February 24, 1972
Page 5546
COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE
HON. JONATHAN B. BINGHAM of NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, February 24, 1972
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the following is an additional portion of the proceedings of the Sixth Annual Community Leadership Conference I sponsored for residents of the 23d Congressional District on November 14, 1971:
[Plenary Session, Gould Student Center Auditorium, Presiding: Congressman Jonathan B. Bingham]
REMARKS BY SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
NOVEMBER 14, 1971
Congressman Bingham:
One of the famous couplets of the poet Ogden Nash was, "The Bronx, no thonx." I'd like to have your comment.
Sen. Muskie:
Thank you very much. Thank you, Jack, Dean Borowitz, Miss Furness, my old and good friend Senator Gore, Pat Cunningham, other distinguished guests, and ladies and gentlemen. Well, I suppose the best way that I could respond to that question is in a way that's not identified with my people from Maine, and that is indirectly. Jack told me that this is an issues conference involving two-way communication. And so that I ought not to indulge in any lengthy statements.
Nevertheless, I do have a statement that I'd like to read because it has to do with the President's most recent pronouncements on our policy in Southeast Asia. But before doing so, I'd like to respond to Jack's question by telling a little Maine story that I think relates to most of the President's policies. That's the story of an out-of-stater who is walking down a Maine country road after a rainstorm. He came upon a car spinning its wheels in the mud. He stopped and put this question to the driver, who was a native, he said, "Are you stuck?" The driver thought a moment and he said, "Well, I would be if I was going anywhere." (Applause)
The theme of this conference is Making Government Work Better. This should mean making it work better on behalf of what the people of America need and request from their leaders. So I hope that before I respond to your questions I may say something about something Americans desperately want, and have wanted for years, but which government for all its predictions and programs and promises has not been able to deliver.
For the past nine years, the United States has been heavily involved in the war in Viet Nam. We know what this involvement has done to our economy, to our society, to our military, to our students, to our faith in one another, to our moral position in the world of nations. Three years ago, the people voted to end that war by electing a President who promised to end it. Four years ago next January 1st Richard Nixon had this to say, as he began the campaign year of 1968 – he said, "We need new leadership which would bring the war to a swifter conclusion." Last Friday, three years after that election of 1968, three years after that comment, the President told us where we stood, as of now. In doing so, despite the welcome news of troop withdrawals, he announced a plan of action that by all past experience, will prolong that war indefinitely. When the people chose Mr. Nixon to end the war, they did not anticipate that three years later the negotiations in Paris would remain stalemated; that 15,000 more men would die in combat; and that as many bombs would be dropped upon that tragic country, in the years to come, as all of the tonnage dropped up to that time. Yet all of these things have happened. When I spoke at Bates College in Maine, my alma mater, during the Moratorium two years ago, and urged the President to withdraw from Viet Nam, I never dreamed that two years later 140,000 American soldiers would still be scheduled to stay there after the withdrawal the President announced last Friday; that our prisoners would still be there; that the unrepresentative and corrupt government of President Thieu would still be in power; and that the need for American troops would continue indefinitely.
Yet, this is the reality. This is where we are. This is how government has worked. We were not led to expect this, either in the campaign of 1968 or by the promises that followed. We were told in April, 1969, that the President's plan, so well publicized in the campaign of 1968, was aimed at complete withdrawal of American troops by the end of 1971. Now we know that will not happen. We were told in June of 1969 that the administration could beat the Christmas timetable of withdrawing all combat troops by the end of 1970. This, too, did not happen then, and has not happened yet. The President said last Friday that our combat role is already concluded.
Yet on the very day he said that, American troops were still on patrol, American convoys were being ambushed, American planes were in action over the North, and an American helicopter was shot down. He would have difficulty persuading me that this is not combat. He would have difficulty persuading the troops who are still in danger there, or the troops who still scheduled to be sent to Viet Nam in the months to come, to fight a war we long ago gave up winning and whose purpose is still in doubt. We cannot justify this delay. It is true the curve is in descent and the casualties are coming down. But as long as one American soldier dies in Viet Nam, after nine years of fruitless war, it is too many – because he is a human being with hopes and dreams and loved ones and a life to live. The President may feel that by making new promises the people will forget he did not keep the old ones. I don't think they will, but whether they do or do not, this is not the way to make government work. (Applause.) And it is not the way to win the confidence and the trust of the people in their elected leaders.
I am concerned about his announced plan to keep a residual force of American troops in Viet Nam as long as the war continues. But I'm even more deeply concerned by the disturbing ethic of the discredited theory that by keeping maximum pressure on the enemy we can force him to submit at the negotiating table. Does the President really believe he can negotiate a peace by occasional bombing of North Viet Nam and unlimited bombing of the Ho Chi Minh Trail, despite the clear evidence of history that bombing cannot interdict the infiltration? Despite the historic proof that bombing has only intensified the will of Hanoi to send more troops south to fight? We should know by now that continued air-strikes will only postpone the settlement, increase the suffering, add to the number of Americans in Communist jails, postpone the day when the last of our fighting men come home. And until they come home, how can there really be progress in Paris? More important, can there be progress in America–
Interruption from audience (unclear).
Senator MUSKIE. No, that's all right, that's all right.
Continued interruption (Unclear).
Senator MUSKIE. Well I must say that the political climate hasn't changed in the last three years. (Laughter) I'll let the rest of my prepared remarks on ...
Interruption (Unclear).
