of the armed services, plus a ceiling which would make possible, if it is utilized, a further increase of 75,000, or a total of about 100,000 in overall manpower.

Secretary WILSON. That is correct.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. I have also in mind the fact that you have told us you hope the operating ratio will increase to something like 65 percent as compared with 57 percent in December 1952 before you took charge of the Department.

Secertary WILSON. That is correct.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. I have in mind also the fact that you are asking for reserves in drill-pay status amounting to 1,099,784, which, if realized, would be an increase over the 1956 figures of about 130,000? Secretary WILSON. That is correct.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. I have in mind also that the number of our planes in the air service are expected to increase from 127 wings to 137, which I think compares with about 98 wings when you took over, and about 48 wings prior to the Korean war?

Secretary WILSON. That is right.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Incidentally, did that 98-wing figure when you took over include certain so-called paper wings, or did it exclude them?

Secretary WILSON. Well, there was a considerable question about the degree of readiness of all of them.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. So the increase since you took over in terms of effective wings is even greater than the figures indicate?

Secretary WILSON. They are practically all jet equipped now. Of course, that was planned.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. I have in mind also the recommendation contemplates 1,005 ships for the Navy as compared with 984 in the current year of which 411 will be warships as compared with 403 in the current

year.

Secretary WILSON. That is also correct.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. I have in mind also that the testimony we have received indicates considerable progress in terms of modernization and in the utilization of new and modern weapons?

Secretary WILSON. Yes.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Admiral Radford has told this committee that if we compare a division today with a division in World War II that there is an increase of around 15 percent in terms of manpower and an increase of around 85 percent in terms of firepower, and that a single plane has over 20,000 times the power of a single plane in World War II, so although, as you say, the program is not fundamentally different, there is a real increase contemplated in our fighting power in the program now before us?

Secretary WILSON. That is correct. And the basic program of providing strength for the long pull is the one that is being carried out. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Is it fair to say we will have more power and more readiness than we have heretofore had?

Secretary WILSON. That is correct.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Would you concur in Admiral Radford's opinion that the program before us is adequate to meet the initial phases of any war, minor or global, and at the same time permit a rapid buildup if and when that becomes necessary?

Secretary WILSON. I have every reason to believe that Admiral Radford's appraisal of it is correct.

APPROVAL OF PROGRAM

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. You have told us, as I understand it, that this program has the unanimous approval of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, of yourself as Secretary of Defense, of the National Security Council, and of the President?

Secretary WILSON. That is true with respect to its broad outlines, force levels, and so forth.

COMPARISON OF EXPENDITURES

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. You took over just about 3 years ago in January of 1953. At that time we were operating under the 1953 budget of President Truman, and I think he had also submitted his suggestions for a budget for the fiscal year 1954.

I would like to get a comparison in terms of 3 or 4 figures as between the 1957 recommendations and the figures at the time when you took over.

For example, as I understand it, if we leave out of the picture the military construction and the new legislation which is not before the committee in this bill, you contemplate an expenditure in the fiscal year 1957 of $33,733,940,000; is that right?

Secretary WILSON. The figure that I have here is $33,729 million for new appropriations.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. I am talking about expenditures on the portion of the bill before us.

Secretary WILSON. That is correct.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. The figure that I have for expenditures in the fiscal year 1953 is $43,600 million roughly; is that correct?

Secretary WILSON. Mr. McNeil says it is correct but it includes military public works. Exclusive of public works the figure would be about $41,735 million.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. So, in terms of expenditure, the recommendation reflects a reduction of about 8 billion as between 1953 expenditures and what is contemplated in 1957.

APPROPRIATIONS

Now for appropriations on the same assumption, confining it to the items in this bill, the recommendation is again I think, $33,687,614,000; is that right?

Mr. MCNEIL. That is the amount of new obligational authority requested.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Have you any corresponding figures for the fiscal year 1953?

Mr. MCNEIL. $44,631 million. That is the amount exclusive of public works.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. So there is a reduction in respect to appropriations of the same period of just about $11 billion.

