Mr. BURLISON. Aye.

Mr. PRESTON. Mr. Edwards. [No response.]

Mr. PRESTON. Mr. Robinson.

Mr. ROBINSON. Aye.

Mr. PRESTON. Mr. Kemp.

[No response.]

Mr. MAHON. There are eight ayes and no negative votes, and the motion is agreed to.

INTRODUCTION

I will address my remarks to the committee. As all of you know, this meeting this afternoon is set aside for the purpose of hearing Admiral Rickover. Of course, Admiral Rickover is the Director of the Division of Naval Reactors. He wears two hats, one with the Navy and the other with the Energy Research and Development Administration.

Mr. SIKES. And one with the Congress, so that is three.

Mr. MAHON. And one with the Congress, so that makes three. Of course, we are familiar with the significant contributions which you have made to the defense of the country, Admiral Rickover, over the years, and we are glad that you continue to make that contribution. We have heard you from year to year, and we have always profited from the testimony which you have provided.

Now, I understand that you do not have a written statement. I believe we followed the same procedure in previous years upon occasion, so we will ask you in a moment to proceed in your own way in your testimony before the committee. We will have a number of questions upon which we would like for you to comment.

We are particularly interested in the proposed nuclear-powered strike cruiser. No funds were included in the original 1976 budget for the ship. The House Armed Services Committee included $60 million for long leadtime items for a lead ship in the authorization bill which is now pending. The Senate did not propose funds for the strike cruiser, and the matter, as you know, and the committee knows, is now in conference. After the action was taken by the Congress, the President did recently transmit a budget amendment requesting $60 million and increasing the funds requested for the Department of Defense by that amount. This committee has actually had no formal testimony on this matter, so this will be our first opportunity to learn about the proposed new ship.

Through the years, Admiral Rickover, you have given valuable testimony with regard to the contracting procedures in the Department of Defense with regard to claims in the shipbuilding program, with regard to the operation of the Renegotiation Board, with regard to the Truth in Negotiations Act, and with regard to the cost accounting standards and independent research and development.

We will be glad to have you update your testimony, give us any ideas that you think might be helpful to us, as we deliberate over what to do about the defense of the country by way of an appropriation bill.

So please feel free to respond to the questions which may be presented, and please feel free to make any preliminary statement which you would like to make. These are rather turbulent times, of course, in

more ways than one, in the Government and out of the Government, in industry and in the world, and certainly there is a lot of turbulence in the Navy and the Defense Department.

I am acquainted with a reporter, George C. Wilson, who from time to time writes for various publications. I noted in the Washington Post on the 7th of July quite an extensive article which he wrote with respect to the Navy shipbuilding program. The title of the article is "U.S. Fleet Construction Goals Slowed by Contract Disputes." I don't wish to get into the issues involving shipbuilding which are presented in that article at the moment, but I merely cite it as evidence of the turbulence which we find in the area of defense.

How would you like to proceed, Admiral Rickover?

Admiral RICKOVER. First, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your kind words. You permitted me to make some preliminary statements, and I would like to tell the members of this committee that recently I was honored to talk in Midland, Tex., which is in the heart of the chairman's district, and if they could have voted that night, they would have voted him in for life, which is unconstitutional, but they would have done it anyway.

Mr. SIKES. Is that because of

your visit?

Admiral RICKOVER. No; that is because I elucidated on the chairman's qualities, and once I did, they saw the true light.

I would like to say that the same thing happened sometime ago when I talked in Mr. Sikes' district. Had there been an election that night, he would have been voted in for life, too.

Mr. SIKES. That was because of your visit.

Admiral RICKOVER. Well, you mentioned about the new strike. cruiser, and both of you would like to know

Mr. GIAIMO. When did you come back to the United States, Admiral?

Admiral RICKOVER. Really, I am not fully back yet. I was going to say that the designation of the new strike cruiser is CSGN. The CS stands for Confederate States. The CS was deliberately chosen so we could get the Southern vote. [Laughter.]

