the six oldest carriers after the two new nuclear carriers enter the fleet. It would also mean continuing to postpone a decision on CVAN-70. It would take a number of years to implement this reduction to a nine carrier force. When implemented, this decision could result in a rough annual savings of $3 to $4 billion. 3. All carrier-related budget decisions (aircraft, escort, service ships, manpower) should be made consistent with the nine carrier total and with the missions the carrier would be performing. This raises questions about funds for the F-14 and S-3A (because their missions might no longer be required), and funds for other escort and service ships (because, in some cases, a sufficient number of ships of modern design may be already available for a nine carrier force). ABSENCE OF BUDGET REQUEST FOR AIRCRAFT CARRIER CONSTRUCTION Chairman ELLENDER. As you may recall, some of us raised a question as to whether or not the additional aircraft carrier should be constructed this year. The method employed, as stated by the Defense Department, is that if any aircraft carriers were to be built, a budget estimate would be forthcoming from the President. You may proceed. Senator CASE. In other words, it is not going to be done by transfers? Chairman ELLENDER. That is correct. Dr. GELB. No, sir; my view is I have not come to say that the carrier has become the dinosaur of the seas, like the battleship-too large and unwieldly to survive. The carrier still has, I believe, an important although more limited role in the foreseeable American arsenal. Inasmuch as my statement has been placed in the record, there is no need to read all this through. I thank you, Mr, Chairman. Chairman ELLENDER. Thank you very much. I think we shall shortly be summoned to the Senate for a vote, but I reiterate that I was happy to sit here and hear you gentlemen. So this will conclude the present hearings on the defense bill, except for testimony from the intelligence agencies. Thank you very much. ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY DR. FOSTER Additional material has been submitted by Dr. Foster in relation to the hearing held on March 24, 1971. It will be made a part of the record at this point. (The information follows:) Chairman ELLENDER. We stand in recess and reconvene at the call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m., Tuesday, May 25, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1972 MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1971 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room S-126, the Capitol, Hon. Allen J. Ellender (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Ellender, Stennis, and Young. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE STATEMENT OF ROBERT F. FROEHLKE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (ADMINISTRATION) ACCOMPANIED BY: VICE ADM. HAROLD G. BOWEN, JR., DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRE- ROBERT I. CURTS, MANAGEMENT ANALYST VICE ADM. NOEL GAYLER, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY ARTHUR J. FALLEN, COMPTROLLER, NSA LT. GEN. DONALD V. BENNETT, USA, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE IN- CLYDE W. ELLIOTT, COMPTROLLER, DIA SUBCOMMITTEE PROCEDURE Chairman ELLENDER. The subcommittee will please come to order. This morning the Intelligence Operations Subcommittee will begin the consideration of funds requested for various Department of Defense intelligence programs. Our first witness will be the Honorable Robert F. Froehlke, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Administration, who is appearing before the subcommittee in connection with his responsibilities for the management of intelligence resources. Following Secretary Froehlke's statement, we will consider the budget requests for the Defense Intelligence Agency and the programs managed by this Agency. This matter will be presented by Gen. Donald V. Bennett, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. We will meet this afternoon to consider the requests for the National Security Agency and the programs managed by this Agency. This matter will be presented by Adm. Noel Gayler, Director of the National Security Agency. You may proceed, Mr. Secretary. 1971 REVIEW OF INTELLIGENCE RESOURCES Mr. FROEHLKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Young. I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you once again to present the intelligence and security portion of the defense budget estimates. When I appeared before you last year, I was new to my responsibilities for intelligence. Since this was so, I took occasion to tell you something about these new responsibilities, how I viewed them, and what I thought I would have to do in the year ahead. That year is now past. I think it is appropriate now to tell the committee what we have been doing during that year in regard to review of intelligence resources. I also want to say something about intelligence organization in the DOD and the role of DIA. Finally, I would like to talk about future conditions and problems which I believe will have a strong bearing on intelligence resources. With your indulgence, then, let me speak briefly about each of these points before I introduce the classified portion of my statement. MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES As you know, my intelligence responsibility centers on management of resources. I do not establish requirements, nor do I direct or control intelligence operations. My job is to recommend levels of resources for the major nontactical intelligence programs of the Department of Defense, and to advise the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense on policy. Last year I told you I felt I had several things to do in order to carry out the job. I said that I would have to lay out intelligence resources in 5-year plan. I would have to review these resources as a whole, and not as separate, unrelated aggregations. Last, I would have to make judgments on those resources versus the requirements they are intended to satisfy. I also said that we would have to look into the reorganization of DOD intelligence. Finally, I wanted to take up the question of security classification and compartmentation. More than a year has gone by since I said those things. Several things have happened-and among them, I guess, is that I have lost. my amateur standing in the intelligence business-at least I can no longer use it as an excuse for not getting on with the job. REVIEW OF MAJOR NONTACTICAL INTELLIGENCE PROGRAMS AS SINGLE CONSOLIDATED PROGRAM Our main effort has been in review of resources. This year for the first time we reviewed the major nontactical intelligence resources programs of the Department of Defense as a single consolidated program. Let me explain this process. Our first step was to establish and issue the fiscal constraints within which intelligence resources would be planned. This procedure, which |