20 times that of sound, and in its trajectory, it must rise several hundred miles above the earth's surface. Flight time should be 25 to 30 minutes (chart 17). An antimissile defense must have means of detecting, tracking, and identifying an incoming hostile missile as early as possible, and this is shown schematically in the slide showing three radar beams emanating from a station in Greenland. With the information provided by this early warning radar and in the 15 to 20 minutes available, we can alert the Strategic Air Command and the civil populations of our two countries to the fact that an attack has been launched. We can bring the forward acquisition radar of the active antimissile defenses to a high state of alert and we can prepare to fire radar controlled antimissile against the incomers. This, in general, is the system presently proposed. The portion which has to do with early warning is already under construction. The ballistic missile early warning system, called BMEWS, together with its communications and control equipment, is being built by the Air Force. The active defense portion, that is the Nike-Zeus system, is under development by the U.S. Army. It is a matter of utmost urgency that the antiballistic (slide off) missile defenses of Canada and the United States be pushed to completion with all possible speed. A system as extensive as the North American Air Defense Command requires vast resources and it would be well now to examine how the forces and the money are actually provided. The entire system is tied together under North American Air Defense Command Headquarters, at Colorado Springs. This command was set up in September 1957 by agreement between Canada and the United States. I am the commander not only of the overall North American air defense system, but I am also the unified commander of all U.S. forces assigned to NORAD for air defense purposes. As head of the international organization, I report to both the Chiefs of Staff Committee of Canada and to the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States. At my headquarters in Colorado Springs, I am fortunate indeed in having as deputy commander the former head of the Royal Canadian Air Force, Air Marshal C. Roy Slemon. He was in the Royal Canadian Air Force when it was formed in 1924, and his long experience and well-balanced judgment have proved invaluable during the past year and a half in working our plans and procedures acceptable to both Canada and the United States. My headquarters, like the command itself (slide off), is made up of U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine personnel, and people from the Royal Canadian Air Force. In numbers there are just over 210,000 people in the overall system if we include the 22,000 employed by the U.S. Navy in barrier operations which are not actually assigned to my command. Insofar as Canada is concerned, only one service, the Royal Canadian Air Force, is involved in air defense operations, and my relationship with Canada is quite simple and straightforward. I get my operational instructions from the Chiefs of Staff Committee usually through the Royal Canadian Air Force Headquarters. In turn, I exercise operational control of the air defenses in Canada through the commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force Air Defence Command at St. Hubert near Montreal. On the U.S. side, arrangements are much more complicated. I still get my instructions as commander of the North American Air Defense Command from the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. However, since I am also the commander in chief of the U.S. forces-Army, Navy, and Air Force-in other words, a unified commander, I have operational command of the entire U.S. establishment. I might say that my present status is relatively new since only on the first of January 1959 did we change from the executive agency system whereby I reported to the Joint Chiefs of Staff through the Department of the Air Force to the present system by which I report directly to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. We are in a transitional period in which several fundamental and complicated realinements must be consummated in order to achieve the type of unified command relationships envisaged by Congress in the Reorganization Act of 1958. In neither my capacity as North American Air Defense Commander nor as unified commander of the U.S. forces do I have any budgetary function. The method by which resources are made available by the U.S. services for air defense purposes is currently an indirect one. As a unified commander, I indicate to the Joint Chiefs of Staff through plans and through statements of requirements the kinds and numbers of forces and equipment which my headquarters believes should be provided for the North American Air Defense Command in the foreseeable future. The Joint Chiefs of Staff then consider these plans and requirements, correlate them with the needs of the other unified commands, and suballocate to the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force the tasks of providing those resources which are agreed upon by the Joint Chiefs of Staff as necessary. The services then go ahead with whatever research, development, procurement, or budgeting actions may be necessary to carry out the plans and programs approved by the Joint Chiefs. Finally, when the forces of the three services become available, they are allocated to my command and they may not thereafter be removed or altered by a service without approval by the Secretary of Defense. The machinery by which we can proceed from an initial statement of requirements to final deployment of combat forces in the field is involved and time consuming. I feel certain that