And here is another friend of mine from the mines of Pennsylvania. Mr. FLOOD. Hello, Skipper. Thanks for waiting.

OPENING REMARKS

Admiral RICKOVER. I would like to express my gratitude for the way I am always treated by all the members of this committee. It is personally very gratifying to be able to talk to you because I am free to express my personal opinions. I appreciate your listening to me, and your consideration of what I say.

My job is to design propulsion plants for nuclear ships. I started out with that idea years ago, but I soon found that the Navy did not have people with the technical qualifications to design and operate the plant as a part of the overall ship. Therefore, I had to undertake other areas outside a narrow definition of my original responsibilities and involve myself in all aspects of nuclear ship design and operation. Today I find myself in the same situation with contracts. All my work is tied in with contracts; the technical problems become contract problems. Some contractors seem to believe that the Department of Defense should solve all their problems by discretely giving them money. I

Mr. BURLISON. Aye.

Mr. PRESTON. Mr. Edwards. [No response.]

Mr. PRESTON. Mr. Robinson.

Mr. ROBINSON. Aye.

Mr. PRESTON. Mr. Kemp.

[No response.]

Mr. MAHON. There are eight ayes and no negative votes, and the motion is agreed to.

INTRODUCTION

I will address my remarks to the committee. As all of you know, this meeting this afternoon is set aside for the purpose of hearing Admiral Rickover. Of course, Admiral Rickover is the Director of the Division of Naval Reactors. He wears two hats, one with the Navy and the other with the Energy Research and Development Administration.

Mr. SIKES. And one with the Congress, so that is three.

Mr. MAHON. And one with the Congress, so that makes three.

Of course, we are familiar with the significant contributions which you have made to the defense of the country, Admiral Rickover, over the years, and we are glad that you continue to make that contribution. We have heard you from year to year, and we have always profited from the testimony which you have provided.

Now, I understand that you do not have a written statement. I believe we followed the same procedure in previous years upon occasion, so we will ask you in a moment to proceed in your own way in your testimony before the committee. We will have a number of questions upon which we would like for you to comment.

We are particularly interested in the proposed nuclear-powered strike cruiser. No funds were included in the original 1976 budget for the ship. The House Armed Services Committee included $60 million for long leadtime items for a lead ship in the authorization bill which is now pending. The Senate did not propose funds for the strike cruiser, and the matter, as you know, and the committee knows, is now in conference. After the action was taken by the Congress, the President did recently transmit a budget amendment requesting $60 million and increasing the funds requested for the Department of Defense by that amount. This committee has actually had no formal testimony on this matter, so this will be our first opportunity to learn about the proposed new ship.

Through the years, Admiral Rickover, you have given valuable testimony with regard to the contracting procedures in the Department of Defense with regard to claims in the shipbuilding program, with regard to the operation of the Renegotiation Board, with regard to the Truth in Negotiations Act, and with regard to the cost accounting standards and independent research and development.

We will be glad to have you update your testimony, give us any ideas that you think might be helpful to us, as we deliberate over what to do about the defense of the country by way of an appropriation bill.

So please feel free to respond to the questions which may be presented, and please feel free to make any preliminary statement which you would like to make. These are rather turbulent times, of course, in

more ways than one, in the Government and out of the Government, in industry and in the world, and certainly there is a lot of turbulence in the Navy and the Defense Department.

I am acquainted with a reporter, George C. Wilson, who from time to time writes for various publications. I noted in the Washington Post on the 7th of July quite an extensive article which he wrote with respect to the Navy shipbuilding program. The title of the article is "U.S. Fleet Construction Goals Slowed by Contract Disputes." I don't wish to get into the issues involving shipbuilding which are presented in that article at the moment, but I merely cite it as evidence of the turbulence which we find in the area of defense.

How would you like to proceed, Admiral Rickover?

Admiral RICKOVER. First, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your kind words. You permitted me to make some preliminary statements, and I would like to tell the members of this committee that recently I was honored to talk in Midland, Tex., which is in the heart of the chairman's district, and if they could have voted that night, they would have voted him in for life, which is unconstitutional, but they would have done it anyway.

