DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS EIGHTY-SIXTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS GEORGE H. MAHON, Texas, Chairman COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS CLARENCE CANNON, Missouri, Chairman JOHN TABER, New York H. CARL ANDERSEN, Minnesota CHARLES RAPER JONAS, North GEORGE H. MAHON, Texas HUGH Q. ALEXANDER, North Carolina HON. NEIL MCELROY, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE GEN. N. F. TWINING, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF W. J. MCNEIL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER) MAJ. GEN ROBERT S. MOORE, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE COMPTROLLER HENRY GLASS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE ECONOMIC AND FISCAL ANALYSIS DIVISION, OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (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 REAR ADM. LOT ENSEY, ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER OF THE NAVY, BUDGET AND REPORTS BRIG. GEN. R. J. FRIEDMAN, DIRECTOR OF BUDGET, OFFICE, COMPTROLLER 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. 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. you. We 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 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 |