« PreviousContinue »
I might interpolate at that point, Mr. Chairman, that the Army, when you consider the amount of money spent by all the different services, is very proud of the progress it has made and the great achievements that we have reached under such a small amount of money that we have had to spend in the field of scientific research and development.
I hope the committee will study that question very carefully. We are mindful of the extreme importance and urgency of the needs in the field of new developments-because we can never hope to match man for man with the hordes on the Asiatic Continent and Soviet Russia with all her satellites; our only hope of victory or chance of survival in another world conflict is in the superiority of our weapons and the superior skill of the men who man those weapons. After all is said and done, man is the ultimate weapon, and there is no substitute for a highly trained, well-disciplined, and well-equipped soldier, with the most modern, up-to-date weapons.
We are mindful of the extreme importance, I repeat, and the urgency of the needs in the field of new development, and we have attempted to insure that the requisite construction program keep in phase with this priority requirement.
Of course we can build many more barracks and houses as fast as we like, because there are other requirements of perhaps higher priority, but we are making pretty good progress all along the line in a well-rounded and well-balanced program with the funds that are available for us.
Now, third, we have continued to recognize the important training impetus generated by a modernized Army and its use of missiles both defensively and offensively. In this connection we have specialized schools, 1 for surface-to-air missiles at Fort Bliss, Tex., and 1 for surface-to-surface missiles at Fort Sill, Okla. Included in this request is a total of $17 million for the expansion and modernization of facilities in support of the training missions at these 2 installations.
The second broad category is for requirements in overseas baserights areas (exclusive of Nike) for which we are seeking $36.3 million, or 10.5 percent of our total request. This urgent and high priority requirement is for operational and logistic-type facilities in support of United States Army Forces deployed in Europe and the Far East, in accordance with mutual defense agreements. · Also included is a new station for the Signal Corps' worldwide communication network, and modernization and expansion of Army Security Agency overseas installations,
The third major element of this request is for permanent plant at our permanent installations. Included in this area is the sum of $106.6 million. The Army's 20-year, plan which I previously mentioned now requires an annual increment of $260 million in order to achieve our target completion date of 197+the 20-year period from 1954 to 1974,
As may be readily observed, we have again been forced to accept another shortfall toward this goal. I note, too, that the program proposes only 158 units of MCA family housing. This we consider is a minimal request for this type housing, intended only for locations where fulfilling this requirement through the provisions of title VIII, Public Law 1020, 84th Congress, is not feasible. In accordance with
Department of Defense policy, we are continuing our endeavors to accomplish the major portion of our family housing requirements either under the Capehart Act or in overseas areas through surplus commodity balances. Finally, our request contains approximately 3,000 less barracks spaces than the annual increment required for our 20year plan. The remainder of the permanent plant contained in this increment consists basically of operational, training, storage, and maintenancetype facilities programed at installations where the greatest deficiency exists and where the immediate need is the most urgent. I assure this committee, sir, that the composition of the request. I have just outlined has been thoroughly studied and developed on the basis of carefully evaluating each project, and represents the Army's highest priority requirements within a limited budget. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I want to say on behalf of the committee—and I know I voice the sentiment of each member of the committee—that this is a very strong, forceful, constructive statement, that will be of great aid and benefit to us in considering this bill. I particularly want to invite the committee's attention to the fact that in considering the line items in this bill we must bear in mind that this is an overall, 20-year program. #. percent of it has been acomplished through appropriations, although 25 percent of the time has run against the 20 years. So in the preparation of the line items, I also want to say that the full information showing what the ultimate cost over the period of 20 years is set out. It is most constructive and will be beneficial when we come to each line item. Again, Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you on behalf of the com.. for the forceful, constructive, and beneficial observations on this bill. Secretary SHORT. Thank you very much.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, members of the committee, are there any questions?
Mr. Bates. Mr. BATEs. Mr. Chairman, I regret I was a little bit late coming in, but has the witness been identified? The CHAIRMAN. Yes, he has been identified. [Laughter.] Mr. Rivers, any questions? Mr. RIVERs. I would just like to say, Mr. Chairman, that the distinguished Secretary's statement evidences a great knowledge which he has garnered as a member of this committee and of the Congress, in addition to his service in the Department of the Army, aggregating nearly 30 years. And it is a strong statement and it shows a great knowledge of what is going on in the Army, which he helped to fashion to its modern point.
I just particularly want to ask him about two questions on this statement.
I was quite interested in the 2 types of schools set up under this bill—I mean that you have under this bill, in operation, and how you are implementing it—1 at Bliss and 1 at Šiii.