Mr. MCNEIL. That is correct, sir.

UNEXPENDED BALANCES

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. If we look at the unexpended balances you contemplate as of the end of the fiscal year 1957 an unexpended balance of $35,740 million, do you not?

Mr. MCNEIL. As of the end of June 1957; yes; exclusive of public works.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. And the figure, if I have it correctly, as of June 30, 1953, was $62,200 million.

Secretary WILSON. You are still talking "ex-public" works?

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. "Ex-public" works, and new legislation.

Secretary WILSON. We will have to do a little figuring here to be sure that we are talking about the same thing.

Mr. SHEPPARD. Do you not have those figures separated so that you can answer the questions more promptly?

Secretary WILSON. When you go back that far we have to look at the record. We are doing the best we can.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. So there has been a reduction in the unexpended balance figure?

Mr. MCNEIL. The unexpended balance was about $57,228 million, exclusive of public works, for June 30, 1953.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Then there has been a reduction of something like $21,500 million in that figure, exclusive of public works? Mr. MCNEIL. That is correct.

UNOBLIGATED BALANCES

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. One other figure in which I am interested is the figure for unobligated balances. As I understand it, you contemplate at the end of this fiscal year 1957 an unobligated balance of $7,400 million plus $1,800 million anticipated reimbursements from MDAP. Is that $1,800 million available for obligations for any purpose in the fiscal year 1958, or only for MDAP?

Mr. MCNEIL. It is available for any purpose as long as the purpose is for the same general type of operation-not necessarily the same specific item, but the same class of item.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. The question in my mind is whether the proper figure then should be $7,400 million or $7,400 million plus $1,800 million, which would be $9,200 million.

Mr. MCNEIL. The gross amount available for obligation would be a combination of the two, and the reason it was stated separately is that we will not make collections for these reimbursements until 1958 and 1959; although in the meantime if something has to be placed on order for delivery during that period it may be done.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Then, what is the comparable figure as of June 30, 1953, to the $7,400 million?

Mr. MCNEIL. We will have to give you the figure for the Department of Defense alone because that was prior to the time you passed section 110, which combines defense procurement and procurement for MDAP.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. I wonder, Mr. McNeil, if you could give us a table for the record that will show the figures just brought out, and

also the same four figures for the budget presented to the Congress by President Truman for the fiscal year 1954.

Mr. MCNEIL. Yes.

(The information is as follows:)

Comparison between fiscal year 1953 and fiscal year 1957 fiscal status (excludes military construction and items proposed for later transmission in fiscal year 1957)

1 Excludes $70 million appropriated for Army stock fund. Includes $368 million appropriated for fiscal year 1953 in Public Law 431, June 30, 1953, and $30,761,000 of congressionally authorized transfers.

CIVILIAN PERSONNEL

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Now, you tell us, as I understand it, that at the end of fiscal year 1957 you anticipate a civilian personnel to the tune of 1,170,000?

Secretary WILSON. That is correct.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTII. If my other figure is correct, that represents a reduction of about 250,000 as compared with the peak civilian personnel during the Korean war?

Secretary WILSON. That is correct.

STEPS TOWARD EFFICIENCY AND ECONOMY

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Now, 2 years ago, and again last year, you gave us for the Office of Secretary of Defense and for each of the three services, what might be called a summary of the steps that had been taken in each of the 2 years in the direction of efficiency and economy. I would like for this record a similar statement, if we could have it, so the picture will be brought up to date for the 3 years. Secretary WILSON. We will be glad to do that. (The information is as follows:)

STEPS TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DURING CALENDAR YEAR 1955 To ELIMINATE WASTE AND ACHIEVE GREATER ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY

The intensified drive to raise the level of economy and efficiency in the Defense Department, inaugurated in 1953, was continued with undiminished vigor during 1955. Notwithstanding the major improvements ahieved in 1953 and 1954, noteworhty progress in this area continued to be made in 1955.

