I would like to pursue the matter with the admiral when he is on the stand and some of the others who are perhaps more intimately familiar with the individual figures.

Whose thought was that? Is that the thought of the Department of Defense, that we will put in 5 percent more than you expect to spend and submit it to Congress and make that saving out of the fund, or does that come from the Bureau of the Budget, we will say?

Secretary WILSON. I would like to talk about this budget business a little bit. On the new funds we are asking for, I would like to tell you all of you don't just chisel it here and there on the basis that we have asked for more than we think we need in the historical way because we didn't do it that way.

Mr. BROOKS. Well, that is the way it looks, though, doesn't it?
Secretary WILSON. No.

Mr. BROOKS. If you estimate you are not going to spend 5 per

cent

Secretary WILSON. I am talking now about the new money. In new money we only got $29 billion last year, you know. So that we are taking out of the thing all the excess carryover and the added appropriations for things that we finally found we didn't have to have. And I am not critical of the past, because that was a crash program. And back when the Congress appropriated $60 billion in 1 year, the first throwdown and estimate from the respective services of what they thought they ought to have was over $100 million.

The reason civilians get involved in this business, I suppose, is because if you told the military they could have everything they wanted and there was no limit on the cost or anything else, what would be spent would be quite something. [Laughter.]

And I am not critical, because their first point of view should be the military requirements of the country and if they get twice as much, why they will never be criticized for it, but if they get half enough the country is in danger. So they naturally are on the high side.

If you ever had a sales department talk about the amount of advertising they want to put up-if you open that door it gets pretty big, too.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Brooks.

Mr. Arends.

Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Secretary, I find myself a little bit like the fellow in the back row in church. I think about all I can say after what has been said here by your fine statement, extraordinarily fine statement, and what has been said by the chairman and former chairman of this committee all I can say is amen. And I am mighty happy to have the opportunity to hear you.

I think the American people should be more than happy and pleased that this frank discussion has been had and presented to them this morning. And while I can't speak for all the American people, I certainly can speak for the people in my own district, the 345,000, saying thank you for coming to us in such a frank and precise way and for presenting these facts so we can tell the country, our friends and allies, and certainly our enemy, what we plan to do.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kilday?

Mr. KILDAY. Nothing at this time, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cole.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, I hope you don't become bored of hearing expressions of commendations from members of this committee with respect to your remarks.

I do want to interrogate you just a little bit with respect to our continental defense posture and first to compliment you and the Defense Department on the aggressive steps that have been taken in the last few months by the Department and the services in this field.

Now, with respect to the agreements with Canada, in your statement you said that agreements had been negotiated concerning the financing and the equipping and the operation of the early warning and intercepting facilities.

Have those agreements been completed? When you say they had been negotiated, does that means we do have agreements with Canada for the operation of the early warning system and interception system? (Aside to Admiral Radford.)

Secretary WILSON. You are asking me sort of a technical question. I am trying to give you a good technical answer. And that is whether all the necessary agreements are actually signed, you know. Actually, there is still some final working out on the financial side for this complete northern one. We are starting some work on that this summer. We have had some experimental work up there.

But the degree of cooperation we get from the Canadians is really a heart-warming thing.

Mr. COLE. I know, Mr. Secretary, it has been very encouraging, very wholesome. But I am still axious to know if there is in existence an agreement with Canada with respect to the operation of the Canadian phases of the continental defense system.

Secretary WILSON. The admiral says the answer is "Yes, sir." Mr. COLE. There is.

Well, now, another phase of that. Let me compliment you on the action that was taken by setting up a continental command without our own military structure for the defense of this country. It was a very wise, necessary step. But I am sure you will agree that the responsibility of continental defense under that command is incomplete unless it is interwoven in some fashion into a command which would include the Canadian phases of the continental defense system. Perhaps it would be unfair to ask you whether you agree at this time or not. I think you should agree.

Does that agreement which Admiral Radford says has been executed and made include provisions which will make possible a united command for the combined defense of Canada and the United States?

Secretary WILSON. I think the right statement on that is that in an emergency it was recognized that that would be done. In peacetime, they operate their own units; is that correct, sir?

(Admiral Radford nods.)

Secretary WILSON. In our communications system and all it is all reflected back together. So we all know, they know and we know, what is going on.

Mr. COLE. Then it is the fact that in an emergency, and that is the time when we want it, provisions are now in existence which will place the defense of both countries under a single command?

