What do you want? You can have everything you want." You cannot take either of those extreme positions.

We ordinarily start out by asking the military services what they want, and then we go through the process of going over it very carefully to see what can be eliminated that is not absolutely needed. That is what we call the markup, which is Secretary McNeil's toughest job; to review what we have spent in the past, what changes of programs there are, how much we pay personnel, what maintenance costs have been, and what we are planning to do.

Mr. SIKES. And he is an able man for the job, Mr. Secretary. Secretary WILSON. Then we have what we call a reclama, where the services say, "You cut us down too much. We have to have more." Then we keep looking at it in more detail. This last time, as I said yesterday, in addition, I had a special meeting personally with the top people in each service, including the civilian Secretary and the Chief and Vice Chief, and went over the final balancing of the thing, to be sure that nothing had been left out which they really needed. When we were all through, everyone agreed that it was the right program and we were not counting on wasting any money or asking for anything we did not need, but we had not left out anything that was vital for the defense of the country. I have that assurance from each of the three groups.

I will go on record with all of you that we have done a good job.

BALANCED BUDGET

Mr. SIKES. Mr. Secretary, obviously we want the budget balanced if there is any possibility of having it balanced without unduly weakening national defense. We recognize that there was pressure this year to balance the budget. This is the fourth year of the present administration, and the budget has not heretofore been in balance. In consquence, there has been a greater effort this year to bring it into balance, and that is commendable. Possibly it could not be brought into balance without some cuts in the Military Establishment.

The thing I do not think you have answered is whether to make that balanced budget possible it has been necessary to eliminate things that were actually needed for security and that would not have been cut out had the pressure not been on to balance the budget.

Secretary WILSON. The Defense Department does not have the responsibility of balancing the budget. We have the responsibility of spending the money properly for the right purposes. The President never said to me, "There is a certain figure that the Defense Department has to get down to." He never took such a position at all. The effort to handle the matter properly was no different this year from what it was last year.

Mr. SIKES. But you have to live within the amount of the budget that you bring to us. My question again is: In the effort to bring the budget within balance, did you delete activities or major equipment which was considered needed-seriously needed-for the security of the Nation and which would not have been deleted had the pressure not been on to balance the budget?

Secretary WILSON. I can say that nothing was deleted from pressure to balance the budget.

Also, although you talk about cuts in defense, I should point out there was no cut. The program is bigger. There are 25,000 more military personnel and a higher expenditure. We are asking for We are expecting to spend more money.

more money.

PERSONNEL INCREASES

Mr. SIKES. Why do you ask for more money in personnel, when only a year ago you were asking for materially fewer people in personnel? Secretary WILSON. Well, we have undertaken a few additional commitments.

Mr. SIKES. What commitments?

Secretary WILSON. Like the training of the 6-months reservists. You have to have some trainers for that.

Mr. SIKES. Might it not also be true that you cut too deeply a year ago?

Secretary WILSON. NO.

Mr. SIKES. For the satisfactory operation of the services?
Secretary WILSON. We do not think so.

Mr. SIKES. But you do think you need more people now?

Secretary WILSON. We still have the job of looking over the use of personnel. When we find personnel over here that are not needed, we are going to take them out. When we had specific new assignments, they required personnel. We have the Antarctic expedition, and the DEW line, both of which require some extra personnel. We look it over very carefully.

I am not taking the position with the military people, "You want too many," or just saying "It has to come down." I am just trying to say that we have made a very careful review as best we could with the people available and the time we could do it in.

CONSIDERATION GIVEN COMMUNIST BUILDUP

Mr. SIKES. What consideration, if any, was given to the fact that, according to the best information which reaches the members of this committee, there is a distinct improvement in the military posture of the Communist nations by virtue of the fact that they have maintained substantially the same forces in being, but at the same time they have strongly improved their firepower, their weapons, their equipment, and the types of planes that they are using? If we hold our forces in approximately the same level, they, with much larger forces, improved in service and supply and equipment, could pose a greater threat to us, do you not think? What consideration was given to that?

Secretary WILSON. The Russians claim they have reduced their army 640,000 people. That is their claim.

Mr. SIKES. What consideration was given to this buildup in service and supply and equipment of the Communist forces in our decisions regarding our own military posture.

Secretary WILSON. We gave it careful consideration. Of course, our own forces are very much better equipped than they were 3 years ago, and they are better trained. We think it is just about the right thing, considering the situation we face in the world.

Mr. SIKES. You do not appear to feel that the Communist forces pose a greater threat militarily now than they posed, say, a year or two ago?

Secretary WILSON. I do not think there is very much difference, relatively. The Communist world is making some progress, undoubtedly, in what I called the industrial revolution; in the mechanization and buildup of their production facilities. There is nothing we can do about that. I think they will have some difficulties, given enough time. I have every confidence that our system is superior to theirs. I think they will finally make a lot of mistakes handling everything from the top with a few dictators. I do not think that is the best way to run a nation. Sooner or later they are going to have trouble over there.

Mr. SIKES. I certainly hope you are right, and that has been historically true with other dictators. I am concerned about their strength at the moment.

Secretary WILSON. We all are.

RUSSIAN BOMBERS

Mr. SIKES. May I ask you this: The reports reach us that the Russians have developed a new heavy bomber that is a superior airplane; and that there are even people who say that it is better than our heavy bombers, which we know to be very good ones. What information do you actually have on that particular subject?

Secretary WILSON. Well, of course, no American has ever flown one of them. We really do not know the equipment that is in them, wher you come right down to it. They have flown them in a way that we know approximately what their size is, from certain pictures tha they permitted us to take on this last flyover. We study the bes information we can get about it. We think it is a good bomber, bu we have no reason to think it is superior to the B-52.