as the Defense Department becomes better accustomed to operating under the Reorganization Act of 1958, improvements in this respect will ensue. In closing, let me say that in air defense the past year has been one of tremendous progress. Several important programs which were started many years ago became realities during 1958, and as a result, our air defense capabilities have been immeasurably improved. For example, 1958 has seen the transition from subsonic to supersonic fighters in the majority of our interceptor force, the introduction of Nike-Hercules surface-to-air missiles, the completion of the distant early warning line with its Atlantic and Pacific extensions, and the completion of the first SAGE direction centers for surveillance and control purposes. Furthermore, we now have atomic air defense weapons not only in a greater number of fighters but also in the Nike-Hercules surfaceto-air missiles, and the entire air defense system has been welded into a single operational entity throughout the continent. However, much remains to be done. In order that we may keep abreast of the improving Soviet manned bomber threat, we must continue to make qualitative improvements in the present air defenses. Vital, too, is the matter of providing an effective antimissile defense. Our survival as free nations may well depend upon our ability to secure a timely solution to the antimissile defense problem. Senator STENNIS. Under arrangements heretofore made, the general is going to testify further, but it will be in answer to questions that will involve secret matters, and we will, therefore, now go into executive session; Mr. Clerk, the committee holds you responsible for the clearance of all people in the room. (Whereupon, at 2:50 p.m., the committee went into executive ses sion.) (The committee reconvened in open session at 3: 50 p.m.) Senator STENNIS. Secretary Bryant, we appreciate your yielding to the general. We are glad to have you here. You are a veteran in the Pentagon and before this committe. You have been helpful to us before. are going to have meetings of the Preparedness Investigating Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, gentlemen, to begin tomorrow and I don't know when we can again hold our sessions. So it makes it even more important that we proceed with Secretary Bryant if we can this afternoon. You can stay on a while longer, Mr. Secretary? Mr. BRYANT. Yes, sir; at your pleasure. Senator STENNIS. All right. Now you know our custom here. You have a very good statement for us to study and for the staff to study. If you would rather read it, that is your privilege. If you would rather put it in the record and hit the high points of it, why, that is all right, too. Which would you rather do? STATEMENT OF HON. FLOYD S. BRYANT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (PROPERTIES AND INSTALLATIONS), ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN H. ARRINGTON, OASD (P. & I.) Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, I understand the reasons for the suggestion. I think it is a very good one, as far as I am concerned, to put it in the record and simply give you a broad summary of what it contains, because this year-you called me a veteran. I suppose 311⁄2 years in the Pentagon makes one a veteran. It led me to go into considerable detail, still in a broad way of coverage, which I think the committee can probably well study. Senator STENNIS. Gentlemen of the Navy, we had you scheduled to hear you today. It is very apparent that we will not be able to go beyond Secretary Bryant's testimony, so if you wish to be excused, you may. We will let you know when we can sit again. Thank you. Mr. BRYANT. I was saying that I thought that the committee members might well want to study this more formal statement, which I will highlight very briefly, and to the extent that you want to question at this time any portions of it, of course, I will be very happy to try to answer them. But for the present, with your permission, I will file for insertion in the record the statement which you referred to and which each of the members I believe has been given a copy of. (The document referred to follows:) Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a privilege to appear before you on behalf of the Department of Defense in support of the military construction authorization bill for fiscal year 1960. The programs which this additional new construction will support are principal elements of our long-range defense objectives. Much of the work consists of additional increments in the advancement of key offensive and defensive weapons systems which are already well underway. Substantial progress on these programs has been accomplished, under authorization previously approved by this committee. For example, alert faciilties have been provided and more are now under construction which enable a greater proportion of our B-47 and B-52 bombers to react promptly. Construction to permit the dispersal of these Strategic Air Command strike forces is also well underway. Atlas launching sites at several locations are progressing rapidly, and structures to support the testing of more advanced missiles are being built. Shore facilities for Polaris submarines and other naval craft are being expanded. The Army and Air Force integrated air defense system within the United States has been greatly improved, and work on Nike Zeus and the ballistic missile early warning system is being pushed as rapidly as practicable. Objectives of the fiscal year 1960 construction program.