SUFFICIENCY OF PRESENT PREPARATORY PROGRAM

Mr. SIKES. The information you are giving is very helpful. That gives a better picture than I first anticipated.

I am not sure that you are still going as fast in the direction of defense now as the Congress and the country would want you to. I think the job of coping with Korea and of coping with any other emergency that might arise and doing it immediately is much more impressive on other people throughout the world than the process of building up a big military organization which is going to be ready for use sometime in the future.

I realize that time is getting short.

General REEDER. May I say this in partial answer to your statement, off the record?

(Discussion off the record.)

EFFECT OF KOREAN WAR ON CONCEPT OF WARFARE

Mr. SIKES. Let me ask you whether there has been any change in your concept of warfare as a result of the lessons in Korea, for instance, the fact that Korean ground troops are operating successfully without air cover. Have we learned anything from the Korean operation? Is it reflected in the request for funds here?

General DUFF. In my opinion I think it is a little bit too early to draw any conclusions along that line.

Mr. SIKES. General, are we going to have to be kicked out of Korea before we can learn why the enemy has been able to operate so effectively?

General DUFF. General MacArthur is well satisfied with the tactical air support that he is getting from the Air Force.

Mr. SIKES. I am not complaining about the air support, although I think it has been very costly support, but the fact remains that the North Koreans have operated very effectively without air cover and despite the fact that we do have vigorous air support.

General DUFF. I just want to add that the weather has hampered air operations somewhat in Korea. The North Koreans launched this offensive at the height of the rainy season in Korea. It has hampered operations somewhat.

Mr. SIKES. They have kept tanks rolling, and it certainly appears that fuel and supplies are moving virtually as rapidly as needed, even though the North Koreans are now far from their known bases of supply.

General DUFF. That is true.

Mr. SIKES. Again, General, they are still operating tanks and continuing to roll over most of Korea.

General BOLLING. That is correct, sir.

HOUSING IN ALASKA

Mr. SIKES. May I ask General Decker why it is not contemplated to place additional troops in Alaska, which seems to us to be one of the key points?

Mr. MAHON. That is probably off the record.

Mr. SIKES. Yes.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. SIKES. That problem has been in existence for several years. Why is it that housing has not been provided?

General REEDER. Well, sir, we have tried to put our money in public-works construction into Alaska and Okinawa essentially, and we have under construction housing up there right now. The best news we ever got was when the bids for housing around Fort Richardson and up around Ladd Field came down from an estimated $27,000 to about $14,000.

Mr. ENGEL. Wait a minute. Up at Fairbanks your officers' houses were costing $74,000 apiece, when I studied it. They came down to $34,000 up at Fairbanks.

General REEDER. Yes. Now they have dropped again.

Mr. ENGEL. You have dropped down to how much?
General REEDER. At Anchorage it is $14,700.

Mr. ENGEL. What is it at Fairbanks?

General REEDER. I do not remember the exact figure, but there is the usual differential.

Mr. SIKES. I know that is a hard question to ask you, General, but I want to get in the record the fact that this committee has approved all the Alaska housing and other military housing that has been asked of it.

Mr. ENGEL. That is right.

Mr. MAHON. Congress has been a little slow in authorizing housing, Mr. Sikes.

General REEDER. We did miss 1 year because of a legislative jam. Mr. SIKES. You missed 1 year because of the legislative jam, but not because of appropriations.

General REEDER. No, sir. The President's budget for housing has been very well treated as presented.

Colonel DALEY. Mr. Sikes, I could go further on the Alaska situation, but I think it should be off the record.

Mr. SIKES. Let me ask one question first.

Just how closely are we tied to the weather in the defense of Alaska? Are we prepared to move troops in should an emergency develop, regardless of housing? I don't think the enemy will wait for good weather.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. SIKES. Is it not your belief that Alaska will be one of the principal danger points in the event of world conflict?

General DUFF. It is a possibility; yes, sir.

Mr. SIKES. I believe you wanted to add something, Colonel. Colonel DALEY. Mr. Sikes, I would like to go off the record, sir. (-Discussion off the record.)

FUNDS REQUESTED FOR INDUSTRIAL MOBILIZATION AND RESEARCH AND

DEVELOPMENT

Mr. SIKES. Did I understand that there is no step-up in research and development funds in this proposed budget?

General REEDER. No, sir; you did not so understand. We are bidding against the Secretary of Defense kitty which I understand in that regard to be $120,000,000. The Army is bidding for $55,000,000. Mr. SIKES. In new funds?

Mr. ENGEL. There is $190,000,000 in the President's budget.

General REEDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. MAHON. For research and development and industrial mobilization.

Mr. ENGEL. For research and development and industrial mobilization?

General REEDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. TABER. Do you want that in the record?

Mr. MAHON. It is in the record.

Mr.TABER. All right.

Mr. ENGEL. I would like to have you give us either on or off the record the break-down as to what the Army's share is going to be, if it has been determined.

General REEDER. It has not been determined.

Mr. ENGEL. Also, give us the amount of the Army's share that would be for research and development and the amount that would be for industrial mobilization.

Tell us first how you are going to get your share. Who is going to determine how much you are going to get?

