|
Domestic Policy:
Military Spending
July 17, 1970
Congressional Record - Senate: Pages 24907 - 24910
RELEASE OF REPORT ON MILITARY SPENDING
BY “MEMBERS OF CONGRESS FOR PEACE THROUGH LAW”
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the “Members of Congress for Peace Through Law” group have made a public release of their report on military spending. I have been advised by the Department of Defense that this report contains highly classified information.
Mr. President, this is shocking information. In my judgment, it represents irresponsibility. This report is another effort to condemn the Defense Department at a risk to our national security. Handing the Soviets our military secrets on a silver platter is an inexcusable act against our national interest.
I am informed that a member of this peace group was advised in writing on July 8, 1970, by the office of the Secretary of Defense, prior to publication of the Peace group's report, that portions of it were classified, and that the Defense Department offered to assist the group in providing a security review of the report prior to the report's release. I understand this offer was not accepted by the group, who appear to be determined to downgrade the U.S. military capability, even at a risk to our security. The Peace group report, which was released on Wednesday, still contains classified information, in spite of the advanced warning by the Department of Defense that it contained classified information.
Mr. President, the American people should know that there are those in Congress who deliberately release classified information, in the face of a warning from the Department of Defense that it could damage our national security.
It must be realized that the Defense Department is the judge of what is classified. The “Peace” group alleged that unclassified sources were used for the report. Nevertheless, this report compounds bad judgment not in our national interest.
In the interest of our national security, I strongly urge those responsible to withdraw immediately all copies of this report. If they wish to make a point about defense spending, then they should remove the classified portions before releasing the report. I will strongly oppose any effort to place this report in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD if the sponsors attempt to take this action. Such an action would give much greater credibility to classified information which would be detrimental to our Nation.
It was noted in the Evening Star yesterday, July 17, 1970, that Mr. Orr Kelly, staff writer, disclosed this breach of security in his newspaper column.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this article by Mr. Orr, entitled, “Report Violated U.S. Security, Pentagon Says,” and a letter from the Office of the Secretary of Defense to a U.S. Senator who is a member of this group, dated July 8, 1970, be printed at the conclusion of my remarks.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
REPORT VIOLATED U.S. SECURITY, PENTAGON SAYS
(By Orr Kelly)
The Pentagon accused a congressional group today of violating national security in a report on military spending.
The report, prepared by the Members of Congress for Peace through Law, was made public at a press conference yesterday by Sen. Mark Hatfield, R-Ore.
Pentagon press spokesman Jerry W. Friedheim said the Pentagon had obtained a working draft of the report more than a week ago. On July 8, he said, Richard G. Capen Jr., assistant to the defense secretary, wrote to Hatfield suggesting the report be submitted for security review.
"I have been advised that a preliminary review of a draft document prepared by your committee indicates that there is classified information included," Capen told Hatfield.
HATFIELD STATEMENT
Hatfield was not immediately available for comment today, but at yesterday's press conference he said all the material in the report had come from public, non-classified sources.
Wes Michaelson, an assistant to Hatfield, repeated today that the material, submitted by a number of congressional offices, was all from unclassified sources.
Capen's letter did not arrive until the final report was being printed, he said.
Hatfield replied to the letter Tuesday evening or yesterday morning, he said. Friedheim said the reply from Hatfield had not been received this morning. Friedheim refused to pinpoint the classified information in the report and he would not say what classification it bore, although he implied that it was “secret” or “top secret.”
The information, he said, had to do with the “characteristics of weapons.”
“While many figures in the report were not sufficiently accurate, there were some that were sufficiently accurate that if the report had been submitted for review we would have advised them to change those figures,” Friedheim said.
Friedheim said he was not aware of any plans for legal action against any of those involved in preparing or publishing the report. To do so, he said, would draw attention to the material the Pentagon wished had not been published.
The report is probably the most ambitious effort ever undertaken by a congressional group to analyze and comment on the military spending and the defense establishment, aside from the annual reviews by the defense and appropriations committees.
Hatfield is chairman of the group’s military spending committee. Also on the committee are 10 other senators and 16 representatives.
The 150-page report called for cuts of $4.4 to $5.4 billion in the Pentagon’s budget request for 1971.
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
Washington, D.C., July 8, 1970.
