FISCAL YEAR 1972 HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS NINETY-SECOND CONGRESS AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT 62-855 O Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1971 4 niv EX OFFICIO MEMBERS FROM THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington STROM THURMOND, South Carolina WILLIAM W. WOODRUFF, FRANCIS S. HEWITT, T. FARRELL EGGE, AND EDMUND L. HARTUNG, Staff Assistants on the Department of Defense Appropriations (II) FISCAL YEAR 1972 The subcommittee met, at 9:30 a.m. in room S-126, the Capitol, Hon. Allen J. Ellender (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Ellender, Pastore, Young, Smith, Allott, Hruska, HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY ADM. ELMO R. ZUMWALT, JR., U.S. NAVY, CHIEF OF NAVAL HON. JOHN W. WARNER, UNDER SECRETARY OF THE NAVY HON. CHARLES A. BOWSHER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE REAR ADM. W. M. HARNISH, U.S. NAVY, DEPUTY COMPTROLLER REAR ADM. S. H. MOORE, U.S. NAVY, DIRECTOR OF BUDGET AND REPORTS, OFFICE OF THE NAVY COMPTROLLER REAR ADM. M. JOHNSTON, JR., U.S. NAVY, CHIEF OF LEGIS- ADM. RALPH W. COUSINS, VICE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS BRIG. GEN. C. S. ROBERTSON, U.S. MARINE CORPS, DEPUTY CAPT. JOHN M. DeLARGY, U.S. NAVY, CONGRESSIONAL AND CAPT. HORACE B. ROBERTSON, U.S. NAVY, SPECIAL COUNSEL COMDR. N. SOTHAN, U.S. NAVY, CONGRESSIONAL COORDINA- COMDR. J. C. THOMPSON, JR., U.S. NAVY, OFFICE OF PROGRAM LT. COL. J. N. SMITH, U.S. MARINE CORPS, POLICY ANALYSIS CAPT. G. H. SEYMOUR, U.S. NAVY, OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER LT. COL. E. F. PATTILLO, U.S. MARINE CORPS, OFFICE OF THE (1) HEARING SCHEDULE Chairman ELLENDER. The subcommittee will please come to order. This morning, we shall hear the opening statements on the budget for fiscal year 1972 from representatives of the Department of the Navy and the Marine Corps. I might say for the information of the members of the committee that we plan to have a briefing by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency tomorrow. We anticipated hearing his testimony before we heard yours but, in order to get the hearings underway, we decided to proceed to hear the heads of the various Departments. BUDGET REQUEST AND ALLOCATIONS The Department of the Navy budget request for fiscal year 1972 is $22,910,498,000. This is somewhat higher than the amount for fiscal year 1971 of $21,116,165,000 which includes $707,162,000 for pay increases pending in the second supplemental appropriation bill. The fiscal year 1972 request is made up of the following items: Military personnel, Navy- Military personnel, Marine Corps. Reserve personnel, Navy---- Reserve personnel, Marine Corps Operation and maintenance, Navy-. Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps.. Procurement of aircraft and missiles, Navy Shipbuilding and conversion, Navy.. Other procurement, Navy.. Procurement, Marine Corps... Research, development, test and evaluation, Navy.. $4, 347, 900, 000 1, 270, 200, 000 172, 400, 000 54, 300, 000 4, 977, 000, 000 360, 200, 000 4,069, 100, 000 3, 328, 900, 000 1, 794, 698, 000 128, 700,000 2, 407, 100, 000 I want to call attention to the fact that these requests for fiscal year 1972 do not include funds for those civilian and military pay increases that became effective on January 1, 1971. It is my understanding that an additional sum of approximately $440 million will be required for these increases. Furthermore, these requests do not include funds for increases in military pay now being considered by the Congress, nor funds for those civilian and military pay increases that are likely to become effective on January 1, 1972. RECOGNITION OF WITNESSES Today we are pleased to have with us the Secretary of the Navy, the Honorable John H. Chafee; the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt; and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Leonard F. Chapman. We are also glad to have you with us, Admiral Moore, as Director of Budget and Reports, as well as you other gentlemen. As I have just indicated, we usually start with the Secretary of the Navy, but because of his prior engagement we will hear from Admiral Zumwalt first. You may proceed, Admiral. STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL ZUMWALT APPRAISAL OF FORCES AND PROGRAMS Admiral ZUMWALT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome the opportunity to appear before you today in support of the fiscal year 1972 Navy budget request. Since last July, the Navy has undertaken a detailed appraisal of forces and programs. Today we want to convey our views on the strategic situation, describe the hard management choices we have made to provide the best possible Navy within the budget, and spell out our conclusions for the future as we now see them. The outline of what I will cover in this brief oral statement is shown on this first slide. U.S. FOREIGN POLICY COMMITMENTS: CONTINUING REDUCTION OF U.S. PROFILE ABROAD The President delineated clearly his views on U.S. foreign commitments and aspirations in his address to you on February 25. Nothing in that message indicated a lessening need for seapower. Indeed, the desire he expressed to continue reducing the U.S. profile abroad would imply greater reliance on our mobile, controllable, and politically independent sea-based forces. NEW POLICY OF REALISTIC DETERRENCE The Secretary of Defense recently enunciated to you a new policy of realistic deterrence for the whole range of possible conflicts, from strategic nuclear war to small-scale conventional conflict. As you know, the Navy provides capabilities appropriate to many levels of conflict, from the Polaris and Poseidon missile submarines for strategic deterrence to riverine warfare boats for counterguerilla operations. We must therefore be prepared to try to support all phases of Secretary Laird's policy. Secretary Laird provides cogent reasons for stressing these roles and capabilities. CONVENTIONAL CONFLICT DANGERS RESULTING FROM NUCLEAR PARITY First, he indicates that nuclear capability is not enough. He points out in his posture state: ... reliance on nuclear capability alone is by no means sufficient to inhibit or deter aggression. I would assert, in addition, that nuclear parity increases the likelihood of conventional conflict, particularly in the Middle East, the Caribbean, the Sea of Japan, the Indian Ocean, and other areas where Soviet squadrons concentrate. This likelihood with regard to the Middle East was mentioned by President Nixon in his Foreign Policy Statement of February 25 when he said: The Middle East is heavy with the danger that local and regional conflict may engulf the great powers in confrontation. |