General REEDER. The projects which the three services-Army, Navy, and Air-purpose to get more funds for will be submitted to the Research and Development Board. When they have studied them they propose to allocate money according to the importance of the project to the general national defense.

As I understand it, $120,000,000 of that is intended for research and development. That was the last rumor I got.

We certainly would hope to get one-third of that. (Discussion off the record.)

MODERNIZATION OF TANKS

Mr. SIKES. General, what is the length of time required for the modernization of a medium tank?

General REEDER. The length of time?

Mr. SIKES. Tell me this: Why are we still holding so closely to the light tanks? What are we going to fight with those light tanks? They will not stand up against medium tanks or heavy tanks.

General REEDER. We are not going to fight medium tanks with them, except occasionally.

Mr. SIKES. How are you going to avoid it?

General REEDER. They are not intended for that. (Discussion off the record.)

BAZOOKAS

Mr. SIKES. Are we going along rapidly enough on the big bazooka program?

General REEDER. Yes, sir. We have money in this 1951 request for more bazooka ammunition.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. SIKES. That is all.

Mr. ENGEL. General Decker, I was sorry that the Secretary had to leave yesterday after I had asked my second question, but I realize, of course, that his time is very valuable and that he has a Cabinet meeting. I want to call him back.

I do want to make this observation with regard to the $10,500,000,000. NECESSITY FOR ECONOMICAL DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS

When the first appropriation came through for World War II it provided for the construction of Army camps, and I made a statement on the floor of the House when the bill was up there saying that I was willing to give them the appropriation they requested, but I would hold the Army accountable for every dollar of the appropriation we were forced to give them with what I considered then, and consider_now, inadequate justification. I use that word advisedly, because I know it is impossible for you people to come here with detailed information on a program such as you have here now, because you have to make speed, and you have to be given certain discretion with regard to those funds.

The waste and extravagance that followed that speech of mine by the armed services was, in my judgment, outrageous. I say that because I afterward traveled hundreds of miles alone, visiting camps from New York to Florida. It seemed to me during that period of time-and this was before we were actually at war-impossible to stop it.

I am going to take the same position now, and as long as I am in Congress, which will not be very long-I am going to go along with this $10,500,000,000 appropriation, and any other amount of money that you think you should have under the circumstances, but I, for one, am going to hold you and the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy accountable for every dollar. I sincerely hope that we will not be up against the same program of waste and extravagance we were in World War II.

I realize that those who were responsible are not here now. I just want to say that I realize that war is waste, but we have not gone into actual warfare yet, to any extent. The considerations are different now than they were then. Then we owed a debt of $40,000,000,000, and we owe one now of $250,000,000,000 to $260,000,000,000. Furthermore, I feel that the question of getting somewhere near a dollar's worth of value for the appropriations we give you will determine whether or not this Government is going into a spiral of inflation, particularly if we happen to go into a third world war. Of that I am, frankly, very much afraid.

Now, I want to ask a few questions. I have already asked for a breakdown, without going into detail, of the $190,000,000.

FUNDS REQUESTED FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND INDUSTRIAL MOBILIZATION

Now, General Reeder, what was your request? How much of that $190,000,000 that we are asked to appropriate for research and development and industrial mobilization have you asked for?

General REEDER. We asked for approximately $55,000,000 for research and development and approximately $55,000,000 for industrial mobilization.

Mr. ENGEL. $110,000,000 out of the $190,000,000?

General REEDER. That is right. I do not know whether that $110,000,000, includes the unvouchered money.

Mr. ENGEL. In the document there are two items: one for contingencies of $50,000,000, and the other is the emergency fund. General REEDER. Yes.

Mr. ENGEL. The emergency funds are for research and development and industrial mobilization, the $190,000,000.

General REEDER. Yes. Of that we asked for $55,000,000 for research and development and $55,000,000 for industrial mobilization, and we asked for a Chief of Staff contingency fund of $50,000,000, because of the knowledge there were many things we did not have time to estimate for.

Mr. ENGEL. Is that $50,000,000 for the Chief of Staff of the Army, or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs?

General REEDER. We asked it for the Chief of Staff of the Army. Mr. ENGEL. We are asked to appropriate that amount for the Secretary of Defense to be applied in his discretion?

General REEDER. That is right. The Navy in the last war did not require such a fund but our Chief of Staff had and used one.

Mr. ENGEL. I recall that when General Marshall was Chief of Staff.

FUNDS IMPOUNDED 1946–50

Now, General Decker, I want to get this information from each of the three services; and I am asking this because I have had numerous requests in view of the debate on the floor of the House the other day. I want you to furnish for the record a statement showing the amount of money, if any, which has been impounded by the President from 1946 through 1950.

General DECKER. Yes.

Mr. ENGEL. And for each item, showing whether that amount was later released, or if it was partially released, the amount, and the amount that still remains impounded.

General DECKER. Yes.

Mr. ENGEL. I want that information for the 5 years, 1946 through 1950.

General REEDER. Should that include the replacing fund?

Mr. ENGEL. I am referring only to those amounts impounded by Presidential order. I want the amount that the Bureau of the Budget withheld from you.

General DECKER. We have two sources of withholdings. One is the Secretary of Defense and the other is the Bureau of the Budget. Do you want both of those?

Mr. ENGEL. Yes; but separately.