DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATION BILL, 1958

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 23
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 5, 2013
• Sequence Number: 43
• Publication Date: May 27, 1957
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

171.71P896 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? HOPE
01, Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-.3
* t 11fr.."
I never knew a man who faced up to
the buffets of life's storms with greater
spirit. He did not ask quarter of life be-
cause of his physical infirmities. He
could truly say:
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud,
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody but unbowed.
?11-enEey.
Albama has lost a great citizen. The
people have lost a friend.
It seems to me that Charles C. Mc-
Whorter's poem describes the philosophy
that motivated Luther Patrick's being:
And I am repaid and my soul is serene,
If I put you one flower you might not have
seen,/
My mission accomplished in deed and in
word;
If you hear one sweet note that you might
not have heard.
FORMOSA
(Mr. DORN of South Carolina asked
and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute, and to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. DORN of South Carolina. Mr.
Speaker, the riots on Formosa, disrespect
for the American flag, destruction of
American property and injury of Ameri-
can nationals is shocking. It is obviou
that this lawless demonstration was in-
stigated by a few well-placed individuals
who are enemies of the United States
and are enemies of freedom. I believe
these riots were Communist inspired hid
were aimed at the free world's defense
line in the Pacific.
The Japanese used Formosa as a base
to conquer the Philippines and all of
southeast Asia. Formosa in Communist
hands today would threaten the inde-
pendence of the Philippines, Australia,
Indonesia, Malaya, all of southeast Asia,
Japan and the United States itself.
I am glad that in the crisis the free
world had a courageous leader, General-
issimo Chiang Kai-shek. Chiang acted
with alacrity and decision. He did riot
equivocate, he did not hesitate. He de-
clared marshal law, rushed three divi-
sions into the capital, T'ai-pei, and soon.
had the situation well in hand. I am glad
that Formosa, the key of freedom's de-
fense in the pacific, is governed by such
a fearless leader upon whom we can de-
pend. Chiang acted in the tradition of
Douglas MacArthur, Syngman Rhee, and
the late immortal Magsaysay.
The Government of Formosa, under
Chiang Kai-shek, will bring out the
facts and we will soon know that the
Communists and their allies are trying
to destroy south Pacific solidarity and our
friendship for that area.
CORRECTION OF ROLLCALL
Mr. LANHAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to correct the REC-
ORD. On rollcall No. 86, page 6804 of the
RECORD of May 24, I am listed as not an-
swering to my name. I was present and
did answer to my name. -
The SPEAKER. Without objection,
the permanent RECORD will be corrected
accordingly.
There was no objection.
POWER TO DECLARE RECESS
TOMORROW
Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker,
Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, of Ger-
many, now on an official visit to our
country, is one of the great leaders of this
important and trying period of the
world's history.
Chancellor Adenauer is not only a
practical and courageous leader but, in -
my opinion, he is the No. 1 idealist in the
world of today, and we need leadership
on the level of idealism to meet the chal-
lenge that confronts us.
There is no man in the world today who
better understands the Communist mind
and intent than Chancellor Adenauer.
He is an affirmative minded leader, not
only to the people of Germany, but to all
the peoples of the non-Communist world
and to the countless of millions behind
the Iron Curtain who seek liberty and
who are praying and hoping for the day
of their early deliverance from Com-
munist oppression.
The people of Germany are justified in
reeling proud of him.
The House of Representatives will re-
ceive this fine "gentleman and great
leader tomorrow as its guest. He will
address the Members of the House of
Representatives tomorrow, Tuesday.
Mvh28.._at 12:30 nom-.10
e House of Representatives has had
many great men as its guest, but none
greater and none who symbolizes more
the spirit of liberty than Chancellor
Adenauer.
I know the Members are looking for-
ward to his visit to the House tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that it may be in order at any time on
tomorrow, May 28, 1957, for the Speaker
to declare a recess for the purpose of re-
ceiving His Excellency Konrad Adenauer,
Chancellor of the Federal Republic of
Germany.
The- SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
- There was no objection.
CALL OF THE HOUSE
Mr. WIGGLES WORTH. Mr. Speaker,
I make the point of order that a quorum
is not present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum
is not present.
Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. speaker, I
move a call of the House.
A call of the House was ordered.
The Clerk called the roll, and the fol-
lowing Members failed to answer to their
names:
Andresen,
August H.
Barrett
Baumhart
Beamer
Belcher
Blatnik
Mitch
Bolton
Bowler
Boyle
Buckley
Byrd
Byrne, Pa.
Carnahan
Celler
Chelf
Chudoff
Cooley
[Roll No. 87]
Dawson, Ill.
?Dellay
Diggs
Fin?
Fogarty
Garmatz
Granahan
Grant
Green, Oreg.
Green, Pa. _
Griffin
Gubser
Hardy
Healey
Hemphill
Hoeven
Holtzman
James
Jenkins
Johnson
Jonas
Kearney
Kee
Kelley, Pa.
Kilburn
Kitchin
Kluczynski.
Lipscomb
McCarthy
McConnell
Mailliard
Miller. Md.
Moore
Morgan
Murray
Patterson
Perkins
Pfost
Pillion Robsion, Ky.
Polk Santangelo
Powell Shelley
Prouty Siler
Rains Spence
Reece, Tenn. Taylor
May 27
Teller
Van Pelt
Watts
Wolverton
Zelenko
The SPEAKER On this rollcall 359
Members have answered to their names,
a quorum.
By unanimous consent, further pro-
ceedings under the call were dispensed
with.
CORRECTION OF ROLLCALL
Mr. BROOKS of Texas. Mr. Speaker,
on rollcall No. 84 I am recorded as being
absent. I was present and answered to
my name. I ask unanimous consent that
the RECORD and Journal be corrected
accordingly.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPRO-
PRIATION BILL, 1958
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on. the
State of the Union for the further con-
sideration of the bill (H. R. 7665) mak-
ing appropriations for the Department of
Defense for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1958, and for other purposes.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further
consideration of the bill H. R. 7665, with
Mr. KEOGH in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the unani-
mous-consent agreement of Friday, May
24, general debate will continue for not
to exceed 4 hours, the time to be equally
divided and controlled by the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. MAHON] and the gen-
tleman from Massachusetts [Mr. WIG-
GLESWORTH] .
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. MAHON].
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I yield
30 minutes to the gentleman from Flor-
ida [Mr. Sixes], chairman of the Army
panel.
(Mr. SIKES asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, this is a
new day of new weapons?weapons with
a capacity for destruction that is be-
yond the comprehension of man. Every
city is now within range of planes which
can deliver these weapons. In a few
years planes will not be needed to deliver
them. They will cross oceans and swoop
down upon targets in a matter of min-
utes. Defense against that ultimate
weapon is still largely a hope and a
prayer.
There are those who believe with
sincerity that there is no place for the
Army in today's warfare; that the day of
land fighting is over; that the Army's
principal mission henceforth is not as a
fighting force, but as an occupying or
police force. If that is so, we are wasting
a lot of money in this bill. But, there is
another side to the story.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
World War II seems a long time ago,
but there still are lessons to be learned
from it and those weapons used were
very effective for the times. Air power
gutted Germany?literally destroying
it?but the German's didn't stop fighting
until their territory was overrun by the
allied armies. A lot of destruction and a
lot of deaths, allied and enemy, would
have been unnecessary if Patton and
Bradley had been given gasoline and sup-
plies in 1944.
Korea is a more recent experience?
one whose outcome we cannot point
to with pride because of the limitations
put on America's fighting forces through
our timid allies. In Korea we had un-
questioned air and naval superiority.
Within territorial limits we bombed at
will. What happened? We got kicked
all over the lot until we had enough
troops and weapons on the ground to
stop the enemy.
Please remember joint American
forces readied for the defense of Taipan
undoubtedly staved off a Red-Chinese in-
vasion. But the collapse of allied efforts
in Indochina permitted the partition of
that unhappy area.
The valiant patriots in Hungary were
crushed and now are held captive by
the armed might of the Russian Army.
No help can reach them while this is
true. The overwhelming air and naval
power of Britain and France did not
frighten Nasser into submission and they
allowed themselves to be talked out of a
successful land, air, and water campaign
by another timid ally; this time the
United States. The Israeli kicked the
living daylights out of the Egyptians on
the ground with troops and armor.
Jordan would not be an independent
nation today if the Sixth Fleet and its
Marines had not made its dramatic and
forceful appearance in the Mediterra-
nean.
I have brought you to very recent days
and to the type of operation which is
becoming more and more clearly the
pattern of Soviet troublemaking.
I know full well of the hurried prepa-
rations for thermonuclear war on both
sides of the Atlantic. Yet, I do not think
we will ever see a thermonuclear war.
I cannot imagine anyone being so men-
tally depraved or so completely a fool
that he would pull the trigger on what
almost certainly would be mutual mass
destruction and the end of civilization.
Thermonuclear war is indescribable and
unthinkable. The capability we must
possess, otherwise there would be no se-
curity in the world we now know. But,
I think and I pray to God that we will
never have to use that capability.
Tactical atomic weapons are an en-
tirely different consideration. They are
devised for military targets?not for
mass destruction. They are a part ora
modern army's equipment. When we
say that the next war will involve the use
of atomic weapons, we do not necessarily
mean thermonuclear weapons. It is en-
tirely conceivable that the only, atomic
weapons used will be tactical weapons
designed for combat purposes. Every
service is important. Every service is
essential. No one service is self-suffi-
No. 89-10
?
cient. If limited wars are to be the
pattern or if Russia suddenly moves to
occupy all of Europe, we must have
trained and equipped troops on the
ground and ready.
Now, let me point to the fact that we
have troops all over the world. We have
commitments or treaty obligations to de-
fend 42 nations. I want to be sure that
American fighting forces have a chance
to defend themselves if trouble comes.
I don't want our forces to be sitting
ducks whose weakness invites aggression.
Now, theoretically, we have considered
ourselves in the main the supplier of
weapons and our allies the supplier of
troops. That is not entirely true. De-
spite the promises and the treaty com-
mitments of our allies, their forces are
much smaller today than we had anti-
cipated or planned for. Britain is
sharply retrenching, cutting her forces
back 34,500 men, seriously weakening
her commitments for the defense of
Europe. France mired in north Africa
is keeping only skeleton divisions in
Europe. West Germany, more than 2
years behind schedule, is just beginning
a serious defense program with fewer
than 100,000 men under arms. Japan
does virtually nothing toward the de-
fense of the Far East. Today the United
States is putting more men and money
into the defense of Europe than is any
European nation.
The fighting machines of Russia and
Red China are huge steamrollers, well
organized and newly reequipped. They
have every weapon that we do and more
of most. The Soviet claims of reduc-
tions in troops strength are paper re-
ductions not borne out by demobiliza-
tion if our intelligence is not deceived.
hey have launctins behincL the
Iron Ciirtain from which gui ed missiles
can reach all of Euro_pe if our intelli-
'gence is not deceived. Soviet military
strength alWays has depended upon mass
steamroller tactics by which they seek to
overrun enemy positions regardless of
cost in manpower.
Diplomatically, their strategy is to
pinch off territory whenever and where-
ever they can by whatever means they
can. That is the kind of threat Ameri-
can forces live under in all parts of the
world. I want them to have the ability
to fight back and live.
Again, let us think back to _Korea.
There American forces Without adequate'
training and with World War II equip-
ment were thrown into the gap to try to
stop hordes of disciplined enemy troops
in the most brutal and savage fighting
experienced by American troop's in many
a decade. I would not want that to hap-
pen again. But, this budget makes no
provision for Modern equipment for
American or Korean forces now in Ko-
rea. American forces and Korean forces
are equipped with weapons of the type
that they had when the fighting stopped.
They are equipped with the planes they
had when fighting stopped. There were
no atomic tactical weapons in use in the
field when the fighting stopped in Ko-
rea so our forces have none today. On
the other side of the defense line, Chi-
nese and Red Korean forces have been
6897
augmented and completely equipped
with new weapons. They have atomic
weapons. They have hundteds of newly
developed airfields with the latest planes.
The last token forces of our allies other
than the Koreans are pulling out. The
fact that this budget makes no provision
for the improvement of that picture is
not an Army decision. The Army grim-
ly contemplates its responsibility in Ko-
rea and knows that the cards are
stacked against us. Policy considera-
tions directed by the State Department
and the administration require that we
observe armistice terms which forbid
modernizing our forces. The Commu-
nists made the same agreement, but they
are not similarly inhibited by moral or
treaty obligations. They have broken
the contract. Therefore, I say it is no
longer binding on us, and that American
and Korean forces there should have
every type of modern equipment our
arsenal possesses.
What about the Army budget for fiscal
1958?
Mr. CANFIELD. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. SIKES. I yield to the gentleman4
from New Jersey.
Mr. CANFIELD. I am glad to hear the
very able gentleman from Florida make
that statement about our military situa-
tion in Korea, because I am very much
concerned about it.
A dispatch from Korea in the Associ-
ated Press today makes this statement,
that if the North Korean forces and the
Red Chinese move against our forces and
the Southern Korean forces today those
forces would have little hope.
Mr. SIKES. lam afraid that is true.
Mr. MORANO. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. SIKES. I yield to the gentleman
from Connecticut.
Mr. MORANO. Does the gentleman
have any information as to whether or
not we have the kind of equipment that
you think is needed in Korea in nearby
Okinawa, Japan, or the Philippines that
it would be able to get into Korea in an
emergency?
Mr. SIKES. Of course, there is limited
equipment that is available within the
same geographical area but not in the
amounts we would need; and this budget
does not provide it. I think I can ex-
plain that to the gentleman's entire sat-
isfaction later. There is simply not
enough money in the budget to do the
job.
Mr. MORANO. What about atomic
tactical weapons in that area? Are they
in that area? Arey they in that area
where they can be used in case of emer-
gency, or can they be gotten into Korea?
Mr.. SIKES. The atomic tactical
weapons and their crews have been di-
rected almost wholly to assisting our
allies in Europe.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. SIKES. I yield to the gentleman
from Texas.
Mr. MAHON. This question of the
American military position in Korea is
a question that is presently being con:-
sidered on a very high level. It is a
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
6898
question of treaty obligations; various
countries are involved. I have discussed
this matter within the last 3 days with
appropriate officials of the Government.
I am assured that plans are being made
to work this problem out to the best in-
terests of the United States.
It is not a matter of shortage of
weapons in being, so I am told by the
Pentagon, but a decision as to what we
should do towards strengthening our
position in Korea. But this is? a matter
of negotiation between governments, as
I understand, and I think it would be
a mistake to discuss this matter at
length on the floor at this time. Later
when top level decisions are made we
can discuss the problem more freely.
Mr. SIKES. That is correct. In the
meantime our defenses in Korea deter-
iorate each day in comparison with the
defenses of the enemy.
Now, what of the Army budget for fis-
cal 1958. Generally, I support it. I am
not an enthusiastic supporter in that
there are areas where the cuts go very
deep. I will discuss them later. Not all
.of this is chargeable to the committee.
o'The Department of Defense and the
Bureau of the Budget held the Army to
a low figure in nearly every- category.
In addition, Mr. Eisenhower pinpointed
and thereby insured one cut that I con-
sider too deep for sound management
and planning.
Nevertheless, the Army possesses and
will improve its position generally in its
ability to wage both conventional and
atomic warfare. It will be a powerful
force to reckon with and it is becoming
increasingly mobile and air transport-
able. The committee does not recom-
mend, nor do we see a necessity for any
cuts in uniformed personnel.
The Army has had to develop a new
concept for training, supply, and ma-
neuver.. This is the atomic capability
concept. Now smaller diivsions must
operate with greatly modernized equip-
ment, spread over a much larger area.
It must strike in many directions at once,
seek out and -destroy enemy concentra-
tions and targets. The Army must 'have
a capability for sustaining operations
even though ports may be rendered un-
? usable, water transportation more diffi-
? cult, and production facilities destroyed
by atomic attack. The Army must still
be prepared to deny friendly territory to
the enemy, to take and hold enemy terri-
tory. Only then can we be sure the
enemy resistance has ended: All of this
does not make an easy task nor a cheap
one.
Costs are gding right out of the top
of the tent. Each soldier is costing us
$7,000 a year and Congress authorized
every item of expenditure including all
the comforts and conveniences and secu-
rity we like to provide as a part of mod-
ern soldiering. Despite the enormity of
this budget, our mobilization reserves
are low. We will not have enough weap-
ons or supplies to keep going long. We
have tried to strike a balance with real-
ity, drawing on the world knowledge of
the administration and the battle expe-
rience of the Pentagon. Then, because
the Nation has said it wanted cuts, we
have doubly studied each item and re-
assessed each item for its necessity and
importance. the cuts are in this bill.
You now are the judges of our wisdom
or lack of it.
The services say they are hurt badly
by the reductions. In some instances
I think they are. In other instances I
do not agree. I do think this is the tight-
est military budget in years. The serv-
ices have on the whole been doing a pro-
gressively better job in avoiding or elim-
inating unnecessary expenditures. I be-
lieve the Army in particular has done
a good job in trying to eliminate waste.
The Army's presentation to this commit-
tee was outstanding, clear, and factual.
Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. SIKES. I yield to the gentleman
from Georgia.
Mr. VINSON'. The gentleman stated
that the Army felt in certain instances
it was hurt by the reduction and that
thought was concurred in by the gentle-
man from Florida. Particularly am I
concerned about military personnel. I
understood the gentleman to say that
there was no intention to cut the ground
forces but I have been advised by the
Department that the way the figures turn
out there -will be a forced reduction and
I particularly invite the committee's at-
tention to a reduction of 15,000 men or
one division out of money that is being
made available for military personnel.
Am I correct?
Mr. SIKES. I expect to touch on that
in detail in a few minutes. I believe I
can show the gentleman without ques-
tion that there is not any necessity for
cuts in personnel. I would deplore
any substantial reduction. I do not feel
that it is necessary. I will explain in
just a few minutes why I do not consider
it necessary.
Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIKES. I yield to the gentleman
from Louisiana.
Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. I think
the gentleman is making a most impres-
sive statement here, and I have listened
to it with a great deal of attention. In
addition to what my able chairman the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. ViNsoisi]
has referred to, I am disturbed in refer-
ence to this cut of $10 million in the Army
Reserve program. We have been making
a fight through the years to build up the
Reserve progimm. We have brought it
now into a shape where it looks like a
real active Reserve program. I am told
that this cut will destroy the 6-month
training program for the Army Reserves,
and I would like to get the gentleman's
idea in that respect.
Mr. SIKES. Well, I am disturbed
about it, too, and I must point out to my
good friend, .who has been very zealous
in his own efforts in behalf of the? Re-
serve, that information given to the
committee at the time the hearings were
held does not coincide with information
which has subsequently been given to the
committee. The new information is the
result of the effects of the very rapid
augmentation of the 6-month training
program. I think very likely we will
need to put back the money that was
eliminated. I am going to discuss that
May 27
in detail in just a few minutes. If my
friend will bear with me, I will get to
that, also.
Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. I cer-
tainly appreciate the consideration of
?that particular item. t
Mr. SIKES. I thank the gentleman.
Before [get into the actual details of
the budget, I want to comment for a
little bit about waste, because there al-
ways is talk about waste. And, I have to
admit that a certain amount of waste
appears to be built into any organization
as big as the military services. A cer-
tain amount, I presume, is inherent any-
where in Government. It is part of the
system. There are little bits of waste
everywhere in Government, and some of
it is going on and will continue to go on
regardless of what you and I do about it.
We try to force elimination of waste.
We try to make it impossible by the na-
ture of the cuts we inflict, but the real
challenge for the elimination of waste
must lie within the departments, whether
that be Defense or any other. If a gen-
eral wants to fly in his personal plane to
Rio de Janiero for lunch or a golf game,
there is nothing that Congress can do
about it, because it goes down in the rec-
ord as a training trip. But, in our indig-
nation about this, let us remember that
we in the Congress are not above waste,
also. An official in Government recently
told me that he arranged 15 trips abroad
for 1 Congressman in 6 years. I find it
awfully hard to believe that all of those
trips were necessary.
Now, we do a lot of things for the
services that cost a lot of money. These
are the things that Congress has au-
thorized: They include transportation
overseas for the families of the soldiers,
rental, canteens, medical, educational,
and retirement privileges. We are edu-
cating 48,000 Army children abroad, 91,-
000 children of all the services. Two
hundred and thirty-four thousand Army
dependents are abroad, five hundred and
twenty-four thousand dependents of all
the services. It costs $37 million a year
to send out 2 checks a month to all of
the people who draw pay from the United
States Government rather than to send
them 1 check a month. There are so
1 many places where a lot of money)is
spent doing the things that we think
make the services more attractive and
make Government service more attrac-
? tive, and in none of this do I speak in the
same connotation as I spoke about waste
a little earlier.
1.... I am disturbed about the cost of the
CIA. We spend hundreds of million of
dollars a year on this organization. It
has almost no screening or control from
the Congress. That in itself is an invi-
tation to excessive spending and to em-
pire building. I seriously question that it
is earning its keep. These are but a very
fsw examples: ' ??????