-The projects comprising S. 1086 will permit work to continue on the programs I have just referred to, and on other essential activities which are underway throughout our defense base establishment. The bill provides for a total of $1,299,297,000, in new construction authority for the Active Forces, of which $231,252,000 is for the Army; $195,284,000 is for the Navy; and $872,761,000 is for the Air Force. Of the total amount requested, $408,551,000, or 31 percent, is directly in support of our ballistic missile programs; approximately $266,700,000, or 20 percent, is for expanded air defense systems; $222,823,000, or 17 percent, is to support research and development, missile defense, and new activities; and $109,956,000, or 9 percent, is for improving the capabilities of the Strategic Air Command. Substantial amounts are also included in support of combat training, submarine and antisubmarine activities, fighter aircraft programs, and for required modernization of existing physical plant. This bill also provides new construction authority for the Reserve components, and details covering this are contained in another part of this statement. Procedure used in developing and reviewing the fiscal year 1960 construction program. I wish to assure the committee that each project in this bill was individually and specifically reviewed and screened, in order to assure that the facilities being requested were strictly limited only to those definitely required to properly support the missions assigned to our military forces. During the examination of this program in my office, and in the other offices of the Secretary of Defense, particular care was taken to verify that those proj. ects selected for inclusion in this bill were needed to support long-term future objectives, military plans, and force levels. We are well aware that heavy expenditures for new weapons will create a tremendous financial burden for the next several years. For this reason, the items requested in this bill have been strictly limited to those for which a compelling military necessity exists. Projects which were merely desirable, but not essential, have been eliminated. Moreover, those projects which were approved for inclusion in this bill were each scrutinized from the standpoint of size, cost, location, and proper designs. Questionable projects were discussed in detail with the respective service representatives, and this year, as a result of our review and screening procedures, the programs submitted by all of the departments were reduced from their original total of $2,130,604,000, to an approved total of $1,368,554,000. Then, the Bureau of the Budget conducted a still further review, during which the program was further reduced to $1,299,297,000, which is the amount now before your committee. We feel that this is the minimum amount needed to satisfactorily support the missions assigned to our military forces. Summary of the bill.-In order to present to the committee in brief form the major construction activties for the Active Forces which are proposed by this legislation, a summary of the most important projects in titles I, II, and III is given, showing the amount and percentage of authoritzation devoted to each. A further analysis is also provided showing a summation of the various categories of facilities for which authorization is requested in each of these three titles. Summary of program objectives contained in title I (Army) For facilities in support of research, development and test activities on the Nike- For construction of Nike-Hercules, Hawk, and missile master facilities in conti- For construction of facilities to support new weapons developments, new research For essential utilities projects at major installations throughout the United States. For construction of facilities to support Army training activities, including For the construction of hospital and medical facilities including $4,300,000 for a For essential airfield and heliport facilities at major installations throughout the 49, 464,000 14, 522,000 For essential facilities, other than troop housing, in support of the Pacific scatter and strategic Army communications systems.. For fee acquisition of 1,147 acres of land.. For research, development, and test facilities in support of programs other than For essential facilities other than troop housing, in support of the Army Security For continuation of various other essential programs worldwide. Total.. 231, 252, 000 100.0 Analysis of title I (Army) by category, type of facilities to be provided [Dollar amounts in millions] Summary of program objectives contained in title II (Navy) Objective For construction of facilities at continental and overseas naval air shore installa- For construction of Pacific missile range facilities in support of missile evaluation For construction of facilities to support new weapons developments, new research and development activities, and new mission requirements. For construction needed to support eastward extension of the DEW line. For construction in support of supply activities, improvement and modernization of utilities, and miscellaneous support items. For construction of additional electric power facilities for Navy and Air Force requirements on the island of Guam. For construction of facilities to support Navy training activities in the continental For construction of facilities necessary to support antisubmarine warfare training activities. For research and development facilities... For construction of facilities in support of shipbuilding and ship repair activities in the continental United States.. For construction of facilities in support of worldwide communications systems. For construction of facilities in support of test, development and operation of the For the construction of hospital and medical facilities including $2,300,000 for a Total... Analysis of title II (Navy) by category, type of facilities to be provided |