APPROPRIATION BILL FOR 1934

MILITARY ACTIVITIES

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE OF HOUSE COMMITTEE

ON APPROPRIATIONS

CONSISTING OF

MESSRS. ROSS A. COLLINS (CHAIRMAN)

WILLIAM C. WRIGHT, TILMAN B. PARKS, HENRY E. BARBOUR
AND FRANK CLAGUE

IN CHARGE OF

WAR DEPARTMENT
APPROPRIATION BILL FOR 1934

SEVENTY-SECOND CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ᏢᎪᎡᎢ 1

TESTIMONY ON TITLE 1 OF THE BILL COMPRISING
THE MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

JOSEPH W. BYRNS, Tennessee, Chairman

HEARINGS CONDUCTED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE, MESSRS. ROSS A. COLLINS (CHAIRMAN), WILLIAM C. WRIGHT, TILMAN B. PARKS HENRY E. BARBOUR, AND FRANK CLAGUE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, IN CHARGE OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT APPROPRIATION BILL FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1934, ON THE DAYS FOLLOWING, NAMELY:

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1932.

MILITARY ACTIVITIES

STATEMENTS OF GEN. DOUGLAS M'ARTHUR, CHIEF OF STAFF, ACCOMPANIED BY MAJ. GEN. F. W. COLEMAN, CHIEF OF FINANCE

GENERAL STATEMENT

Mr. COLLINS. General MacArthur, it has been the custom in the past to have the military appropriations presented in complete form by the Chief of Staff of the Army, the honorable position that you hold, so as to give the committee and the Congress a general picture. of the entire establishment. We will be glad to hear from you.

ESTIMATES FOR 1934 COMPARED WITH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1932

AND 1933

General MACARTHUR. Mr. Chairman, the President's Budget for the fiscal year 1934 carries $272,490,438 for the support of the Army. This is a reduction of approximately $26,500,000 under current appropriations. It is a reduction of approximately $66,300,000 under the previous year's appropriations. This represents a reduction of approximately 20 per cent under the appropriations for the fiscal year 1931, which was the last uninfluenced by the depression. When it is considered that the appropriations for 1931 only exceeded those for 1924 and 1925, the low postwar years, by approximately 23 per cent despite the financing of the Air Corps act and other extensive statutory increases, the degree of the recession is apparent.

The existing framework for mobilization remains intact, but operation and training activities are cut to bare necessities. All augmentation, including housing and technical construction, is eliminated. Essential maintenance and repair projects are either retarded or suspended. Current and reserve stocks of supplies are designated for issue without replacement. Drastic price reductions are prescribed in keeping with existing trends and accumulated savings are drawn on to minimize cash appropriations.

934188

1

The Military Establishment in last year's appropriations suffered a relative cut many times greater than the average of other Government agencies. The 1933 military appropriations, including departmental, were $305,739,924, as compared with corresponding appropriations of $340,324,517 for 1932, a reduction of 10.16 per cent, while the 1933 appropriations for: all other Federal agencies aggregated $4,455,452,554, as compared with corresponding appropriations for 1932 aggregating $4,516,321,573, à reduction of 1.35 per cent. Moreover, in considering this: reduction of 10.16 per cent, it is important to remember that the rigid scrutiny to which the military estimates are subjected, even during periods of prosperity, limits the opportunity for retrenchment.

We are living in troublesome times. World conditions are unsettled and provocative. Many nations are passing through economic crises. The tense situation in the Far East which for some weeks during the past winter flamed into open hostilities, emphasized again the untrustworthiness of treaties as complete safeguards to international peace. The Geneva Conference has for nearly a year been studying formula for effecting universal reductions in land armaments. The results to date have been practically negligible.

REDUCTION IN MILITARY FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES

The predominant opinion, as reflected in the public press, has been that, measured both by absolute and relative standards, the United States already has accomplished a degree of reduction in its land forces that stands as a unique example among world powers. These reductions since the close of the World War have reduced the military forces of the Regular Army from an authorized strength of 285,000 enlisted men to 125,000 enlisted men, and from an authorized strength of 18,000 officers to 12,000 officers. In the National Guard the reductions are from an authorization of 435,000 enlisted men to 176,500 enlisted men and from 31,000 officers to 13,500 officers.

These reductions leave the United States now the seventeenth ranking nation in military strength in the world. As practically all other nations are increasing their strengths, it is quite possible that in the near future the United States will drop even further in the relative list.

INCREASE IN MILITARY BUDGETS OF JAPAN AND FRANCE

Armaments are to some extent properly relative to those of other nations. When all of the items contained in the budgets of foreign countries are considered, it is apparent that the larger nations are increasing their outlays for military preparedness. The military budget of Japan has been augmented since 1929 in the following

During the same period, our military activities have received each year less than 7 per cent of the National Budget.

Similarly the French military budget has been increased consistently as indicated in the following table:

Generally similar conditions prevail in the other foreign countries of the world. Even Switzerland, the home of the militia army, shows a constant increase since 1930.

REDUCTION IN MAN POWER STRENGTH OF ARMY

The Budget figure for the military activities in the accompanying estimates were arrived at in the Bureau of the Budget by recourse to various expedients. To those that sacrifice trained man power, I am unalterably opposed. The Army can suffer in all other things and still carry out its main mission. Cut into its trained man power and you destroy the military framework which supports our system of national defense.

The national defense act provides for a small professional force and for a limited training of civilians, on a voluntary basis, through the National Guard, the Organized Reserves, the Reserve Officers' Training Corps, the citizens' military training camps, and the National Rifle Association. In it are combined efficiency, economy, and respect for American ideals and traditions. It is the result of a long evolutionary process during which the Congress was guided by our military experiences under a variety of conditions and circumstances. Improvement in it should be sought by the same methods, and any drastic change should be adopted only after mature consideration of all factors involved.

The provisions in the present estimates which eliminate trained man power are found in the civilian component portion of the estimates. Except for the national matches, numbers to be trained and duration of training periods were not disturbed in the current annual act. In the Budget now before you, there are cuts in these items aggregating more than $6,000,000. Funds are carried only for 24 armory drills in the National Guard; the number of Reserve officers to be trained for 14 days is reduced from 20,000 to 16,000; summer training camps for the Reserve Officers' Training Corps are shortened from 6 to 4 weeks; funds proposed for Civilian Military Training Camps provide for approximately 13,000 instead of 37,500 trainees; national matches are again omitted.

The aggregate apportionment to the civilian components is 14 per cent of the military Budget, the same as in the fiscal year 1932. No activity except national matches is entirely eliminated, but the development of trained man power is seriously retarded. These cuts strike a vital spot in our military program and weaken the fabric of national defense. In such measures I do not concur.