4'1 Now, if I can, I want to talk briefly
about the actual budget estimates and
appropriations for the Army. The 1957
appropriation was $7,752,000,000. The
1958 budget request was $8,465,000,000.
We recommended in this bill $7,239,000,-
000. That is $332 million less than the
1957 appropriation, $1,226,000,000 less
than the 1958 appropriation request.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
1111
1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
However, $400 million of this is to be
deriVed by transfer. We have directed
that $350 million be derived from the
Army stock fund and used to pay salaries
and expenses, and $50 million be trans-
ferred from the Army industrial fund.
Where does the Army's stock fund
money come from? During the Korean
war we built up a great backlog of sup-
plies. In subsequent years the Army has
been using those supplies but the Army's
mobilization reserves have been drop-
ping. As a result money accumulates in
the stock fund and by the same token in
the industrial funds. Instead of leaving
that money for subsequent use when
needed, We are requiring that it be used
within the Army structure for current
needs, thereby cutting back on the
amount of new money that we must ap-
propriate.
The reduction in the bill also contem-
plates that the Federal Government of
Germany will supply approximately $105
million, which is the amount they sup-
plied to help bear the cost of American
forces in Germany during the past year.
They are becoming more and more re-
luctant to share in those costs. If the
State Department is unable to work out
an agreement with the German Repub-
lic for the continuation of the deutsche-
mark support, then we will have to put
back a proportionate part of the $105
million we have eliminated.
The gentleman from Georgia [Mr.
ViNsoN] just a moment ago asked about
Army strength figures under this bud-
get. It is contemplated that we will be-
gin the fiscal year 1957 with 1 million
men and that we will end it with 1 mil-
lion men. The average strength will run
from 997,000 to 999,000. The money for
military pay and related purposes for the
year is calculated at $3,113,000,000 plus.
the transfers that I mentioned a little
while ago. That is the money that goes
for pay, food, clothing, and travel.
These are necessary items, housekeeping
items, things we obviously cannot elimi-
nate. From the requested $3,549,000,000
program the committee recommended a
cut of $36 million, as an actual cut; that
is all, $36 million. That is 1 percent.
Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. SIRES. I yield to the gentleman
from Georgia.
Mr. 'VINSON. As a matter of fact,
the request for the next fiscal year was
$49 million below what it was for fiscal
1957. So if you add the $36 million and
the $49 million, you get $84 million,
which represents a budget cut below the
current year. Then if you add to that
the $28 million on account of the in-
creased cost of subsistence, railroad
rates, and so forth, you get a total
reduction of $113 million below the cur-
rent year; is that right?
Mr. SIKES. $113 million less than the
comparable figure would have been for
1957.
Mr. VINSON. That is right, to take
care of the same number of troops,
997,000 or 1 million.
Mr. SIKES. But let me say to the gen-
tleman from Georgia that it is only $36
million less than the Army requested
for fiscal 1958. It is not 113 million less
than the army stated would be needed.
Economies and adjustments within the
Department eliminated the requirement
for the additional items which the gen-
tlemen has enumerated.
Mr. VINSON. That is right.
Mr. SIKES. Now let me go just a lit-
tle further and see where that $36 mil-
lion reduction is to come from. Re-
member this is $36 million less than the
Army actually requested for a million
men for fiscal 1958. We propose that
those reductions be taken in certain
ways, and we specify that we do not
want them to come through reduction of
uniformed personnel.
We believe that the decline in reen-
listments is going to mean that the Army
has asked for more reenlistment allow-
ance money than is needed. We de-
ducted $6,500,000 from that item.
The 1957 aircraft procurement pro-
gram was subjected to a slowdown. We
feel that the buildup in aircraft inven-
tory in fiscal 1958 is not going to be
sufficient for Army to use all of the fly-
ing pay requested for 1958 and, therefore,
we deducted $1,500,000 from that item.
The enlisted dependents are entitled
to allowances under the law. However,
if the enlistment rate does not increase,
the replacements which must be ob-
tained through the draft will have fewer
dependents. We deducted another $5,-
100,000 from that item.
Now, here is the big cut, in travel. The
service requested $229,900,000 for travel.
We believe there still is much more travel
within the services than there is justifi-
cation for, much more than there can
possibly be a necessity for, and we took
a-10-percent slash out of that item-and
reduced the amount available by $22,-
900,000.
Nearly 23 million of the 36 million
reduction is in travel. You cannot tell
me that if we cut travel $22,900,000 it is
going to mean we have to discharge
15,000 uniformed personnel. It simply
will not hold water. Now I know this:
I know that travel costs more because of
increases in rates. The Interstate Com-
merce Commission gives the common
carriers a rate increase about once a
month, it seems to me, and those
increases come out of this budget. The
Government pays a very big part of the
increase its own agencies granted to the
carriers. I claim that the $22,900,000
decrease in travel is a very big cut. I
think the Army should have to try to live
within the money appropriated. I think
travel in all the services is excessive, and
I insist that it must be curtailed.
Mr. 'VINSON. I want to clear this
matter up because I think the commit-
tee is entitled to it. The way my mind
runs, I think this is the most serious cut,
probably, in this whole bill. If the gen-
tleman will bear with me just one sec-
ond, I should like to give the figures so
the committee can understand them.
Your report shows that the Army re-
quested $3,549,000,000 for fiscal 1958 to
support approximately 1 million military
personnel of the Army. The Army ad-
mitted that it had $49 million more than
this amount in 1957 to support approx-
imately the same number of troops. The
committee cut this request for fiscal 1958
6899
funds by an additional $36-million. This-
means that the Army will have $84 mil-
lion less to maintain approximately the
same military 'strength in fiscal 1958
than it had in fiscal 1957.
Mr. SIKES. That is overlooking the
fact that the Army did not ask for that
$49 million.
Mr. VINSON. That is true.
Mr. SIKES. They.said they could live
without it.
Mr. VINSON. But they did ask for
the $36 million. ?
Mr. SIKES. That is right. I have
just told the gentleman where we made
the cut of $36 million, $23 million of that
$36 million is travel. When you require
a reduction in travel, it cannot possibly
follow that you have to discharge troops.
Mr. VINSON. Let us sum up the two
things. The Army comes in and asks
$49 million less. Then you cut it $36
million. That is the result of it. Now
see if this is correct. I further under-
stand that the Army will be required to
absorb an Additional sum of $28 million
due to an increase in freight rates and
sea transportation.
Mr. SIKES. The Army knew it had
to absorb those costs when it made its
request for NPA funds.
Mr. VINSON. That is right.
Mr. STRPS. The Army cannot in my
opinion have a sound justification for its
statement that it will be necessary to
discharge 15,000 men as a result of a
$36 million cut in this item, the major
part of which is for travel.
. Mr. VINSON. Here is the question:
As a result of these cuts, the Army states
it will be necessary to reduce its
strength, which would average 997,000
in fiscal _1958, by approximately 15,000
men--equivalent to 1 division. The
question I have is, Is this cut going to
bring about a reduction of one Army di-
vision?
Mr. SIKES. If I were convinced there
would be a necessity for a substantial re-
duction, I personally would offer the
amendments to put back the money, but
I am not convinced by any information
which has been made available to me. I
will be very glad indeed to learn any
facts that can be helpful to me in this
particular matter.
Mr. 'VINSON. May I say this. I want
to state to the committee that I was ad-
vised by the proper officials last Friday
that as a result of this reduction they
would be forced to reduce military per-
sonnel by 15,000 and that that many men
would have to be discharged.
Mr. SIKES. I say to my good friend,
we have 4 hours of debate here today
and probably considerable more under
the 5-minute rule on tomorrow before
? we get through- but if the Department
of Defense has any figures which will
show that 15,000 men must be discharged
as the result of the committee action,
I want to see them also.?I am just
as concerned as my distinguished friend
on this point. But the Department of
the Army has made no information
available to me thus far which changes
my position.
Mr. SMITH of Mississippi. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIKES. I yield.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
0900 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE May 27
Mr. SMITH of Mississippi. I com-
mend the committee for the effort that
has been made to achieve greater econ-
omy in travel within the military serv-
ices. On that point, in regard to the
Army's travel allowances that have been
made and the reduction which the gen-
tleman has just been discussing, it is my
understanding that the Army figures the
cost of an individual soldier averages
about $19 a day. With regard to these
overall costs and all of the Army ex-
penditures in travel time, has the com-
mittee taken into consideration the val-
ue of a man's time in travel? I would
like to ask the gentleman if he agrees
that we should make it known to the
military that we expect the value of
a man's time to be taken into consider-
ation in selecting the mode of transpor-
tation to be used for movements of mili-
tary personnel.
Mr. SIKES. The committee has so in-
dicated in its discussions with the De-
partment of Defense. The committee
does feel that there are times when air
travel could be used to good advantage
at savings to the Government and it is
not being used to the extent that it could
be. I hope we have made this com-
pletely clear in our discussions with the
Department of Defense.
Mr. SMITH of Mississippi. I thank
the gentleman.
Mr. DEVEREUX. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIKES. I yield.
Mr. DEVEREUX. I would like to ask
?the gentleman this question with refer-
ence to the reenlistment rate. My rec-
ollection is that the report to the Com-
mittee on Armed Services was t6 the ef-
fect that the reenlistment rates have
been increasing and that the picture
looks much better now, and that is pri-
? marily because we have provided for re-
enlistment bonuses. As I understand the
gentleman from Florida, you have re-
duced those funds because, according to
your information, the reenlistthent rates
have fallen off.
Mr. SIKES. Unfortunately it is true
that reenlistment rates are dropping.
The figures are shown very clearly in
the hearings.
We are very concerned about the fact
that reenlistment rates have been drop-
'ping during recent months. That is the
factor we used in making this redue-
ton. Last year, the reenlistment fig-
ures went up very nicely and we thought
we were over that hump. Now the re-
enlistment rate has dropped and it is
difficult to assign definite reasons, al-
though probably it is because there are
many civilian jobs available at higher
pay.
Mr. DEVEREUX. Does the gentle-
man believe that by reducing these
funds, with reference to the reenlist-
ment bonus that we may -curtail some
of the reenlistments?
Mr. SIKES. I do not think so. We
reduced the money by the amount which
we thought would not be used. Cer-
tainly, it is not our intention to dis-
courage reenlistments. ? We want reen-
listments wherever it is possible to get
them. The men who reenlist are those
who have training. The greatest econ-
omy comes through keeping trained
men in the service. The reenlistment
rates are down; consequently, we believe
the Army has asked for more money
than it can use in this particular field
if that is true. There is no point in
appropriating money which will not be
used.
Mr. DEVEREUX. Would there be a
possibility, for instance, if we believe
that there will be a need for additional
money to encourage reenlistments that
we can transfer any funds from the
training funds?which is the crux of the
whole thing?to the reenlistment fund?
Mr. SIKES. I would have no objec-
tion whatever to making any transfers
within reason that will be helpful in
increasing reenlistments.
? Mr. DEVEREUX. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. SIKES. Now if I may proceed. I
have used up much time but I do want to
talk about operation and maintenance.
The 1957 appropriation was $3,055,000,-
000. The 1958 budget estimate was
$3,400,000,000. We made an actual cut
of $150 million. This, I think, is where
we made the deepest cut and where we
may have done damage. Operation and
maintenance includes all the training of
soldiers, training in atomic concepts,
trahling with modern weapons, all main-
tenance of facilities, weapons, buildings,
everything the Army owns. Operation
and maintenance money, is actually the
life blood of the services. When you
cripple that, you cripple the Army. The
men cannot be trained if the facilities
cannot be properly maintained and you
soon cease to have an effective fighting
force.
Let me mention at this point the mat-
ter of deferred maintenance. The serv-
ice establishment, including all its posts
'and stations, is getting bigger all the?
time. The costs of repair and upkeep
and maintenance are getting bigger all
the time. Unfortunately, the Army has
to defer some of the needed maintenance
each year and the amount has now
'climbed to $100 million. It is like say-
ing if your house needs to have the roof
repaired this year, you are going to post-
pone it until next year when you hope
you will have more money. By next year
the leaky. roof has ?caused a rotting of
lumber within the house and the job
has grown considerably bigger. There
is nothing in this budget for deferred
maintenance.
As this bill is written, in addition to
this decrease of $150 million in operation
and maintenance, there are many fac-
tors where additional costs are required
for 0. and M. I list some of them:
Survivor benefit, $48 million; civil
service retirement fund, $85 million;
transfer of aircraft depot maintenance
and Army pilot training from the Air
Force, $49 million; increase in classified
activities, for Department of Defense,
$25 million; freight rate tinereases, Mili-
? tary Transport Service, $24 million; de-
pendent medical care program, $19 mil-
lion, 6 months' training for trainees at
a cost of $85 million, more than in the
comparable period in the last budget
year.
In other words, the cost of operation
and maintenance has gone up tremend-
ously, yet we cut it $150 million. That
is a serious cut. The Army is going to be
very hard pressed to live within it.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Florida has again
expired.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I yield
the gentleman 4 additional minutes.
Mr. SIKES. I promised to discuss the
.Reserve and National Guard. For Re-
serve personnel we have allowed $197
million. The Army requested $207 mil-
lion. We based that cut on the fact that
each year we have given to the Army
more money for its Reserve program
than they have been able to use, yet each
year we cut the Army below the amount
they estimated they could use. We gave
them less than they wanted, and they
spent less than we gave them. With that
experience factor we felt there was no
justification for appropriating all of the
$207 million the Army requested.
There are now in training 255,000 men
in the Reserve program. The Army
wants to increase that number to 297,000
during the next fiscal year. If they are
able to do that, they will need every bit
of the money that was requested in this
budget, and they could need even more.
The Army is not going to spend all the
? money we gave them for the Reserves in
fiscal 1957, but if we hold them to the
committee figure, there is a distinct pos-
sibility that this will mean the end of the
6 months' program about September for
the fiscal year. The reason is that the
Army has placed so much emphasis on
the 6 months' training program that It
has reached strength figures much
greater than those considered possible.
The completion of the training of the
men now in the 6 months' training pro-
gram will eat up a considerable part of
the money originally planned for use
during all of fiscal year 1958. I think
the Army has overemphasized the 6
months' program a the expense of other
programs. I do not agree with the
Army's policy in taking in for 6 months'
training those men who are 181/2 to 26
and I do not agree with their policy of
cutting back on the reserve obligations.
Some of the information I am giving
you now was not available to us at the
time we heard the budget presentation.
Now let me say just a word or two
about the Army National Guard: The
1957 appropriation was $320,162,000.
The 1958 budget estimate was $320,000,-
000, and we allowed the full $320,000,000.
We felt from the information given us
at the time of the hearing on the budget
that amount would be sufficient to per-
mit the Army National Guard to main-
tain a strength figure of 400,000 through-
out fiscal 1958. However, we have
found, as a result of recent information,
that the guard is in a very difficult posi-
tion. Because of that we have written
language into the report inviting the
Army, if they run into trouble main-
taining the National Guard strength at
400,000, to come back and discuss it with
us in January, when we can give con-
sideration to providing more money if
it is needed.
Their problem is simply this: They
have built enlistments to about 437,000
in the National Guard. However, the
-National Guard strength figure carried
in the budget is 400,000 men for the en-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
IP gl,
1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
tire year beginning July 1. Obviously, if
they forcibly reduce the National Guard
to a figure of 400,000 by the first Of July,
many men are going to have to be dis-
charged, and the National Guard will
not be able to enlist any new men after
August for the entire fiscal year.
That sort of thing is ruinous to the
morale of any organization and would
be very destructive to the National
Guard. It is the feeling of this com-
mittee that the required attrition should
be brought about gradually, and that it
should not be forced attrition that the
drop in strength predicated upon a
strength of 400,000 should be accom-
plished over a period of several months,
and that there would be modified recruit-
ing to permit replacement of those who
drop out after the guard reaches the
400,000 level; that under no circum-
stance should the level of the National
Guard drop below 400,000. We invite
further information from the guard if
additional action by the Congress is
required.
Now a very brief word about research
and development. The Army R. and D. ?
program is apparently enjoying one of
its highest levels of performance. It has
a splendid staff headed by Lt. Gen.
James Gavin.. It has enisted the serv-
ices of many outstanding scientists in
the guided missile .and other important
modern fields. It is unfortunate in my
opinion that the Army does not have
money in this budget to continue its
valuable' work on the intermediate range
ballistic missile Jupiter. We do have
the assurance of the Department of De-
fense that money will be made available
by the Secretary from funds at his dis-
posal to carry on the work as long as
there is justification. There will un-
doubtedly be question about the wisdom
of a 2-percent cut of $8 million in this
item., Actually, it is part of a servicewide
cut intended to cause each of the services
to tighten up on its R. and D. program
to eliminate deadwood and unnecessary
projects. There is no question but the
research and development must be car-
ried on at a level in keeping with the re-
quirement of the times.
My last comments will be directed at
procurement and production. For a
number of years, as a matter of fact since
the Korean war, we have utilized funds
appropriated in the final stages of that
war and not spent for new weapons by
the Army. This year the Army estimated
a requirement for $583 million in new
money. However, there are available to
the Department of the Army $516 mil-
lion additional which the Army had
planned to use in fiscal 1959. The Presi-
dent suggested that this money be used
in fiscal 1958 although he pointed out
it would be done at the expense of sound
programing. Actually, to require the
use of all of the $516 million will create
considerable difficulty for the Army. A
substantial portion of this money must
come from MAP reimbursements which
will not be available until late in the
fiscal year. There is a possibility that a
part of it will not be available at all.
Nevertheless, the committee accedes to
the recommendation. For modern day
procurement and production the Army
needs to spend about $2 billion yearly on
new weapons. This budget provides only
about $11/3 billion. Approximately one-
half will go for guided missiles. They are
very costly and the number to be pro-
cured is low in comparison with the pos-
sible requirement.
It would be a wonderful thing if we
could safely ignore national defense.
We find ourselves building great plants
at Government expense, utilizing the
Nation's best brains, expending literally
billions of dollars each year on prepa-
rations to kill people. It is a tragic
commentary on the times that 2000 years
after Christ lived on earth that the
world's major emphasis is still on des-
truction. Yet, what is the choice?
Russia has every weapon that we have
today. They have concentrated on
some. We have concentrated on others.
Tgey have more of most weapons than
we. Significantly all of Europe is now
under the threat of Russia's guided mis-
siles that are in being and in place. By
the same token, all of Russia is under
the threat of weapons which we can or-
der into action instantaneously. In a
strong defense lies the only sure and
certain guaranty of safety from this mass
destruction that man is capable of in-
flicting. Russia knows that the attempt
to bring destruction upon the free world
will also produce destruction for com-
munism.. By spending these great
amounts for security, we hold Russia in
check and give the diplomats a chance
to find a way.
Let me thank most sincerely and com-
mend most highly my colleagues and the
clerk of the Army panel for their out-
standing work on this bill.
Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Mr. Chair-
man, I yield 45 minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. FORD].
(Mr. FORD asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, on Friday
you heard intelligent, competent, persua-
sive and eloquent remarks by my ' col-
leagues on the Subcommittee on National
Defense of the Committee on Appropria-
tions. Rather than talk to you about the
overall, as some of them did, I would like
to confine my remarks today to specifics
in reference to the Army.
I speak as a member of the Army
panel, 1 of 3 panels of the subcommittee
dealing with military appropriations.
It would be unforgivable if I did not
compliment each and every one of my
colleagues whether I agreed with them or
not. I think they are conscientious and
intelligent. In my judgment, the staff
members of this subcommittee have done
the most able job in the preparation of
this committee report that I have seen
in the 5 years of my Membership on this
subcommittee.
I can also say that the presentation
by the Army to the Army panel was ex-
cellent. It was most helpful to the Army
panel.
We hear, or we used to hear, from time
to time severe criticism?perhaps some
of it is justifiable?about the way we run
our Armed Forces. I think it is wise,
however, for those who have the oppor-
tunity to see the facts to recognize the
6901
good things that have been done and to
show to our colleagues the progress that
has been made. I would like to talk first
about the personnel situation, both mili-
tary and civilian, for the Department of
the Army.
At the end of the fiscal year 1953, the
Army had on active duty 1,534,000 men.
On June 30, 1956, the Army had on ac-
tive duty 1,024,000.
On June 30 of this year the Army will
have approximately 1 million; and at
the end of the fiscal year 1958, if this
budget is recommended by this subcom-
mittee as approved, the Army can and
should have 1 million men on active duty.
In other words, over a period of 4 or 5
years the size of the Army has been re-
duced one-third.
Let us talk about the civilians who are
employed by the Army. On June 30,
1953, the Army employed, worldwide,
that is civil service, foreign nationals,
and so forth, 883,000.
On June 30, 1956, the Army employed
592,000.
On June 30, 1957, it is anticipated the
Army will employ 589,000.
On June 30, 1958, it is anticipated the
Army will employ 586,00(1.
So we can see over a span of approxi-
mately 4 to 5 years the Army has gone
down about one-third in uniform per-
sonnel and about 30 to 40 percent in
Civilian employees.
Let us turn now to the fiscal picture.