Senator MUSKIE. You know, I'm really going to end my formal remarks in just a moment. then all of you can have the microphone. I'll let the rest of my prepared remarks – I was about finished anyway – on Viet Nam – I don't want to cut anymore into your time. (Applause) I guess really the heart of what I had left to say is in the last two paragraphs – really only three sentences. Well I think the people have been patient with the President on this issue of Viet Nam, but that he has not met their expectations. If we cannot change the policy, perhaps we must change the government. And in the end ... (Applause) And in the end, that may be the only way that government will work.
In respect to the question that was put here – you know, all of us who respond to human tragedy and the deprivation of human life, and human lives, I think respond in the same way to the tragedy of Northern Ireland. But what is posed by that situation, as well as by the situation in South Viet Nam and so many others around the globe, including our own country, is how can we as a country really bring our influence, our instinct for compassion and human decency to bear upon all of the instances of injustice that we can identify across so much of the globe. On the one hand, in response to our intervention in Southeast Asia, our instinct is to withdraw from any and all responsibility for what happens outside our own border. On the other hand, we see that American instinct for decency emerging whenever there is fresh and new evidence that human beings can be brutal to each other. Northern Ireland, the Middle East, Pakistan, Africa, Latin America – and though the past was shaky, the American role in the world in the years that lie ahead is a very difficult and frustrating one. We can't, of course, be sure. We will raise our voices against injustice wherever it occurs. That's something different, I might say, than shaping a policy or a US role in all of these instances. Because we've learned in Southeast Asia that there are limits, even to our undeniably great power. Especially at a time when our influence, because of the misapplication of that power, when our influence has declined.
There was a time that I can remember in my own lifetime when the influence of American ideals and aspirations were so strong, that it lent prestige to our words whenever we raise or raised our voice. And today we see the contrary. At a time when American military power is probably at its peak, our influence, the influence that our words can bring, is at a low point. This is the change in the American posture. We've learned, bitterly and tragically – maybe it comes at a good time in terms of our long-range development as a mature and wise nation – we've learned that power alone doesn't bring prestige, doesn't bring influence, doesn't buy us friends, doesn't intimidate enemies. (Applause) And so I think, really, our challenge in the year ahead is to revitalize that kind of an American influence which is geared to our ideals, to our hopes, to the better example we should set internally in the management of our own affairs than we've set in recent years. If we can once again demonstrate that America wants no war, that America is a symbol of hope to her own people and by that example a symbol of hope on this planet, then I think our influence will once again begin to grow. So that when we are outraged by atrocities, whether it's Northern Ireland or in Pakistan or elsewhere, the fact of our indignation, the fact that we are willing to raise our voices additionally against it, will make an impact that I'm afraid all too often it doesn't make today. (Applause)
Congressman BINGHAM. L would first like to say that as one who has, I think, taken a leadership position in regard to the desirability of the United States working for a free and united Ireland, I am embarrassed by the discourtesy that was displayed here to Senator Muskie. I hope that this will not prejudice him against what I regard as a good cause – and I have a resolution that I have introduced that I would commend to your attention, Senator. (laughter) Now, we have been joined by some other distinguished guests – friends – our own Bronx Borough President Bob Abrams. (Applause.)
On the panel invited here to question Senator Muskie are:
Martha Peterson, President, Barnard College
William Satterfield, President and Chairman of the Board of the Morrisania Youth and Community Service Center, Inc.;
David Condliffe, New York University Undergraduate.
We had expected that Bob Bendiner, a member of the editorial staff of the New York Times, would be with us today. Unfortunately he is ill, so I will relate to the Senator a question that he gave me over the telephone this morning. And it is particularly suitable in the light of the Senator's opening remarks. This is from Robert Bendiner of the Times, Senator Muskie:
One of the chief complaints against the Executive Branch in recent years has been the tendency to involve the United States in war without the consent of Congress. How do you draw the line between the Executive's duty to act quickly in the country's defense and the constitutional prerogative of the Congress to decide war?
Senator MUSKIE. First of all, may I say with respect to the interruption – that with regards to the apology, I am not really prepared to (unclear) these things. We live in a time when there are many angry people, many of them have much to be angry about, and I don't object if they use the fact of my presence to gain visibility for their point of view or their grievance or their injustice.
Sometimes I'm (applause) – I don't object. (applause) And if they find me a convenient target, that's alright too. I've been that for a long time.
With respect to this question, of course, dilemma which the question suggests is the reason why.
Since World War II we've been engaged increasingly in one kind of military involvement after another around the globe, and without the explicit consent of Congress which the Constitution requires (Unclear) main provisions of that document. And the Vietnam war is, of course, the tragic quagmire of that kind of thought. So I think it's the mood of the American people to pull back from that kind of development. You know I can go back over all of the events of World War II and rationalize why we did what we did in the time of the Greek and Turkish difficulties after World War II – at the time of the Berlin airlift – at the time of the Cuban Missile crisis, etc.
And the President will always have, no matter how we pull back, how much we pull back from the full development of these powers in South Vietnam, he will always have complete flexibility to deal with questions, emergency situations directly affecting the security interests of the United States in an emergency way. I'm not concerned about that, and I think that we can deal with that and still pull back substantially and (unclear) from the expansion of Presidential powers in the war-making field since World war II, and I think we must, I think that the effort that is underway in the Congress, and in the Senate specifically, to reframe and reshape the role of the President and the Congress with respect to making war ought to be continued, ought to generate public interest, and public support. I think it's a critical constitutional exercise to answer the question put by Mr. Vandina. I don't have the blueprint or the constitutional language at this point, but I think we must pursue this question until we have an answer. Otherwise, we would inescapably be caught up in other similar kinds of situations. (applause)
Question from panel. (unclear).
