Page images
PDF
EPUB

97

DEPOSITED BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

3988 8886, orola

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS, 1960

FRIDAY, JANUARY 23, 1959.

WITNESSES HON. NEIL MELROY, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE GEN. N. F. TWINING, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF w. J. MCNEIL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMP

TROLLER) MAJ. GEN ROBERT S. MOORE, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE COMP

TROLLER HENRY GLASS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE ECONOMIC AND FISCAL

ANALYSIS DIVISION, OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DE

FENSE (COMPTROLLER) MAURICE H. LANMAN, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL (FISCAL

MATTERS) HAROLD R. LOGAN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, BUDGET DIVISION,

OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER) MAJ. GEN. DAVID W. TRAUB, DIRECTOR OF ARMY BUDGET, OFFICE,

COMPTROLLER OF THE ARMY BEAR ADM. LOT ENSEY, ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER OF THE NAVY,

BUDGET AND REPORTS BRIG. GEN. R. J. FRIEDMAN, DIRECTOR OF BUDGET, OFFICE, COMP

TROLLER OF THE AIR FORCE CAPT. L. P. GRAY, MILITARY ASSISTANT TO CHAIRMAN, JOINT

CHIEFS OF STAFF

Mr. Mahon. Before proceeding with our hearings on the 1960 Defense budget I should like to take note of and welcome the new members of our subcommittee: Glenard P. Lipscomb, of California; Phil Weaver, of Nebraska; William E. Minshall, of Ohio; and Keith Thomson, of Wyoming:

The committee, the Congress, and the country are fortunate to have these able, experienced, and dedicated young men on this panel which deals so significantly with the defense of the United States. We welcome you aboard with the assurance that you will make important contributions to our work here.

Mr. Secretary, we are met here today for the purpose of beginning our hearings on the fiscal 1960 budget. These hearings will consume in excess of 2 months. We are dealing with the largest sum of money proposed for any appropriation bill which is to be acted on at this session of Congress.

The questions of national defense and weaponry are so complicated that we on this side of the table, of course, feel our inadequacy for coping with these problems. We are not experts.

It is true that in one capacity or another many of us have been dealing with these things for many years, but we feel often frustrated and confused as to just what the right procedure may be.

(1)

We recognize that on your side of the table you do not have quick and easy answers to all the problems in the field of national defense. We realize that in response to questions from the committee any witness can talk, but we want to get as pertinent information in the record and before the committee as we can with respect to the questions which are propounded.

Since you are the head of the Defense Establishment, there are certain questions that we of necessity will have to ask you that someone in your Department could probably give a more detailed answer to, but nevertheless we must have a statement from you. We may later want to interrogate others about the same matters.

A great deal has been said about what may be the spending propensities of the 86th Congress. This country is fighting a battle against inflation and fighting a battle for fiscal responsibility and effective and efficient government. We are trying to make democracy work, and in trying to make democracy work we have to give consideration to budgetary matters, of course.

The general public wants in a general way and without specifics to cut nondefense spending to the bone. Of course, where spending affects them directly they may have a different view. However, it has been my observation that the Member of Congress, the man in the bank, the man in business, the man on the farm, or the man on the street, says: “We want economy, but make sure we keep up our guard, let us not neglect national defense, let us not put a balanced budget or any other factor under the sun ahead of the defense of the United States. That is the one thing which we cannot neglect."

I think you are aware of that and certainly we are aware of it. We want to make a good record from the standpoint of appropriations and expenditures, but we cannot afford to make it at the expense of the security of the country.

On the other hand, we do not want to be in the position of throwing away the people's substance in the name of national defense when it really is not necessary. We do not want to be maneuvered into the position of providing a lot of funds which you really do not need, so we will expect to have from you and your associates the very best help that can be given us in that field.

We are concerned about the missile race, the so-called weapons of the future, the upstream weapons, or call them what you may. We are very much concerned about these programs. We do not want to see them neglected or cut back or retarded. We want to find out just what our status is in this contest between the United States and the Soviet Union for military supremacy, so much of our interrogation will have to do with the question of where are we.

We are particularly interested in research and development and those related fields. We will want to interrogate you with respect to those matters. "Of course, we will want to explore the detailed estimates supporting the appropriation request.

Mr. Secretary, we want your frank opinions. I hope that representatives of the services will bear in mind that we want their frank opinions. ·

We are aware that word has been passed down from the Bureau of the Budget to the services and all of the agencies of Government warning them as to what the rules and regulations are with respect to requesting funds that are not included in the President's program. We believe that the witnesses who will appear before this committee are aware generally of their rights and privileges. We want the executive branch to be in a position to proceed in an orderly way, but we want witnesses to be objective in their testimony before us.

One of the things that is disturbing in these hearings is that they are more or less one-sided. We often hear just one side.

If you ask a farmer how he is getting along running the landlord's farm he will at least say “I am doing a good job so far as I am concerned. Perhaps the prices are not adequate."

When you ask a military officer how he is doing running the missile program or a ship program or a program of personnel he will not say "I am sorry; I am just a flop.” He will say “I am doing well. Of course there are some problems involved.”

When you ask the Secretary of Defense what the state of the Department over which he presides and has presided for some time is he will not say, "I am sorry, I have turned out to be a failure. I had hoped to succeed but I am not doing well.”

He will say, “I am doing well. We are looking forward with great anticipation toward further progress.

If you ask a Congressman what kind of job he is doing for the people he will probably say, “I am glad you asked me that question. I am doing a magnificent job."

That is one of our problems with people. They give us the rosy side and do not always help us in a maximum way to understand the real problems because we all like to look good. We hope we can keep those matters in mind as hearings progress.