In 1953?that is, the fiscal year?the
Army expended $16,300,000,000 plus 600
million in what we call deutschemark
support. May I explain what we mean
by deutschemark support. Since the
termination of World War II we have
had in West Germany a sizable armed
force. The Germans over this period of
time have reimbursed us for these forces
by contributing what they call deutsche-
mark support. They could not pay us in
dollars but they could provide us with
services and with supplies. As a con-
sequence, in fiscal 1953 the Army re-
ceived in lieu of dollars about 600 million
deutschemarks.
In the fiscal year 1956 the Army ex-
pended $9.5 billion, plus $268 million in
deutschemark support. In the fiscal
year 195'7 the Army expended $8.6 billion,
plus about $120 million in deutschemark
support. It is expected, if this budget is
approved, that the Army will expend in
the fiscal year 1958 $9.2 billion plus $104
million in deutschemark support.
The point I want to make, and I intend
to reemphasize it during the afternoon,
is that the Army has constantly im-
proved its fiscal policies and has done a
remarkably good job in tightening its
belt.
Now, Mr. Chairman, let us turn to the
question of unexpended balances. We
hear from time to time a good deal of
criticism?some of it might be justified?
that many of our agencies, particularly
the military, have too much stashed away
some place which the Congress has lost
control of and which is uneconomical
and wasteful. The Army, in my opinion,
" has done a very competent job in the
reduction of its unexpended balances.
At the end of - the fiscal year 1955 the
Army had in unexpended balances $11.3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
6902 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE May 27
billion. It is anticipated, if this, budget
is approved, that the Army at the end
of fiscal year 1958 will have reduced that
unexpended balance to approximately
$5,300,000,000. In other words, they
have reduced their unexpended balances
in a 5-year period by 50 percent.
Let us turn now to the unobligated
balances picture. Again there has been
criticism, perhaps justified, that the serv-
ices have had too much in unobligated
balances available. At the end of fiscal
1955 the Army had in unobligated bal-
ances slightly over $6 billion. At the
end of fiscal 1958, if this budget is
approved, the Army will have left less
than $500 million in unobligated bal-
ances. And I suspect that it will be
closer to $300 million in unobligated
balances.
I think these remarkable improve-
ments in the fiscal picture in the Army
can be attributed to two factors: First,
that Congress has been more alert to
the need for closer scrutiny; at the same
time, the officials in the Department of
Defense, both civilian and military, have
done a better job. The net result is
that this Congress today has greater
control over the dollars and the policies
of the miltary than we have had at any
time in my service in this body. My
chairman on the Army panel has done
an excellent job, in my opinion, in pre-
senting the picture as far as the Army
is concerned.
I would now like to express several
personal views about the recommenda-
tions you have before you as they affect
the Army. In the first place, we cut
$36 million out of the military pay ac-
count. That is 1 percent of that ac-
count. The Army requested almost $3.6
billion. The reduction, as the gentle-
man from Florida [Mr. SixEs] pointed
out, is 1 percent. Aid, we did not apply
the meat ax. We, I think, intelligently
and constructively pointed out where
those reductions of 1 percent can be
made.
Now we turn to the second biggest
item reduction in the bill as far as the
Army is concerned, that is the account
of what we call operations and mainte-
nance.
Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield? -
Mr. FORD. I yield to the gentleman
from Florida.
Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, I wish to
propound a question to my distinguished
colleague from Michigan. Let me pref-
ace it by saying that his service has been
outstanding on this committee, and it
is typical of the very fine work he does
in all of his work in the Congress. Is the
gentleman of the opinion, as I am, that
the cut of $36 million will not require or
will not justify the loss of any uniformed
personnel?
Mr. FORD. It is my opinion and most
sincere view that this reduction of $36
million will not, under any circum-
stances, require the reduction of 15,000
in uniformed personnel for the Army.
I think that the people who are saying
that in the Pentagon are being a little
unfair with the committee, because they
know as well as we do that you cannot
translate dollars of reductions in this
account precisely into personnel or the
loss of personnel. And, I personally re-
sent their attitude in trying to sell the
restoration of that amount on that basis.
Mr. SIKES. And does my distin-
guished colleague join me in the state-
ment that it is not the intention of this
committee that any uniformed person-
nel be discharged as the result of this
cut?
Mr. FORD. Our subcommittee specif-
ically pointed out that we wanted no
reduction in uniformed personnel, and
it is our considered opinion, among the
5 of us on the Army panel, that the $36
million cut, 1 percent, does not require
such k reduction.
Mr. NICHOLSON. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FORD. I yield to the gentleman
from Massachusetts.
Mr. NICHOLSON. Why do we need
1,000 generals, ivhile we are on this sub-
ject of doing away with uniformed per-
sonnel? Was the question of the enor-
mous amount of generals that we have
taken up in the committee?
Mr. FORD. I would say to the gen-
tleman from Massachusetts that our
subcommittee does not dictate policy as
to the arrangement of rank and rate
within the military. That is done by the
committee chairmanned by the very able
gentleman from Georgia. They deter-
mine the rate or rank structure within
the Army. All we do is appropriate the
money for the payment of the personnel
involved. We do not have the right,
even if we wanted to, to legislate on an
appropriation bill. The minute we try
to do it, certain people rise up in right-
eous wrath; so we stay clear of any such
action. That is the responsibility of
the legislative committee.
Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. FORD. I yield.
Mr. GAVIN. With reference to this
cut of $36 million, the Army asked $49
million less this year than last year;
is that right?
Mr. FORD. That is right.
Mr. GAVIN. On top of their volun-
tary cutback of $49 million, the com-
mittee cut them back an additional $36
million; is that correct'?
Mr. FORD. That is correct.
Mr. GAVIN. Does not the gentleman
from Michigan believe that with the
many responsibilities they have, with the
rise in cost of clothing and subsistence,
railroad freight and passenger rates, and
with a full year's contribution to the
social-security and retirement system
that that is too much of a cut? The
gentleman a moment ago complimented
the Department of the Army very highly.
He said they had not used all of the ap-
propriations that had been granted
them, and that they attempted to pre-
sent to the committee to the best of their
ability a statement of what they actually
will need for the coming year.
Mr. FORD. In the first place may I
say this: The Army on its own, without
any urging from the committee, reduced
the uniform personnel of the Army about
2,500. That brings up a rather interest-
ing point. When the Army reduces per-
sonnel voluntarily they do not arbitra-
rily assign so much money per man.
And yet they are condemning us by say-
ing that if we cut $36 million, that means
we are going to cut out 15,000 members
of the uniformed serVices. The two just
do not follow necessarily.
Mr. GAVIN. That may be.
Mr. FORD. So the Army actually in
fiscal 1958 asked about 2,500 less than in
fiscal 1957. That accounts for part of
the reduction to which the gentleman re-
fers.
Mr. GAVIN. But the gentleman who
has the floor did not bring to the atten-
tion of the Committee that the Army
voluntarily cut back $49 million from
what they had last year. The gentle-
man says they are conscientiously trying
? to do a good job. The gentleman admits
that they are doing a pretty fair job,
but the Army may disagree with the
gentleman on the basis of the actual
strength necessary. But they did call to
your attention some of the items that
have increased in cost; railroad freight
and passenger rates, clothing and sub-
sistence and there is a full year's con-
tribution to the social security and re-
' tirement system. Therefore I think
that the Department of the Army has
submitted a budget which they think
they can get along with and if we cut
them back further, after they have made
a voluntary reduction of $19 million,
there is a question in my mind whether
they are going to be able to operate as
efficiently as they should under the cir-
cumstances.
Mr. FORD. Let me answer the gen-
tleman. This year the Army asked for
$222 million for travel of military per-
sonnel. We cut them back to the level
of the fiscal year 1957.
Let me give you an example of the
kind of unnecessary travel we think the
Army has participated in. I do not like
to mention names, but let us be frank
about it. For a period of 18 months the
Superintendent of the Military Acad-
emy at West Point was General Bryan.
He is a very competent and highly re-
spected soldier. He was transferred
from there, after being there 18 months,
out to the South Pacific and given a
very responsible position. He was there
less than a year. Do you know where
they sent him? Right back to New York
City. In other words, he moved himself
and his familY from West Point, New
York, out to the South Pacific and back
again in less than a year. That is the
kind of unnecessary travel about which
this subcommittee says, "You stop."
And we mean it. We do not condone
it and we will not permit it. We will
reduce the funds further if this is the
kind of travel we are going to have face
us every year.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. FORD. I yield to the gentleman
from Illinois.
Mr. SPRINGER. I notice that the
appropriations for 1957 were $7,500,000,-
000. The budget request of the Army,
as I understand it, was $1 billion more
than that for1958. My question is,
What justification did the -Army give to
this committee for requesting roughly
13 percent more in the budget estimate
of 1958 than was granted in the appro-
priation for 1957?
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
1957
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
IP
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Mr. FORD. The answer generally
falls in the area of what we call the pro-
duction and procurement account; that
is where the heavy procurement of guns,
tanks, ammunition, missiles, and so
forth occurs. At the time of the Korean
war, and properly so, the Army was
given substantial amounts of funds or
obligational authority to handle the pro-
curement of the necessary weapons of
war. When the Korean war ended in
July of 1953, they had a huge availabil-
ity, Gradually over the years we have
either rescinded at their initiative or at
ours substantial sums. In addition,
they have lived off of or used that avail-
ability. We have gradually worked it
down. This was the first year since the
fiscal year 1953 that the Army made any
request for Obligational authority for the
procurement and production account.
Mr. SPRINGER. By reducing their
request by $1,225,000,000 what are you
cutting out? I am talking about the
major items that they requested.
Mr. FORD. As I say, there is $36 mil-
lion in the account that the gentleman
from Pennsylvania refers to. The next
one is the one I want to talk about
mostly, if I may, because I do not happen
to agree with what 'the subcommittee
did. If the gentleman will let me dis-
cuss the operations and maintenance
account, I will explain, I hope, where
most of the money was reduced and why
I do not happen to agree.
Mr. SPRINGER. The gentleman is
talking about the major portion of the
$1,200,000,000?
Mr. FORD. May I correct the gentle-
man. He is talking about the Army,
Navy, and Air Force. I am speaking
only of the Army.
Mr. SPRINGER. lam using the Army
figures as shown on page 2 of the com-
mittee report, referring to title III, De-
partment of the Army; $1,225,000,000.
Mr. FORD. Here is the answer to
that. I am sorry. I apologize. What
we have done to the extent of $400
million as far as the Army was con-
cerned was to take unused obligational
authority which was in the stock fund,
$350 million in the stock fund and $50
million in the industrial fund, and
transfer that to the military pay account.
Mr. SPRINGER. That is $400 million?
Mr. FORD. That is correct. The
stock fund was set up 4 or 5 years ago.
They capitalized all of their equipment,
the supplies they had on hand. Then
from that point what we did was to
appropriate in this bill sufficient obli-
gational authority for them to buy from
the stock fund whatever they had to
use. We put the Army on a consumer
basis. The Army, because it had built
up stocks during the Korean war, did
not have to go out and buy new supplies.
When certain elements in the Army--
bought from the stock funds, they sim-
ply drew their supplies from the stock
fund.
Mr. SPRINGER. I believe the gen-
tleman is looking at page 113. But is
this the answer?that you took $400 mil-
lion from transfer, $350 million from the
Army stock funds and $50 million from
the Army industrial fund; and that
accounts for $800 million of this $1,200,-
000,000 which is referred to on page 2?
Mr. FORD. Let me put it my way.
We took $400 million by the substitu-
tion of stock-fund obligational author-
ity. We took $104 million by the utili-
zation of deutschemarks. We took $516
million on the recommendation of the
President on the P. and P. account. We
took $36 million out of the military pay
account strictly on its merits. We took
$10 million out of the reserve program.
We took $8 million-out of the R. and D.
program. We took $75,000 out of thp
rifle-practice program and $700,000 out
of the Alaska communications program.
Those are the entire cuts across the
board.
Mr. SPRINGER. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Is it not fair
to say that the real cut, 'when you take
into consideration the figures which the
gentleman has just referred to, that the
real cut as far as the Army is concerned
is roughly $200 million?
Mr. FORD. That is apparently cor-
rect. If I might, I would like to talk
about the 0. and M. account because to
me this is the most harmful reduction
made in the Army. ,
Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. FORD. I will yield to the gen-
tleman for a question.
Mr. GAVIN. Does the gentleman
have many instances such as the one he
referred to where there has been a trans-
fer to certain items or are there any
similar instances or is this one which
the gentleman pinpointed?
Mr. FORD. That is one that I know
about. I can supply for the record sev-
eral others, but that is the grossest
example that I am familiar with. I am
sorry I must decline to yield further to
the gentleman.
I want to talk about a very serious
matter, I think, as far as the Army is
concerned. The operations and main-
tenance account is, in my judgment, the
real area where the Army operates. The
Army requested for the fiscal year, 1958,
$3,678,000,000. The Department of De-
fense reduced that to $3,400,000,000. In
the fiscal year 1957, the Army had the
authority to obligate $3,139,000,000. It
would appear in fiscal 1958, the Army is
going to have about $260 million more
than they had in the fiscal year 1957.
When you carefully examine the facts,
you find that that is not accurate. In
reality, the Congress primarily, but the
Department of Defense to some extent,
have _ imposed on the Army additional
financial burdens which total in this'
account alone about $330 million. So
the net result is in reality for its day-to-
day operations, the Army will have on
the budget submitted less money than
it had in fiscal year 1957.
May I pinpoint for your information
some of the congressionally imposed
additional burdens in this account,
burdens that the Army has to finance
because we told them to. For example,
civil service retirement. In this account
alone, the Army will be required to con-
tribute $72 million. Dependent medical
care, additional requirement in this
account alone $19 million. MSTS and
railroad freight rate increases $12 mil-
lion.- Now that is not an imposition by
? 6903
the Congress, but it is something over
which the Army has absolutely no con-
trol whatsoever. As I indicated before,
these additional financial burdens im-
posed either by the Congress or the
Department of Defense or the railroads
or others total over $300 million.
So, in the 0. and M. account, the Army
in reality, on the budget submitted,
would have less money in fiscal year 1958
than they had in fiscal year 1957.
I might add there is about $61 million
in the 0. and M. account which is an ad-
ditional burden, simply because of the 6
.months' trained program. If you want
the Reserve program with the 6 months'
training, you have to finance it. Sixty-
one million dollars of this account falls in
that category.
Now .what did the subcommittee do?
The Army panel was unanimous that not
more than $70 million should be reduced
in the 0. and M. account, out of the $3,-
400,000;000. The full subcommittee,
?after a fair hearing, overrode the de-
cision of the Army panel and reduced it
by $150 million. In my judgment, that
was a very serious mistake, and I made
reservation at the time the matter was
decided in the subcommittee. Conse-
quently, it is my intention when we read
the bill to offer an amendment to restore
$80 million out of the $150 million, so
that we can have the operation and
maintenance part of the Army where I
think it should be at the minimum.
Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. FORD. I yield.
Mr. BALDWIN. There was an article
in the Washington Post recently stating
there would be a reduction of about 50,-
000 civilian employees by the reduction
In this bill, a part of which would be
caused by the reduction in this particu-
lar account you mentioned. Would the
gentleman care to comment about the
accuracy of that prediction?
Mr. FORD. As I recall the' statement
and the comments of the Secretary of the
Army, he said in this area it would re-
quire a reduction of about 20,000 civil-
ians by the Army. I cannot pinpoint
whether it will cause a reduction of 20,-
000 or not, but I think one of the reasons
our Army panel was willing to reduce it
$70 million was because we felt that the
Army could reduce, legitimately, some
civilians. I do not see a halo around any
certain number of people who work for
the Army. I think that the Army can
reduce some civilians, and the $70 mil-
lion we cut from the 0. and M. account
probably would result in a reduction of
a few thousand. I have grave doubt that
it would be 20,000.
Mr. MAHON. The total number of
civilian employees in the Army is in
excess of 500,000, I believe.
Mr. FORD. Actually over 500,000.
Mr. MAHON. So, to cut out 3,000
might well be whglesome. It would
probably be more wholesome to cut 10,-
000 in order to get more efficiency and
more for the taxpayer's- dollar.
Mr. FORD. As I say, there is nothing
sacrosanct about 20,000 ,additional em-
ployees from the Department of the
Army. If they can do a better job with
10,000 less, that is fine with me. I think
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
? gly ? IF
6904 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE . May 27
?
our Army- panel has some feeling that
they ought to make some reduction.
Mr. CURTIS of Missouri. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FORD. I yield.
Mr. cturris of Missouri. It is in this
area that those who are interested in
getting the military out of business
might lie, because, as I understand it,
it is in the operation and maintenance
account that the military have gotten
the funds in order to go into these civil-
ian activities. Am I not correct?
Mr. FORD. That is right. That is
where most of the operations of a civil-
ian nature are handled, and any re-
duction would be an incentive to get the
Army to curtail some of the things they
are doing.
I must say, however, that they have
made substantial progress in the reduc-
tion of the number of bakeries, in the
number of laundries, and in a number
of miscellaneous activities of that
nature.
Mr. CURTIS of Missouri. I agree
with the gentleman. I think there is
still a long way to go, but I did want
to pinpoint this area.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. FORD. I yield to the gentleman
from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. The particular subject
of personnel and reduction in civilian
peisonnel has been mentioned by the
gentleman. I want to commend the
committee for the attention it gave in
its report to the widespread use of con-
sultants of all kinds, particularly per-
sonnel-management consultants.
Referring to page 23 of the report, I
commend the committee for bringing
that to the attention of the Members,
and I certainly hope they will continue
to direct attention to expenditures for
this purpose which in my opinion are
getting out of hand.
Now I should like to ask the gentle-
man this: Page 21, of the report speaks
of car rentals.- Total vehicles proposed
for 1958 with an average projected mili-
tary strength of 2,800,000 is approxi-
mately 45,000 with the cost of rentals
stated at $6,600,000.
May I ask the gentlenlin why this ex-
tensive rental of motor vehicles in the
Military Establishment?
Mr. FORD. It is not in the military
as such, I may say to the gentleman
from Iowa, this is for the Defense De-
partment. Our committee was con-
cerned about it.
The Secretary of Defense was asked
to submit a statement.- I believe it is in
the record. I cannot give you precisely
the page, but there is an explanation of
their part in that regard.
Mr. GROSS. In the hearings?
Mr. FORD. In the hearings some
place. I think it is in the defense por-
tion of the hearings.
Mr. SIKES. If the gentleman will
yield, the Army part I think is at page
1400 of the Army hearings. We will
locate the others as rapidly as we can.
Mr. FORD. ? I thank the gentleman.
Now, if I may, I would like to proceed
and mention another part of the bill
where I feel very seriously we have made
a mistake.
Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. FORD. Let me finish my point
first.
Mr. GAVIN. On that particular sub-
ject of this $150 million.
Mr. FORD. I yield for a question..
Mr. GAVIN. The gentleman stated he
intended to offer an amendment to re-
store $87 million.
Mr. FORD. Eighty million dollars.
, Mr. GAVIN. Eighty million dollars. I
wondered what the differential was be-
tween the $150 million and the $80 mil-
lion that warranted the committee in
feeling it should restore $80 million of the
cut.
Mr. FORD. I am predicating my de- ?
cision on the recommendation of the
Army panel. Prior to the markup of the
bill the chairman of the Army panel had
a meeting at which he had a number of
responsible people in the Army sit down
with us and discuss where we felt and
they felt some bona fide reductions could
be Made. We went over it, and over it,
and over -it; and in the 0. & M. area it
was the concensus that if they main-.
tamed their present plant and facilities
intact, including all that they closed up,
laid away, and so forth, they could not
afford any reduction.
But then under interrogation by the
chairman and questioning by others it
was brought out that if they put the
screws on and disposed of some of these
plants and facilities, posts, plants, and
stations which are closed up, they would
not have the same financial burden in
fiscal 1958 as they had contemplated.
It was further brought out that the
military has a tendency once they get
something, a plant, a post, a camp, a
station, or whatever it may be, they just
feel they cannot give it up even though
it is not being currently used.
It was the considered opinion of a
high-ranking, responsible official in the
Department of the Army that a cut of
this nature might be the one thing that
would force the Army to get rid of some
of those plants which they really think
they ought to dispose of. On that basis
our subcommittee recommended a re-
duction of $70 million. I think it is a
bona fide, legitimate cut.
Now, to tell you where I think we made
a mistake, I refer to the research and
development program for the Army.
Here is the picture: During fiscal 1957
the Army will have for obligation and
will obligate $418 million for research
?and development.
In fiscal 1958 the Army wanted $590
million. In the fiscal year 1957 they are
going to obligate $418 million. The Sec-
retary of the Department of Defense au-
thorized $400 Million. Our subcommit-
tee, despite the adverse recommendation
of the Army panel, reduced this $400
million by $8 million.
Here is the situation: This year they
are going to obligate $418 million. The
committee recommends a reduction of
$8 million below the $400 million. So
there is 18, plus 8, which is $26 million
and, in addition to that, for the first time
in the fiscal year 1958 the Army Re-
search and Development program will
have to absorb the civil-service retire-
ment which in this instance for some
13,000 employees will total $9 million.