Hon. MARK O. HATFIELD,
Chairman, Committee on Military Spending,
Members of Congress for Peace Through Law, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR HATFIELD: A copy of the draft Report on Military Spending, as compiled by the Members of Congress for Peace through Law (Committee on Military Spending) has been brought to my attention.
I can assure you that the Department of Defense welcomes thorough and constructive understanding of important issues affecting national security.
Assuming that this report will be published and distributed to Members of Congress, as well as other interested citizens, I would like to offer the assistance of the Defense Department in providing a security review of those sections included in the draft copy.
I have been advised that a preliminary review of a draft document prepared by your Committee indicates that there is classified information included.
I will await your instructions as to how the Peace through Law Committee wishes to proceed prior to publication and dissemination of its final report.
Sincerely,
RICHARD G. CAPEN, Jr.,
Assistant to the Secretary for Legislative Affairs.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I notified the distinguished Senator from Oregon that I intended to make these remarks so that he could be present if he desired to do so. I see the Senator is in the Chamber now and possibly he would care to respond.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. THURMOND. I am pleased to yield to the distinguished Senator from Oregon.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I am grateful to the Senator from South Carolina for giving me notification that he planned to make comments relating to the report on military spending issued by Members of Congress for Peace Through Law.
I say to the distinguished Senator from South Carolina that even though it is within his rights to make these observations, I certainly feel that they are not well-founded observations and I would like to ask if he would yield first for this particular question.
Mr. THURMOND. I yield.
Mr. HATFIELD. First of all, has the Senator read the report?
Mr. THURMOND. I have not read the report but I have been told what the report contains; and the Department of Defense is most disturbed over the report, especially in view of the fact that they wrote the Senator a letter and told the Senator it contained classified information, but in spite of their request to the Senator that they be allowed to work with the Senator and go through this report and remove those classified portions, the Senator did not agree to do so.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?
Mr. THURMOND. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Oregon.
Mr. HATFIELD. Did either the Defense Department or a staff member of the Committee on Armed Services, on which the Senator from South Carolina serves with great distinction, list for the Senator an item or identify the classified material in this particular report?
Mr. THURMOND. I have not gone over in detail the classified information, but
I am told it contains a great deal of classified information, and they were very anxious that that be removed before this report was made public.
Mr. HATFIELD. Do I understand correctly that the Senator was not given any identification or listing of any classified information as to the exact specifics?
Mr. THURMOND. The Defense Department has gone through this report and they say it contains a great deal of classified information. They are experts in this field; they have jurisdiction in this field; and I accept their statement.
Mr. HATFIELD. I see. So the Senator does not have a list of such classification violations, as charged by the Pentagon.
Mr. THURMOND. I do not have that at the moment.
Mr. HATFIELD. Will the Senator yield further for a question?
Mr. THURMOND. I yield.
Mr. HATFIELD. If this report, which I hold in my hand, could be shown to the Senator page by page and item by item to be information from other publications and sources available to the public, such as the New York Times, trade journals and professional journals, would the Senator from South Carolina consider that a violation of classification?
Mr. THURMOND. I would consider it a violation of the classification law if the Senator was put on notice, as the Senator from Oregon was put on notice, about the report, which he formulated I understand, that was to be disseminated and he went ahead and disseminated it anyway.
Mr. HATFIELD. I do not think the Senator answered the question. Let me restate it more clearly. If the Senator could be shown that the information in this report has appeared in public in some way or another, whether it be newspapers, or trade publications, or professional journals, or what, and that, therefore, the general public had access to everything in this report and every evaluation in this report, would he consider that a violation of the classification system?
Mr. THURMOND. I think it is a violation of the classified information law when the Senator or others are put on notice that it is classified information; but even if it were not a violation, if the Department of Defense notified a Member of the Congress of the United States that a report that some outside committee was about to release contained information which would be detrimental to our country, I would be amazed that such a committee would go ahead and print that information anyway.
Mr. HATFIELD. I would certainly agree with the Senator 100 percent. There was no such information given to any member of this committee that we had information that, if published, would be detrimental to the United States.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter I received from Mr. Richard G. Capen, Jr., Assistant to the Secretary for Legislative Affairs, and my answer to that letter be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
Washington, D.C., July 8, 1970.
Hon. MARK O. HATFIELD,
Chairman, Committee on Military Spending, Members of Congress for Peace Through Law, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR HATFIELD: A copy of the draft Report on Military Spending, as compiled by the Members of Congress for Peace through Law (Committee on Military Spending) has been brought to my attention.