Senator MUSKIE. I think Senator (unclear) particularly has focused on the income tax inequity and I've been happy to support him over the years. Sorry he's not still in the Senate so I could continue to support him in this effort. But I find on the questions from women like yourself and others concerned across the country, including my own wife, that the discrepancies against women are so woven into accepted patterns of thought in established laws and institutions, we are really going to have to make a positive effort to dig them all out. And rm also pursuing that, and I assure you that you've got a spokesman in my own household.
Question from panel. (unclear).
Senator MUSKIE. Well, it may be that all of the efforts of people who are concerned with these problems are not effectively coordinated as yet. But I would not say that they are alone in their concern, or that they are alone in making an effort to deal with these problems. What you're getting at is the question of coordination. I think that there is great support of the objectives that they pursue and I would encourage them to do that, and I would encourage them to go on and to develop coordination. One of the difficulties, of course, in the Congress is that, well, I can speak mostly for the Senate that although it is still the greatest deliberative body on the face of the earth, it really doesn't deliberate in the sense that I understand it. We work individually and separately in our committees divorced by and large from formal ties with outside groups to pursue our own legislative interests. The Senators as such don't gather together to deliberate except when they meet on the floor of the Senate to vote at the same time on an issue. Even that isn't deliberation.
It's largely simply the confirmation of points of view that have been developing individually up to that time. And we all have our contacts with the outside (unclear) and we work with them to pursue our various interests. And so I expect that well, I agree that what you said is true. There's no formal relationship between the black caucus as such and the Senate itself, or the House itself, and I don't know if there's a way of establishing (unclear) but certainly lines of communication can be established so that we can pursue some of the objectives in some coordinated fashion. And I'd be happy to pursue that.
Question from panel. Would you say that Senator Brooke is one of those you would call (unclear).
Senator MUSKIE. What . . . (End of tape).
Senator MUSKIE. . . governmental relations to pursue those objectives as well as co-sponsor legislation of Senator Hughes and Senator Ribicoff in this field. And next week I expect that legislation will be reported out dealing with this issue. But I have not been aware that Senator Brooke has been given – or has assumed – the formal role of liaison to the black caucus to pursue this legislation. I know of his interest in this legislation. It matches mine, at least. And I would be happy to, of course, take any lead that he wanted to take.
Question from panel. Unclear (re: Democratic candidates and labor in inflationary period).
Senator MUSKIE. Well, first, I'm not a candidate – I want to make sure in answering your question that it is not taken as an announcement (applause & laughter) I'd like to pick my own time for that. Well, of course, you have the question with respect to all groups, not only labor.
The blacks have interests they're pursuing specifically. Puerto Ricans are. Labor is. Businessmen are. And it's a constant challenge, you know, to maintain your objectivity and independence of judgment at the same time that you seek support of the groups without whom you can't hope to get elected. Now I would hope that I could be objective. I've got a record of, you know, 25 years of public life which gives you some evidence of it. But I don't know that I can, beyond that, prove either the negative or the positive of your question
(Congressman Bingham calls for final round of questions).
Question from panel. Unclear (regarding education).
Senator MUSKIE. Well, I don't believe it. I think those kinds of pressures can ultimately be resolved and always are. The problem for all educational programs is funding. We've just never adequately measured up to the promise contained in the authorization bill. The President has not requested full funding, the Congress hasn't given the full funding, and budgetary strains have limited funding. So I think it's a question of funding more than differences between points of view as to how money should be spent that really retards the federal effort that ought to be made to help education at all levels.
Question from panel. How can we make the seriousness of our situation known?
Senator MUSKIE. Well, I think the seriousness is understood, by and large. But the conflicting pressure is the budgetary one and all of the strains on the budget imposed by the military expenditures, the war, and of course, the economic situation which has reduced federal revenues as well as state and local revenues. It's the lack of a wide and effective and sound policy with respect to the war, with respect to the economy that has, one, increased pressures on the government, on the budget from other directions, and two, reduced the capacity of the economy to sustain federal revenue. Those are the two pressures. You need a wise policy for the economy, end the war, and then re-order our priorities, and I think we can then zero in on some of these problems. (Applause.)
Question from panel. (Unclear) My question then would be in four parts. (1) Would you ask the conservative (unclear) on the Supreme Court to resign? Would you put a black on your cabinet? Third, would you have a black attorney general? Four, what is your opinion of the San Quentin-Attica situation? (Applause)
Senator MUSKIE. Well, you'll forgive me if I don't cover all of those points exhaustively.
(Laughter) I would not direct presidential pressure upon the court to resign ... any member of the court to resign. Because I believe in maintaining the independence of the Court. (Applause) I mean, once we set the precedent for urging conservative members of the Court to resign, we set one for another president – like the one we have now – to exert pressure upon liberal members of the Court to resign. (Applause) I think the thing a president ought to concentrate on is appointing men of excellence in the first instance – then we don't have to worry. (Applause)
I think that blacks ought to be considered eligible by the next president, whether it's me or someone else, for the position of Attorney General or any other place in the cabinet, and I would consider that they are entitled to active consideration for that purpose. I haven't made up a cabinet yet, but this . . . I make that promise that blacks will be considered for the cabinet on an equal basis with everyone else.
