The authorization which we make is not to exceed so many. We have never said "not less than that," though I believe there was some attempt in the Marine Corps bill, which was the basis of my opposition to it, as it was calculated to mislead, not less than a certain number of divisions.

And in our appropriations we appropriate so much money but we do not, should not, require that all of the money be spent.

So that everything that we do is maximum, not minimum. Since Congress appropriated enough money to maintain a fiscal year 1955 end-strength of 70,000 more in the Army than the Department proposes to use in fiscal 1955, and if it should be proven to be that the 70,000 reduction should not have been made, I want it clear that the responsibility does not rest on Congress, which has provided the authorization and the money, but it rests entirely upon the executive branch of the Government.

Mr. RIVERS. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Now in that connection may I say that is exactly what we are trying to arrive at ?

Now, it just boils itself down to two simple questions.

First: What are your military commitments? And, second, Does the number of men enable you to take care of your military commitments?

Mr. RIVERS. Now

The CHAIRMAN. Wait one minute, Mr. Rivers.

Now your military advisers pointed out to you what your military commitments were; and they know whether or not what has been agreed to for fiscal 1955 is sufficient to maintain those military commitments.

Now if they are not, you ought to be frank and candid and tell the people that we will have to abandon certain military commitments if we are expected to do it with this number of men.

I understood that that is the sole purpose of the inquiry of the committee, to reach a decision on the question as to whether or not this reduction is warranted and justified, based upon your military commitments.

That is the whole theory of the number of men you have in the service. It is military commitments. It is broken down just like a draftsman breaks down his architectural structure of the house. He knows where everything is going to be.

Now, I am going to ask the committee to take a recess until 2 o'clock, at which time I will ask the Secretary and General Ridgway to come back.

We are going to try to have as much in public session as possible. But we will have to go into executive session some time to get the answers to two questions that have already been raised which the Department has permission to answer in executive session.

So return at 2 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 11:55 a. m., the committee was recessed, to reconvene at 2 p. m. the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Secretary, just a few questions and then we will take up with General Ridgway.

For the record, Secretary Wilson said this:

I believe that it is fair to add that the Air Force feels that our defense program is a good one. The Navy and Marine Corps have some minor reservations and would perhaps like a few additional personnel. The Army, from its point of view, will still recommend some higher strength for the active force of the Army. In my opinion, the program we have adopted is a sound one.

Now, I had the privilege of studying his statement 2 or 3 days before it was delivered, and so I wrote a brief on it and in commenting on that phase I said this:

I want to compliment you on your candid summary of the views of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, with respect to the planned military strength for fiscal 1956. You have indicated the Air Force is happy and the Navy and Marine Corps would like a little less reduction, and the Army is not contented with its reduction from 1,300,000 to 1,027,000. However, you have stated you believe the program to be sound.

Now I want to put that in the record to keep it straight.

Now I would like to know, in view of what the Secretary said, the Army from its point of view would still recommend some higher strength for the active force of the Army.

Now that is what Secretary Wilson said. Now are you at liberty now in open session to tell us what higher strength for the active force of the Army you thought you should have had instead of 1,027,000 that you received?

Secretary STEVENS. No, sir. Mr. Chairman, I accept that figure completely and will be willing to discuss it further, if you care to, in executive session. But I agree with Mr. Wilson that it is a balanced program that is best for our country.

The CHAIRMAN. But you do not feel that you can now in public session state what was running through your mind and recommend some higher strength for the active force of the Army than 1,027,000? Secretary STEVENS. No, sir. I have adjusted my thinking completely to this balanced program, and I have nothing in mind at the present time.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, did the Department submit a figure when this matter was under consideration, or were you merely told this is the figure?

Secretary STEVENS. Well, I would prefer to discuss that if I may in executive session.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we must, as much as possible, let the country know something about what the Army's position is with reference to a ground force. We must let them know as much as we possibly can, because the people support the Army.

Secretary STEVENS. That is correct, sir, and I have stated and I restate that I believe that the figures outlined to be used as targets for planning purposes are sound and constitute a balanced force of military forces.

The CHAIRMAN. Now when you give this information to the committee, then of course the committee will ordinarily respect your confidence. It should. But this is such an important matter I was hoping that the country might know in view of what the Secretary said what you had in mind. Now let's read, if I may interrupt, this.

The Army from its point of view would still recommend some higher strength for the active force of the Army.

Now is there any way we can find out, without shutting the door and shutting everybody out, and so the country will know, what force you thought was necessary for the proper defense of the Nation?

Secretary STEVENS. I am well satisfied with the present figures, Mr. Chairman. That is, always with the understanding that they are figures for planning purposes, to the end of fiscal year 1956.

The CHAIRMAN. Now let me ask it this way. This strength of 1,027,000: Did that cause you to revise and reduce your military commitments?

Secretary STEVENS. I am not sure I understand that.

The CHAIRMAN. Receiving 1,027,000 force: has that caused you to revise and reduce your commitments, your military commitments? Secretary STEVENS. Well, General Ridgway, sir, is going to discuss the commitments and is much more qualified to discuss that from a military point of view than I am, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. You could publicly state, could you not, as to whether it did or not.

Now you will have 1,027,000 men. Now did that cause you, having that number of men assigned to you, to modify, change in any way what your previous military commitments were?

Secretary STEVENS. I don't think the commitments have been changed.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Now if the commitments haven't been changed and you only have 1,027,000 men, are you in position with that number of men to properly carry out your missions?

Secretary STEVENS. Well, I think that is going to depend, Mr. Chairman, on what transpires during the next year or year and a half. Because at the present time the total number of men in the Army is well in excess of the 1,170,000 that you mentioned this morning.

And if the situation requires change, it can be changed, long before it gets down to the 1,027,000.