So in effect for research and develop-
ment in fiscal 1958, if this reduction
stands, you will have $35 million less next
year for the Army to spend than they
have this year:
Let me point out a fact which I think
is disturbing. For the last 4 or 5 years
this country, and rightly so, has been
really pushing the development of our
ICBM and our IRBM. We spent mil-
lions of dollars. About 2 years ago we
first started to hear, about the develop-
ment of the antimissile missile, which
is the missile that is going to pick up,
. seek out, and destroy the ICBM and the
IRBM. That is quite a job. The ICBM
travels 15,000 miles per hour, and-it will
go 5,500 miles, it will go to a height of
some 300 miles. It can carry an atomic
or nonatomic warhead.
About 2 years ago the Army decided
something ought to be done to lick the
problem. The strated some research
and development on it. They have
spent altogether, I would say, about $20
million so far. The Army in fiscal 1958
in R. and D. wanted to spend 'slightly
more than $20 million for the antimissile
missile program. So when they had
the reduction from $590 million down to
$400 million they had to cut that anti-
missile-missile program from slightly
over $20 million down to $12 million. If
you impose an additional reduction, it
is logical to assume we are going to have
a further reduction in this program. I
think it ,is very serious. Right now the
antimissile missile program is not cur-
rent, so to speak, with the ICBM and
the IRBM program. What I think we
ought to do is to expedite the antimis-
sile missile program. Let us get caught
up so we do not have this hiatus of a few
years where you are literally unpro-
tected from the ICBM and the IRBM. It
is my honest opinion that this reduction
of $8 million will have some impact on
that program.
Mr. 'ANDERSON of Montana. Will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. FORD, I yield to the gentleman
from Montana.
Mr. ANDERSON of Montana. Can
the gentleman tell me where in the ap-
propriation of money for the Army they
have the Jupiter missile?
Mr. FORD. There is no money in
fiscal 1958 in the Army R. & D. for the
Jupiter. As the gentleman undoubtedly
knows, the Army is only funding in fiscal
1957 for the Jupiter program. In the
testimony, it has been brought out by a
number of members of the subcommittee
that any funds for the Jupiter program
in fiscal 1958 will come out of either the
emergency fund that the Secretary of
Defense has or will come out of the
transfer authority which the Secretary
also has under his control. So that the
Jupiter program, if we can rely on the
people in the Department of Defense,
and I am certain we can, will not be
hurt in fiscal 1958. Of course, I assume
the gentleman knows it has been de-
cided that sometime early in fiscal 1958
there will be this great decision whether
we are going to proceed with Jupiter or
with Thor. Thor is the Air Force IRBM
program.
Mr. ANDERSON of Montana. In your
judgment, since the Army is going to
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
- Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
Nir
1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
continue the development of Jupiter and
since we know this is going to take an-
other $25 million, might it not be a good
idea if this Congress put into this ap-
propriation bill the $25 million so that
we would know that Jupiter would be
properly developed by the people who
are now working on it?
? Mr. FORD. No. I cannot agree with
the gentleman, because under the bill the
Secretary of Defense, and rightly so, has
$135 million in either emergency funds
or transfer authority for anyone of the
three services, so if one of the services
needs additional funds for something,
where there is a breakthrough, they can
go to the Secretary of Defense and get
whatever is necesasry out of that $135
million.
Mr. ANDERSON of Montana. I thank
the gentleman.
Mr. FORD. As I have indicated, the
Secretary of Defense or his assistants
have promised the committee that the
Jupiter money for fiscal 1958, which I
think totals about $35 million, will be
available out of that emergency fund.
Mr. SCOTT of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FORD. I yield to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SCOTT of Pennsylvania. Am I
correct in understanding that the only
antimissile missile program is the one
which the Army is engaged in and that
neither of the other services has any-
thing to do with it, and therefore if this
program is too seriously contracted, we
simply fall back in our schedule with
the entire Army forces antimissile mis-
sile program?
Mr. FORD. It is not fair to say that
the Army is doing the whole job in the
antimissile missile field, but I think it is
reliable to say that the Army is doing 90
percent of it.
Now, if I might take a few minutes
to discuss the problem on which I wrote
minority views in the subcommittee re-
port. If you will turn to pages 108, 109,
and 110 of the subcommittee report, I
would like to discuss with you, if I may,
the minority views that I have expressed
concerning the language in the bill. In
the bill on page 8, lines 2 through 6, there
is language which I think is detrimental
to the Army program expense in doilars,
and inefficient in the utilization of per-
sonnel. That language in the bill, and
it exists in law today, forces the Army to
keep two hospitals open, one in Waltham,
Mass., called Murphy Army Hospital, and
another called Army and Navy Hospital
at Hot Springs, Ark. In my judgment,
that language should be stricken from
the bill. I intend to offer such an
amendment, and if the language is
stricken from the bill and the hospitals
are closed, the first year's savings to the
taxpayers will be $746,000 and the annual
savings each year thereafter will be $1,-
043,000 plus the fact that you will get
more economical, efficient Utilization of
not only your civilian personnel but also
your military medical personnel.
Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. FORD. I yield to the gentleman
from Massachusetts.
No. 89-11
Mr. DONOHUE. / am wondering if
any evidence was submitted to the com-
mittee that would indicate how this sav-
ing could be accomplished and still take
care of the dependents of the many,
many thousands of men from New Eng-
land who are in the services.
Mr. FORD. There was ample evidence
submitted in the hearings, I would say,
and in my minority statement I refer to
the various pages. In the Army hearings
it is on page 884 and related pages, and in
the Department of Defense hearings it is
on page 479 and pages the follow. But,
if the gentleman will let me proceed with
my comments, I will be glad to answer
any questions after I have finished, be-
cause I think it is a story that ought to
be related in sequence. What are the
facts? You have a hospital in Waltham,
Mass., which was built in 1943 and 1944
called Murphy Army Hospital. It has
a normal bed capacity of 450 and is ex-
pandable to a bed capacity of 525. It is
of the emergency or cantonment type
construction. The hospital in March of
1957 had 91 beds used out of 450. The
fiscal year average of bed occupancy was
no more than 95 out of a normal capacity
of 450 and an expandable capacity of
525.
Let us see how many personnel were
employed to take care of the 91 people
who were in beds in March of 1957. They
employed 183 civilians and they had 213
military personnel for a total of 396 mili-
tary and civilian personnel taking care of
patients who occupied 91 beds.
Let us look at another aspect of this
problem. The Army has wanted to close
this hospital since the fall of1953. In the
appropriation bill for the fiscal year 1954
our subcommittee took the money out.
On the floor of the House, my good friend
from Massachusetts, Mr. DONOHUE, of-
fered an amendment to put the money
back and to keep the hospital operating.
We were swamped by those who said that
we had to keep the hospital open. The
amendment was approved, the money
went back in, and ever since the hospital
has been operating.
The Army has consistently felt that
it ought to close this hospital and a year
ago the Army said, "What we want to do
now is to move the New England Division
of the Corps of Engineers out of Boston
to this hospital after we have closed the
hospital up for patients:"
In other words, they would not aban-
don the structure, they would simply
substitute the Corps of Engineers per-
sonnel for the patients. It is interesting
to note that today the Corps of Engineers
is paying in the Boston area $193,000 a
year for rent. And we have a hospital
operating at Waltham, Mass., with 91
patients and 396 people to take care of
them. What the Army wants to do is
to close the hospital and move the Corps
of Engineers up there. They say it will
save over $500,000 a year after the proc-
ess is completed.
I know some people are going to say
that if we close this hospital all the
soldiers, the other military personnel
and their dependents' in the Waltham
area will not have any place to get medi-
cal care. Let us look at the facts. With-
6905
in a radius of 15 miles there are 2
military hospitals, one at Chelsea, Mass.,
run by the Navy; it has a normal capacity
of 887 and an expandable' capacity of
1,271. In April of 1957 they had 538 beds
used. So the hospital is using only five-
hundred-some beds out of 887.
? Let us turn to the other hospital, with-
in 15 miles of this one, the one at Fort
Elevens, a pretty sizable Army installa-
tion. I remind you that this is another
hospital within a few-miles of this Mur-
phy Army Hospital.
Mr. PHILBIN. If the gentleman will
yield, I would like to correct the gentle-
man about the mileage. Port Devens is
more than 15 miles away from Murphy.
I know the gentleman wants to be fair.
They are 40 or 45 miles away from the
Boston area. That happens to be in
my district, and I know what I am
speaking about.
Mr. FORD. If the gentleman tells
me that is right, I agree with him, but
according to the information the Army
gave me it is within 15 miles.
Mr. PHILBIN. It is 40 or 45 miles
away.
Mr. FORD. Anyway, Fort Devens
Hospital is a maximum of 40 miles away.
Mr. PHILBIN. Further, Murphy
General Hospital is the only hospital
that is serving military personnel and
their dependents in that area. If mili-
tary personnel and their dependents
were to require medical service in a gen-
eral hospital, they would otherwise have
to go all the way down to the Valley
Forge Hospital in Pennsylvania.
Mr. FORD. Let me just clarify the
situation. Here is an Army hospital at
Fort Devens. It has a normal capacity
of 929 and an expanded capacity of
1218. Do you know how many they had
in the hospital in April of 1957? They
occupied 118 beds, one-tenth of the
!capacity. In other words, you have two
military hospitals that are not being
used to capacity within a limited dis-
tance of Murphy Army Hospital. If
this hospital were closed down it would
save the taxpayers five-hundred-odd-
thousand dollars per annum.
In addition, in 1956 the Congress, and
rightly so, passed the dependents medi-
cal care bill, so that any soldier, any
wife of a soldier, or any children of a
soldier can go to their own civilian doctor
and to their own civilian hospital. So if
this Army hospital were closed in Wal-
tham, Mass., if they did not want to
drive to the Chelsea Hospital, where
only about three-fifths of the beds are
occupied, or they did not want to go
Fort Devens, where only 1 in 10 is occu-
pied, they could go to their own hospital
in Waltham or their own' doctor in
Waltham.
The net result is this: We are being
asked in this Congress to keep a hospital
open that was of an emergency type con-
struction at an additional extra cost to
the taxpayers of $500,000 a year. It is
the grossest case of extravagance and
inefficiency I have ever run into in_iny
period of service in this Congress.
If you want to agree with the Presi-
dent, if you want to agree with the Sec-
retary of the Army, if you want to
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
6906 . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE
agree with the Surgeon General of the
Army, if you want to agree with the
Hoover Commission all you have to do
is vote to strike out this language. Be-
lieve me, if you want to have the sym-
pathy of the taxpayer, if you want to do
away with the grossest extravagence I
have ever run into, the most willful mis-
use of Federal funds, I urge you with all
the conviction I have to vote to strike
this language from the bill.
Mr. DONOHOE.- Mr. Chairman, the
most immediate answer to the minority
report filed with the appropriation bill
regarding the closing of Murphy General
Hospital at Waltham, Mass., is to remind
ourselves that the Appropriations Com-
mittee, who have repeatedly, over these
past 4 years, listened to all the evidence
and thoroughly studied the background
and history, are again recommending
approval of the comparatively small
amount involved. Let me also remind
you that on two occasions the commit-
tee apparently found it necessary to re-
buke the military officials rather sternly
and strongly criticized them for not
making a wholehearted effort to operate
the hospital in a proper manner and in
accord with the expressed intent of the
committee and the Congress. This un-
fortunate attitude was reflected upon
the enlisted personnel and dependents
and the officials have been accussed of
unduly restricting and discouraging
treatment at the facility.
From January 1, 1953, through April
of 1954, the record shows 5,313 patients
admitted;"the average daily patient cen-
sus was 437; average number of beds
occupied 320; laboratory-service proce-
dures performed, 143,908; 14,442 X-ray
services were administered, and 59,705
outpatient visits were made; these are
but a few of the. fundamental figures
demonstrating the, vital need of the area
for at least restricted hospital service
and treatment.
These are some of the basic facts
which inspired the committee to make
their conscientious judgment. I think
there are few, if any, who do not feel
that the members of this Appropriations
Committee, after burdensome hours of
hearings and diligent study of evidence,
have set a historical precedent in pa-
triotic protection of the financial inter-
ests of our taxpayers. I know you join
me in congratulating them for their un-
paralleled accomplishments.
With respect for truth and with regard
for your obligation, I want to emphasize
that this is no attempt, on my part or
on the part of any other Member here, to
continue a district activity for any prac-
tical selfish reason. As a matter of fact,
and so far as the area economy might be
affected, it would seem more beneficial
locally to accept the military recommen-
dation instead of the committees' be-
cause of the greater number of personnel
the military say they plan to use in the
facility. However, in my humble opin-
ion, there are much deeper and more
serious questions of national prepared-
ness and moral principle involved.
One of those urgent questions is
whether or not, in -the event of war, this
hospital unit is a vital part of the mili-
tary-hospital network needed to ade-
quately fulfill the military obligation.
The answer to that question appears
simple and obvious. The record shows
that in the war year of 1942 the mili-
tary themselves requested and recom-
mended the erection and use of this per-
manent modern type installation where
it now strategically stands. This hos-
pital is the only general hospital within
the New England region and has been
serving the population of that whole
area; the next such hospital is at Val-
ley Forge, Pa. This plant is admittedly
ideally accessible by train, plane, and '
automobile. It is advantageously lo-
cated next to one of the greatest and
most renowned medical centers of the
world. The New England area is among
the very highest, if not the highest, po-
tential military recruitment sections of
the country in time of peacp and in time
of war. The expansion of military bases
at Limestone, Maine, and at Otis and
Bedford Air Fields in Massachusetts,
with accompanying military-housing
construction, is constantly bringing an
ever-increasing military population to
our area, thus projecting an ever-higher
potential of military medical require-
ments for service people and depend-
ents; these are undoubtedly reasons,
and they still exist, why the military of-
ficials originally recommended the hos-
pital. In this striking respect, the pres-
ent officials have never pretended that
it was a mistake to build it in the first
place or flatly stated that it would not
? be of essential need in case of emer-
gency. If and when they forthrightly
would do so I would be personally in-
clined to accept their sincerity but I
do not think they will ever dare. They
would like us to forget, but the commit-
tee did not forget, their unhappy and
unfortunate planning that resulted in
the economic fiasco of closing the hos-
pital just 2 months prior to the outbreak
of the Korean war. Needless to relate
they were forced to reopen it at tremen-
dous and unnecessary cost to the Amer-
ican taxpayer. In view of the tense at-
mospheres existing in the world today,
I think it is quite reasonable to question,
and the committee did question, whether
their judgment can be any better now
than it was when they made that mis-
take.
The military people tell us that they
can use and vitally need the hospital
space for transfer of units of the Army
Engineer Corps and Air Force. On the
other hand, and in contradiction there-
to, authoritative advice furnished me
from sources associated with the Boston
Army Base indicates there are over
400,000 square feet that could be used by
these units at a cost of approximately
35 cents per square foot for maintenance
whereas the comparative cost at the hos-
pital would approximate and could well
exceed as much as $1 per square foot.
The military have never replied to ques-
tions about the Army base space nor
revealed their plans for use of the space.
It seems obvious to me, and I personally
would certainly have welcomed it, that
they should have made full and complete
disclosure of this matter if their motives
were clear.
Let me remind you the President him-
self has expressed his concern over the
vital necessity ? of improving military
May 27
career incentives to prevent the large
military turnover involving staggering
training costs for repeated short service
enlistments. The Secretary of Defense
also expressed himself in this matter and
I quote as follows: "Medical care for
dependents is one of the strongest in-
ducements for servicemen to continue in
a military career. Yet, today approxi-
mately 40 percent of our military de-
pendents cannot be given medical care
through service facilities. This is one of
the major obstacles in our efforts to
enhance the attractiveness of military
service because it affects the wives and
children of servicemen directly." That
is his statement.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly do not have
to emphasize here that despite possession
of the most advanced weapons, the only
true measure of the fighting efficiency of
any military unit is the height of their
morale. In my judgment, the duty of
the Congress is to exercise every effort to
insure the maintenance of the highest
possible morale among our military per-
sonnel. It is impossible for me, then, to
understand how we can meet that duty
if we cooperate in a military gamble in-
volving adequate military medical treat-
ment to members of the Armed Forces
and dependents within a large area of
the country and to which they are mor-
ally and legally entitled. Especially is it
difficult for me to understand, when this
gamble was proved wrong on the one
occasion that it was tried.
I would rather recommend and implore
the officials of our armed services to
patriotically and dutifully concentrate
their efforts upon the elimination of the
frightening and staggering waste and ex-
travagance as repeatedly revealed by sub-
committees of this committee and the
Armed Services Committee. The only
gamble involved in that wholesome ob-
jective would be a substantial profit and
saving to the burdened taxpayer. It ap-
pears from the facts of this sorry and
unhappy record that some military of-
ficials are unwittingly overlooking the
certain savings to the taxpayers by
scrupulous correction of admittedly
existing extravagant and wasteful meth-
ods of procurement and inventory and
are more intent upon gambling with
military morale and military career in-
centives for the sake of a very dubious
and comparatively small reduction in our
medical program.
The only attempted answer of the mili-
tary to these grave and serious considera-
tions is the unproved and untried con-
tention that the Military Dependents As-
sistance Act provisions authorizing pri-
vate medical treatment for dependents
will take care of the situation with an
accompanying financial savings. Now
these people know, but they would like to
have it overlooked, and I know that their
own testimony before the Appropriations
Committee discloses they themselves
have requested funds to take care of ex-
pected private medical treatment based
on the conservative cost of $50 per day
to the Government whereas an extrava-
gant cost of military medical treatment
is based on a range of $20 to $26 per-
day?Navy appropriations, page 888.
Now do those authoritative figures sound
to you like anything that has even the
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
? Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
IIP
1957 ? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
vaguest promise, not counting the cost
of the redtape, of a potential savings to
the taxpayer; I rather think not.
The record shows that Murphy Gen..
eral Hospital was originally and wisely
recommended by the military as a vital
war unit and it proved it's worth. It was
closed once and that proved to be a seri-
ous mistake. It is located outside the
main target area of military installations
in the Boston vicinity and it's type of
construction affords maximum protec-
tion against bombing attacks. Chelsea
Hospital, suggested as an alternative, is
120 years old and located in the midst
of a heavy industrial section. Murphy
was built in 1944, comprises more than 90
acres and has plently of room for expan-
sion. To replace it today would cost
about $20 million. I, and many others,
have earnestly suggested that this loca-
tion and space be fully utilized by build-
ing expansion which could then provide
an ideally situated combined service hos--
pital which could adequately take care of
the military medical needs of the whole
of the New England area under the best
possible conditions. Regretfully it seems
no official comment or exploration of this
sound practical economic suggestion has
been made.
It appears that these current military
officials would rather take a reckless
gamble with military morale which they
cannot justify on the record, cannot
demonstrate ? to be economically wise,
which once proved a sorry error and the
alternatives to which they cannot ade-
quately answer.
In my most earnest judgment, the
question of the wisdom of the moral,
patriotic and economic gamble is the
fundamental issue involved here and on
that question I ask only the individual
conscientious action of the Members of
this House.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I yield
30 minutes to the gentleman from Penn-
sylvania [Mr. nom].
Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Chairman, as most
of you knoW, I serve on the Army panel
of this subcommittee. You have heard
me in these debates on these appropria-
tion bills for a number of years, and you
know that under no circumstances if I
thought there was even going to be re-
motely damage to the Department of De-
fense or to the Army or to any of the
other branches of the service, would I. be
in favor of this bill, Since I have been
on this committee since 1944, for 10
years, I have been a big Army, a big?
Navy and a big Air Force man, and under
no circumstances would I let you put a
glove, if I could stop it, upon the Marine
Corps, and you know why. That being
the case, let me direct your attention to
the members of this subcommittee for
defense. These men have been on this
subcommittee for from 10 to 25 years.
Just look at their names:
Mr. WIGGLESWORTH from Massachu-
etts.
Mr. SCRIVNER?POP SCRIVNER from
Kansas who is proud of the fact that at
one time he was an old National Guard,
Infantry captain?that is 100 years ago,
about.
Mr. FORD from Michigan. "
Mr. MILLER from Maryland, a colonel
in the Reserve in two wars.
Mr. OSTERTAG from New York who has
been with us for many years on this com-
mittee. .
Mr. MAHON, from Texas, the chairman
and ranking member of the full com-
mittee and chairman of the Air panel.
Mr. SixEs, from Florida, who came to
us from the Armed Services Committee
where he served for years and who is
now Army chairman of our committee.
Mr. NORRELL, from Arkansas, one of
the ranking Members of the House of
Representatives.
Mr. WHITTEN, from Mississippi, who
served on this committee during the war.
Mr. SHEPPARD?the Admiral-from
California, who came to this committee
from the old Navy 'committee before
unification.
Mr. ANDREWS, from Alabama, who
served for 10 or 12 years on the Navy
panel.
Mr. RILEY, from South Carolina?a
legitimate South Carolina colonel.
Mr. Chairman, there is nobody in
this country from the White House down,
who is more concerned and more ex-
perienced?with deeper feeling and un-
derstanding of this defense. bill than
these men. They do not say their work
is sacred; that there is not an element
of give and take here?there always is.