With respect to Attica and San Quentin – to pursue my view of this in greater length, I . . . I'd be glad to refer you to a speech I made at the National Governor's Conference in Puerto Rico a day or two after the incident at Attica, in which I took the view – well, two things. One, that what happened at Attica is a dramatic illustration of the fact that our prisons really harbor the mistakes and the shortcomings and the weaknesses of our society. This is where they end up, all too often. They're not visible to us most of the time, unless tragedies of that kind occur. And so I took advantage – well, I don't know as I want to use that phrase – but I took the occasion of the Attica tragedy to drive home the point that there's so much work to be done to make our society a place of justice and opportunity and promise so that we can deal with the fundamental causes of the human condition that result in Atticas.
Secondly, Attica, of course, demonstrates that we desperately need a real program of prison reform in this country. By prison reform I don't mean simply new and better security measures, but . . . reform directed at making them human institutions which would deal effectively with the problems of rehabilitation. Which would respond sensitively to the fact that any of the mistakes represented there are the product of conditions that were beyond the control of those who are prisoners and that we have to take into account what those conditions have done in reshaping the personalities, the characters, the responses, the habits, the assumptions of those people who are prisoners. Now we have just never done that in this country. Even – you know, 17 years ago when I was governor, 8 years before that when I was first elected for the legislature of Maine, we talked, you know, about making our institutions, whether they were mental hospitals or prisons – about making them places of rehabilitation. The rhetoric has been with us a long time. But we never really addressed ourselves in any fundamental way to achieving that. My one regret about Attica is that it has come and will probably go without our really following through again with this question of making prisons what they ought to be – places that have at least a 50% chance, which they do not now have, of making human beings in fact out of those who are destined to end up behind the walls. (Applause) This gentleman . . .
Question from audience. (unclear) Senator, when is the United States' government going to stop sending billions of our dollars to England, which in turn spends billions of pounds to persecute our people in the north of Ireland?
Senator MUSKIE. Well, I wasn't aware that we were sending dollars, let alone billions to Britain. We no longer have a foreign aid program that benefits Britain if that's what you are speaking of. There are no formal subsidies of the British government by our government. I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
Questioner. Well, now everybody in the world knows that there wouldn't have been any Britain (unclear) if it hadn't been for the United States government, not alone in recent times but for many years prior to this time. They are the basis of all of the trouble that's going on over in (unclear) Ireland. I am quite sure you know that Mr. Winston Churchill (unclear).
Senator MUSKIE: Well, we provide no direct assistance to the federal government now. What you are speaking of, sir, is the program after WW II. It ended quite some years ago.
Question from audience. Two parts: The Mayor of this city has done practically all the things but announce his candidacy for president. How will this affect the Democratic Party? Will the added candidacy of Lindsay cause a repeat of the 1968 loss?
Senator MUSKIE. Well, I . . I don't – to answer the last part of that – I don't believe so. Mayor Lindsay will, I am sure, make his own announcement, according to his own preferences. I can understand his interest in changing parties. (Applause) Whether that will lead to further personal plans or political plans, he will have to say. I can understand why he should get fed up with 5½ years of Republican rule in New York City. (Applause)
Question from audience. Unclear (re: too many candidates caused loss in '68)
Senator MUSKIE. I don't think so. In 1960, for example, I can recall in Feb. of election year being toastmaster at a JJ dinner in Washington when there were 8 actual or potential candidates for the presidency. We went through that period without any difficulty and we finally elected a president. Really, 1968 was sort of an unusual kind of situation. We've always had a surplus of candidates in the Democratic Party – and this year is obviously no exception.
Question from audience. Unclear (re: Abortion).
Senator MUSKIE. Wen, let me just say I support abortion on therapeutic grounds. I do not support it as a birth control device. That doesn't cover all implications of the questions you asked, but I think that's as far as, perhaps, I have time to go at this point.
Question from audience: Senator Muskie, as an older person, I would like to ask a question. Not having a panelist who is an older person, I believe that someone 65 and over should speak. I want to ask ... I feel that now, since Congress has done little to enable older people to live active, meaningful lives, and I want to know, despite the White House Conference which will be (unclear) what would you do as a Congress ... or Senator to take real steps to catch up, not to go along with a 5% increase in Social Security (unclear), not to get a 10% when the Senators making 10-15. The National Council of Senior Citizens call for a 25% increase in the benefits for older people and we need more opportunities all along the line. Now what real steps do you advocate to give us the rights we have to live meaningful, active lives? (Applause.)
Senator MUSKIE. Well, I support, and have – and I've made several speeches on the subject – to raise benefits ... substantially above the levels that are being talked about, and I think the Congress will. I think we need to gear those benefits to a cost of living escalator clause so that senior citizens will not have to wait for acts of the Congress to get increases geared to the rise of the cost of living. Recently I ... I made a proposal that you might be interested in, to change the nature of the Social Security package. I'm afraid at this point that those taxes have reached the point that they are likely to be regressive and inhibit, in the future, the gearing of benefits to the cost of living reality. So I proposed making them progressive by lifting all ceiling on salaries, and making all salary income subject to the Social Security tax, by permitting allowances for dependents and other similar allowances comparable to those of the income tax law, to make the tax less regressive at the lower income levels – and that restructuring the tax basis of Social Security so that it will respond more equitably and more adequately in the future to the needs of old people. It is a broad and complex subject and I would be happy to send you more details on my views. We're a little pressed for time to do it as thoroughly as you might like now.