I can assure you that the Department of Defense welcomes thorough and constructive understanding of important issues affecting national security.
Assuming that this report will be published and distributed to Members of Congress, as well as other interested citizens, I would like to offer the assistance of the Defense Department in providing a security review of those sections included in the draft copy.
I have been advised that a preliminary review of a draft document prepared by your Committee indicates that there is classified information included.
I will await your instructions as to how the Peace through Law Committee wishes to proceed prior to publication and dissemination of its final report.
Sincerely,
RICHARD G. CAPEN, Jr.,
Assistant to the Secretary for Legislative Affairs.
U.S. SENATE,
Washington, D.C., July 15, 1970.
Hon. RICHARD G. CAPEN, Jr.,
Assistant to the Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CAPEN: I have received your letter of July 8th, offering the assistance of the Department of Defense in reviewing the 1970 Military Spending Report.
The Draft to which you refer was a working copy distributed only to the participating offices. Significant modifications were made in this working Draft and the final version has been printed. It will be released on Wednesday, July 15.
Let me assure you, however, that at no time was classified information used during the research and production of this report. As you may have noted, some sections are footnoted for documentation and in all other cases, citations can be supplied from unclassified sources such as the press, Congressional hearings, trade journals, and various magazines.
I quite agree with you that a thorough and constructive understanding of national security issues is in the best interest of the nation. The 1970 Military Spending Report certainly contributes to this discourse.
Sincerely,
MARK O. HATFIELD,
U.S. Senator.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I might say for the Senator's information that that was the letter I just placed in the RECORD.
Mr. HATFIELD. I would like to have my answer printed in the RECORD also.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD from the Evening Star of Friday, July 17, 1970, an article which would be a response to the one the Senator from South Carolina placed in the RECORD a few moments ago.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
HATFIELD DENIES SECRET DATA USE
Sen. Mark O. Hatfield, R-Ore., staunchly denied today that any part of a congressional report on military spending was based on secret information vital to the national security.
Accusing the Pentagon of "irrationality,” Hatfield said a Defense spokesman's contention yesterday that the report contained secret material indicated the department had no realistic defense against growing congressional demands for spending reductions.
Hatfield heads an informal alliance of congressional defense critics which issued a 150-page report Wednesday recommending cutbacks in 14 major weapons systems.
Jerry W. Friedheim, a public relations official for the Defense Department, said some of the information in the report was classified "above confidential"-meaning secret or top secret.
But Hatfield and others who worked on the report said every line was drawn from newspapers, trade journals, congressional hearings and other publications and sources in the public domain.
The problem, he said, was that the Pentagon regularly keeps the “secret” stamp on information even after it appears in public print.
The Pentagon’s quarrel apparently was with the report’s disclosure of yields for the Sprint and Spartan antiballistic missiles-components of the controversial Safeguard ABM system.
A spokesman for Hatfield said this information came from public documents but he could not immediately identify them.
Friedheim said Richard G. Capen Jr., assistant secretary for legislative affairs, had sent Hatfield a letter July 8 asking that the report be submitted to the Pentagon for deletion of classified material. He said Hatfield never replied to the letter.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, for the benefit of the Senator from South Carolina I would like to give an example of the type of thing we have at hand. I know the Senator is very sincere in his feelings and his expressions, but I think he sincerely wrong. I think we have to consider what we are dealing with in the entire classification system.
First of all, let me make clear I have asked the Department of Defense for a specification of the items they claim in this report are violating the classification system. I have not received any reply to my request, and I have asked not once but twice for an itemized listing. They say it is a violation of the classification but they have not answered. However, they have seen fit to call a public press conference and make this charge through a press conference.
If the security of this country were really in jeopardy I suggest they would have had a person on my doorstep pretty fast because, let me also indicate to the Senator, they had obtained a working copy of this report very early, and this working copy was published only for the staff people on June 11.
When one considers the fact that they had a working copy at least 2 to 3 weeks, I think it is very peculiar that they were not on my doorstep indicating to me some concern if we were violating security.
Second, let me point out that they have refused to give me a list of specifications, and the only thing I can find out is through press statements and press publications. Let me quote:
The Pentagon’s quarrel apparently was with the report’s disclosure of yields for the Sprint and Spartan antiballistic missiles-components of the controversial Safeguard ABM system.
