The information requested-with regard to an add-on budget in the first 2 weeks in January of this year-will be provided at a later date. POLARIS REPROGRAMING Mr. LAIRD. I would like to follow up a little bit on Mr. Ford's questioning in regard to the POLARIS reprograming. Last year this committee spent considerable time in reviewing the Navy shipbuilding account. Your program for fiscal year 1961 was justified not only through an oral presentation but also a visual presentation. This presentation went on before this committee for several days. I had assumed that when we approved the funding in that particular shipbuilding account that we were actually approving a definite program; is that correct? Admiral HIRSCH. This would certainly have been my understanding, yes, sir. Mr. LAIRD. Isn't there an obligation on the Navy to inform this committee if that testimony that was given to us is not the program that you were going to carry forward in 1961? Admiral HIRSCH. Certainly we want to keep you informed. Things have moved very fast in this area and this appears to me to have been an attempt to get on with something that the Defense Department felt should be done, and then to make sure that everyone understood exactly what had been done possibly a little bit later. Mr. LAIRD. It seems to me that there is not much sense in our having a hearing on your Navy shipbuilding account this year. Admiral HIRSCH. I think it is very important that you do and I also think it is very important that we get across the point that we have diligently watched these dollars on the basis on which they were given to us and that we have accurately reported our reprogramings through the year and would plan to continue to do so, and also that the next reprograming report will show exactly where these dollars were borrowed from by ship and type of ship, to do this. Mr. LAIRD. What good is the report if the funds are already obligated? Admiral HIRSCH. This report will simply show where the borrowed unobligated money came from. It will not of course show how the money will be paid back but it will show where the money must be paid back if we are to continue the shipbuilding program. Mr. LAIRD. Do you intend in your justification this year to justify the shipbuilding funds for ships that are already under contract? Admiral HIRSCH. I think basically this is being looked upon as a borrowing of unobligated dollars. Mr. LAIRD. Will you rejustify the ships you have knocked out of the program? Admiral HIRSCH. I do not believe that is what is contemplated. I believe it is being considered as a means of financing this acceleration of POLARIS and not to be interpreted as any change in the shipbuilding program, an expedient to get on with this, and I think it a firm conviction on everybody's part that this whole matter will be completely discussed later on by other witnesses as to exactly how the Navy and DOD is doing this and exactly what they are going to be asking the Congress to do Mr. SHEPPARD. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. SHEPPARD. The thing that is very disturbing to many members of this committee, I believe, is the fact that while we thoroughly understand, so far as the legal requirement, if we want to reduce it to that denominator, it isn't literally that, but there has been a gentleman's understanding up to now that when these things took place your banking Appropriations Subcommittee was advised about it and so far as I know in the years I have been privileged to serve on these committees up here, there has been nothing reflected from the Congress that showed any change. In other words, what the gentleman is addressing himself to here, had you brought that letter up here, in less than 12 hours you would have had a return, based on previous experience because I know of some of the reprogramings that have been walked through here in less than 6 hours. Here comes something completely out of the budgetit seems to me, though, the gentleman is capable of speaking for himself that is just a little of an end run and we do not like it, period. I would like to have my remarks left in the record, Mr. Reporter, so those who are present in new positions may interpret whether or not a gentleman's agreement is being lived up to. That is all the comment I have to make, Mr. Laird. Mr. LAIRD. I thank you very much for your help, Mr. Chairman. My concern about this is that this seems to me to be $584,100,000 which was justified here for another purpose. Most of the ships involved are in the ASW area. They have been reprogramed out from the 1961 program. Now I am just trying to find out if you are going to rejustify these ships, or are they forgotten about now? Admiral HIRSCH. I have not gained the impression that anybody is thinking these ships are out of the program at all, nor would I expect that people are thinking that they would have to be rejustified when we come up here before you. Your point is very well taken. I think of it as a financial adjustment to get on with something important. Certainly it has been done a little differently than other things have been done, but I am confident that this will be explained and spoken to in great detail when the witnesses who follow me do appear, and I feel in my own mind that maybe the ultimate method of financing these submarines has still to be developed and announced. Mr. LAIRD. You mean to tell me that you think you are going to be justifying the five submarines rather than the old program? Admiral HIRSCH. Yes, sir; this is my understanding. Mr. LAIRD. Even though the five submarines are already contracted for, you are going to justify those rather than the old program? Admiral HIRSCH. This is the way the budget stands at the present time. What may happen as a result of these studies that are going on, what may happen as to the plans for a Polaris program for fiscal year 1962, I just cannot tell. Mr. LAIRD. My concern, Admiral, about this program, is that I think the Polaris submarine program is one that can stand on its own feet. It seems to me that it has to be considered along with our country's overall destructive capability, rather than tying it in with the other limited warfare activities of the Navy. This reprograming confuses the primary mission that the Navy has to fulfill as far as freedom of the seas are concerned, and as far as the limited warfare capability that you have to maintain. It just seems to me that you wouldn't have had a great deal of difficulty with this committee. I think the Navy itself is getting these two areas confused and I think it will hurt the Navy in the long run. Admiral HIRSCH. I certainly hope that it will not, and that it will be made clear to all just exactly what the intent was and what has happened. If it had been my decision, I would have preferred to have asked for a supplemental than to approach the financing the way it has been approached. Mr. LAIRD. I have here the letter of February 4, which was addressed to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the Honorable Clarence Cannon, which was the first notification that this committee received of this action, and it was already an accomplished action when this letter was delivered to this committee. I should like also to include my letter to the Secretary of the Navy. Mr. SHEPPARD. At this point in view of the discussion that has taken place, we shall make these letters a part of the record. (The letters referred to follows:) Hon. CLARENCE CANNON, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., February 4, 1961. Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: As indicated by the President in his recent state of the Union message to Congress, the Navy proposes to commence work immediately on five additional nuclear-powered fleet ballistics missile submarines (SSBN). Funds for construction of these submarines are included in the Navy's budget estimates for fiscal 1962 now before the Congress. As you know, the Navy is rapidly building up a fleet of operational POLARIS submarines. Three already have been completed; 11 others are under construction. The success of POLARIS to date has exceeded expectations. The proven accuracy and range of this powerful weapon brings almost any target within reach from the sea. By proceeding now with the five SSBN submarines in the isal 1962 program, the Navy will expedite their construction by many months. These five submarines will be of the Lafayette (SSBN-616) class. Firm design characteristics and contract plans for this SSBN are on hand. Orders for reactor compartment components of the nuclear powerplant and other long leadtime components already have been placed. The Navy is now proceeding to place contracts and project orders with shipyards for construction of these submarines. Tonnage authority exists in law for this construction work, provided that unobligated balances of previously appropriated "Ship construction, Navy" (SCN) funds are used. The total estimated cost of these five submarines is $584,100,000. Funds for construction would be temporarily diverted from the unobligated balances which are not to be used this fiscal year in the shipbuilding program. Since these funds will be required in subsequent years to complete ships now under construction, they will be replaced by funds in the 1962 appropriation. By commencing work now on five POLARIS submarines as outlined above, the Navy will greatly hasten operational availability of missile weapon systems of vital importance to our country's defense plans. With kindest regards, Sincerely yours, JOHN B. CONNALLY. Hon. JOHN B. CONNALLY, Becretary of the Navy, Washington, D.C. FEBRUARY 8, 1961. MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: As a member of the Defense Appropriations Submmittee who has taken a special interest in the problems of the Navy, I was Jost concerned with your letter dated February 4, 1961, addressed to Chairman Clarence Cannon of the Appropriations Committee. Your proposal to transfer $584,100,000 from the unobligated balances of preriously appropriated "Ship construction, Navy" (SCN) funds to finance the con66865-61-pt. 1-8 struction of five fleet ballistic missile submarines quite possibly can have an adverse effect upon the Navy's 1962 budget. The primary responsibility of the Navy is in the area of maintaining freedom of the seas, limited warfare, and antisubmarine warfare. As a I wholeheartedly support the fleet ballistic missile submarine program. matter of fact, in the 1961 budget markup, I introduced amendments to step up funding of this program. My concern over your proposed funding of this program stems from the fact that the Department of Defense must consider the POLARIS program as part of our overall destructive force for all-out nuclear war. In considering the budget for the Department of Defense it should be considered along with the funding for other all-out destructive weapon systems rather than as a part of the Navy's regular ship construction program. By merely transferring funds from the "Ship construction, Navy" (SCN) account, I believe this account will suffer in the long run. The effect of this will be to weaken the Navy in carrying out its primary missions, particularly in the area of antisubmarine warfare. It is my hope that you will give consideration to a request for a supplemental appropriation for the POLARIS program rather than using unobligated balances in the "Ship construction, Navy" account. This POLARIS request can stand on its own feet and would be funded without much difficulty. You also would be following a procedure which would be keeping faith with the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. With best wishes and kindest personal regards, I am, Sincerely yours, Mr. LAIRD. That is all I have. MILITARY PERSONNEL MELVIN R. LAIRD, Mr. WEAVER. Admiral Hirsch, I should like to direct your attention to the bottom of page 4 of your statement, to the various personnel classifications. First of all, I should like to inquire, under "Military personnel, Navy," where you are not increasing or expecting an increase in the overall total strength, but where you are asking $47 million more; yet according to exhibit 1, the projection of expenditures for fiscal year 1961 would still be less than the amount that you had requested in fiscal year 1961. Could you elaborate a little on that? In other words, how did you arrive at a $17 million. increase when your projection for net expenditures for fiscal year 1961 are still less than you requested for fiscal year 1961? Admiral HIRSCH. There is a lag in expenditures in this appropriation, when you go on a buildup; the cost of moving these people, shipping of household effects, the bills for these and other costs do not all come in, in the year in which the obligations are incurred so there is a delayed action and delay in the amount of expenditures particularly when you are building up and increasing the amount of dollars you are putting in obligations that are not reflected as an increase in expenditures as rapidly as the obligations show up. Mr. WEAVER. On page 5, you have a statement to the effect that, although there is no significant increase in average strength, the number of career personnel, individuals in a married status, and the number of dependents per individual are increasing. This results in an increase in longevity pay, quarters allowances, and travel. How is that $47 million broken down among those items? That must be where your projection is; is it not? |