PANEL IV – DOES THE MILITARY HAVE TOO MUCH INFLUENCE?
(Chairman, Congressman Jonathan B. Bingham; panelists, Cyrus R. Vance, Adam Yarmolinsky, J. Daniel Mahoney).
BINGHAM.– opening panel.
We are very fortunate in having with us a panel to discuss this vitally important question about the influence of the military.
So many of the needs of our community are dependent upon funds. What has to be spent for national defense for the Pentagon. We have quite a remarkable trio, reflecting different points of view. I will introduce them as they speak.
First is Adam Yarmolinsky, who is an author on this subject and has a major work in this area. He is currently Director of a program for the total rebuilding of Welfare Island. He was in the Pentagon for a number of years and served in various capacities and was one time the Assistant Secretary of Defense.
YARMOLINSKY. Since we are here this afternoon to talk about making government work better, I am particularly glad to be taking part in a panel under the chairmanship of Jack Bingham, who has done so much to make government work better.
I looked over the topics for the other three panels to see if I could do better on any of their questions, but I decided they presented the same difficulty as our question: It's easy to see the problem. It's quite a bit harder to pick out a solution, or even a set of partial solutions.
Our question is – Does the military have too much influence? Well I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that they did – simply as a result of historical circumstances.
The measure of any group's influence in our society is first of all its size and strength. The U.S. military establishment is the largest organization in the United States, several times larger than its nearest rival. It accounts for 75¢ out of every ten dollar bill in the Gross National Product.
It spends something like 3/4ths of all the money that the Federal government lays out for goods and services. It employs roughly one out of every ten wage earners, including men in uniform, civil servants, and defense workers, even without counting the butcher and the baker and the candlestick maker who depend for their livelihood on military bases and defense plants. The military establishment is present in every community in the U.S. where there is a base or a plant working on a contract, or a sub-contract from the Dept. of Defense – not to mention the U.S. military bases scattered around the world.
As a department of the Federal government, the Dept. of Defense overshadows every other department and agency. Where other departments think in millions of dollars, Defense thinks in billions. Where they count their manpower in thousands, Defense counts in millions.
No wonder the military has great influence in the councils of government, in the calculations of Congressmen and in the thinking of citizens. I read, in yesterday's N.Y. Times that the New York State Congressional delegation, which frequently votes to cut military spending, has been pressing the Pentagon not to close down a regional contract administration office that would cost N.Y. City some 800 jobs, and a letter from the bipartisan steering committee of the N.Y. delegation to Defense Secretary Laird complains about N.Y. not getting its fair share of defense jobs.
But if military influence is primarily a function of the size of the military establishment, what are the prospects for a significant reduction in that size? Contrary to popular impression military spending measured in constant dollars, has not been on the upswing over the last few years. As a percentage of GNP only, spending apart from the Vietnam war has been declining steadily since 1962, and even including Vietnam it only exceeded the 1962 figure in the peak year of Vietnam spending, 1968. But it has been declining very slowly. Suppose the military budget were cut very sharply, as proposed by the National Urban Coalition from $80 billion to $65 billion. Or suppose it were cut to $55 billion or $45 billion, or would you believe $35 billion. It would still be the largest single item in the Federal budget, and defense would be only the 2nd or 3rd largest industry in the U.S. Military influence, as measured by the military budget would still be very great.
But is military influence proportional to the military budget a bad thing? I submit that in several important ways, it is:
Military influence tends to keep the military budget larger than it needs to be in order to meet our national security needs. Military influence tends to encourage military solutions to foreign policy problems that might better be solved by other means. Military influence works on the military budget mostly by indirection, not like River and Harbor bill – an unhappy process with which our chairman is much more familiar than I.. The military as a group proposes, but their proposals go through series of budget reviews. By custom, they can ask for a rehearing on adverse decision, called for some reason, in bastard Latin, a reclama – once, but only once. There are reviews by people outside the Pentagon before the budget gets to White House in proposed final form. There are early interagency reviews introduced by the Nixon Administration, but despite controls, Congress seldom adds on to the military budget. The fact is that when the military budget goes to Congress it just doesn't get examined as critically as say the budget of the Office of Economic Opportunity. This is so I suppose for 2 reasons; First, because of economic power of military establishment. I don't mean reprisals, but simply the need to keep military business for your State, City or district. Second, because the feeling persists that there is something sacred about military requirements. I think we're beginning to get away from that. The pendulum may swing too far. Look at the thirties and F.D.R.'s problem in rebuilding the military for World War II.
Perhaps what we need to do is to take a different and broader view of what constitutes our national security.
National security goes to the conditioning of our cities. It goes to education and jobs and public order. We may not be able to solve this problem by money alone, but as Ogden Nash said, "There are lots of things money won't buy, but it's funny, have you ever tried to buy them without money?"
The old action of automatic priority for military spending won't hold up because you can always figure out why you need more and there just isn't enough to go around. We need more public goods than the average public is willing to pay for, so we have to establish priorities on a case-by-case basis.
But military spending isn't the biggest problem of military influence. The problem is that when the military presence looms very large, military solutions are more ready than nonmilitary solutions. It didn't take any great amount of available military force to commit us to a very dangerous course of action in the Dom. Republic or to a disastrous course of action in S.E. Asia.
But the fact that we had so much made those apparent, but illusory, solutions seem more attractive. In a world where two or three countries have the power to destroy each other with nuclear weapons, military farce is an instrument of very limited usefulness. To the extent that we do need it, we need it largely to discourage other nations from using their military power – as they may believe they need their military to discourage us.
