ARSENALS AND DEPOTS

Of those listed, only four seem to be in controversy. Two are on the east coast and the other two on the west coast.

Here again, we are confronted with questions on the basis for these decisions.

We have been given measurements of storage spaces which are allegedly surplus to present and foreseeable requirements. Yet the air is surcharged with talk of conventional buildups-not only of men but material. Where are the goods to be stored? What is the magnitude of the task?

The Deputy Chief of Ordnance charged with this matter has testified in much the same vein as the Assistant Secretary of Defense. All data can be examined. But it should be read with this note of caution: The basic data and the programing of this phaseout began in 1958. The query then moves to whether or not such a program is in accordance with the needs for a new, current, and perhaps different and expanded plan of military buildup not then understood nor, perhaps, fully evaluated in terms of 1958 forecasts and plans.

Considering the two arsenals on the east coast, the most favorable aspect of all the testimony is that the phaseout is to be gradual. But the dispersal of skills and the abandonment of real estate should not be lightly undertaken, especially under international stress.

The subcommittee is in no position to formulate, much less to execute, a war plan on any assumption of facts. That is the function of the military; and we must accept their guidance unless patently and demonstrably in error.

Such is the situation on these four installations. As to the two bases on the west coast where functions are to be moved inland, we view these decisions in the light of that principle.

But on the evidence, the case is neither convincing nor reassuring. It is difficult to understand that a brandnew, modern terminal on a west coast waterway should so suddenly have become excess.

Yet we are unable to marshall military justification for its continuance in the face of the positive conviction of responsible military officials.

However, as to the proposed transfer of the functions of the Mount Rainier depot, situated on public lands and part and parcel of an active military complex having many functions, it would appear that the only purpose being served is to dissipate a labor force and transfer work 700 miles to the interior in the belief that a labor force will follow. This may prove to be an expensive substitution.

It would be superfluous to repeat detail on the data respecting these several installations. These facts are well known and of record.

SUMMARY

In summary, the cases studied are few out of the total. The significance of this fact has not been lost; and it also serves to emphasize the seriousness of the decisions which are recommended for further study.

The subcommittee recommends further study on the possible utilization of the housing and other facilities at Laughlin Air Force Base,

for other uses; and further consideration of the housing potential at Harlingen, before these installations are boarded up.

The subcommittee is not convinced that buildup of manpower will not present a need for housing; and for that matter, some space for training. Here are facilities "in being"-one of them brandnew.

We recommend less haste and more study of conversion to other uses before this housing and these buildings are scrapped.

As to the arsenals, we have expressed ourselves as unable to substitute, on facts and responsibility, our judgment for that of the Department of Army, however painful the choice may be.

Therefore, the subcommittee presents the facts as a part of its report with the following recommendation:

1. That the two airbases be restudied before abandonment; and that uses by other services be considered.

We are mindful of the frantic conversion of Sampson Navy Base in upper New York State when the Korean buildup came to provide for Air Force personnel training. A similar situation may occur here. This is not a time for haste and waste.

2. That the conversion of the four depots be further evaluated. 3. That all six of the projects be reviewed in the light of the most recent determinations on military needs in the face of growing threats and impending countermeasures.

We, therefore, recommend and urge caution and restudy before these decisions become irrevocable.

Unanimously approved and respect fully submitted.

F. EDWARD HÉBERT, Chairman, Subcommittee for Special Investigation.

CLOSING OF MILITARY BASES

THURSDAY, JULY 13, 1961

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,

SUBCOMMITTEE FOR SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS,

EXECUTIVE SESSION

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., the Honorable F. Edward Hébert (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. HÉBERT. The committee will be in order.

Members of the committee, this is an executive session to hear the Department of Defense in connection with the closing down and deactivation of some military bases in foreign countries and also in the United States. The investigation was ordered by Mr. Vinson, chairman of the full committee.

I would like to read this statement at this time.

On March 30, 1961, the Secretary of Defense announced the discontinuance or reduction of activity at 52 military installations in the continental United States. At that time, it was announced that this program had been entered into with the purpose of eliminating excess property holdings and curtailing unnecessary expenditures within the Military Establishment.

In view of the critical nature of our times, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the Honorable Carl Vinson, directed the Subcommittee for Special Investigations to make a study of the economy and efficiency to be achieved by this action.

The Secretary of Defense was requested to arrange to submit to the subcommittee the justification data assembled by the military departments in support of the action taken and the economies to be effected thereby.

These data have now been received and furnished to the interested Members of Congress who have expressed a desire to testify before the subcommittee.

This morning we will begin by hearing testimony from our colleagues, the Honorable O. C. Fisher and the Honorable Joe M. Kilgore, relative to the Department's decision to close out activities at Laughlin Air Force Base, Del Rio, Tex., and Harlingen Air Force Base, Harlingen, Tex.

Representatives of the Department of Defense and the Air Force are present here this morning to answer questions that may arise and to furnish additional explanation where indicated.

Now, members of the committee, in connection with this hearing, you will note as we proceed that we have departed from the congressional method of hearings.

In order to focus attention on the objectives of the inquiry and in order to eliminate waste and unnecessary comment and exercises, the committee will proceed in this fashion.

Mr. Morris, the Assistant Secretary, representing the Department of Defense, has already been informed of the procedure.

The committee is very much concerned about unnecessary publicity and fanfare and flamboyancy in this type of a hearing. We do not want to do anything that would be destructive of the security of the country, especially in these times, but at the same time we want to have all the facts.

So in this connection, we will proceed in this fashion. The Department of Defense at the request of the committee has already given to the committee the justification for the closing of these several bases.

In turn, the committee staff has submitted this statement to the Member whose district has been affected by the closing or in whose district the location of the plan or field or installation is located.

The Department will be allowed to proceed in any manner in which it desires. I understand Mr. Morris has an opening statement he would like to make.

Secretary MORRIS. Yes.

Mr. HÉRERT. Which he will be permitted to make.

After that, the data which he has submitted to the committee will be inserted in the record at this point.

(Secretary Morris nods.)

Mr. HÉBERT. From there the individual Member of the Congress in whose district the installation is located will be permitted to question you, Mr. Morris, or your representatives, in connection with the data which you have furnished. After which the members of the committee will be allowed to proceed.

(Secretary Morris nods.)

Mr. HÉBERT. The committee will not hear anybody other than the Member of the district.

(Secretary Morris nods.)

Mr. HÉBERT. I have already informed individuals who have come to see me in this connection that the committee is not interested in chambers of commerce, mayors or Governors, or any public officials or civil organizations.

I also informed them that any information or any details which they have, they must present through their elected Representative, the Member of the Congress from that district.

Also, in that connection, I have impressed upon them that this committee is not interested in the economics of the installation as related to workloads, payrolls, et cetera.

We are only interested in the military justification of the closing of these installations.

Now, I think-those are the ground rules. If you have any questions, Mr. Secretary, I will be glad to answer them. Or do you understand the ground rules?

Secretary MORRIS. I do, sir, and appreciate very much this handling. Mr. HÉBERT. And also I want to emphasize this, that all these hearings will be in executive session.

Secretary MORRIS. Good.

Mr. HÉBERT. As I told you early in the game, and promised you I would do it as far as possible, because we can easily understand the