Mr. SIKES. Do you think it is about the equivalent?
Secretary WILSON. It would seem to be.

Mr. SIKES. As far as we know do they have them in large number: comparable, for instance, to the number of B-52's we have?

Secretary WILSON. They are roughly in production somewhat sim lar to the way we are. You know, we cannot get very far out ahea of them, because we talk so much in this country and write so man articles and publish so many pictures and magazine articles that the are always bound to be able to do it. Most of their weapons, of cours really came out of the Western World, including their original engin for the MIG's.

I do not mean to mark them down as engineers, because they ha a lot of competent people over there.

ARCTIC INSTALLATIONS

Mr. SIKES. Mr. Secretary, I had the privilege during the fall seeing some of our installations in the Arctic Circle and througho the Northeast Air Command. I would like to say at this point th I have never seen a finer group of people than we have carrying the work of our defense establishments and warning lines there. Th have high morale despite the fact that living conditions are far fro optimum. They are people of ability. They know they have an in

portant job, one of the most important jobs of any of our people in uniform. They are living up to their responsibilities in a way that should inspire us with pride. I was very favorably impressed with them.

They are in that area to operate the warning network and to maintain the many services necessary for highly important American defense installations. It is from across the polar regions that we anticipate trouble will come if there is another major war. They are in fact our first line of defense.

We have to assume, of course, that the Russians are doing about the same thing we are doing in the way of maintaining warning services, fighter bases, refueling stations, and the other services in that area. Do we know anything about their installations in the Arctic Circle? Secretary WILSON. If I did know in great detail about it, I would not talk about it here, because that information, as you know, must be obtained from pretty

Mr. SIKES. Off the record.

(Off the record discussion.)

Secretary WILSON. I think that, as far as this committee is concerned, Admiral Radford and the Air Force later are going to give you a good picture of it in a thoroughly organized manner, and that is the way I would like to leave it.

INCREASING PERCENTAGE OF OPERATING FORCES

Mr. SIKES. You indicated an increasing percentage of total military personnel in the operating forces, which is commendable. I would like to ask how much of that was due to the fact that after the end of the Korean war it was possible to reduce pipeline, training, and other military activities which are essential to actual operations in the field of combat, and how much of it is due to improvement in the military organization picture? Can you give me a comparison? Secretary WILSON. We estimated that, out of our total reduction of about 780,000 men in uniform from the peak in Korea, about 400,000 of those came out of training and transit and hospitals and so forth.

Mr. SIKES. Something over half of that reduction, then was due to the end of the Korean war?

Secretary WILSON. Yes. Just a little over half. I think that the services deserve some credit for their work in this area.

Mr. SIKES. They certainly do. There is no disposition on my part to be critical of them. I am glad to see them stressing those activi

PROCUREMENT INVESTIGATIVE REPORT

Mr. MAHON. Mr. Secretary, we mentioned yesterday and to a greater extent today the fact that we have had some investigations made of the defense program by people working under the direction of the commitee. The committee in executive session will discuss th committee procedures with respect to the matter.

Last year, in our committee report and in statements otherwise, I laid great emphasis on the necessity for a thorough study and investigation of procurement methods, with a view of getting more efficiency and more for the taxpayers' dollars in defense. Of course, to do this

work and make these investigations and studies and then not do anything is ridiculous.

Secretary WILSON. It has been going on for a long time down here, though.

Mr. MAHON. Yes. It should.

Secertary WILSON. The Pentagon is full of reports.

Mr. MAHON. Yes.

Secretary WILSON. I am trying to do something about it, and we are accomplishing a great deal, in spite of the atrocity stories that get aired every once in a while.

Mr. MAHON. I can understand that a person responsible for a large or small enterprise may not particularly appreciate being investigated, with studies made of the work, but this is not made with the desire to be antagonistic or harmful. Our desire is to be helpful.

I would like to say this: Your reactions disturb me a bit. A few moments ago you made some reference to-you said something about like this: If you were making a report you would make a constructive report.

Secretary WILSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. MAHON. That we might be able to sell this report to magazines. You very well know we do not sell things to magazines.

Secretary WILSON. I was just having a little fun with you. I did not mean that remark to be taken seriously.

Mr. MAHON. Well, that is all right. That reassures me and I thank you. I believe, Mr. Secretary, that these reports are constructive and I believe they will be helpful to you and helpful to the country. But I do not believe they will be helpful if everyone in the Pentagon from the Secretary on down bows his neck and says, "Well, we will see to it they do not get by with those suggestions and recommendations and criticisms. We are going to come up with something that will knock their block off. We are going to somehow show up this investigation as being invalid."

Mr. Secretary, I have great confidence in you, and I have great faith in your sincerity and your desire to serve the country well. My point is: If you and others in the Department will take this study and if you will, in response to our criticisms and suggestions, try not to rebut them necessarily, but try to get something out of them for the benefit of the Department of Defense and for the American GovernmentSecretary WILSON. Well, I assure you that we will do that. Mr. MAHON. Yes. That is very fine.

Secretary WILSON. But on the other hand, I would like to talk about one problem very frankly. All the different investigators like to get something that gets a lot of visibility, and there is a tendency to make an atrocity case out of it.

There are some wonderfully fine people in this military business. I was very pleased to hear your comment, Mr. Congressman [Mr. Sikes], about being up there and seeing what fine men they are who are really working at the job.

On this report that we discussed here awhile ago for a little while, we are struggling all the time to improve things, but, when we only emphasize and publicize our difficulties, I have more trouble in the Department itself, because everybody then sort of toughens up and says, "Gee whiz, they do not give us credit for anything."