Mr. SHORT. Would the Chairman yield briefly at that point?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHORT. Mr. Secretary, it is not at all impossible or inconceivable that within a few years, if we build up our reserves, the strength of our standing forces can be reduced. As the reserves go up, the active standing forces will go down, particularly if the whole world situation improves. And the Secretary, with all of his prognosticative powers, cannot foresee what is going to transpire within the next 5 or 10 years. Secretary STEVENS. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. But-

Mr. SHORT. You cannot insist upon an absolute rigidity, but have your program elastic and flexible enough to change the forces in each branch of the services to meet changing conditions.

Secretary STEVENS. That is right. And the size and readiness of this reserve that we talk about would have——

The CHAIRMAN. But I understood, Mr. Short, the Secretary to say that the active force should for a long period of time remain approximately 1,027,000, notwithstanding the fact that we enact the Reserve program. Isn't that what you said, Mr. Secretary?

Secretary STEVENS. That is what I said, and that is a pretty rigid statement, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, it is. And that carries with it-

Secretary STEVENS. It probably should have some flexibility introduced into it, because that is a pretty rigid statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Now—

Secretary STEVENS. It is my present opinion that you are going to have to have somewhere in the neighborhood of this size Army for the foreseeable future.

Mr. SORT. Of course what the chairman is concerned about and all members of the committee, on both sides, are concerned about is to avoid these peaks and valleys.

Secretary STEVENS. That is right.

Mr. SHORT. And the feast and famine in the future that we experienced so sadly and expensively in the past. Secretary STEVENS. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Now I want to say this, too. Wait one minute. The proper interpretation of the authorization and appropriation of the money that the Congress makes is not the floor but is the ceiling. Secretary STEVENS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Now the only instance, as referred to this morning by Mr. Kilday and was given as one of the reasons that he did not look with favor on the Marine Corps legislation, was because we put a floor under the Marine Corps.

Now there is no floor put under the strength of the Army or the Navy.

Secretary STEVENS. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Congress does put a ceiling at which you cannot go without further authorization and appropriation of Congress, or rather, without appropriation from Congress, and not authorization? Secretary STEVENS. That is correct, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Hardy.

Mr. HARDY. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am interested in the Secretary's reference to balanced program. I have been hearing talk about a balanced program ever since I have been on this committee. It does not seem to me the same thing it used to mean. Now just what do we mean by a balanced program?

Secretary STEVENS. Well, it means that we stabilize the whole Armed Forces program at a given level and then the makeup of that provides the balance for the most flexibility, firepower, mobility,

et cetera.

Mr. HARDY. Are you talking about some sort of a balance between the three services?

Secretary STEVENS. To some extent; yes, sir.

Mr. HARDY. Well, now, at one time a balance between the 3 services meant that each of the 3 would get about the same amount of money. You don't mean that now?

Secretary STEVENS. No, sir, not necessarily.

Mr. HARDY. I recall, Mr. Chairman, if my memory serves me correctly, one of the points that one of the predecessors in the Secretary of Defense Office, Mr. Louis Johnson, refers to a balanced program and some of his curtailments were allegedly done to achieve balance. Well, now, that wasn't the same kind of balance that you are talking about today, I don't think.

Secretary STEVENS. No, sir.

Mr. HARDY. And I would like to know just what is meant by a balanced program. Is it balance according to money, is it balance ac

cording to manpower, is it balance according to mission? Does our concept change when world conditions change, or what does it mean? I would like to find out.

Secretary STEVENS. Well, I think, for example, the Strategic Air Command has a far greater part in the picture today than it did maybe 5 to 7 years ago. That affects the balance and the makeup

of the forces.

Mr. HARDY. In other words, if you get a bigger Strategic Air Command, you do not need so many ground troops, is that right? Secretary STEVENS. That would be related to the missions.

Mr. HARDY. Well, I understood you to say your missions hadn't changed.

Secretary STEVENS. What?

Mr. HARDY. Did I understand you to say the mission of the Army has not been reduced?

Secretary STEVENS. Has not been reduced, that is right.

Mr. HARDY. Then how does the increase of the Strategic Air Arm give you the feeling that you have enough manpower when you are cut to the extent that you are going to be cut under this program?

Secretary STEVENS. Very largely because of the changed condition of the deployment of our troops. We have a far greater percentage of them here now than we had when we had all those divisions over in the Far East, and also the development of ground forces and other forces in other free nations.

Mr. HARDY. So, then, you are getting a balance in our military program by carrying the forces that have been created in Korea and in Germany, or in Europe?

Secretary STEVENS. We certainly take those into account, yes.

Mr. HARDY. But you are counting them to help us balance our Military Establishment?

Secretary STEVENS. We evaluate them for that purpose; yes.

Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman, I wish we could get a clearer explanation of this. Personally, I am not satisfied that I understand what is meant by a balanced program. We hear it all the time and we are talking about something that maybe the rest of you understand but I certainly don't. And I hate to be arguing about something I don't understand and don't seem to be able to get an explanation.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions by any of the members of the Secretary?

Mr. BROOKS. Yes, I would like to ask the Secretary this. You referred to the reduction of 140,000 men from the Army as being acceptable and permitting us still to have an adequate Army.

Now you have also referred to the fact that the commitments under the questioning by our chairman had not been changed and they are essentially the same as they have been before. That is true, isn't it? Then, what we are losing, then, in 140,000, is a reserve, is that true, for unexpected commitments and things that we cannot at the present time anticipate?

Secretary STEVENS. I think that would be partly the fact, yes.

Mr. BROOKS. Therefore, you are taking that reduction with the idea you will build up your reserves and when you build those up it will take the place of the reduction which you have already taken in the

55066-55-No. 3- -10