This is no more sacred and certainly this
bill is not any more sacred than the
budget itself. Let me remind you, Mr.
Chairman, there is no budget for any
department or any bureau in this Gov-
ernment for the last 150 years regardless
of what administration was in power,
no matter who the President is, that
this Congress cannot cut and has not cut
including the Department of Defense.
We were not all, in complete agreement,
but for the purpose of bringing the bill to
the floor we were. I will speak for a
few minutes on the Army bill only.
I agree with much of what my friend
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
FORD] has ,said. I am especially con-
cerned with the cut in the Army bill for
research and development. That is what
you will hear referred to as R. & D. In
my judgment, one of the greatest sol-
diers, one of the greatest generals who
ever served in the uniform of this coun-
try, Lt. Gen. Jumping Jim Gavin?and
of course he comes from Pennsylvania?
is Chief of the Research and Develop-
ment. I am no long-haired scientist.
But, by the way, neither are you. I be-
lieve this cut will not destroy the Army;
it will not put research and develop-
ment of the General Staff out of busi-
ness; blood will not be dropped because
of this $8 million cut; but balancing all
of the equities we, who feel closest to the
problem are convinced, and we offer you
our sincerity and our belief, that that cut
should be restored.
Mr. Chairman, at the proper time I
shall make an effort by amendment to
restore that gut, and the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Fora)] and some of my
colleagues are in agreement with my
attempt.
You heard one of the most eloquent?
and eloquence can be predicated upon
its mere simplicity and strength?you
heard one of the most eloquent addresses
that I ever heard made by the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. MAnoDil. I was im-
6907
pressed. I am sure you are in the same
position. I know that you were im-
pressed. The main argument for the
reason for the cuts, and the value of
them, he made, and I shall not attempt
to gild the lily.
Let me tell you this, that yesterday I
had occasion to go to my home State and
to make a memorial address at the dedi-
cation of a Grant memorial to our guard
division, the famous Bloody Bucket of
the 28th Division of Pennsylvania. We
have battle stars and battle pinions on
our standards, and casualty lists from
every war and every battle all over the
world since the beginning of this Na-
tion from the Revolution to the last one.
We feel we have a right to speak. There
a ceremony, born from the War Between
the States, but now a memorial not just
for Yankees, but to all dead of all our
wars, and when the division band began
to play very softly the old World War I
song, "My Buddy," and before these rows
of crosses, behind which stood a young
girl with a wreath to place as the unit
numbers were called, you saw in the best
America7n tradition the belief in this Na-
tion of a strong and inviolate Depart-
ment of Defense. You must look for-
ward with belief to a plateau of perhaps
10 years when your defense budget will
not vary a half billion dollars one way or
the other from the one you will pass on
Wednesday. If you look forward to the
continuance of gigantic cuts of a dozen
billion dollars in the Defense Depart-
ment for the next 10 years, forget about
it; it is not going to happen.
And if you look for reduction in taxes
hopefully predicated upon that expect-
ancy, abandon it, it will not happen.
Knowing the facts, there is nobody in
this country who wants it to happen?
knowing the facts. Those who do sim-
ply do not have the facts.
Let me point out to you that there is
nothing even though you have as the
motto of your country "In God We
Trust"?there is nothing unless you have
a private pipeline to the omnipotence
which is going to guarantee this civiliza-
tion and this Nation perpetuity any more
than it was guaranteed to Greece, or
Rome, Turkey, or other empires of me-
dieval times. .
A great historian once said that as a
nation approaches its middle age it must
remember its early years and be as strong
and as brave; and this Nation in our
history is approaching that time.
I would like to make one comment at
this time outside the Army, a comment
on the Air Force. Many of you know
that from the beginning of these hear-
ings this year and for the past 2 years
I have been making the statement in
behalf of the Army that there does not
exist and there has not existed for the
past 2 years, and I charge it does not
exist today, an adequate airlift to trans-
port Army atomic and air divisions to
theaters of operation throughout the
world. Against that broad indictment
that I make you have to the contrary
every member of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, including, believe it or not, the
Army. If you are concerned, you politi-
cians, with getting unanimity of action,
I refer you to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
IP
6908 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE May 27
There is a classic example of unanimity
of action on anything: You scratch my
back and I will scratch yours. "Give me
atomic carriers," says the Navy, "and
you can have your B-52's in the Air
Force." I do not know why General Tay-
lor is going along, because I have never
been able to find anything that the Army
is getting out of the deal.
Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
? Mr. FLOOD. I yield to the gentleman
from Oklahoma, of course.
Mr. EDMONDSON. I wanted to state
to the gentleman that I share with him
completely and wholeheartedly the ap-
prehension he expresses about the ab-
sence of facilities to transport large num-
bers of men through the air in our
present defense picture; and the pitiful
thing about it is that the public very re-
cently was subjected to a large dose of
propaganda to the effect that we were
going to build this C-132 and provide
this capacity. Then within a matter of
days after the public had been deluged
with all that publicity it was announced
in a very quiet way that they were aban-
doning this program on the C-132's.
Mr. FLOOD. The gentleman is quite
right about the $150 million mistake by
the Air Force. With money running out
of their ears, that to them was a mere
bagatelle, only $150 million, to them
only a mere parenthesis.
But on this question of the Air Force
we had every member of the Joint Chiefs
and the top civilians, from Wilson down,
at the Pentagon. Now, I want you to
know what they said. We have it. I affi
a lawyer. I am no 4-star general, I am
not the Secretary of Defense, but I have
been around here a long time. I have
talked to people in the Army and the Air
Force who do not dare stick their necks
out. I would not dream this up. This is
no dream. I have been at this thing for
years and I have reasonable cause to say
what I will say. I say to you, Mr. Chair-
man, that the reason we could only take
3,000 men into Sicily in our first air
junket was because we did not have the
aircraft to take any more men of the 82d
Division into Sicily. We could only jump
with 3,000. The only reason we could not
take any more men into Salerno when
we jumped into Salerno was because we
did not have aircraft to jump more. The
only reason we did not take a greater
number was because we did not have
sufficient aircraft.
I say to you, it is my considered judg-
ment for what little it is worth that if
the necessity arose tomorrow to take one
Army division to the Far East and to-
morrow afternoon one Army division to
the Suez or that area?and do not forget
the necessity will rise in two theaters at
once, for if the enemy hits he is going to
hit in the Ea st and he is going to hit in
the West on the same day?there does
not exist not alone enough aircraft,
transport craft,- to take one division to
the East and one division to the West,
but, Mr. Chairman, it is my considered
judgment there does not exist sufficient
aircraft to take one Army division to one
theater of operation inside of 30 days and
maintain it and keep it there in a sup-
posedly modern air war.
Mr. SCRIVNER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLOOD. To the gentleman from
Kansas, who knows more about it than
I do, I yield.
Mr. SCRIVNER. I do not know that I
know more about it but I would point out
one statement that can be found start-
ing on page 27, part I of the hearings
which shows to my satisfaction that the
airlift today is 10 times what it was in
World War II and it is adequate for the
present military war plan.
Mr. FLOOD. That it is 10 times
greater than it was in World War II
there is no question. It is probably 100
times greater than it was in the War of
1812. That has nothing to do with the
case tra la. I am talking about tomorrow
afternoon. We do not have the air-
craft. You are going to call upon cer-
tain "civilian components, you are going
to call on the commercial airlines to give
you their aircraft, you are going to take
these plushed up modern jet jobs, but
you cannot take any more than an ad-
vance echelon with the hardware they
carry on their shoulders. You will put
them down in a desert with rifles, some
antitank weapons and food enough for
5 days. Then I have the word of Ad-
miral Radford, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, that he is going to sup-
'ply these Army divisions only, all over
the world for the next 30 days, by sea
lift. The Admiral did not say what war.
Why, you know the fiasco at Suez when
the British and French struck there.
They laid an egg because they did not
have what was necessary. They did not
have the aircraft and their success at
Suez was not the result of diplomacy or
failure, it was a lousy job. That is what
the trouble was.
Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman,
Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLOOD. I yield to the gentleman
from Oklahoma.
Mr. EDMONDSON. It seems to me
ABC economics, if we did have an air-
lift, or the capacity in the air to trans-
port these troops to danger points at
very short notice and within a very short
period of time, it would be possible to
effect these cuts in the personnel of our
services which a lot of people would like
to see and still preserve the effectiveness
of our striking power at a much more
cost than today.
Mr. FLOOD. Now, this is the first time
since we have been together in the
House that I have disagreed with the
distinguished gentleman from Okla-
homa. I want to point out to you that
it is the current opinion in the latest sci-
entific periodicals that so-called push-
button missile warfare is not going to
reduce the number of uniformed bodies
in the armed services. On the con-
trary, you will have to have more of
them.
-Now, let me add this. Do not forget
the human element, the man. There is
no scientist in the world today who has
been able to make a man, and you cannot
substitute with bombers and guided mis-
siles manpower. You cannot take the
place of a man, with his heart and his
soul and his intelligence and his judg-
ment. Do not forget that.
You talk about what is the lead time
on bombers. Three years. 'What is the
lead time on IRBM and ICBM or SRM?.
Three years, 5 years. Let me point out
to you, Mr. Chairman, that the lead time
on a fighting soldier is 18 to 20 years.
That is the lead time it takes to make a
man for the infantry or the Air Force.
Do not worry about the lead time for
making missiles. You have a more im-
portant element and a more important
problem for,which no scientist can make
a substitute. This next war, God forbid,
is not going to be a pushbutton war
where robots are going to take the place
of men. No. Always, as I say, you are
going to have an Army regardless of
bombers or missiles. You must have an
Army to go in there and fight and hold,
and in any war in the past or any war in
the future, the Army is the queen, and
they will fight.
Mr. BAILEY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. FLOOD. I yield to the gentleman
from West Virginia.
Mr. BAILEY. Does the gentleman not
think that we should give some atten-
tion at the present time to the proper
training of the men who are going to
operate these machines?
Mr. FLOOD. I think you have in the
Army of the United States today and
the Air Force and the Navy the best-
trained and best-uniformed and best-
paid and best-fighting men that you have
or ever will have in any country. I can-
not agree with the gentleman about the
training.
Mr. BAILEY. The gentleman does not
think it is necessary to train these uni-
formed personnel adequately to operate
these powerful engines of destruction?
Mr. FLOOD. Of course, they must
have training, and they will get more.
I am not concerned about training. If I
was, I would be the first to speak, and
you know that. No. Do not worry
about that. Whether we can keep them
or not after we train them I do not know.
Mr. BAILEY. The answer probably is
to build more school buildings.
Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLOOD. I yield to the gentleman
from Oklahoma.
Mr.' EDMONDSON. I want to correct
an impression the gentleman apparently
received that I. was supporting drastic
cuts in personnel of our Army, Navy,
Air Force, and Marines. I am in agree-
ment with the gentleman that we must
sustain those forces and maintain them
at a high level. What I was trying to
make clear was that the effectiveness of
the man in uniform would be multiplied
several times if we had the Air Force
to transport them to various places
where needed.
Mr. FLOOD. The gentleman has been
reading my speeches. . I agree with you.
Now, I would like to direct my remarks
to one phase of the Air Force bill, al-
though it comes under the general head-
ing of defense as well. One of the most
controversial phases of our. entire De-
fense Department is the Military Air
Transport Service known affectionately
as MATS. Now, Secretary Wilson and
the other civilian secretaries came to us
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
in the last 2 or 3 years and they
shave been sending us vast lists of where
they are putting the Government out of
competition with private business. Now,
everybody on the appropriations sub-
committee for defense is in favor of that.
We have eliminated popcorn machines
and shoeshining machines; we have elim-
inated beauty parlors; we have elim-
inated all kinds of paint and other fac-
tories. So we are consistent with the best
wishes of a businessman's administration
for whom our heart bleeds in putting the
Government out of competition with
business. I am for that. Everybody is
for that. And we did it. And yet here,
in this Military Air Transport Service?
and it is not chickenfeed?you have the
United States Government in competi-
tion with commercial airlines by at least
$500 million a year.
The commercial airlines are no great
friends of mine; because, when I served
on the Appropriations Subcommittee for
the Department of Commerce, with the
gentleman from New York [Mr. ROONEY]
we went to bat to cut out their subsidies.
So I am not a..very popular fellow with
them; either. And we succeeded in doing
it. They can use their own money. This
House did it.
But if you want to take the Govern-
ment out of competition with business,
and you mean it, here is where you can
do it, providing, in the course of it, you
do not even indirectly endanger the na-
tional security or the national defense
by interfering with the operations of the
Air Force. If you do that, then I am
against it. But my information is that
you do not, if you exercise merely the
rule of reason; that the Air Force should
control their aircraft and have as much
of it as they need, where they need it,
and when they need it. I am for that.
But you can have a reasonable difference
of opinion as to what constitutes .how
much and when and where.
We believe that in the best interests
of national defense, a greater amount of
military traffic, cargo and people, should
be contracted for by the Department of
Defense with commercial air carriers.
Why not? If they cannot carry them,
then do not give it to them. If they
cannot buy their aircraft and maintain
them properly, then do not bother about
it. But if they can, if they will buy their
own aircraft and maintain them and fly
them safely and more cheaply?and for
the purpose of emphasis I repeat "more
cheaply," much more cheaply than the
Air Force?then if those facts are cor-
rect, it is difficult for me to understand
.why these commercial airlines, ,business-
men in a business administration, great
contributors, should not have a reason-
able opportunity to engage in that trans-
portation.
Last year this subcommittee, after an
exhaustive examination, and again this
year with a special investigation and
long hearings, 610 pages of hearings on
this question, had this to say. And I
would like to have the chairman reaffirm
the language which was the gist of a 2-
or 3-page statement we made last year,
because I do not want the Air Force on
July 1, if this language is not in the re-
port or in this Itscone, to pretend that
we forgot about it. This is the language
? from the Hoover Commission report and
it is the language from the committee's
and Senate report of last year. I shall
read it and I hope that the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. MAHON] will agree that
again, for the purpose of emphasis if for
no other reason, and to protect our
flanks, the language be reaffirmed. This
is the language:
The Government should to the greatest
extent practicable adjust its use of air trans-
portation so as to use existing unutilized
capacity of United States air carriers
(H. Rept. 2104, 84th Cong., 2d sess., p. 46).
What in the world is the matter with
that, and who possibly could object to
it? For that reason, because of his
sound judgment, I am sure the gentle-
man from Texas would concur.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. FLOOD. I yield to the gentleman
from Texas.
Mr. MAHON. As I understand it, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania is suggest-
ing that we agree that our view and our
statement in the report of last year for
the current fiscal year for the defense
budget with references to MATS is still
the vie* and opinion of the committee.
I believe the view and opinion of the
committee is still as we expressed it in
the language we used in the report last
year. I wish to assert very strongly that
it is my own view that we should favor
civilian aircraft as long as we can do so
without jeopardizing the necessary mili-
tary air transportation. I strongly sup-
port and reaffirm the language in the
report last year in regard to MATS and
I have so notified Air Force officials.
Mr. FLOOD. The highest form of
compliment I could pay to the gentle-
man from Texas is to say I could not
have said that better myself.
The very distinguished gentleman
from Texas [Mr. MAHON], who is the
chairman of the Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee and floor manager of this
bill, has clearly expressed the sense of
our committee and I know that we all
expect the Defense Department to reduce
its expenditures on MATS and other
Government-owned air transport activi-
ties and devote these funds to making far
greater use of United States air carriers.
More extensive use by the military of
United States air carriers, as is being
directed by our committee, will result in
considerable net savings to the American
taxpayers, as well as a reduction of Gov-
ernment competition with private tax-
paying business.
(Mr. FLOOD asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may desire to the gentle-
man from Georgia [Mr. VrisrsoN], chair-
man of the Committee on Armed
Services.
(Mr. VINSON asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, we have
before the House today a bill authoriz-
ing the appropriation of some $33,541,-
225,000. According to the report of the
Appropriations Committee the budget
estimate has been reduced by $2,586,775,-
6909
000, and the recommended appropriation
of $33,541,225,000 is $1,157,298,000 below
the amount approved for fiscal 1957. Of
the $2,586,775,000 reduction, the report
states that the amount of $1,996,775,000
represents a direct reduction in the de-
fense budget, and $590 million is a reduc-
tion in funds appropriated in prior years,
but currently available to the Depart-
ment for obligation and expenditure un-
der stock and industrial fund operations.
Mr. Chairman, no Member of Con-
gress, no member of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, no President or former President,
in fact no living person can state with
certainty that this bill contains a suf-
ficient amount of money to assure our
national survival?nor can anyone state
with certainty that it endangers our
security.
But I, for one, refuse to allow our na-
tional security requirements to be deter-
mined by a dollar sign. Our way of life,
our standard of living, our freedom, all
that we own, all that we hold dear, de-
pends upon our ability to withstand the
onslaughts of those who would deprive
us of these benefits.
If I thought that our survival depended
upon a much greater annual defense
expenditure, I would not hesitate to vote
that amount of money because I will not
allow the dollars to blind me to the in-
estimable value of freedom.
But, Mr. Chairman, unfortunately
there is not one of us in this Congress,
or out, who can state with certainty that
we are acting wisely or foolishly in our
attempt to determine the necessary ap-
propriations for our national defense for
the next fiscal year.
Thus, we must depend upon the com-
bined views of many people?the Presi-
dent of the United States, members of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of
Defense, the Director of the Budget, the
members of the Appropriations Commit-
tee, and finally, but most important of all,
the decision of the Members of Congress.
Only the years that lie ahead can answer
the question as to whether or not this
budget is adequate.
The report from the Appropriations
Committee emphasizes the fact that the
Soviet Union is closing the gap between
the United States and Soviet military
strength.
According to the report from the Ap-
propriations Committee: '
The Russian Army is 3 times the size of our
own; the Soviet Navy reportedly has 1,650
active ships as contrasted with 983 in our
Navy; the Soviet Union has more than 450
submarines as contrasted with 53 in the
German Navy when World War II began; the
Soviet Union jet fighter aircraft inventory,
is probably greater than our own and the
rate of production of fighter aircraft in
Russia is greater than our own.
In the field of missiles, according to the
Appropriations Committee?
We are in a nip and tuck race with Russia;
we are probably behind the Soviet Union in
progress made in the perfection of the inter-
mediate range ballistic missile.
And finally, the Appropriations Com-
mittee says:
All available information makes it clear
that there is no room for complacency among
our people in the consideration of our de-
fense program.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
6910
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
111,
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOIJSE
Last year the distinguished gentleman
from Texas [Mr. MAHON] stated before
the House in connection with the Defense
Appropriation Act of 1957:
After all the heavy taxes we have borne
and all the money we have spent on defense
in recent years it must come as a bitter fact
to the American people that our military
supremacy is being challenged. We have
talked, and rightly so, about our military
might being a deterrent to war. We have
said that we must get stronger and stronger
in order to negotiate at the conference table
from a position of strength. That has been
one of our major premises. If we do not
choose our course very carefully we are going
to negotiate at the conference table from a
position of relatively less strength and the
Saviets are going to sit at the conference
table and deal from a position of greater
and greater strength.
The distinguished gentleman from
Texas made many other wise observa-
tions during the debate last year. He
stated, for example:
We have several choices. We have got to
more than match the Soviet Union to keep
ahead; or we have got to reconcile ourselves
to be on a military parity with the U. S. S. R.
or we must allow ourselves to fall behind in
military strength.
. -
After reciting the facts in connection
with the period of atomic plenty, the dis-
tinguished gentlemen from Texas said
what is in all of our minds:
It is hard to know what to do in the situa-
tion in which we find ourselves. I do not
have the answers.
And again, the distinguished gentle-
man from Texas last year stated:
Indications are that we must continue the
high rate of military spending; not only con-
tinue it, but perhaps raise it a bit from year
to year, as recommended for next year by
Secretary of Defense Wilson.
But this year, the gentleman from
Texas has taken the position that since
we are in a long-range defense program
we ought to "fix a figure for defense
spending which is within the bounds of
reason and stay with it in a general way
pending a decisive change in world con-
ditions." And then the gentleman from
Texas stated that we ought to set a target
of "say $35 billion per year" and further
he says:
Do not tell me that we could not have a
reasonable and adequate defense program
for approximately $35 billion a year rather
than $38 billion a year, as presently budgeted.
- But the distinguished gentleman from
Texas also stated the other day:
We cannot afford to embark upon a course
of gradually whittling away of our defense
program. We cannot start a trend toward
a position of military weakness which would
inevitably lead toward a national policy of
appeasment, which we know is the road to
war. " * We must become adjusted to an
indefinite period of high level defense costs
without costly peaks and valleys.
Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest ad-
miration and respect for the distin-
guished gentleman from Texas [Mr.
MAHON], but I cannot reconcile his pre-
vious statements, or his statements con-
tained in the debate last Friday, with a
price tag national defense program
geared to a fixed dollar figure. I do not
subscribe to the theory that we can buy
for $35 bilion as much as we can get for
$38 billion. I do not subscribe to the
theory that we buy as much for less
money?not in an era of rising costs due
to increased technical complexities, a
higher demand for increased skills, and
an ever-upward spiraling increase in the
cost of living.