The surface-to-surface is— Secretary SHORT. Sill. Mr. RIVERs. Is at Sill? Secretary SHORT. Sill. Mr. RIVERs. The surface-to-air is at Bliss? Secretary SHORT. Right. Mr. Rivers. Now, are you going about—here is my question. I am disturbed about this explosion which happened in the New York area and which we all lament. I am disturbed about what is being developed, Mr. Secretary, to prevent a chain reaction when an incident like the one on . occurred, where you have a cluster of these missiles, which necessarily have to be had at these areas. Or would you prefer my asking General Shuler or somebody else? Because that is going to be a problem. Secretary SHORT. No, I think I can answer that perhaps without revealing any top secrets, In fact, it was all in the paper this morning. This particular exF. occurred yesterday. Unfortunately, these tragic events do appen. You always do run a calculated risk. I can imagine not not only the mayor of the town but a lot of the people were a little angry at the Army. They said, we had promised nothing like that would ever happen. Well, of course you can't— Mr. Rivers. Of course you can’t. We know that. ...” SHORT. You can't prevent accidents. These missiles were not fired. It was an explosion, and unfortunatel § eight of the Nike's went up in smoke and powder. It killed 9, maybe 10 people. It did $200,000 worth of damage, in loss of the missiles, themselves. They cost $24,000 apiece. And $100,000 damage to the loading ramp. But that is just 1 of 10 Nike sites that surround the great metropolitan city of New York, where you have 12 to 15 million people—the financial—well, it is ahmost the nerve center not only of the Nation but of the world. Now, these sites are dispersed, of course, as much as is humanly and physically possible. It has been my privilege to visit most of the Nike sites that surround the city of New York. We don't tell the world, even our own people, just where each one of these sites hapi. to be, although most *f; I think that live in the neighborood realize their presence. They have them around Washington around Pittsburgh, around Chicago, Frisco. We are going to build some more around Minneapolis, St. Paul, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Kan. City, and the Dallas-Fort Worth area. We are getting money or that. There are 23 cities where we have these Nike sites, with Ajax, that are now being supplanted or followed by the Nike II, Nike-Hercules which is about four times as powerful, that can shoot higher and farther, to give us increased protection against any possible enemy attack. Well, we are going along, and eventually we hope to get Nike-Zeus. That will be even more powerful and deadly and accurate. I don't know, in answer to your question. We have these two schools—surface-to-air, at Bliss and White Sands Proving Ground, and the surface-to-surface at Fort Sill. That is going to be a problem. We are wrestling with it now, and your committee is going to wrestle with it. Because it has been suggested that we expand Fort
Sill by rather vast acreage and at great cost. We have to decide whether after the expansion of that facility it will meet the most modern requirements and needs. And if we are not going to expand or acquire 280,000 or perhaps fewer acres than that, what are we going to do with Fort Sill? We have $250 million invested at Sill. You can't walk off and leave it.
Mr. RIVERS. Knowing this committee, you know we will resolve it when the time comes.
Secretary SHORT. Yes, I am sure you will.
Mr. RIVERS. And I was impressed with another statement you made. I think the Army has done more than any other service with the least amount of money in the missile field.
Secretary SHORT. I am awfully encouraged and pleased to know that we have at least one friend left in the world. Laughter.]
Mr. BECKER. You have more than one, Dewey.
Secretary Short. It really cheers me up. I am not going to talk against any service, but I am going to talk for the Army. I think it is high time
Mr. RIVERS. I think you are to be commended in the missile field, and I want the record to show it.
The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. St. George, any questions?
Mrs. ST. GEORGE. I just also wanted to say how much interested I was in what I heard, in the very distinguished Secretary's report.
Certainly I would second Mr. Rivers' motion. I am 100 percent for the Army and will remain so. There is just one thing I would like to ask, Mr. Secretary: Have we enough flexibility so that when we have to change these housing programs, as I can foresee we will certainly have to do, we will be able to do it?
Now, for instance, you take this case near Port-Lyautey. I don't think that is going to be a very pleasant place to have a housing development in the near future.
Now, can anything be done about that, or are these programs so rigid that if you say you are going to build a model village in the front line trenches you are going to have to build it there regardless?
That disturbs me.
Mrs. ST. GEORGE. It is the same idea. We have some Army installations that are in the same category. Take the missions in France today. We don't know what is going to happen in that country. And there are lots of other places we don't know about.
Secretary SHORT. That is very true. That is why I pointed out in my original statement here that we have the two types of construction.
Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Yes.
Secretary SHORT. One is permanent installations here at home, and the others are temporary or modified temporary.
Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Yes, but it seems to me that we ought to be able to shift them. In other words, when you see that one place is definitely hopeless or unhealthy for some reason or other and that
the change of Government there is going to affect it, that you would be able to change and take the money that is allotted to that and put it somewhere else.
Secretary SHORT. Of course
The CHAIRMAN. I will say the policy has been to always have some flexibility.
(Mr. Kelleher nods.) The CHAIRMAN. To meet the conditions just pointed out by Mrs. St. George.
Secretary SHORT. We are constantly striving for flexibility. But the difficulty you run into when you build abroad: you have to enter into agreements with foreign governments.
Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Oh, I know that. Secretary SHORT. And you get into the field of diplomacy. Lyautey, in Africa, which I visited. Mr. SMART. It is Navy. Secretary SHORT. Yes, Navy, Mr. RIVERS. We captutured that in 1942. We captured PortLyautey
The CHAIRMAN. My recollection is in France it was privately constructed and a guaranteed rental.
Secretary SHORT. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. So there would be flexibility in that area in France, because we merely say that we won't occupy the houses and we will liquidate the damages and just move out if it is not the proper place to live if the facts develop it.
Secretary SHORT. We all know we paid the French pretty well for these bases. Even the ones in French Morocco. But now perhaps we are going to have
to pay the Moroccan Government. Mrs. ST. GEORGE. That is exactly the point. Secretary SHORT. So I know the gentleladyMrs. ST. GEORGE. I do know flexibility is very much needed at the present time.
The CHAIRMAN. I would sayMrs. ST. GEORGE. Could I ask one more question there, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. St. GEORGE. Mr. Secretary, you brought out the point, that we all certainly agree on, that in the final analysis men are what counts.
I wonder if you would be willing to give us an impression of what you think of this forthcoming cut in the Army, of about 30,000 men?
Mr. HESS. Reserves?
Mrs. ST. GEORGE. No, this is not the Reserves. This is the Regular Army.
I am very disturbed about it and I understand the approriations have gone through for the Army including this cut, and I am wondering if there was anything that we could do.
Secretary SHORT. Your feeling in the matter pleases me a great deal. I am not going
Mrs. Sr. GEORGE. I would rather do more than please you. I would like to know whether some action is being taken.