described, to cover only transfers contemplated under title I, it would severely limit the use of this section and the desired effect of it. Mr. SIKES. I would like for you to submit for our record a detailed statement showing your reasons for wanting this transferability. Mr. RONEY. Mr. Chairman, I believe Secretary Hitch had quite a detailed statement in his presentation with the reasons we desire section 539. Mr. SIKES. All right. Does this conclude your presentation? SUIT AFFECTING OVERSEA DEPENDENTS EDUCATION Mr. SIKES. There is, as you know, a suit pending to enforce pay increases for American teachers overseas. Could you, either on or off the record, state your opinion at this time as to the validity of the suit which appears to be contended by the Department on the grounds that the per pupil limitation precludes compliance with the salary law? Mr. RONEY. As you indicated, suit has been filed. It is presently under consideration by the Department of Justice as to what the Government's answer will be. I think any discussion certainly should be off the record in view of that. (Discussion off the record.) EFFECT OF LIMITATION IN AUTHORIZATION LAW Mr. SIKES. The language of the Defense Procurement and Research and Development Authorization Act for this year contains in connection with Air Force R. & D. the phrase $3,140 million, of which amount $52 million is available only for development of advanced manned strategic aircraft. Does this language, in your opinion, mean that the first $52 million of any amount appropriated must automatically be set aside only for such development? Mr. RONEY. Mr. Chairman, in answering that I would like to make several assumptions: (1) Assuming no language, no limitation, appears in the appropriation act itself, nor is anything mentioned in your committee report with respect to this $52 million, we would feel legally we were not obligated or bound by this $52 million limitation in the authorizing bill. We would be free to use the $52 million for whatever purpose we wanted to. (2) Assuming we had some statement in your report in a very definite way stating that this $52 million would be used for the purpose indicated and you expected the Department of Defense to comply with it. I think our answer to that would be certainly, before we used that $52 million for any other purpose, we would come up to the committees on a reprograming item, as being an item of special interest to the committee. (3) If you put it in the appropriation language itself, there is no question about it as I indicated on the $125 million DYNA-SOAR matter we just discussed. POSITION OF SECRETARY IN NOT ALLOCATING APPROPRIATIONS Mr. FLOOD. On the exercise of discretion which the Secretary of Defense with precedent alleges he has in the failure to allocate appropriated funds designated by the Congress, has that question ever been before the Supreme Court? Mr. RONEY. No, sir; not to my knowledge. Mr. FLOOD. I wonder why, out of an abundance of caution, or unless you were satisfied with the way things are going, and I suppose you are as a great public service you ought to lay the ghost to rest, if one exists and one does exist. The Secretary of Defense, out of the kindness of his heart for those concerned, would not go before the U.S. Supreme Court with a petition in some areas of extraordinary remedy after the case stated, and ask to have that point, once and for all, determined. Do you feel you need such a burden? Mr. RONEY. There might be some question as to whether the Court would even take jurisdiction. Mr. FLOOD. There might be? Mr. RONEY. I would think so as an off-the-cuff opinion. Mr. FLOOD. Yes. On any of this? What do you think of the taxpayers' suit sitting as a court of original jurisdiction or appealing to one of the extraordinary remedies, sitting as a court of original jurisdiction in the realm of equity? Mr. RONEY. I do not think a taxpayer could get into court in a situation like that. Mr. SIKES. Mr. Mahon? Mr. MAHON. Mr. Sikes, I want to thank you for your able work as acting chairman of the committee today and on previous occasions. You have been very helpful. We are all concerned about the proper appropriation language and the proper interpretation of such questions as may arise. We have these and many other things to wrestle with in determining what Congress or this committee itself, will do on the defense bill for the forthcoming fiscal year. General MOORE. Mr. Chairman? Mr. SIKES. Yes. General MOORE. Off the record, please. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. MAHON. Thank you, gentlemen. We are very pleased to have you. Mr. RONEY. Thank you, sir. FRIDAY, MARCH 6, 1964. SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY WITNESS VICE ADM. HYMAN G. RICKOVER, U.S. NAVY, MANAGER, NAVAL REACTORS DIVISION OF REACTOR DEVELOPMENT, AEC, AND ASSISTANT CHIEF FOR NUCLEAR PROPULSION, BUREAU OF SHIPS, NAVY DEPARTMENT (NOTE. The following is a continuation of testimony which appeared on pp. 383-413, Pt. 3: Procurement:) ANTISUBMARINE WARFARE (ASW) Mr. WHITTEN. Admiral, as I said earlier, and I think the country agrees, the nuclear submarine has been vital to the defense of the Nation. With it has come many developments and many improvements but since the enemy has them now, antisubmarine warfare becomes urgent. Could you address yourself to that subject? Admiral RICKOVER. Yes, sir. I have heard many antisubmarine warfare discussions over the years in both the Navy and in the Congress. Where there has been so much discussion and so few specific results I naturally wonder whether the problem is being adequately attacked. Although some improvement may have been made in this field, the problem has been continually growing since World War II. In the 1950's the large number of Soviet conventional submarines posed a formidable problem. In the 1960's this problem has greatly increased. The primary way to detect a submarine is with sound waves; either by bouncing them off the enemy submarine's hull or by listening to the nois anating from his machinery. In either case the problem is extremely difficult because the sound signal from the submarine has to be ferretted out of the background of the many natural sea noises. The noise of the sea is dependent on the weather, the marine life in the particular area, bottom conditions, et cetera. Further, the transmission of sound through water is affected by salinity and temperature. With the vastness of the oceans and their constantly changing conditions, it is obvious that the advantage lies with the submarine. I bring this out, for one should not minimize the enormity of the problem. It seems to me that the problem of antisubmarine warfare reduces to the following: (1) We must protect our surface striking forces against attack by enemy submarines. (2) We must be capable in war of escorting convoys across the oceans. (3) With the advent of Russian missile-carrying submarines we must have the capability of keeping track of these ships so that we know the number and location of those that are in position to launch attack against our coasts. For each of these three situations-improved sonar detection capa bility is highly important; without knowing where an enemy submarine is you cannot attack him or defend yourself against him. If you do locate him you must also have weapons which can destroy him. NUCLEAR SURFACE WARSHIPS LESS VULNERABLE TO SUBMARINES No matter what state our submarine detection capability or antisubmarine weapons might be in at the present time, the greatest protection we can provide our striking forces against the nuclear submarine is high speed and long endurance; this can come only from nuclear power. Against a large submarine force it is more difficult to provide sufficient protection for a conventionally powered task force than it is for a nuclear-powered task force. In wartime the slowing down of conventional ships for refueling may be tantamount to inviting destruction. Further, as I pointed out earlier, logistic support ships are more vulnerable than our striking forces. Anything we can do to reduce our dependence on logistic support helps to reduce the ASW problem. Mr. FORD. Are you talking about surface ships? USE OF NUCLEAR SUBMARINES FOR ASW Admiral RICKOVER. I have been talking about nuclear-powered surface ships for our striking forces, sir. Now I will discuss use of submarines for antisubmarine warfare. As I mentioned previously the problem of detecting a submarine is extremely difficult. However, one way to simplify the problem is to put the attacker and defender in the same enviroment. This can best be accomplished with another nuclear-powered submarine. In my opinion, the nuclear submarine may make an excellent escort for our convoys or naval task forces. While this potential may have been recognized it has not been sufficiently exploited. In fact its exploitation has been hindered by submariners themselves who do not want to get |