The report from the Committee on
Appropriations shows that the Army,
for example, requested $3,549,000,000 for
fiscal 1958 to support approximately 1
million personnel. I am advised by the
Army that it had $49 million more than
this amount in fiscal 1957 to support
approximately the same number of
troops. However, the Committee on Ap-
propriations has cut this request for fis-
cal 1958 funds by an additional $36 mil-
lion. This means that the Army will
have $84 million less to maintain ap-
proximately the same military strength
in fiscal 1958 than they had in fiscal
1957.
I further understand that in addition
to the foregoing cuts, the Army will be
required to absorb additional sums of
approximately $28 million due to the in-
crease in rates for railroad and sea
transportation, as well as increases in
the costs of subsistence and clothing.
On the basis of these figures, which I
am advised are correct figures, the Army
will have $113 million less in fiscal 1958
than it had in fiscal 1957 to maintain
its military strength. As a result of
these cuts, I am further advised that it
will be necessary for the Army to reduce
its 'strength, which would average 997,-
000 men in fiscal 1958, by approximately
15,000 persons, the equivalent ol 1 divi-
sion.
I then raise the serious question as to
whether or not this Congress is justi-
fied in the present state of world con-
ditions to reduce the Army by one divi-
sion?
Mr. Chairman, in the face of infor-
mation which was available to the Com-
mittee on Appropriations; in the face
of statements which were made last year
and again this year in the face of the
forecasts that the appropriations for our
defense this year would exceed those
that were appropriated hist year, I, for
one, must at least raise the question as
to whether these cuts are justified; and
I for one will not support one additional
penny reduction in the bill now before
this House.
Let none of us be lulled into the com-
placency the Appropriations Committee
warned about. I am confident in my
own mind that the reductions that are
contained in this bill may have to be
made up by supplemental appropria-
tions in the months ahead.
I would be remiss in my duties as a
Member of this House if I did not cau-
tion the House that in my opinion this
is a rockbottom bill as it now stands
and it cannot be further reduced with-
out jeopardizing our national security.
Any further reductions will have to
be felt in reduced procurement, ex-
tended lead time, and reduced research.
We can talk until we are blue in the face
about duplication, but bear in mind that
we have all the same objective in mind?
the defense of the Nation. And I, for
one, will not subscribe to the theory that
interservice rivarly is jeopardizing our,
national security. Each service is seek-
May 27
ing to perfect the weapons necessary to
accomplish its assigned mission. St3
long as those missions remain un-
changed, it is not only incumbent upon,
but absolutely essential, that each serv-
ice perfect the weapons that will permit
them to gain the weapons supremacy
necessary in their field of endeavor.
Many questions have been raised by
Members of Congress and others as to
why it is necessary for us to maintain a
stable force of approximately 2,800,000
men in our-Armed Forces for the years
ahead, particularly when we are ap-
proaching an era of guided missiles and
so-called pushbotton warfare. -
Mr. Chairman, this nation, whether
we like it or not, must be prepaTed to
fight not only an atomic war with all of
its horrors, but also a conventional war
that likewise is horrible to contemplate,
but at least does riot threaten world
extinction.
Not only must we be ready to fight
two types of war, but we must be ready
to fight on the land, on the sea, under
the sea, in the air, and in the strato-
sphere. Our main line of resistence does
not begin at the end of the 12-mile limit;
our main line of resis,tence is to be found
in Germany, Italy, Turkey, Greece,
Korea, Formosa, Indo-China, the Philip-
pines, and every place in the world
where free governments exist.
Our international commitments require
manpower. These commitments are not
based upon pure altruism?they are
based upon the necessary strategy which
will assure our victory if another world
war should occur?be it atomic or nor
atomic in nature.
The price of freedom is high, but the
cost of defeat is beyond description.
Mr. Chairman, I have tremendous re-
spect for the gentleman from Texas [M
r.
Manori], and I realize how difficult an
d
complicated a defense appropriation billt
ss
to
must necessarily be. And while I migh
differ with the gentleman from Texas
in some of his conclusions, neverthele
I would like to take this opportunity
congratulate him upon his ma,sterful
presentation of this defense budget. But
e-
go
of
of
there is one statement which the gentl
man from Texas made that cannot
unchallenged and I?refer to that part
his Statement of last Friday when he
said:
A part of the answer is a greater degree
unification instead of tension and disunity,
something approaching a merger.
This statement concerns me greatly.
There is no Member of this Congress
more interested in economy than I. All
of us would like to see Government ex-
penditures and the national debt re-
duced, and taxes decreased.
But I sincerely trust that the vast
majority of this House will resist all
efforts to bring about specious savings
through the merger of our armed serv-
ices, under one chief of staff, all wearing
one uniform.
There seems to be a tendency on the
part of some to adopt the wishful theory
that more centralization of power brings
about savings. Nothing could be fur-
ther from the truth.
In 1947 the Congress approved the
National Security Act which created the
Office of the Secretary of Defense and
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
the Department of Defense, but at the
same?time created a separate Air Force.
I thought then, and I continue to think
that that decision was a wise one.
We created a board of directors when
we created the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, but we also wisely acknowledged
the permanent establishment of a sepa-
rate military organization known as the
Air Force because its roles and missions
had attained a position in our defense
structure which not only required but
demanded its separate administration.
Today we have three separate military
departments, separately administered,
but under the direction, authority, and
control of the Secretary of Defense. But
the same law that grants this authority
specifically states that our military de-
partments shall not be merged.
We will hear for years to come many
well-meaning persons strongly advance
the argument that billions in potential
savings can be effected through a com-
plete merger of our armed services.
Should we ever be so foolish as to
succumb to this illusion we will have
jeopardized the security of this Nation
to such an extent that our continuation
as a free Nation would be extremely
doubtful.
We have made great strides in uni-
fication as evidenced by the single serv-
ice procurement system, the recent adop-
tion of the single manager system, and
the identification phase of the Federal
catalog program. According to a recent
report of the Secretary of Defense, a
total of 2,750,000 items have been iden-
tified, or approximately -90 percent of
the more than 3 million separate items
estimated to be in the military supply
system as of June 30, 1956. Further
progress has been made in the identi-
fication program based upon the work
already accomplished in the catalog pro-
gram.
According to the report of the Secre-
tary of Defense, since the beginning of
the identification program, more than
437,000 items have been eliminated.
In evaluating recent criticism of the
Defense Department with respect to the
fiscal year 1958 budget and the neces-
sarily large outlays of funds for pro-
curement, critics would have us believe
there is extensive duplication of buying
by the military services. Here are a
few facts which clearly demonstrate the
notable extent of unification of the
armed services in the procurement and
supply fields.
There are two-principal management
systems used to implement centralized
procurement within the Department of
Defense?the single-manager program
and the single-procurement assignment
program.
In the single-manager program the
Secretary of one militfirry department is
responsible for all Department of De-
fense supply management functions for
a designated class of commodities, or
services, from research and development
through procurement, stock control,
financial management, distribution, is-
sue, and disposal. This system estab-
lishes a single wholesale stock of the
commodities for all military uses, cen-
trally controlled by the single manager.
It eliminates duplicate pipelines and
storage, minimizes cross-handling, and
promotes effective utilization of stocks,
services, and facilities.
Defense procurement for materiel and
supplies is currently running at the rate
of about $15 billion annually. Of this
amount, approximately $2.5 billion or
17 percent represents the portion pro-
cured under the single managers. These
commodities include petroleum products,
subsistence, clothing and textiles and
medical material. There is no duplica-
tion here.
In the single procurement assignment
program one of the military depart-
ments, through its normal procurement
system, purchases all of a given class of
commodities for itself and the other
services in accordance with their re-
quirements. This program covers about
one-half of all Department of Defense
purchases of materiel and supplies. Ex-
ceptions are made for local procurement
and certain equipment of special desigh.
Included in the single procurement
assignment program is the plant cog-
nizance program. Under this program
each aircraft, engine, and propeller plant
is under the cognizance of a single serv-
ice. The cognizant service alone main-
tains a contract administration staff at
the facility and processes orders to the
plant for all of the services. Steps are
now being taken to place missile plants
under the plant cognizance system.
Even where plant cognizance has not
been assigned to a single service, one
service normally performs the inspection
and local contract administration func-
tions for all the services buying from the
plant.
Still another significant refutation of
charges of duplication is found in the
Defense Interservice Supply Support
Program?a relatively new but vitally
important phase of military supply man-
agement which assures the interdepart-
mental utilization of over-all Defense
supply assets before new procurement is
undertaken, and which prevents the dis-
posal of items for which any requirement
exists.
At present there are 18 commodity
groups wherein this method of utiliza-
tion is being effected?covering about
half of the total items in the Defense
supply system. Plans are being made
for the inclusion of another 13 commod-
ity groups which will cover practically
all of the balance of the common supply
items. This program alone assures that
new procurement will be held to a mimi-
mum, where materials are already avail-
able, and that the greatest possible
utilization of the supply stocks 'held by
all the services will be made on an in-
tegrated basis to prevent duplication of
buying.
Most of the remaining procurement
funds not covered by the foregoing co-
ordinated programs are for items peen-
liar to the individual service, such as
naval combatant vessels.
In this connection, it should not be
assumed that complete centralization of
procurement and storage is the best and
only solution in every situation. The
problem of centralization versus decen-
tralization of procurement activities is
not unique. to the Defense Department.
6911
It is also quite common in private in-
dustry. In a recent article in Business
Record, published by the National Indus-
trial Conference Board, an organiza-
tion devoted to business affairs, the point
is made that there has been a gradual
drift toward decentralized purchasing
in private industry. One conclusion of
this article is that?
The purchasing function should be guided
by what offers the most effective results,
whether it be centralized, decentralized, or a
combination of both.
Secretary of Defense Wilson's remarks
at his press conference of May 16, 1957,
are singularly appropriate in this con-
text:
My former experience, about every 3 years
someone would raise the question wouldn't
we save money in General Motors if we cen-
tralized the thing and did all the buying in
one big place, pointing out that the Buick
company paid a few cents more a thousand
for some nuts or bolts or screws or some-
thing, all the common items, and we would
look it over again and decide no, that it
wasn't the right way to do it, and it was
much more efficient and effective, and our
big problem was to decentralize the thing
and clarify the policy.
Mr. Chairman, there is a basic differ-
ence between the unification of our
armed services as contemplated by the
National Security Act and merger as
recommended by those who believe that
the savings of dollars possible in merger
are far more important than the func-
tions of the separate services.
Mr. Chairman, I do not believe for one
moment that the merger of our armed
services would save the taxpayers one
thin dime. If anything, I am sure that
merger might well bring about added
costs.
I am convinced, and very thoroughly
convinced, that were we to merge our
4 services under 1 head; were we to have
1 single staff system; were we to adopt 1
uniform?we would be creating a mili-
tary monstrosity that would be an open
invitation to disaster.
We hear much ab9ut duplication of
efforts?I do not question for a moment
that there is duplication of effort?but
it is a competitive type of duplication
that assures this Nation military su-
premacy in the quality of its weapons.
There has been altogether too much
misguided criticism of so-called com-
petition between the Armed'Forces, par-
ticularly with respect to missile develop-
ment.
Mr. Chairman, I have followed this
missile development matter most closely
and I am certain in my own mind that
controlled competition, instead of being
wasteful, is vitally necessary. We must
approach any specific major problem,
of missile development with boldness
and objectivity. We are dealing with
a vast realm of unknown factors. We
are truly exploring the unknown. I
know of no surer way to jeopardize our
Nation than to insist that only one line of
missile development be followed.
I readily grant that it would be pos-
sible, although fatally injurious, to elim-
inate missile competition between the
services. But while we have the power
to eliminate interservice competition in
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
IP
6912 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
the development of missiles, we would
not have the power to eliminate Russian
competition for missile superiority.
Therefore our Armed Forces must not
be restricted to one arbitrary line of
missile development2qf we do not have
competition?separate but different ap-
proaches toward the solution of the mis-
sile problems?we will never know if
there really was a better line of develop-
ment in our quest for missile superiority.
We would not know if it were possible to
develop better missiles until war came
and the Russians then might show us
that our chosen method was perhaps not
the best one.
We must not eliminate wholesome and
constructive competition in the Armed
Forces. It is the stimulus for great
achievement. It is the only reasonable
assurance of superiority in this vastly
'complicated technological world in which
we live. Eliminate competition, establish
a system that provides for only one line
of development in armaments, and you
have a oneway ticket to defeat.
Competition is the heart and soul of
American industry, and the American
people. Why should it be different in the
armed services? What is wrong with
esprit de corps? What is wrong with a
man's having pride in his own unit, or his
own branch of the service?
Those who advocate merger do so in
the face of history which has proved that
a single staff system cannot possibly
function under a total war concept, or
even a limited war concept, so long as
the military movements involve land,
sea, and air.
The Prussian single staff system failed
Germany twice in this century. Are we
to take the lessons of history, stare them
straight in the face, and then completely
ignore them? Even our industrial giants,
such as General Motors and others, have
learned that decentralization not only is
profitable, but essential to successful
operation.
I know of no individual now alive
capable of directing all four of the serv-
ices, either from a staff level or an
operational level. ?
I know of no individual now alive who
could completely divorce his own service
background to the point where he could
view all four services on a purely objec-
tive basis.
But beyond that is the fact that our
four services exist for the simple reason
that there are four separate and distinct
missions which are assigned to them.
The four services do not exist for the sake
of tradition, nor do they exist for the
sake of providing billets for generals and
admirals. They exist, in my opinion, be-
cause of the urgent necessity for main-
taining a balanced force, which proved its
mettle in World War II, again in Korea,
and may well prove its wisdom in the
event of another conflict.
Under our present system we do have
competition?competition which is
healthy and which produces the finest
weapons obtainable.
We had the same situation prior to
World War II, when the Navy was de-
veloping air-cooled aircraft engines and
the Army- was developing liquid-cooled
aircraft engines. Each thought_the other
was wrong, but as it turned out there
was a need for both in different phases
of World War II. However, had we had
-a single service concept in effect at that
time, we might well have ended up with
just a liquid-cooled engine and our ef-
forts in the Pacific theater might have
become a world tragedy, since liquid-
cooled engines could not attain the alti-
tudes necessary to combat the Japanese
Zero.
I use this merely as an illustration of
the difference between competition and
duplication.
The same situation may well be true
in the field of guided missiles. Certainly,
guided missiles are expensive, but I do
not believe anyone can sincerely ques-
tion the fact that guided missiles and
our superiority in this field may well
prove to be the one factor which will
prevent another war in the years ahead.
But even_in this field, it is clear to me
that there is adequate room for the de-
velopment of 3 separate systems-1 for
the Army, 1 for the Navy, and the other
for the Air Force.
What might appear to some to be du-
plication, in my opinion, actually
amounts to competition. But that com-
petition, even in similar missiles, does
not necessarily involve a waste of funds,
for certainly the nation that has in its
possession the most up-to-date and most
improved guided missiles will control the
destiny of the world.
That there is a certain amount of
conflict between the Army and the Air
Force with regard to the control of mis-
siles cannot be denied. That there is a
certain amount of conflict between the
expenditure of funds for aircraft carriers
and other types of weapons cannot be
denied.
But to me it is not improper for a
service to advocate its own weapons sys-
tem. In fact, it is essential in order that
the Congress may choose wisely in ap-
propriating the necessary funds for fu-
ture developments.
But the very thing suggested, merger,
would eliminate entirely this type of ad-
vocacy, and'would put the average Mem-
ber in the position of having only one
choice?that of believing the testimony
of the single service staff, or not believ-
ing that testimony.
Should we ever adopt a single service
concept in this Nation on the theory that
it will save money, not only will we be
endangering our own national security
but we will certainly be deluding our-
selves with respect to savings.
lam firmly of the opinion that no mili-
tary command system has ever been de-
vised that is equivalent to our present
Joint Chiefs of Staff system. Through
this system we receive the benefit of the
combined.views of four persons, each an
expert in his own particular field. But
in other areas of the world, we operate
joint commands and do so very success-
fully. Thus, the decisions which are ar-
rived at through a combination of sound
minds, arriving at sound conclusions,
make it possible for joint commands in
other theaters of operation to function
well.
But when the day arrives that we have
a super staff, or a single staff, or a single
May 27
uniform, or a merger of the 4 serv-
ices, 'we will have destroyed not only the
morale of the armed services, not only
the wisdom of the joint staff made up of
representatives from all 4 services,
but we will also be placing our depend-
ence upon an assumption that 4 separate
missions, involving the technicalities, the
complexities, and the skills of these 4
services, can be merged into 1 at a
time when it is even difficult for each of
the separate services to maintain the
skills necessary in their particular fields.
I trust that our Nation will never make
the fatal error of merging our Armed
Forces, or of even adopting something
approaching merger.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I yield
30 minutes to the gentleman from Mis-
souri [Mr. CANNON] chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations and ex
officio a member of all the subcommit-
tees.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, when
we look back through the years, events
stand out in sharper perspective and
clearer light than at -the time. But all
the attrition of the years cannot change
the basic facts.
With the possible exception of Water-
loo, no battle. has been more carefully
reviewed and analyzed than Gettysburg.
It is a part of the formal course of study
at every national military academy in
the world, the topography, the terrain,
the personnel, the strategy, and the
effect.
When you consider the strategy of the
two commanders the conclusion is ines-
capable that there could not possibly
have been any preliminary plans of
battle, there could not have been any pre-
conceived strategy. Neither commander
had expected to fight at Gettysburg.
Lee assumed he had the State of Penn-
sylvania largely to himself and had
ample time in which to concentrate his
forces for a selected field. Mead, with
his troops strung out along miles of diffi-
cult road, had not expected to intercept
Lee here. His first hastily occupied line
of defense proved untenable and in the
first day's fighting he was driven back to
what proved to be a better position.
Lee, wholly unfamiliar with the terri-
tory, saw only the skyline. He sent
Stuart's cavalry, the eyes of the army,
forward to. reconnoiter but taken un-
aware Stuart was outgeneraled and iso-
lated and could not get a courier back.
Lee had no knowledge of the number or
composition of the troops in front of him
or what lay behind.
But he did know the temper of his own
men. He had tested them on every bat-
tlefield of the war. He knew that in the
third of the war, outnumbered and out-
equipped he had defeated every army
the North could send against him. He
did not know that in the remaining
years of the war his campaigns in de-
fense of Richmond were to be acclaimed
by the most eminent military authori-
ties as unsurpassed in the annals of war-
fare.
. If he could break the line he could
destroy the enemy piecemeal as he had
destroyed them so many times before,
and the way was open to Baltimore and
Washington and to recognition of the
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
1957
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOU!"
Confederacy by European nations?and
final victory.
Mr. YOUNGER. Mr. Chairman, I
make the point of order that a quorum
is not present.
The CHAIRMAN (after counting).
Sixty Members are present; not a
quorum.
The Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk called the roll, and the fol-
lowing Members failed to answer to their
names:
Albert
Andresen,
August H.
Barden
Barrett
Baumhart
Beamer
Blatnik
Mitch
Bowler
Breeding
Buckley
Burdick
Byrd
Byrne, Pa.
Chelf
Chudoff
Cooley
Dawson, Ill.
Dellay.
Diggs
Dollinger
Dorn, S. C.
Eberharter
Fallon
Fino
Flood
Fogarty
[Roll NO: 881
Garmatz
Granahan
Grant
Green, Oreg.
Green. Pa.
Griffin
Gubser
Hardy
Healey
Hemphill
Hoeven
Holtzman
James
Jenkins
Jennings
Jonas
Kearney
Kee
Kelley, Pa.
Kilburn
Kitchin
Kluczynski
McConnell
McGregor
McMillan
Machrowicz
Mailliard
Mason
Miller, Md.
Miller, Nebr.
Moore
Morgan
Murray
Osmers
Patterson
Perkins
Pillion
Powell
Prouty
Rabaut
Rains
Reece, Tenn.
Santangelo
Shelley
Slier
Spence
Taylor
Teller '
Thornberry
Van Pelt
Watts
Wilson, Ind.
Wolverton
Zelenko
Accordingly the Committee rose; and
the Speaker having resumed the chair,
Mr. KEOGH, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the
Union, reported that that Committee
having had under consideration the bill
H. R. 7665, and finding itself without a
quorum, he had directed the roll to be
called, when 348 Members responded to
their names, a quorum, and he submitted
herewith the names of the absentees to
be spread upon the Journal.
The Committee resumed its sitting.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
- CANNON] .
Mr. CANNON. Oh, Mr. Chairman, at
this late date, 90 years afterward, with
the battlefield spread out before you, it
is easy to criticize but we are inclined
to wonder if under similar circum-
stances the commanders of today would
not have reached the same decision.
I am convinced?with perhaps a much
biased point of view, of course, that
if Lee had known what we know today
he would have been invincible. He
could not have lost. Perhaps a divine
providence obscured the light. "The
race is not always to the swift nor the
battle to the strong but Utile and chance
happeneth to us all."