Mr. SIKES. Is that because of your visit?

Admiral RICKOVER. No: that is because I elucidated on the chairman's qualities, and once I did, they saw the true light.

I would like to say that the same thing happened sometime ago when I talked in Mr. Sikes' district. Had there been an election that night, he would have been voted in for life, too.

Mr. SIKES. That was because of your visit.

Admiral RICKOVER. Well, you mentioned about the new strike cruiser, and both of you would like to know—

Mr. GIAIMO. When did you come back to the United States, Admiral?

Admiral RICKOVER. Really, I am not fully back yet. I was going to say that the designation of the new strike cruiser is CSGN. The CS stands for Confederate States. The CS was deliberately chosen so we could get the Southern vote. [Laughter.]

And here is another friend of mine from the mines of Pennsylvania. Mr. FLOOD. Hello, Skipper. Thanks for waiting.

OPENING REMARKS

Admiral RICKOVER. I would like to express my gratitude for the way I am always treated by all the members of this committee. It is personally very gratifying to be able to talk to you because I am free to express my personal opinions. I appreciate your listening to me, and your consideration of what I say.

My job is to design propulsion plants for nuclear ships. I started out with that idea years ago, but I soon found that the Navy did not have people with the technical qualifications to design and operate the plant as a part of the overall ship. Therefore, I had to undertake other areas outside a narrow definition of my original responsibilities and involve myself in all aspects of nuclear ship design and operation. Today I find myself in the same situation with contracts. All my work is tied in with contracts; the technical problems become contract problems. Some contractors seem to believe that the Department of Defense should solve all their problems by discretely giving them money. I

cannot see that as a fair deal for the taxpayers who will not get the best Navy their tax dollars should buy. If we give our shipbuilding money away, yards will remain inefficient and will spend so much money there won't be enough money left to build the ships that we need. We are constantly running up debts in the shipbuilding program which I will refer to later on.

I feel much beset as a result of my efforts to insist that contracts be upheld. Sometimes I wonder whether I am doing the right thing. It bothers me very much; but I am so constituted that I cannot let this go by. I cannot let go on what I consider attempts to get money from the Federal Government without adequate contractual or lawful bases. I know that this committee has severe problems in the total amount of appropriations, so I try to do what I can to make your appropriations go as far as possible. That motivates me a great deal, and I am glad that I have had the backing of this committee in what I have attempted to do.

The first question you asked was about the "Confederate Ship GN" or the strike cruiser. The strike cruiser is the first new construction ship planned with the Aegis air defense weapon system.

Mr. MAHON. In words of one syllable, explain the Aegis system.

THE PURPOSE OF AEGIS

Admiral RICKOVER. Aegis is a high performance radar and missile fire control system. It is designed to detect and defeat saturation type attack by enemy aircraft or supersonic missiles fired from submarines, surface ships, and aircraft. The Aegis system requires development of high power, quick reacting, radar and computer systems necessary to identify and track over a large area numerous small, high speed targets despite adverse weather and electronic jamming. The Aegis system also has to direct missiles to destroy each target.

I am told by those responsible for the Navy's air defense weapons that Aegis represents a great improvement in reaction time, accuracy, and the ability to defeat enemy saturation attacks.

I do not have responsibility for the development of this system. I understand that a partial prototype of the Aegis system was put to sea last year on a test ship and it has successfully tracked and shot down supersonic missiles and targets in maneuvering flight.

AEGIS WITH OTHER SHIPS

Also, I am told, the Aegis system capability can be used so that it will be able to automatically communicate with other ships. such as the Virginia class cruisers, and provide them with target data for their own fire control systems. Thus, it is not necessary to have all ships in a task force have systems as complex and costly as Aegis. The data links and equipment that can be put in other ships to give them the needed quick reaction and accuracy when linked with an Aegis ship will be much cheaper than if the whole Aegis system were required. Ships with Aegis will be quite expensive.