The issue is clearer in the nuclear field than in the non nuclear. But in both areas, the responsibility of political leadership and of the American people to provide a countervailing force to military influence is an essential element in avoiding international catastrophe. How leaders and constituents can mobilize to that end is a kind of nuts and bolts question, which I understand will be discussed in questions and answers this afternoon.
Bingham introduces Vance.
Cyrus R. Vance – Secretary of the Army, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Special Representative of the President in the Cyprus crisis; one of the two U.S. negotiators at the Paris Peace Conference on Vietnam – Received Medal of Freedom – was in Navy from 1942-46.
(NOTE– This is not a verbatim report.) Cyrus R. Vance – Former Paris Peace Negotiator and Deputy Secretary of Defense.
In answer to the question, "Does the Military Establishment have too much influence?" I guess my answer would be "yes."
First, let me say that I agree generally with the analysis which Adam Yarmolinsky has given.
Next, I would like to address myself to the area of military spending and the failure adequately to control it.
I believe this comes about primarily from a failure of our system of checks and balances, and secondarily from the interdependence of the military, Congress and industry. Insofar as the latter is concerned, I want to make it clear that I don't believe that there is a conspiracy among the three.
In the first instance, the defense budget is prepared by the military in the Department of Defense. Senator Phil Hart said:
"A military man is disciplined to overestimate enemy capacity and underestimate his own. He puts an imaginative mind to work trying to anticipate every potential ruse, every combination of weapons. Then it is his job to protect against them, to close every defense chink. If we give him that assignment we have no right to be surprised if he tends to spend heavily"
The size of the proposed figures is also, to a degree, affected by inter-service rivalries. At this point, the civilians in the Department of Defense come into play, particularly those who are appointed by each new administration. It is their task to scrutinize and pare down the size of the initial budget submission.
The technical capacity to do that kind of a Sophisticated job didn't exist in the Defense Department until the early 1960's when the experts began to bring the techniques and methods of systems analysis to bear on the weapons selection and budgetary process. But even that kind of analysis does not achieve the desired results. The civilians, as well as the military, have a built-in parochial bias, as they do in all departments and agencies. It is for this reason that we have under our system of checks and balances a budget review by the Bureau of the Budget.
In the 1960's, the burden of proof was on the concerned agency or department to justify the items in the budget which were challenged by the Bureau of the Budget. The only exception to this practice was in the case of the Defense Department. The burden of proof should have been on the Defense Department, but it was not. I understand that this has now been changed . . . I don't
know how it is working, but the change is a positive one.
Next the approved budget goes to the Hill where it is reviewed and examined by the Armed Services Committees and the Appropriation Committees of the two Houses. As you know, the budget is very complex and requires skilled technical examination and analysis; unfortunately, Congress doesn't have the technical staff assistance to cope with it. This arises from the fact that the task of budget analysis has greatly changed with the complexity of the weapon systems which have come with the missile age.
What can be done to cope with this problem? First, we should get better trained Congressional staffs with the requisite expertise to deal with the complex technical issues which are presented.
This is not easy, but an attempt must be made to do it. Secondly, we might seek assistance from outside the government. Suggestions have been made to have a non-profit organization set up to offer its analytical services to the government to do the kind of work that is necessary, or alternatively to use an existing organization like Brookings.
But even if we do this, we will still face the problem of parochial interests of affected Congressmen. Defense business means jobs in Congressional Districts and this is, of course, important. The result is that when a project is proposed which will be located in a given Congressman's district, he will almost always support it. Thus, a given project will be pushed by the Department of Defense, industry, the services, and the affected Congressman, with the net result that it is very hard not to approve it. This is the interdependence I spoke of earlier.
What is essential for the future is that a determination be made as to our national priorities. If this is done, it will be easier to put in context the true nature of our defense needs.
Bingham introduces Mahoney.
Member of the Board of Directors – American Conservative Union. Spent 3 years in Coast Guard as an ensign and Lieutenant JG, Graduate of Columbia Law School and is now State Chairman of the Conservative Party.
NOTE. (This is not verbatim).
J. DANIEL MAHONEY. There are some areas of agreement that I have with the two gentlemen who preceded me to the extent that there is an absence of expertise in defense matters and also that the process of submitting a working defense budget leads to the tendency of increased spending.
Since 1968 aside from Vietnam, the level of defense spending has been on a decline. The Constitutional role of the military has not been changed in recent years. In 1951, it was possible for Douglas MacArthur to challenge the President concerning a question of military policy. Dwight Eisenhower was able to be elected President of the United States. The military stood in higher caste then, than it does today.
In recent years with ROTC gone from colleges, with the campus upsets, there seems to be little broad based support. There is a lessening of respect for people who are engaged in war. The military role in the United States is sharply limited.
The impact on policy is the same. There is a decline in military expenditure as against domestic pressures. Senator Buckley on the Senate floor stated as follows on the debate on bills for increased funding for missiles:
... Since 1966, the United States has deliberately and, I might add, unilaterally, chosen to freeze the size of her strategic forces. Specifically, we have since that date maintained a force level of 1,000 Minuteman ICBM's, 54 Titan II ICBM's and 41 Polaris class nuclear submarines, while reducing the number of our B-52 bombers from about 600 in 1966 to 400 today. Thus, during this 5-year period, there has in fact been a quantitative reduction in our strategic nuclear forces.