The attainment of a high level of economy and efficiency in Defense Department operations is not a onetime effort. There is always room for further improvement. New methods, techniques, and equipment are constantly being devised in private industry as well as in the Government, and management at all levels in the Military Establishment must be properly motivated to seek them out and apply them wherever appropriate.

Furthermore, the functions, activities, and personnel of the Department are always undergoing some change and new areas of waste and inefficiency in

evitably crop up. These must be promptly identified and corrected as soon as they occur. This, too, is a continuing responsibility of management throughout the Defense Establishment.

Major changes in the organization of the Defense Department are now behind us but some additional organizational refinements were effected in 1955. At the Department of Defense level, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for International Security Affairs was reorganized along geographic lines similar to that of the State Department. This will not only provide the Defense Department with a more effective mechanism for the integration and coordination of the various programs pertaining to particular countries or regions, but will also facilitate coordination and liaison with the State Department with respect to military-political matters.

In the Department of the Army the traditional general staff was abolished and the military staff reorganized along lines roughly parallel to the civilian secretariat. Under the Chief of Staff of the Army there are now a Comptroller of the Army, a Chief of Research and Development, and Deputy Chiefs of Staff for Logistics, Personnel, and Military Operations, respectively. Organizational refinements of lesser importance were also effected in the other two military departments in 1955.

This

Continued progress was made during the year in improving the utilization of Defense Department manpower resources. Military personnel were reduced by almost 300,000 even though overall military strength, as measured in terms of major forces, actually increased during the year. The number of "noneffectives" on the military payroll-trainees, transients, patients in hospitals, and prisoners-were reduced by a total of 54,000. Civilian personnel, both in the United States and abroad, were substituted for military personnel wherever possible in support areas thereby making more men available for the operating forces. Overlapping functions and activities were further reduced through consolidation, cross-servicing, etc. For example, the Army was charged with the responsibility for providing military construction support for the Air Force overseas. permitted the elimination of the so-called SCARWAF (Army construction troops serving overseas with the Air Force) and the saving of 16,500 military personnel spaces. Functional manpower studies and surveys designed to eliminate nonessential jobs were conducted in all three military departments with good results. Notwithstanding the substitution of civilians for military personnel, the total number of civilian employees, including both direct hire and contract hire overseas, was reduced by about 50,000. The reduction in the Army and Navy Departments combined totaled 76,000, but the Air Force, which continued its buildup during the year, increased its civilian employment by 26,000 as compared with a decrease of about 10,000 in military personnel.

Although considerable emphasis was placed on reducing quantitative manpower requirements, even greater emphasis was placed on improving the quality of military personnel to meet the demands of rapidly changing technology and increasingly complex weapons required in modern warfare. Quotas for the intake of manpower in various mental groups were revised to reduce proportion of personnel enlisted in the lowest mental group IV who had created serious problems of personnel utilization. A reduction of group IV quota from 27 percent to 18 percent enabled the services to recruit personnel more suitable for training in technical skills and advancement to supervisory and leadership positions. Due largely to the new military personnel legislation enacted by the Congress and intensified reenlistment efforts on the part of the services, the Armed Forces were able to retain many experienced personnel who otherwise would have left the service for civilian life. The reenlistment rate, which had dropped to 18.8 percent during the first 6 months of 1954, has increased steadily in recent months, reaching a level of about 30 percent during the first 6 months of 1955. This has substantially reduced personnel turnover, thereby permitting a further reduction in the number of personnel assigned to the training function and in the number of personnel in training status.

Action was also taken during the year to reduce the movement of military personnel, thereby reducing both the cost and time lost in travel. Specific steps

include:

1. Directions to the military departments to review their educational and training requirements, reduce the rotation rate, and assure that trained personnel are being used to the greatest extent in their speciality.

2. The issuance of regulations, under the dislocation allowance provisions of the Career Incentive Act, prohibiting more than one permanent change of station during any 1 fiscal year.