We want to talk to you about limited war, war plans, and just how adequate the defense program is, why we are are not saving more money, why we still have wasteful procedures, and what can be done to have a defense program that will inspire, demand, and secure the complete confidence of Congress and the people.

I want to say, Mr. Secretary, that members of this committee hold you in high respect. We feel you are doing everything in your power to do a good job, and we want to work with you in a nonpartisan way as Americans for the security and safety of the country which we love.

That is perhaps a long preliminary statement, but I do deeply feel that we need to plant our feet safely on firm ground as we start on this long journey toward exploring tắe $40-billion-plus budget request. The floor is yours, Mr. Secretary. Secretary McElroy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Before I begin with my formal statement I would like to say in response to your comments, Mr. Chairman, that in my opinion the things you said are completely reasonable and the right kind of request to make of your witnesses.

One of the things that would be dangerous to our defenses would be for us to kid ourselves as to the facts. We will try to give you the facts as we ourselves know them so that you can have the same sort of judgment with relationship to those facts as we ourselves have. Your judgment may be different from ours but we would like to give you the same baseline we have had. In that way you can give consideration to the program which we have determined from those facts to be desirable in the two ways that you yourself have put forward-first, national security, which always is foremost, and, second, a consideration of the most efficient way in which we can make use of the taxpayers' substance.

Certainly every bit of cooperation we can give in this respect will be extended to you and your committee, not only because we are your witnesses and should do it, anyway, but because this is our country, too, and we are anxious to have this process worked out to the best advantage of our country.

This is quite a long statement, Mr. Chairman, but as I understand it, it has been customary to give a rather extended report on the essential items in the budget. I will go through this as rapidly as I can. I think each of you has a copy of it before you and can follow it along with me.

GENERAL STATEMENT OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before the committee to present the defense program and budget for fiscal year 1960. General Twining and Assistant Secretary McNeil are here with me today to assist in answering questions. Ås has been the custom in the past, General Twining will follow and present to you, on a classified basis, a comprehensive analysis of our military strength in relation to the threat to our national security. Assistant Secretary McNeil, at a later point in your hearings, will present the financial details of the budget.

The principles and considerations upon which this defense budget is based were discussed in some detail by President Eisenhower in his state of the Union message and in his budget message. I would, therefore, like to turn directly to the contents of the defense budget and program we are proposing for the coming fiscal year.

REVIEW OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

You will recall that last year the Defense Department undertook a major acceleration and redirection of many key program elements. Although the Defense Establishment had long been gearing its forces and programs to the rapid advances in science and technology, particularly since the end of the Korean war, events in the closing months of 1957 disclosed a need to step up our efforts in certain selected areas. Immediate action was taken in the form of a supplemental fiscal year 1958 appropriation request which the Congress promptly granted. This supplemental was in the nature of an advance on the fiscal year 1959 defense program. Shortly thereafter we presented the regular 1959 budget and, meanwhile, continued to review our programs in an effort to pinpoint other areas in which more rapid progress could be accomplished. A number of such areas were found and in April 1958 an amendment to the fiscal year 1959 defense budget, totaling $1.6 billion, was transmitted to the Congress.

Thus, over a period of 6 months the entire defense program and budget were subjected to a series of intensive reviews designed to ferret out each essential element of the program which should and could be advantageously accelerated or expanded in scope during

fiscal year 1959. As a result the Department was placed in a position to move forward rapidly on a broad front in all key program areas.

I can report to you that we have, in fact, moved forward in a very satisfactory manner during the last year.

BALLISTIO MISSILES

In the ballistic missile area the first units of the intermediate range missile, THOR, have already been deployed to the United Kingdom and additional units of both THOR and JUPITER are planned to be deployed during the next 18 months. Crew training is proceeding well and our regular operational forces have successfully fired their first THOR.

The ATLAS intercontinental ballistic missile has successfully completed a full-range test and is well along in production. Construction has started on a number of launching sites and by the end of the current fiscal year the first few operational missiles will be in position in the hands of trained military personnel.

The development of the TITAN, an advanced liquid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missile, is proceeding on a high priority basis. Largescale testing of this missile has begun and work has already started on the design and engineering of the launching facilities.

The ATLAS liquid-fuel missile will become operational before the end of June 1959, the year in which we are now. This is a rather marked step-up as compared to what we had anticipated.

Development work on a "second generation” solid propellant intercontinental ballistic missile, the MINUTEMAN, is progressing rapidly and on the expanded scale proposed by this committee last summer. The HOUNDOG air-to-ground missile designed to be carried by the

B-52 intercontinental jet bomber is now approaching production. The first units will be in the hands of SAC before the end of next fiscal year.

The first five submarines equipped to fire the POLARIS solid fuel ballistic missile are well along in construction and work has just begun on the sixth-a submarine of a still more advanced design. Development of the missile itself and other elements of the system are moving forward on schedule and production has started on some of the components. The first POLARIS-equipped submarines are expected to join the fleet during calendar year 1960.

DEFENSE AGAINST BALLISTIC MISSILE ATTACK

For defense against ballistic missile attack a good start has been made on the construction of a ballistic missile early warning system. Taking full advantage of the limited shipping season in the far north, a successful effort was made to deliver materials needed to carry over until the next shipping season, and actual construction has been started. Work has also been accomplished on the communication lines and on the development and production of the related electronics equipment

The development effort on the NIKE-ZEUS antimissile missile has been greatly expanded during the last 12 months. Present effort is concentrated on system development to demonstrate feasibility, and

« PreviousContinue »