This has occurred despite a most dramatic buildup of the Soviet Union's strategic nuclear capability. Indeed this buildup has gone far beyond the requirements of simple deterrence or the achievement of nuclear parity. Since the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks were initiated in early 1968 the Russians have deployed 200 SS-9 ICBM's, a missile for which the United States has no counterpart. Moreover, they have added 400 of their SS-11's, a missile somewhat larger than our own Minuteman. The Soviets have also initiated the deployment of the SS-13, a solid fuel ballistic missile similar to our Minuteman, and are in the advanced stages of the development of a mobile ICBM. All of these recent changes in Soviet forces have been quantitative, and as of today the Soviet Union possesses over 1,600 land-based ICBM's and is continuing to deploy more, while our land-based strategic missiles remain frozen at 1,054.
In terms of payload capacity, the Soviet Union has developed the ability to deliver at least 5,400 megatons of destruction since the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks were initiated in early 1968. This increase alone exceeds the entire U.S. megatonnage by over 1,000. Moreover, only about 1,500 megatons of the entire U.S. force is in the form of ballistic missiles, the remainder being represented by bombs carried by 1955-vintage B-52's.
Moreover, if the Soviet Union were to employ the same warhead technology which we now have on a production line basis for our Minuteman III program the Soviet Union could mount 25 to 30 separate warheads on each of its SS-9 missiles. As the Soviets already have over 900 SS-11's and 300 SS-9's deployed, the potential for a devastating attack on the United States is self-evident. It should, moreover, be kept in mind that much if not most of the missilery is designed to attack not our cities, but our Minuteman silos and B-52 bases with the result that it is now generally conceded that within another 2 or 3 years, if present trends are allowed to continue, the Soviet Union will have achieved the capacity to destroy virtually all of our land-based strategic forces in a preemptive first strike.
We must realize that the major nuclear imbalance must take priority. Serious danger in the area of national policy, and the furor over the military and industrial complex which dangerously obscures defense developments. The Soviet has a superior ABM system; superior in warhead capacity (SS-9) and the United States has been stationary since 1966.
We are dealing with a totalitarian regime which has not changed.
We have a continuing problem, i.e. Philippines, Czechoslovakia.
The present question should not be with relation to military defense policy, as to how much it should be cut, but what we can do about improving the disparity of strategic force, so that we can command respect in the world.
BINGHAM. Before we continue with a response from Mr. Vance, I would like to say a few words:
Re the Congressional problem – true any Congressman would try to preserve defense establishment in his own district. This is not a major part of the problem as far as large expenditures are concerned. Defense establishment trying to streamline. Congressmen will fight it to preserve jobs.
Re: inadequate review – changed to some extent. Automatic approval to Defense Dept. recommendations no longer given by Congress. Changed at time of debate of ABM.
Re: Pendulum swinging too far – may swing too far against military.
Re: Concern over not sufficient applicants who are qualified for military academies. Only 16 or 18 in 3 congressional districts where we should get 50 to 100.
Re: More expert staff. Great need for staff – would be more helpful, although caution along these lines – as staff might make recommendations not necessarily followed by members of Congress – i.e. Chairman of Appropriations Committee who is also Chairman of subcommittee on defense – when it comes to military he sometimes overrules staff recommendations in support of General and Admiral programs that are recommended.
Re: Major expenditures not in strategic weapons.
Re: Natural affinity for those interested in military to want to serve on Arms Services Committee.
VANCE. I disagree with what Senator Buckley said on the Senate floor. We must find a way to reach agreement which would stop the upward spiral. Insofar as the number of missiles which the Soviet Union and the United States have, the question is how much is enough. If our objective is to deter the occurrence of war, you don't need to continue to build in order to have sufficient deterrence.
A conscious decision was taken at the time Mr. McNamara was Secretary of Defense to put a lid on the number of missiles. This action was based on the philosophy that we had enough missiles so that any attack could be retaliated against in such a fashion as to destroy the attacker as a viable society. This provided deterrence against attack from any rational adversary.
YARMOLINSKY. Mr. Mahoney's argument seems to me a case of worst case thinking. If in calculating the need for nuclear weapons we assume anything that can happen will happen in the way that is most disadvantageous to us and least disadvantageous to an opponent then we are going to come out with a requirement for a nuclear force which will look to our opponents as if we were trying to get ahead of them. So it follows that they will make their own calculations and they will build more weapons and ultimately no one will be more secure, and the spiral will be ready to enter another round. In calculating a reasonable approach, we must ask what would an opponent be inclined to do under stress. It must be clear to him that if he initiated an attack, he would be blown up and destroyed.
MAHONEY. I agree with Vance that what we are looking for is sufficiency. Problem is that Vance & Yarmolinsky simply don't take into account that since 1966 while we stood still, the Soviet Union added more megatons to their arsenal and that by 1975 they will be in a position to wipe out every land based missile. Of course we would still have our submarine based missiles, but we don't know what the Russians are achieving and they certainly are putting more into their efforts. It is now reaching a point where the United States should assess the situation.
BINGHAM. Firstly, the significance of megatons. We have many more weapons than would be required to blast Soviet Union off the face of the earth. What advantage do we gain by piling power on top of it. It doesn't take enormous weapons to destroy missile sites.
United States is not standing still. Is in process of arming land base missile sites and we still have our submarine base missiles.
If our intelligence felt that the Soviet could destroy our land base missiles in one fell swoop, we would be so informed, but that is not a prospect at the moment.
