General DECKER. We will make the information available for the record. (The information requested is as follows:) Department of the Army usage of appropriated funds by the Congress for fiscal year 1946 through 1950 Mr. ENGEL. You were discussing here, General Reeder-and I mention your name because it was during your testimony-the question of modernization of the Army and, of course, weapons. Now, the modernization of our Armed Forces, as far as defense weapons are concerned, can be placed in two categories; first, the modernization of weapons that we already have, such as the Pershing tank converted into the Patton tank. General REEDER. Correct. Mr. ENGEL. The other is the modernization by the furnishing of completely new and more modern weapons; that is correct, is it not? General REEDER. Right. Mr. ENGEL. Now, this committee furnished the Army with money for new tanks-a certain number. We were asked afterward-the chairman and I, and I think the chairman will verify this-to approve a change in the use of those funds in part or in whole from the construction of new tanks to the modernization of the old tanks, the conversion of the Pershing tank into the Patton tank; which we did. Now, my mind goes back to 1939 when we were in the pre-World War II phase. We were spending money modernizing the 77-millimeter gun, putting rubber tires on it, and what not-new fire equipment, and so forth-and we were modernizing the 77-millimeter gun when the Germans had stopped making it. They never did make them after World War I. They were building the 105 as far back as 1934 or 1935. Later in 1940, just before the war, we found ourselves in a position where we were compelled to abandon the 77-millimeter gun entirely and adopt the 105. We found ourselves with neither guns, cannon, nor ammunition. MODERNIZATION OF TANKS Are we going to find ourselves in a position now that the enemy is coming out with a modern tank so much more effective than our Patton tanks, the same as we were in at the beginning of World War II. Just what difference is there and you can answer the question on or off the record-between this modified Pershing, now called the Patton tank, and the new medium tank that you have in mind building? 69887-50-pt. 2- 4 General REEDER. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) HOUSING IN ALASKA Mr. ENGEL. What is the situation for housing in Alaska? General BRAGDON. I do not have the figures on just what percentage of the housing has been taken care of, but I can tell you something of the costs. Mr. ENGEL. First, you started out with an original cost, as I recall it, of $74,000 for a field officer's house. Is that right? General BRAGDON. We never paid anything like that for a house up there. That appeared in the estimates and included a pro rata share of all the expensive initial mobilization cost. That figure did appear, but we never built anything like that. Mr. ENGEL. Bless you, I took the appropriation and added up the number of field houses and divided into the appropriation, and it came out with the figure which I gave you. General BRAGDON. We never paid anything like $74,000 for a house. If you recall at that time the costs were at a peak, and if we had built houses at those specifications for size of the field officer houses it might have cost that, but we never paid anything like that. I think the highest we ever paid for any house was $42,000. Mr. ENGEL. Did you figure in that cost the amount of putting the sawmill up there at Ketchikan ? General BRAGDON. Wrangell. Mr. ENGEL. Wrangell, Alaska. Did you figure that cost in? Mr. ENGEL. That representing about a quarter-million dollars, did it not, in round figures? General BRAGDON. About that. Mr. ENGEL. That mill was built to furnish lumber for housing in Alaska, was it not? General BRAGDON. It was built to furnish lumber for all military construction in Alaska, and housing was only a part of it; barracks were a part, as were other kinds of buildings. It was just a lumber mill to furnish lumber at a savings. Mr. ENGEL. You never got any lumber out of it, did you? General BRAGDON. We have gotten a small amount of lumber out of it. Mr. ENGEL. What became of that project; did you sell it? General BRAGDON. We have an operating agreement with a private individual, looking toward purchase. I have not been in charge of military construction for some 8 months, and I do not know the final outcome. Mr. ENGEL. You say it cost about $42,000 for the kind of housing you are building? General BRAGDON. That was north of the range. Mr. ENGEL. Fairbanks? General BRAGDON. Yes. South of the range the maximum was about $34,000. Mr. ENGEL. What was the size of the house; how many square feet? O General BRAGDON. Frame; yes.. Mr. ENGEL. How is the housing coming along? A study was made of the Alaska housing recently. General BRAGDON. The Giesecke commission made a study and a report. Mr. ENGEL. Is that report available? General BRAGDON. It was made to the Secretary of Defense whose office would have to be contacted. Mr. ENGEL. Could you get a copy of that report for the committee? General BRAGDON. It was made by the Secretary of Defense. Mr. ENGEL. The commission was appointed by the Secretary of Defense to make a study and report on the housing generally, and there was included Alaska, and I understand they made a report on Alaska housing? General BRAGDON. Mr. Giesecke made a report. Mr. ENGEL. You say the houses have about 1,100 square feet of space? General BRAGDON. That is about correct. Mr. ENGEL. And cost $42,000? General BRAGDON. We paid that at the peak, and there were not very many