I had an uncle at Gettysburg. He
was a graduate of the University of Vir-
ginia and served 4 years under Lee. His
widow, my? aunt, lived to be a hundred
years old. As a boy I heard her tell over
and over again the tragic story of Get-
tysburg. When I came to Washington
she -came to visit me. I took her to
Gettysburg, and from the crest of Cem-
etery Ridge with this venerable and
beloved lady looked down the long slope
No. 89-12
across which Lee launched the last
lightning charge of the Confederacy.
Standing there beside the High Tide
Monument, where fell the gallant. Cap-
tain Armistead, of North Carolina, as
leading his men with his cap on the point
of his sword, he came across the stone
wall to die there with the shattered
remnants of the brigade that followed
him, I said to her, gently, "I am a south-
erner, and had I lived in those stirring
times and had my way, I would have
marched with Lee, and had it been pos-
sible I would have come across that field
with Pickett." Then, with my arm
around her, I drew her closely to me,
"But today I thank Almighty God that
Pickett failed and the mighty Govern-
ment of the United States still lives to
bless mankind." I am afraid she never
fully forgave me.
But times change and the minds of
men react to changing issues and cir-
cumstances. In many Congresses fol-
lowing the war, awl notably in the 53d
Congress, which convened in this hall in
1893, there was not a single Member who
had not served in either the Union Army
or the Confederate Army. Had this
question been considered then it would
have occasioned some controversy. They
are gone. The issues which stirred them
are gone. And mercifully we let the
dead past bury its dead.
But we have here today in the bill be-
fore us the same problems in another
form. Perhaps it is even more serious
in its possibilities because defeat in the
war for which we are preparing in this
bill means not merely the loss of a war,
but extermination, the extinction of our
people, our form of government, our
civilization, and our way of life; without
a trace and forever.
And yet I noted in the debate last
week and today everyone has spOken of
defense as if it involved only military
defense. My friends, it involves vastly
more fhan that. Wars are won not only
with arms and military munitions but
with money. And the United States
Treasury is as important a part of ria,
tional defense as the aimed services.
. We should write this bill with that in
view. Russia has boasted since the last
war that they would prod us into bank-
ruptcy and take us without firing a
shot?as they took most of their satel-
lites. There is too much money in this
bill. And some of it is for the wrong
purposes. We can be defeated econom-
ically as decisively as we can be de-
feated militarily.
Let us look at it from a sensible light
and from a practical point of view. You
do not have to be a graduate of West
Point or Annapolis to see it at a glance.
It is so plain that he who runs may
read.
The one thing that stands out like
Mars at perihelion?like the headlight
on a locomotive on a moonless mid-
night?is that if there is a war there will
be no time for the Army and Navy to
nibble around the edges.
The imminence of war is receding.'
There is less and less likelihood of a
world war. We do not want a war and
we will not start one. Russia does not
6913
,want a war and Russia will not start
one. So we can discount by a large per-
cent any chance of our having to use the
war material we are providing in this
bill. But we cannot take a chance. We
must be prepared. So we are passing
this bill.
If war should come, time would be of
the essence. It would be necessary?im-
mediately?to strike at the heart of Rus-
sia?at the spider in the center of the
web. We would have to destroy Moscow
and the Kremlin and the centers of pro-
duction in Siberia and wherever they
happen to be. It would be a race whether
we would destroy Moscow first or
whether they would bomb Washington
and Detroit and Pittsburgh first.
When our radar stations reported
Russian bombers on the way where
would we turn for protection?
Could the Army protect us? Could the
Army defend Washington and Cleveland
and San Francisco? Of course not. The
Army is no longer of any use in time of
war except in occupying territory taken
from the air and in enforcing martial
law. We will never again send an expe-
ditionary force to Europe, until after
the Air Force has cleared the way. We
could not possibly land an army in any
European port. The Russian Army can
sweep to the channel as fast as its sol-
diers can march. Our only army prob-
lem in event of war would be how to get
our token forces out of Europe and even
that would be doubtful. We ought to
cut at least one Army division out df this
bill?if not more. We have no use for
them. Send the men home to engage in
productive employment.
If war should come could the Navy
protect us? Ridiculous. Enemy bomb-
ers would fly right over them. With the
exception of our submarines the Navy
would cease to exist in a matter of hours.
And yet this bill carries $314 million for
a carrier. A carrier is the most expen-
sive machine the world ever saw. It
consumes more skilled labor, more stra-
tegic material, more money than any
human contrivance the sun ever shown
upon. And yet in war it would be worse
than useless. It will require a flotilla of
auxiliaries,-tenders, destroyers, tankers
and othe shipping covering the sea over
an area as large as Delaware and Rhode
Island combined. But a single bomb--
dropped from a plane flying too high
and too fast to be seen or heard will
cover hundreds of square miles with
destruction. Or a single submarine re-
maining under, if need be, half ,way
around the globe can wipe out all this
vast armament and the millions of dol-
lars it cost in the twinkling of an eye.
Listen. They propose to power this
carrier with atomic energy. As the
chairman told you they have not a very
definite idea of just how it will be done=
but they *ill not wait for that. They
will spend the money now. And when
completed, however successful, it will
have a speed of 40 miles per hour.
Think of it. Forty miles per hour in this
age of supersonic speeds. The com-
mander of the Air Force tells us he can
sink it in 2 hours or less. And you know
Russia could sink it any hour of .the
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
6914 TONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
day or night. They talk about a mobile
base and eluding the enemy. Any one
knows that the Russians would know
where that carrier was from the day it
was launched. Attempts to hide a target
of that size would be absurd. But it is
in this bill at $314 million and with its
armament and complement and protect-
ing convoy it would run up above a bil-
lion dollars by the time it was in com-
mission. Let us exercise just a modicum
of commonsense.
p\ r4 The next world war will be decided in
a matter of hours. There will be a pe-
riod of mopping up and taking over but
the war will be decisively fought in one
afternoon or less. That was conclusively
? demonstrated in the "brush" operation
last year, when over half a dozen South-
ern States with forces evenly divided and
an impartial referee, the war was over in
40 minutes and the United States, the
defenders, lost. There is no particular
reason why Russia would not duplicate
the performance in actual warfare un-
less we have an air force to stop her.
Certainly neither the Army nor the Navy
could stop them if the Air Force failed.
1A recent United States intelligence re-
port estimates that 88 percent of Rus-
sia's long-range bombers are based above
the Arctic Circle. Only 12 percent are
down in the European area. What does
that mean?
When they come over the pole what
can the Army do? What can the Navy
do? How can we save our cities and the
92 million of our people it is estimated
they would kill in one afternoon. Just
how far will this bill protect us.
Mr. Chairman, we hold hearings
covering weeks and months. And still
fail to adduce all the facts. Added to
that is the tendency to minimize perti-
nent facts. Here is an example. Here
is one of the many weekly information
letters published in Washington. Most
of you subscribe to them and are famil-
iar with them. They tell you what has
happened?what is happening?and
what will happen. And sometimes they
are surprisingly accurate. This one
happens to be one of the Kiplinger let-
ters. It came in with this morning's
mail under date of May 25, 1957. I will
read the postscript: -
Our letters are read in many military posts
In the United States and abroad.
Recently we carried a number of reports
On waste in the military service which led to
the barring of the letters from the officers
mess at a naval base.
It illustrates a military attitude that
young officers should not be told of the waste
and extravagance of higher ups.
As if they did not already know.
Also that their personal reading matter
ought to be censored for them.
Mr. Chairman, some may be misled.
But in writing this bill, let us not be
misled. There are millions in this bill
that ought to be applied to the public
debt, or to tax reduction?or to real de-
fense that will protect us when, with
uplifted hands, we are "calling for the
mountains to fall upon us."
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I yield
25 minutes to the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. RILEY].
Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I like to
agree with my distinguished chairman,
one of the most valuable Members in
this House and one of its ablest men, my
good friend, the gentleman from Mis-
souri [Mr. CANNON], but I must in some
respects take issue with him in regard
to this great defense team, which we
need to protect this country until such
time as men's minds and men's hearts
are reconciled to the abolishment of war.
I like to think of our Armed Forces as
a unit. I know, as you do, that we lack
the full realization of that objective.
However, I am firmly and sincerely con-
vinced that there is a definite mission
for each, of the armed services now in
being and any disparagement and de-
preciation of any one of these services
not only tends to weaken the service at-
tacked, but weakens the entire defense
team. I believe that it is absolutely
necessary to have strong Army, Navy,
and Air Force units of one coordinated
defense team. Because of my assign-
ment on the Army subcommittee I would
like to refresh yours minds on certain
features of one of these units of our
defense.
I hope that what I have to say will
not in any way be construed as reflect-
ing on either of the other teams in this
defense unit. Certainly I believe that
each has a necessary and vital mission.
Each year under the influence of the
huge military budget we are tempted to
hope and to look for some easy and in-
expensive out?for some short cut to
military power. There is always talk
about some new weapon or some push-
button innovation which renders unnec-
essary all of the traditional parapher-
nalia of war which we have supported
for many years. This hope has always
proved to be more or less of a mirage,
but a hope which harbors grave danger,
in my opinion, to our security. There is
no easy or safe way to fight a war and,
in my opinion, there never will be. War
will always be destructive, filled with
sweat and tears, blood and tragedy.
New and modern weapons serve our sol-
diers, our airmen,- and our sailors, but do
not replace them. In fact weapons, no
matter how efficient. or how marvelous,.
are absolutely worthless without men to
handle them. The ultimate weapon in
war, then, as in all other human en-
deavors and activities, is man.
We must evaluate our defense estab-
lishment against the background of act-
ual existing conditions: Both the
United States and the Soviet Union will
soon have, if they do not now have, the
ability to devastate each other's home
land with thermonuclear weapons. As
the full import of this fact registers
throughout the world, and the strate-
gists of both East and West ponder over
its implications, it seems to me that a
great general thermonuclear war be-
comes less and less likely as a deliberate
act. Certainly, we must maintain, al-
ways, our ability to strike back, instantly
and massively, with long-range bomb-
ers, and in the not too distant future
with long-range missiles, so that any
possessor of thermonuclear megaton de-
structive capability will hesitate to use
that capability except as a retaliatory
measure. Therefore, it seems to me that
these weapons of massive retaliation will
be effective only so long as they are not
May 27
used. Important as they are, such weap-
ons are essentially weapons of hopeless-
ness to be used as a last resort and as a
final act of desperation when all other
measures have failed. Do not misun-
derstand me?I reiterate, we must have
these weapons, but we must recognize,
also, that they are essentially negative
in character. I, for one, would like to
see more attention paid to weapons that
can be used under all conditions,
whether in a small engagement, or in a
larger conflict.
Notwithstanding the fact that the
communist powers will, I believe hesi-
tate to use their nuclear potential, I
do not believe that they have given up
their aggressive, and possessive designs.
I fully expect that the Soviet Union, and
.its satellites, will continue to look for soft
spots around the edges of the free world;
any weakness that they find will be
swiftly and cleverly explored.
Thus, if we develop only weapons of
megaton impact, the use of which we will
not initiate, we will find ourselves faced,
in each succeeding crisis, with the horri-
ble choice of inviting thermonuclear dis-
aster or being forced into disgraceful
appeasement. Unless we maintain
strong, strategically mobile Army Forces
we will not be able, in-lny opinion, to
successfully aid our Allies of the free
world, or to adequately defend ourselves.
In the issue of Life magazine of May 6
this year, Mr. Thomas B. Murray, an able
and successful engineer, and one of the
five members of the Atomic Energy Com-
mission, strongly advocates the use of
smaller nuclear weapons. Only the Army
and the Marines are organized to use
such tactical weapons. Only the Army
and the Marines offer protection in lim-
ited land engagements.
How can this Nation hope to exert its
influence in the world at large unless it
has Army forces that can respond, if
necessary, to a Korea or to an Indochina
or to a Suez? How except with Army
strength can we help our friends and
Allies without destroying them in the
process, should they be invaded? His-
tory teaches us that wars are fought for
the ultimate purpose of controlling land
areas and the people who inhabit those
lands. Only the Army and the Marines
can occupy and hold land 6.-reas.
The Army we have is performing that
role now. Army forces in Europe and
Asia are a visible and constant reminder
to the Communists that aggression will
be resisted by the armed might of the
United States and its associates. Let us
not overlook the fact that since World
War II there have been 14 acts of aggres-
sion but not' one of these has been
launched within the range of ' United
States Army guns.
In Europe the United States Seventh
Army, with its atomic punch, is the key-
stone of NATO defenses. The atomic
capability of this Army is of a tactical
nature and its weapons are designed for
maximum results against an enemy army
without utterly and finally destroying
everything in a vast area. This army
also has conventional weapons. The in-
fluence of this Seventh Army may be fully
appreciated only by considering, for a
moment, what would be the situation in
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
1
1
. Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
1957, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Europe if they were withdrawn. This
same test may be applied to the value
of the United States Army Corps de-
ployed south of the demilitarized zone in
Korea. In addition to these two armies
we have forces in 7 other foreign coun-
tries?making 9 in all.
Furthermore the United States Army
military assistance advisory groups are
located in 35 other nations making a
total of 44 foreign countries in whick.
our military missions and advisory
groups are assisting the free countries
in deterring aggression and promoting
peace. One of the most satisfying Army
missions has been the result of the
Army's work in Vietnam. This valiant
country, whose leaders spoke to us a few
days ago in this hall, has achieved in-
ternal stability and respected strength
in a very few years by its determination
and resourcefulness, assisted and en-
couraged by the United States Army
mission in Saigon.
The question may well be asked
whether the Army can survive in an era
of atomic weapons and missiles. I am
convinced that it can. To meet such a
contingency the Army is already in the
process of reorganization. The combat
elements of the Army?the infantry, air-
borne, and armored divisions?are being
streamlined and reoriented toward the
requirements of the atomic battlefield.
The new so-called pentomic divisions
are smaller, more mobile, and possess
more firepower than their predecessors.
The equipment of the new airborne
divisions has been either lightened or
eliminated so that it too can be carried
by air. The battle groups of the new
infantry divisions are all completely air
transportable and, like the airborne divi-
sions, they can be moved quickly any-
where in the world. These new divi-
sions with less total manpower than be-
fore have more fighting men and less
men supporting them than their older
counterparts. The new divisions have
been given their own atomic punch and
these atomic weapons together with the
improvement of conventional weapons
give our Army units their greatest fire-
power in history.
The new organizations depend on
larger numbers of Army aircraft to give
them an edge in mobility over any forces
that they might some day oppose. Con-
'sequently the Army is developing an air
arm of small fixed-wing aircraft and
helicopters, such as can be used in either
a short takeoff or a vertical takeoff.
This so-called air arm of the Army in
no way conflicts with the Air Force.
The increasing complexities of weap-
ons in our defense forces demands that
no talent go to waste and the Army is
keenly aware of this. I am satisfied that
the Army now is making excellent use of
the talents and abilities of the young
men and women who enter its service.
American parents may rest assured that
their sons and daughters upon entering
the service are carefully evaluated and
assigned to those jobs for which they are
best fitted. Especially is this so in uti-
lizing those with scientific and profes-
sional experience. The Army is not
soft, and neither is it perfect, but it has
vastly improved its assignments and its
training in the past few years.
Army leadership in ballistic missile de-
velopment has been recognized for some
time. Dr. Von Braun and his colleagues
of the Army Ballistics Missile Agency at
Red Stone Arsenal in Alabama are recog-
nized as the foremost missile develop-
ment team in the United States. These
scientists have been working for the
Army since 1947 when at the end of
World War II we had the foresight to
bring them into this country and reserve
their talents for the benefit of this Na-
tion. The arsenal ? of Army missiles
which has grown out of this effort is
impressive. The Honest John and the
Corporal are already in the hands of our
troops overseas. Others to follow in
quick succession are Little John, La-
Crosse and Red Stone. I am Convinced
that the Army Jupiter, the intermediate
range ballistic missile, is the most suc-
cessful development thus far of this type.
Of the many contributions of the
United States Army, the most obvious,
and the one closest home, is the defense
of the cities and industries of our Na-
tion against air attack by the use of
Army surface-to-air Nike missiles. All
the arguments about antiaircraft mis-
siles are overshadowed by the fact that
the Nike is the only fully developed land-
'based surface-to-air missile in business
today. Nike installations are in place
now in many localities including the area
around Washington.
In time improved versions of these
missiles will replace the fighter inter-
cepter for the close-in defense of our
vital areas. In the very near future,
the Army will bring the Nike Hercules
in the Army Air Defense Command and
it will ultimately replace tht present
Nike-Ajax . The Nike Hercules has a
greater range and more destructive
power than the Ajax, so it will afford
an efficient defense against the more
modern planes. The Army Air Defense
Command is a strong deterrent to any
would be aggressor.
The Army, like the, other Services, has
its problems with rising costs. The new
and complicated ,modern equipment is
very expensive. For example the cost
of equiping a Nike Battalion is 21/2 times
as much as that of a 90 mm gun bat-
talion which it replaces. Also the record
shows that materiel costs are up some
7 percent above fiscal 1956 costs. It
takes careful planning and management
to keep the operational and Procurement
costs at realistic figures. The Army has
improved its management remarkably
during the past several years.
There has been considerable criticism
of waste in the Armed Services over a
period of years, but I submit that we
should give commendation to the Army
for the effort it is making to put its
house in order, and give the American
public an adequate defense machine at
the lowest possible cost. Schools have
been established to train officers in the
most efficient management and to' devel-
op the most practicable and highly effi-
ciept procurement practices. Even
Procedures for making small purchases,
which compose the largest part of the
procurement effort, now closely parallel
in efficiency the practices used in busi-
ness and industry.
6915
? Management in the defense forces
cannot, in my opinion, be developed to
the efficiency obtained in private in-
dustry, because industries are able to
retain its efficient executives and
workers while the officers and men of
the Army are undergoing constant
transfer and reassignment in order that
they may have the broadest possible ex-
perience in all phases of military
activity. I do believe, however, that
waste in the Army is being minimized
and duplieation being eliminated.
Because of its experience and organi-
zation the Army, under the single man-
agement system initiated last year, has
been designated manager for sub-
sistence, clothing and textiles, and
traffic management within the United
States for all defense forces. In other
words, the initial procurement of food
and .clothing, and the transportation of
goods and men in the Zone of the In-
terior is an Army responsibility.
I return now to my original premise
that this country, in order to be properly
protected, must have sa balanced team
of defense forces. One of the abilities
that made America great has been that
ability to reconcile differences, and to
cooperate with each other for the best
interests of all concerned. I believe that
this must be our objective as regards the
several elements of our Armed Forces.
In his novel the Three Musketeers Du-
mas has his 3 heroes pledging each other
"all for one and one for all."
I believe this would be a fitting motto
for our airmen, our soldiers, our sailors
and our marines.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the bal-
ance of my time.
Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Mr. Chair-'
man, I yield 20 minutes to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. OSTERTAG].
Mr. OSTERTAG. Mr. Chairman, be-
fore commenting on the bill which is
before us, I wish to pay tribute to the
chairman of our subcommittee, the Hon-
orable GEORGE H. MAHON, Of Texas.
There are few civilians in our country
who have as profound knowledge of our
defense program as Congressman MAHON.
His searching, diligent study, and anal-
ysis of the budget now before us, repre-
sents years of acquaintance with defense
problems, plus a broad and balanced view
of their relations to our security and
economy. It has been a pleasure and an
honor to work with him and under his
leadership.
Now, I should also like to pay tribute
to the ranking minority member of the
committee, the gentleman from Massa-
chusetts [Mr. WIGGLESWORTH] . It has
been my pleasure to work with him not
only on the full Subcommittee on Appro-
priations for Defense, but also on the
Navy panel. The members of this sub-
committee, 13 in all, are devoted men
and unusually equipped to deal with this
tremendous task of considering some $30
or more billions each' year. It has been
quite an experience to be associated with
him in this task.
I should like also to pay tribute to the
chairman of the Navy panel, the gentle-
man from California [Mr. SHEPPARD].
He has presided over the Navy subcom-
mittee panel discussions and deliberations
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
6916 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
and he has always been fair, conscien-
tious, and diligent in his undertaking.
During the past 4 months, the Sub-
committee on Defense of the Appropria-
tions Committee, has spent hundreds of
hours and has taken thousands of pages
of testimony on the defense budget. A
? military establishment?any military
establishment?is a giant, with an in-
satiable appetite. No military establish-
ment in history ever got all it wanted, or
all it thought was necessary to fulfill its
missions. Ours Is no different. Our De-
fense officials are to be commended for
it. If they were willing to think in terms
of half-measures, they would have no
business being in the Defense Depart-
ment and our armed services. On the
other hand, it is our responsibility to
weigh their requests within the broad
framework of our national welfare. The
reason our Constitution provides for
civilian control over the military is to
insure that the military shall be subject
to checks and balances like the rest of
our Government.
The President has wisely noted, that
our freedom depends, in equal measure,
on spiritual, economic, and military
strength, and the impairment of any one
of them can be fatal to the whole. There
is no one on earth who -can say to you
with certainty that X billions of dollars
will secure the safety of our country
while Y billions will imperil it.
In the consideration of this budget we
must give thought to inflation, which is
steadily eroding the buying power of our
dollar. For a time, a few years ago, the
deadly virus of inflation was checked,
and the dollar remained virtually stable.