All right. We went back to our staff work. Let me say for the record that these other matters that are alluded to as a concern of the Pentagon one could have read about on May 4, 1969, in the New York Times which stated that the Sprint warhead has about one-tenth the force of the Hiroshima bomb. The force of the Hiroshima damage was about 20 kilotons, and therefore the Sprint missile’s is about 2 kilotons. That is the report, which one could have read about in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, also, because that article was placed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD by Senator TYDINGS, of Maryland, on May 13. Or one could have read about the same subject in a bulletin of the Atomic Science Bulletin in June 1970 by Ralph Lapp, page 106, which gives the yield of the Spartan warheads. Or one could have read about it in the speech by Mr. Ralph Lapp given to the American Physical Society, titled, "ABM and MIRV," on April 29, 1970.
All I am saying is that in three earlier specific publications and in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD are the very facts about those points as far as we can determine, where the objections lie.
I think it is quite well known that the Pentagon has maintained the classification of "secret" even after it has appeared in publications around the country. I believe, therefore, we ought to review the classification technique or the application of the classification system.
I would like to add, further, that with respect to every person who worked on this report, on each item and weapons system, the ones who had access to classified material, because of security clearance, can list the reports they used for their work, which all came from unclassified sources.
In other words, I am saying simply this: Each member of the staff knew exactly where he would get the information, and he can cite it by chapter and verse, page by page in this report, and none of it was under classification.
I think the point should be made clear that our committee had no intention of violating classification. I think the Senator from South Carolina knows me well enough to know that I would not be a party to putting my country under jeopardy or putting my country under jeopardy or putting my country under the gun, so to speak, by violating classification. It is almost impugning the integrity of the Senator from Oregon to even imply that, somehow, we have put our country in grave danger by the publication of this report. All I am saying is I can cite, chapter and verse, page by page, where every one of these items was published in some kind of publication or source open to the public and not classified.
I would further say this, because this might have some political implication rather than military implication-not by the Senator from South Carolina, but by the Pentagon. I feel they are complimenting this report, because this report has raised sensitive and important issues, and therefore they have been trying, by political tactics, to demean or detract from that report. So I wonder if it is military security that is being watched, or perhaps political security.
This report does not attempt to downgrade the military. It is not an attack upon the Pentagon. If one would read and study the report, he would know we have several specific proposals that offer, suggest, and recommend improvement and strengthening of our military weapons system. We ask for continuation of the Poseidon program, as long as there is no SALT agreement. We ask for continued research on ABM. We ask for increases in this whole base of technology, science, and education, which is the foundation of our future security. We ask for a refiguring of the B-52’s. We urge full expenditure for the development of the ULMS program. We ask for a better design for the F-15. We ask for continued extensive research on antisubmarine warfare, urging that systems be deployed when they have been proven to be effective.
This is not a report against the Pentagon. It is an effort to try to show some balance to justify the expenditures of the Pentagon.
Let me close by saying that perhaps this is the best way to get a focus on this report, by what the Senator from South Carolina has done today, by asking these questions, so that we can clarify and explain, but perhaps more important, draw attention to important recommendations in this report.
Let me say again that no violation was intended and no violation could have taken place, because of the fact that we secured all of this information from public materials and publications that are open to the general public.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, in response to the Senator, I would like to say this: If the Defense Department warned the Senator that the report did contain classified material and Mr. Jerry W. Friedheim, Pentagon press spokesman, said it did contain secret and top secret material, does not the Senator think it would have been the part of wisdom to have met with the Defense Department officials and considered screening those portions that did contain classified material, even though the Senator and his colleagues had obtained information from one magazine or another or one newspaper or another, or if someone had stolen it from the Pentagon and gotten it to him somehow. I do not imply that this did happen. But the point is, suppose it did contain secret or top secret material and the Defense Department, as it did in its letter, requested that they be allowed to meet with the Senator before that report was published and disseminated, then I question the wisdom of releasing the information. I believe in the letter to the Senator from Oregon dated July 8, it read:
I have been advised that preliminary review of draft documents prepared by your committee indicates that there is classified material included. I will await your instructions as to how your committee desires to consult before the publication and dissemination of your final report.