built. NUMBER OF HOUSES BUILT IN ALASKA Mr. ENGEL. Can you tell me how many houses you built in Alaska during the last 2 years? General BRAGDON. I will have to look it up, sir. Mr. ENGEL. Can you furnish it for the record? (The information requested follows:) Mr. ENGEL. Will you include in the information the location of the houses as well as the number? General BRAGDON. Yes. Mr. ENGEL. What did these first houses cost; $42,000? General BRAGDON. North of the range; about $34,000 south; that is for Richardson. Mr. ENGEL. How far between the two? General BRAGDON. About 250 to 300 miles. Mr. ENGEL. In other words, that is about 25-percent increase for just the cost of transportation over the range? General BRAGDON. You will recall that north of the range the costs are very high because of the weather. One of the biggest things we have confronting us is what is termed the "perma frost condition." Mr. SHEPPARD. And you should not overlook the extra costs for loading and unloading. General BRAGDON. Yes. Mr. ENGEL. But, below the range the cost was $32,000 to $34,000? General BRAGDON. About $34,000, I think it was. Mr. ENGEL. And what is the difference in the costs General BRAGDON. It is about eight to ten thousand. Mr. ENGEL. In other words, about 25-percent increase in costs for transporting the materials some 300 miles, and the other difference is made up of increased costs because of the frost? General BRAGDON. We had to dig out material having perma frost as deep as 20 feet; an average of about 10 feet. Mr. ENGEL. Let me ask you this: What are you doing now in the way of building? General BRAGDON. The last bids were taken at Richardson, as I recall, about $14,000 per unit. Mr. ENGEL. About $14,000 ? Mr. ENGEL. The fact of the matter is you did not get much reduction in the cost of housing until you cut out the cost-plus contract? General BRAGDON. In part. But I would like to say this, that you will recall the cost indexes went up sharply in 1946 to 1948, and in 1948 it began to level off. Mr. ENGEL. Yes, but you will recall that when the $74,000 house was under consideration you had only one builder, who built a number of buildings for you? General BRAGDON. Yes. Mr. ENGEL. I recall before the war he was building a barracks at a cost of $73,000 which cost about $9,000 out at Camp Dix or Camp Meade. You are not building any houses now on a cost-plus basis? General BRAGDON. No. Our fixed policy is to take competitive bids. We have always been on a competitive-bid basis everywhere except overseas, and except during the war. Mr. ENGEL. This cost you about $14,000? Mr. ENGEL. For the same type of house ? General BRAGDON. No. We have cut down the specifications to the minimum. The house that we have now is just about the same kind of house as that of the FHA. Mr. ENGEL. How many square feet? General BRAGDON. I believe they are a little under 1,000 square feet. Mr. ENGEL. Against 1,100? General BRAGDON. Yes. There are some differences, of course. Mr. ENGEL. The fact of the matter is that you are getting a cheaper house now? General BRAGDON. Yes; very much so. Mr. ENGEL. Are you bringing the lumber from Seattle? General BRAGDON. Some lumber still comes from there. Mr. ENGEL. Is there any return haul on these shipments? Mr. ENGEL. In other words, an item of cost was the fact that there was no return haul; that the whole freight rate would have to be based on one haul. There is no return haul? General BRAGDON. No; not very much. Mr. ENGEL. Well, I would like to say this for the record, that the chairman and I were in the Pacific, went through the Pacific, and we got information concerning inventories they had on the different islands in the Pacific. For instance, there was cement on the island of Saipan-in the Guam-Saipan area. We suggested that they send that cement to Alaska. Then we were paying $15 a ton for cement at Bellingham, Wash., and it was costing $63 a ton delivered in Alaska. General DECKER. About three to three and a half times as much in Alaska. Mr. ENGEL. $63 a ton. And they had cement in the Guam-Saipan area, and we wanted that shipped to Alaska. When we got to Guam in 1946 we learned that the cement was being loaded out to Europe, and they were still sending cement to Alaska costing $63 a ton. INCREASE IN CIVILIAN PERSONNEL Now I want to ask you something about personnel. The Army had, in the 1951 budget, money for 284,294 man-years of civilian personnel. Is that correct? Colonel PERMAN. There is 261,584 man-years in the 1951 budget presently before the Senate. Mr. ENGEL. That is presently before the Senate? Colonel PERMAN. Yes. Mr. ENGEL. That is in the budget figure, not the Senate figure? Colonel PERMAN. That is the budget figure. Mr. ENGEL. The budget figure that includes civilian personnel which you have at 284,294? Colonel PERMAN. Yes. Mr. ENGEL. Let me see what you are asking for in this bill-89,730 more man-years? Colonel PERMAN. Exclusive of the Korean and Japanese. Mr. ENGEL. Exclusive of 24,803? Colonel PERMAN. Yes. Mr. ENGEL. That is an increase of about how much? Colonel PERMAN. That is an increase of approximately 22 percent; as far as the dollar value is concerned, as far as the personnel is concerned, it is an increase of approximately 38 percent. Mr. ENGEL. That will give you a total man-years of 374,000, plus? Colonel PERMAN. Yes. Mr. ENGEL. But you are putting on actually 109,378 additional people, are you not? Colonel PERMAN. No. Our increased requirement, including the indigenous natives, 40,000, and project orders, 134,181. Mr. ENGEL. The figures I have here leaves out the indigenous personnel? |