Then our national budget began to rise
again, and inflation resumed its devas-
tating march across our land. Defense
spending is the biggest item in our na-
tional budget. Just last week we have
had two solemn warnings from two joint
congressional committees that Federal
spending is going to outrun the original
estimates, that inflation is the chief vil-
lain of the piece, and that hope of tax
relief must be abandoned. This is sober-
ing news-to, the American people, who
are carrying the heaviest tax load in the
world and the heaviest tax load in his-
tory.
We need to-remind ourselves that the
only way to curb inflation is through re-
straint and discipline. Trying to out-
spend it is like trying to put out a fire
with gasoline. It is a sure road to dis-
aster.
On the other hand, we must not let
down our guard and we must not take
second place to any power on earth. It
would seem reasonable and wise to hold
costs down, particularly expenditures
which will in no way reduce our total
military strength and national security.
Now, if I may just take a moment to
review some of the general figures with
regard to this bill, calling your attention
once again, as has been mentioned be-
fore, the total budget request before us
as presented by the' administration,
amounted to $36,128,000,000.
This bill amounts to $33,541,255,000, a
reduction of $2,586,775,000.
? There is an unexpended carryover of
$32,803,000,000. After this bill has been
passed and the money is appropriated
there will be available for expenditure
some $66.3 billion.
I might call your attention to the fact
that estimates for spending during this
next fiscal year are not the amount of
money that is in this bill, but estimated
for expenditure is the total sum of
$35,704,000,000.
I think, too, it is important to note,'
and very little has been said about it,
the increased cost to our Military Estab-
lishment resulting from economic fac-
tors as a result of developments that
have taken place over the years: For ex-
ample, a number of years ago a conven-
tional submarine cost about $4,700,000;
today a nuclear-powered submarine
costs in the neighborhood of $60 million.
Back in the World War II years a 43-
29 bomber cost $600,000. Moving along
to Korean times a B-36 cost $4 million;
and today our B-52 bombers cost $8,-
500,009 each.
I might also call your attention to the
fact that this bill includes within it over
$300 million to provide the funds neces-
sary to meet the retirement contribution
on the part of the Government. It also
includes increased pay and allowances
which were provided for by law by the
Congress of the United States. It also
calls for increased provisions for the so-
called dependents medical care which
was made law about a year ago and
which we Provided allowances or benefits
for dependents as well as our military
people in the matter of medical care.
All of these services and all of these costs
have added to the total overall costs nec-
essary to meet our responsibilities in this
atomic age.
Now, I think you ought to know, too,
that $190 million of this reduction is
based on the transfer of excessive funds
in the Navy and Marine Corps stock
funds and in the naval industrial fund
to the appropriation for military per-
sonnel, Navy. That is part of the
changes or the items referred to hereto-
fore as bookkeeping transactions.
The funds recommended by the com-
mittee will provide an average year's
strength of 675,000 military personnel in
the Navy. Others on the committee, the
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. SCRIVNER1
and the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
MAnoN], and other Members, have made
reference to the fact that this bill does
In no wise reduce or change our military
personnel as such.
The shipbuilding program is the heart
and soul of the Navy. Funds in the bill
will provide for the construction of the
first nuclear-propelled attack aircraft
carrier. Five guided missile destroyers
are included. Heavier and harder hit-
ting than these destroyers are the guid-
ed missile frigates, of which there are 8
in this program. In these ships the full
main battery is the guided missiles. Like
the guided missile destroyers they will
have the latest in the antisubmarine
warfare weapons system. I think it
might be well for me to call your atten-
tion, if it has not already been said, to
the fact it is common knowledge that the
Soviet Union has had a tremendous
buildup of submarines. I believe the
number ranges over the 400 mark,
May 27
We are continuing to put powerful
emphasis on submarines. There are
three nuclear-propelled guided missile
submarines in this program. These sub-
marines have the tremendous advantage
of high sustained submerged speed, great
maneuverability and endurance, limited
only by the staying power of those who
man them. They will make a major
contribution to the underseas warfare
capabilities of our Navy.
It has been mentioned that the fourth
nuclear-propelled submarine is con-
tained in this year's shipbuilding pro-
gram.
Included in the conversion program
are three guided-missile cruisers, an at:-
tack aircraft carrier, and four ocean-
radar picket ships.
The heart of the striking power of the
Navy continues to be the attack carrier.
May I state, too, that the Chief of Naval
Operations and the Secretary of the
Navy, and others, have reminded us con-
stantly that the role and mission of the
Navy is control of the seas. When you
stop to realize the developments' and
changes that have taken place, you will
find with the Navy, despite the fact its
mission is the control of the seas, its
principal operation is airpower.
? This bill will provide for the procure-
ment of approximately 1,220 aircraft
which, when coupled with prior procure-
ment, will provide for approximately
2,100 new aircraft deliveries to the Navy
and Marine Corps during this net fiscal
year. I believe the record shows that
the Navy's inventory today is some-
where in the neighborhood of 17,000 air-
craft. The percentage of modernity and
combat potential of the Navy air arm
will increase during the fiscal year 1958,
with the receipt of more modern aircraft.
Additional Navy and Marine 'air squad-
rons will have more guided-missile cap-
abilities. In other words, this already
powerful, strong arm of the Navy will be
greatly reinforced by the program con-
tained in this bill.
The Marine Corps has developed its
new vertical assault technique. The
amphibious assault ship funded in the
fiscal year 1958 program is the heart of
this future amphibious operation. The
Marine Corps will continue to be main-
tained at the level of 3 combat divisions
and 3 Marine air wings with the neces-
sary supporting troops. The strength of
the Marine Corps will be maintained at
the level of 200,000 personnel.
It has been my personal privilege to
serve as a member of the Board of Visi-
tors of the Naval Academy where one of
the major problems has been the lack
of maintenance to their official plant.
This bill makes provision for increased
maintenance support at the Academy to
assure that it continues to fulfill its vital
purpose.
In the field of procurement of ord-
nance and ammunition the committee
has recommended a total of $176 million,
a reduction of $80 million in the budget
estimate. According to the data pre-
sented to the committee in the detailed
hearings unobligated balances will be
available in this account considerably in
excess of the amount shown in the
budget estimates. As a matter of fact,
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3 ?
? t Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
$81 million of the funds appropriated for
this item in -fiscal year 1957 have not
even been apportioned to the Depart-
ment of the Navy. These balances
represent to a large degree the basis for
the committee reduction. The program
approved by the committee in this field
for fiscal year 1958 will provide for major
steps forward in equipping the fleet with
modern weapons, including guided mis-
siles and weapons systems especially de-
signed for antisubmarine warfare.
The matter of aviation-spare parts and
the aviation supply system has been of
particular interest to me. The spare
parts problem as it relates to aircraft
procurement is a complex one. Modern
aircraft, with their many and varied
components, make the accurate predic-
tion of the requirements for spare parts
most difficult.
This subject has been discussed by
other members of the committee, par-
ticularly with reference to the Air Force,
but it is still a problem in the services
generally. Frequently, in the provision-
ing of new planes, there is little or no
usage data upon which to base the spare
parts requirements. In recent years,
the Navy has taken firm steps to solve
this problem. I believe, however, that
much more remains to be done, and that
continued careful and diligent analysis
of this problem will result in considerable
savings to the Government in the future
as well as in increased operational ef-
fectiveness and efficiency in the Navy.
The committee report has aptly stated:
It will be expected that the present method
used on initial provisioning and in subse-
quent replenishment will be thoroughly re-
viewed and procurement (of spares and spare
parts) held to the minimum consistent with
the operational needs of the Navy.
An almost equally difficult problem is
the matter of the aviation supply system.
The complexities which jalague the pro-
visioning of spare parts are accentuated
in the difficulties in operation of the
aviation supply system. The aircraft in
the fleet and the effectiveness of the
naval air arm are responsive in a large
degree to the effectiveness of the aviation
supply system. Unless these planes can
be supplied in the proper manner, the
fleet will automatically be denied their
operational capabilities. The presenta-
tion of this problem to the committee
showed that progress is being made in
improving the effectiveness of this sup-
ply program.
Mr. Chairman, in short, the recom-
mended funds for the Navy, as for the
other services, will, in my judgment, add
great new strength to our already power-
ful Defense Establishment.
I have reservation on certain cuts
which have been recommended, and that
is in connection with the reduction of
funds for all-weather fighter planes,
missiles, and spare parts for aircraft.
In connection with the overall missile
development, there are, in fact, 26 dif-
ferent kinds of missiles now being de-
veloped by the 3 services, 9 of which
are currently operational. Concurrent
efforts in this field were originally en-
couraged in the Defense Department as
?a means of achieving operational weap-
ons in this field at the earliest possible
moment. Yet I am not entirely satis-
fied that the shift in objectives justified
a reduction in this particular budget item
and seriously question our action in that
regard.
Despite the general acceptance that
the threat of war has lessened, we must
not in any way let down our guard. Our
committee has, in a sense, presented a
budget to you Which carries with it a
statement or a declaration that we have
in no way reduced our missile program
or prevented the production or procure-
ment of missiles and of important bomb-
ers or other airplanes and aircraft.
? I hope that we can fulfill that pledge
and that promise, because we must con-
tinue to maintain a strong, modern
Military Establishment. Costs will con-
tinue to rise because of these new de-
velopments in the missile field and the
atomic carriers and superjets. They all
mean more and more dollars.
As Admiral Radford said to our com-
mittee, as shown at page 4 of our re-
port:
I feel that we have a Military Establish-
ment today which is responsive to almost
any situation that can be foreseen, and
within a reasonable period of time we can
take care of anything. And we are respected.
Our power is respected.
Secretary Wilson said:
With the situation the world is in today,
* ? * another world war would inevitably
be an atomic war, and that the big thing
is to avoid any such catastrophe.
I feel, Mr. Chairman, that our best
insurance of preventing an atomic war is
to meet our responsibility of the best pos-
sible national security through modern
development in this atomic age.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I yield
10 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. KILDAY1.
(Mr. KILDAY asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Chairman, I know
of nothing in the present world situation
which would justify any reduction in our
National Defense Establishment. On the
other hand, I know of nothing that
would cause me to believe that our pres-
ent National Defense Establishment is
operated with 100 percent efficiency and
economy. I feel that we can with com-
plete safety to our country maintain our
present defense forces and do so under
the amount of money that has been rec-
ommended by the Committee on Appro-
priations. 'It is, therefore, my purpose
when we come to reading the bill to vote
to sustain the action of the Committee
on Appropriations in reporting this bill
to us.
I feel that the budget of the Depart-
ment of Defense is the same as any other
budget except that it is larger. I think
it is even the same as a family budget
and that like any other budget it can
find ways and means of taking care of
sudden emergencies or effecting some
economies. I think the family man who
is making perhaps $600 a month who
finds himself suddenly confronted by a
doctor's or dentist's bill of $42, which
would be 7 percent of his income, just as
this Congress' cut is 7 percent, will find
ways and means of paying that $42 by
cutting down on some of the luxuries he
had anticipated. I think every one oi us
6917
on the floor, every Member of this House,
had had many, many occasions of doing
the same thing, and I think our military
forces can do that also.
I feel that there does exist some luxury,
some activities that can be lessened and
this amount of money saved. I have
stated that I shall support the commit-
tee's action in applying these cuts. The
committee has studied the budget of the
Defense Department and has decided
that in the areas it has applied the cuts
it can be done with safety, and I shall
support that action.
If it had been my decision and if I had
the right to say the manner in which it
would have been done, I would not have
done it exactly as the committee has
done. I feel that all that needs to be
taken out of the request of the Depart-
ment is an amount of savings. I do not
know where those savings ought to be
made specifically. I know many areas in
which I know savings can be effected,
but the departments should know or they
can find out where those savings could
be made.
I would have provided in the bill after
approprating the amount of money re-
quested that the Secretary of each mili-
tary department was required to effect
savings to a stated amount within his
own department, and in that manner
we would have been able to save in the
lowest priority of military necessity.
Each department knows which item of
expenditure is absolutely essential and
of the highest priority. By following
that system they would have been in a
position to eliminate those things which
they needed the least or those things
which they could have postponed. I
have no doubt that the departments
when you ask them how they would ap-
ply a cut that might affect personnel
would come up with a statement of 15,-.
.000 men, and that constitutes a division.
On the other hand, I am not positive by
a great deal that there are not 15,000
men in the Army who are not assigned to
divisions. I know that there are mili-
tary police assigned to patrolling prac-
tically ever city and community in which
a MiltIallr establishment is located, that
the civilian police are already patrolling
that city, and that that duplication is not
necessary. I know the same to be true
with the Air Force. I know that some-
where in the lines of communications
around depots and whatnot those men
could be found.
So should it be that the other body
should see fit to adopt a system under
which the amount requested in the
budget by each military department is
appropriated, and that then a stated
amount equivalent to reductions made
by this committee is imposed upon the
Secretary of a military department as
the amount that he shall reduce the
funds appropriated to him, it will repre-
sent the saving that this committee has
asked for, and it will not be subject to
any criticism that we are cutting neces-
sary or essential items. This is not a
new departure. This has been done by
this House before. In the year when we
had one appropriation bill for all de-
partments, I believe it was either 1949
or 1950, after these funds had been ap-
propriated there was an amendment
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
J
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3
6918 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?HOUSE May 27
which required the departments to re-
duce, I think it was by $550 million, the
amount that had been appropriated.
That was done and it was found to be
administratively feasible. So, I say I
support the committee in their view of
effecting these savings and the manner
in which they have done so. Should the
other body see fit to adopt the other
system, I would support that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back to the re-
mainder of my time.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE II
Interservice activities
Claims
For payment of claims by the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, the Army (except as
provided in appropriation for civil functions
administered by the Department of the
Army), Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force,
as authorized by law; claims (not to exceed
$1,000 in any one case) for damages to or
loss of private property incident to the
operation of Army and Air National Guard
camps of instruction, either during the stay
of units of said organizations at such camps
or while en route thereto or therefrom;
claims for damages arising under training
contracts with carriers; and repayment of
amounts determined by the Secretary of the
Army, the Secretary of the Navy, or the
Secretary of the Air Force, or officers desig-
nated by them, to have been erroneously
collected from military and civilian person-
nel of the Departments of the Army, Navy,
and Air Force or from States, Territories, or
the District of Columbia, or members of
National Guard units thereof; $12,000,000.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I move
that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose, and
the Speaker having resumed the chair,
Mr. KEOGH, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the
Union, reported that that Committee,
having had under consideration the bill
(H. R. 7665) making appropriations for
the Department of Defense for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1958, and for other
purposes, had come to no resolution
thereon.
GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that all Members
who spoke on the defense appropriation
bill today may have permission to re-
vise and extend their remarks and in-
clude appropriate extraneous matter.
The SPEAKER. Without objection, it
is so ordered.
There was no objection.
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Mr. Mc-
Bride, one of its clerks, announced that
the Senate had passed without amend-
ment a concurrent resolution of the
House of the following title:
H. Con. Res. 179. Concurrent resolution au-
thorizing the printing of additional copies
of the report to accompany H. R. 7125, a
bill to make technical changes in the Fed-
eral excise-tax laws.
The message also announced that the
Senate recedes from its amendments Nos.
5 and 8 to the bill (H. R. 5788) entitled
"An act making appropriations for the
Executive Office of the President and
sundry general Government agencies for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1958, and
for other purposes."
The message also announced that the
Senate had passed a concurrent resolu-
tion of the following title, in which the
concurrence of the House is requested:
S. Con. Res. 33. Concurrent resolution re-
questing the President to return the enrolled
bill S. 1463 to the Senate.
ADDRESS BY HON. SHERMAN AD-
AMS, ASSISTANT TO THE PRESI-
DENT, DELIVERED AT TRENTON,
N. J., MAY 24, 1957, BEFORE THE
SIXTH REGIONAL CONFERENCE
SPONSORED BY THE REPUBLICAN
NATIONAL COMIVIITTEE
(Mr. SCOrkT of Pennsylvania (at the
?request of Mr. WIGGLESWORTH) was given
_permission to extend his remarks at this
point, and to include an address.)
. Mr. SCOTT of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Speaker, the Honorable Sherman Adams,
assistant to the President, delivered a
very informative address at Trenton,
N. J., on last Friday before the regional
conference sponsored by the Republican
National Committee, as follows:
Tonight I feel as Abe Lincoln evidently did
on one occasion in 1860.
You will recall that after his nomination
he stayed in Springfield until the election.
There he interviewed an endless procession
of Job hunters and their friends. This frus-
trating job he patiently handled with that
-amazing humanism, tact and insight that
distinguished him from ordinary men.
Then one day he contracted a mild ease of
smallpox. When he discovered what his ail-
ment was, he said to his secretary, "Tell
all the officeseekers to come at once, for now
I have something I can give all of them."
Tonight I also have the urge to give
'something to everybody. I hope, however,
I shall have something less uncomfortable
than he had tO give. I earnestly hope, too,
it will prove to be of greater_ value to all of
you.
This gathering is the sixth in a nation-
wide series of such meetings. To me it is
best characterized as a soul searching?a
coming together to evaluate how far we have
progressed these past 4 years?to measure
where we now are?to appraise where we, as
-Americans and as Republicans, must strive
to go between new and 1958 and 1960.
As it is written in the Holy Book, "To
?every thing there is a season, and a time to
every purpose under the heaven." This is
our season?this is our time?to set about
our common purpose in the face of the ob-
stacles we know are ahead.
I am not used to mincing words. Nor am
I accustomed, as the saying goes, to shovel
smoke. It is written that there is "a time
?to keep 'silence, and a time to speak." To-
night I am here to speak.
For I am certain of this: We are at the
time, and we are in the season, when straight
talking is indispensable to Republican pur-
pose and progress. In no ether way can we
chart for ourselves the right course. It is to
do exactly this that we are gathered here.
Our self-appraisal will not be helped by
turning our eyes from some of the things
that have been perplexing our party. An
example is our peculiar obsession right now
with epithetical Republicanism.
In earlier political history Americans have
known the Barnburners, the Know Nothings,
the Free Soilers, the Mugwumps, the Aboli-
tionists, and the Locofocos. Today how
freely we Republicans bandy about colorful
terms.
The Democrat opposition, as all of us
know, suffers from a chronic and incurable
political schizophrenia. Schizophrenia, you
remember, is split personality. Indeed, their
party is irreparably split?and down its very
middle, both geographically and philosophi-
cally?and the split is so deep that the party
simply cannot put itself together again. In
that party, as the NOrth proposes, the South
disposes, and never the twain shall meet.
Unfortunately, we Republicans are doing
a little splitting ourselves. While this may
be fun, it is a pastime we can ill afford.
Today, we have the stalwarts, the irrecon-
ciled, and the irreconcilablcs. We have the
liberals, the liberal-conservatives, the plain
and simple conservatives, and the reaction-
aries. We have the moderns and the un-
or anti-moderns, the old-fashioned and
the traditionalists, each resoundingly the
oracle of the true meaning of Republicanism.
By itself that should give us concern enough.
But another concern is the 1958 Federal
budget, its size and composition, what it
means to us.
Another is our defense and mutual secur-
ity programs and their cost and meaning to
our country and our party.
Here's yet another, social progress, its scope
and direction, and what difference it makes to
us as a people and as a party.
Another is our party's official posture be-
fore the American people, proclaimed proud-
ly, before all America in our party's platform
adopted a short 9 months ago in San Fran-
cisco. We are concerned as well with the
Import of these solemn pledges to our Presi-
dent_and to all of us who consider ourselves
loyal, dependable Workers in the Republican
cause.
?
Two other concerns come to mind. One
is the year 1958, as critical a year as our
party has faced in its 100 years. The other
is 1960, the importance of which I hardly
need emphasize here.
So we need to look again to the bricks
and mortar of our party structure. The out-
lines of this great edifice we can see easily
enough. But we must test the materials
that compose its foundations and walls, lest
'intentionally or otherwise, by our own huffing
and puffing, we blow our own house down.
Now, our party is no nicely-trimmed organ-
ization including only those who think and
speak precisely alike. It enforces conformity
upon no one. Our party is big enough in
spirit and purpose to include every single
citizen who believes in its basic principles.
Every Republican is entitled .to interpret
for himself the nature of our commitments
and objeetives. Even so, if our party means
anything at all, it means that every loyal
?member of this Republican party is com-
mitted to certain common goals and shares
certain basic views.
The hyphenation of Republicanism that I
mentioned earlier is a case in point. We must
stop claiming allegiance to a fraction of a
faction. Suppose we be just this?loyal
Republicans?the kind of Republicans who
are willing to join with other Republicans to
?get our Congress back in 1958 and keep the
Presidency in 1960.
As his first term came toward a close, three
considerations weighed heavily in the Presi-
dent's mind as he considered the possibility
of another term:
1. That the foreign policies he had pursued
had kept our country at peace in this danger-
ous world.
2. That his domestic policies had brought
? prosperity to our people.
3. That he felt he had the physical energy
to go through four more gruelling years of
the Presidency.
As for the last, time and the fates will
prove, but this I can report to you: The
President is in great shape, and unless I miss
my guess, both time and fate are on his side.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/06/05: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100290043-3