Question. To anyone – it has been suggested in recent years by Prof. Galbraith that the defense industry be nationalized to limit their influence.
VANCE. I have not been convinced that we would have a more effective system. Over the years we developed what are called arsenals for the production of certain army weapons. These arsenals were less efficient than the civilian weapons manufacturers. If you look at that historical analogue, it leaves me with concern about nationalizing these large industries and turning them over to in-house manufacturers.
YARMOLINSKY. I agree with Mr. Vance. I think it may be worth pointing out in dealing with a variety of defense contractors that a nonprofit institution or even a university is no less eager to expand its empire to get more contracts and maybe even more willing to exert itself.
BINGHAM. Ralph Nader does not approve nationalization of corporate business from point of view of responsibility.
Question. History points out that a prefrontal lobotomy may be the way, do you think so?
MAHONEY. I suggest it is. I agree that enough is enough. The question is do we have enough, and are the military people the ones to whom we are less likely to heed. I don't know that we face a serious missile problem, but I do know that Kennedy did in 1960.
YARMOLINSKY. I think that we have enough on the nuclear side. I don't believe that the way to protect our national security in the area of nuclear weapons is to increase our arsenal.
BINGHAM. I would like to tell a story in which Mr. Vance took part – some years ago a carrier was on way back from Vietnam – Navy planned to have it refueled in South Africa and by time we heard about it, it was too late for it to be refueled anywhere else. We were concerned about visit being misunderstood. Commanding officer of ship had arranged shore leave and we also learned that people of S. Africa were making plans to entertain them. We went to see Secy Vance and he called Secy Katzenbach – net result was that men had no shore leave, and it was a pretty tense situation.
Mr. Vance – I would like your comment on fact that present administration seems largely dismantled in the operation of the defense department – Mr. Yarmolinsky was concerned about political problems that face the military, which takes action on problems such as the one I just described. Would you like to comment on this?
VANCE. This is an important point. I believe it is essential that the Defense Department have a talented and experienced staff to deal with the interrelated political-military problems which arise on a daily basis. It is essential that in matters of foreign policy the State Department should be the first among equals and take the leadership. However, that does not mean that the Defense Department should not have any role to play. To play its proper role, however, requires that it have the talent to deal with these problems. That is what it had in the Office for International Security Affairs. Unfortunately, I hear that the office has been down-graded.
Question. Is there an erosion of our naval strength in the Mediterranean area?
VANCE. Yes, there is. The Russians have increased their strength in the eastern Mediterranean. We have, for many years, had considerable strength there, So it is reasonable to expect, for strategic and psychological reasons, that they would attempt to increase their strength there. As the Middle East area has become hotter, it was also natural that this would come about. I don't consider this a matter for concern.
MAHONEY. In addition to naval build up in that area, it has been said that we do not have anything as far as air build up. This is another area in defense establishment if we have a situation where Arabs will achieve air superiority over Israel.
BINGHAM. It must be understood that the Foxbat is an extremely fast airplane which must operate at high altitude – not good for combat in lower atmosphere. Administration wrong in not giving Israel the F-4 phantoms – although Israel has three trained pilots per plane and the Arabs only 1 per plane and Israel is far superior, better trained and can outfight Egyptians ... feeling in Congress at present that U.S. should bring pressure on Israel to withdraw request for further supplies of planes.
YARMOLINSKY. Research & Development is careful to make sure that our technical ability keeps up. It is a fact that making large sums of money available to our military establishment doesn't guarantee that we will have the most up-to-date military force that we can have. I t is also true that if you are an athlete you are more likely to be more athletic if you are lean than if you are fat.
Question. Is there not a lot of waste in material in the War Dept. Is it not a fact that a lot of research done by war department goes to private industry for their own benefit?
VANCE. There is no question that there has been much waste in our war department, as there is in war departments all over the world. This is a problem that has been attacked in several ways.
First, there is an audit agency to try and ferret out where there is waste and to hold those responsible accountable when it occurs. In addition, Congress has the General Accounting Office which monitors waste and inefficiency in the government. Despite these efforts, waste does continue. I know that there are many in the Defense Department who are trying to do their best to prevent waste. It is also true that some patents that are developed under the Defense Department contracts are turned over to the public.
Question. What about classification and secrecy of military information?
BINGHAM. There has been excessive use of classification . . . Pentagon papers are a good example. Although there is a tendency on the part of the military establishment to make information classified when the public should be aware, there certainly are elements in our defense establishment, as in our intelligence department, which does need to be protected and for this reason a classification system is therefore necessary. A study is going on arising out of the Pentagon papers as to classification and whether there should not be a rapid declassification.
YARMOLINSKY. Senator Muskie has offered a proposal for an independent classification review board outside of the military establishment which I have been doing some work on.
Question. Do you think it wise for Department of Defense to put all its eggs in one basket – is it wise to have total strategic defense on missiles which may not work.
BINGHAM. We don't rely on any one given system. We maintain the B-52 bombers, we have submarine based missiles and as far as my own view is concerned, we will probably rely more on submarine based missiles than on land based missiles as they are more vulnerable to surprise attack. You ask if we might need a conventional force and I say yes we do – and in this area, we have been spending more than is necessary. Carrier fleets are obsolete and all we should need is one or two carriers and not the 15 that the Navy talks about.
YARMOLINSKY. The issue is not whether missiles will work. They might not work. Other weapons might not work. The important question is the views of people on the other side who may be contemplating aggressive action – it is that calculation that we have to make – to decide what is enough.