Does the Senator feel that if the Pentagon, which is sensitive to classified material, felt so strongly about this and went so far as to put the Senator on notice that they did feel strongly about this, regardless of where the information came from, it was wise to repeat it and repeat it again if it was classified information? Would it not have been the better part of good judgment and security for the Senator to have worked with the Defense Department and eliminated those portions rather than go ahead with a press conference?
Mr. HATFIELD. Does the Senator want a response to that?
Mr. THURMOND. I am glad to yield for that purpose.
Mr. HATFIELD. My office called Mr. Jerry Friedheim and asked for specifics of where there had been violations of classification. Upon discussing this material with Mr. Jerry Friedheim of the Defense Department-he said, "Well, we just would have preferred that certain sections not be used in that report."
Again, we asked for specifications of item by item of where we were violating security. Even though they have found time to have press conferences and engage in press releases and discussions, they have yet, up to this date, to relate to us, even though we have requested it, exactly what material they would like us to delete or what material was classified material.
Mr. THURMOND. In response, I still say that the Department of Defense felt so strongly about this matter that they contacted the distinguished Senator from Oregon, wanting to meet with him to talk these matters over. We would not expect the Defense Department officials to tell him over the phone what was top secret. That would not make sense. They wanted to meet with the Senator from Oregon in person and discuss these matters, to tell him they were classified, and to see if they could not induce him to withdraw them. Why could not that have been done, rather than to go ahead and have a news conference and release the information to the public?
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I have been in my office. I am willing, able, and eager to meet with representatives of the Defense Department at any time. I did not ask them for specifications over the telephone. It would be ridiculous to ask the Defense Department to supply them over the phone. I do not know whether my phone is tapped or not. But, by the same token, I have to say that I have had no indication that the Defense Department was interested in communicating with me, other than through a news conference. I think that is not the way to handle a serious matter. If there had been serious thought about this whole report by the Defense Department, they should have been on the telephone, so to speak, seeking an appointment or seeking to counsel with me, rather than to communicate with me through a news conference.
Mr. THURMOND. I respond by saying that they asked for a conference with the Senator. They did not get a conference. The Senator went ahead and held a press conference, and the Defense Department said the report contained classified information. They wanted to point that out to him. I am informed now that the Department of Defense has detailed these security violations. If the Senator had had a meeting with them, they could probably have resolved the situation. It is my belief that the Senator might have agreed not to publish this report after the Pentagon had pointed out the classified portions which should not have been published.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, in reviewing the letter again-I suggest that the Senator reread it-there is no request at all for a conference.
Mr. THURMOND. That letter informed the Senator that the report contained classified information, and it also said that the Department hoped the Senator would await instructions before proceeding with the publication and dissemination of this report. But the Senator went ahead and disseminated it in a press conference without conferring with Defense Department officials.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I think we have made our points. I am not going to belabor the issue. I think, again, that basically the problem of the Defense Department is its medieval system of classification, trying to say something is classified when it has already been published in the newspapers or published in a journal. I do not think it is up to Congress to determine whether published materials are classified. If a Member of Congress who is doing research can find something in a publication of this kind, I do not think it is necessary for him to ask permission from the Defense Department to make a report to his Senate colleagues.
This is not the first time this has happened. It has happened a number of times with Senators. I think that after a while the Defense Department might get a little notice that their system is not functioning correctly.
There is no intention, no desire, to violate classification. I think, again, that the Defense Department is acting more in a political manner than with concern for the security of the Nation, because had they been deeply concerned, they would not have waited to exchange letters; they would not have waited to exchange press releases; they would have had an immediate confrontation.
I have had representatives of the military call at my office before. They know they are welcome and can come at any time for a conference or discussion or to ask for an appointment.
I question the real concern of the Department for the security of the country in this case, because I can prove, by chapter and verse, that every word of this report came out of publications available to the general public.
I would urge the Senator from South Carolina, as a member of the Committee on Armed Services, to perhaps make it an item on the agenda of that committee to review the classified system of the U.S. Department of Defense. I think it might prove to be a worthwhile undertaking. Then we will not have to get into the question of challenging or repudiating the patriotism of any Senator. I think it would be better if the question were studied by the committee and made a committee project.
I urge the Senator from South Carolina, if he is deeply concerned, to have this question taken up as an item of agenda by the committee.
Mr. THURMOND. I think what is most needed is not a new system but to observe the present system.
|