Admiral RADFORD. No, sir. They are not in existence now, and we haven't asked for them.

Mr. COLE. Well, what did you have in mind, Admiral Radford, when you said the agreements had been signed covering the operation of the system which when in time of emergency would be placed under one command?

Admiral RADFORD. We have arrangements which I am sure General Chidlaw considers are entirely adequate for an emergency situation, and we have not gone further because the arrangements that we have will lend themselves to an immediate single command if the Canadians are willing to do it at the time.

My own personal feeling is that we shouldn't press them to go further than they have gone.

Secretary WILSON. I would

Mr. COLE. I wouldn't pursue it further, except to express my own disappointment that nothing more has been done.

Secretary WILSON. I would like to make a little statement on this subject, in the interest of just getting things done in a sound way. And that is to remind you gentlemen that our Canadian friends have a Parliament and people to deal with and they are a little fussy about their big southern neighbor that they are really fond of, acting like they are running their country for them, see. So let's be careful what we say about this. They are a wonderful people. They are doing everything we reasonably want them to do. We don't want to embarrass them politically in their own country or anything else.

Mr. COLE. I hope, Mr. Secretary, that your remarks will not be interpreted as being critical of my question on this subject, that I have been critical of the Canadians, because I haven't. I subscribe to your attitude that you have just expressed regarding that fully.

Secretary WILSON. We have exactly the same thing in Britain. Any country where we have our people move in, we have to, you know, act a little bit like a well-behaved guest and not like we are going to try

Mr. COLE. Not at all. I disagree with you, Mr. Secretary. We are associated with a group of allies in Europe and they have all agreed to a unity of command. So it is not an invasion of sovereignty or an expression of discourtesy to suggest that there be a unity of command. I hope you understood, Mr. Secretary, that my opening remarks. about your getting bored with respect to commendations indicates that I, too, want to commend you for it, for your statement. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Durham?

Mr. DURHAM. No, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, members of the committee, I am hoping it will meet the approval of the committee to take a recess now until 2 o'clock, at which time we will ask the Secretary and the admiral, Admiral Radford, to return, because I am particularly anxious to get some information about fiscal 1956. So we want to wind up with these two witnesses today, because we have some witnesses tomorrow. Mr. Secretary and Admiral, will you all return at 2 o'clock? Let's get through with it. Thank you.

(Whereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the committee recessed until 2 p. m., the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

The CHAIRMAN. Let the committee come to order.

Now, members of the committee, I am going to finish going around the table and asking members of the committee if they have any questions to address to the Secretary, and when we finish that then I am going to ask that the committee go in executive session to hear Admiral Radford speak to various phases of the defense program and the world situation. I am hoping that we will be able to conclude with these two witnesses this afternoon.

Now, when we finished before the recess we left off-Mr. Rivers, have you any questions of the Secretary?

Mr. RIVERS. I don't want to disturb the unanimity with which the committee had been congratulating the Secretary on his fine statement, and I won't venture too many questions.

I would like, Mr. Secretary, to reflect on page 3 of your fine manuscript, your statement about the benefits to the military. You mentioned housing and the removal of existing inequities in the provision of medical care and the equalization of survivor benefits for military personnel, and a number of things.

There isn't any committee in the Congress closer to its business than this committee. We are well traveled and we are well informed.

Now, we have found out, Mr. Secretary, that the morale is vitally affected by these things that you have so ably enumerated. And I hope that you will see to it that these benefits are reestablished and made a part of the law of this country rather than by appropriations acts or Executive order. Because it is going to reflect directly on your reenlistments. I was at home the other day and the Navy had 32 reenlistments, the biggest number in the whole United States, in my district. In the Pacific they had one. And it all stemmed back to what the Navy could promise them as a matter of law, that they would get when they reenlisted. Because of the great investment you have in a man when his second enlistment comes up, I hope you will be alertof course you are-and see to it that these things are followed out. Because that is going to be the basis of your reenlistments and the basis of your economically-operated military.

Secretary WILSON. I am sure, Mr. Congressman, you are right about it, and I feel it very strongly, and I am encouraged over what

you say.

Mr. RIVERS. Yes, sir. Now, you mentioned the fringe benefits, along with the commissaries and PX's and all of those things. We have to be alert to them. Because that is going to affect your reenlistments, the man in whom you have an investment, and of course the protection of the country.

Secretary WILSON. In addition, I always believe in treating people fairly. I don't see how you get along on any other basis.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, very much, Mr. Rivers.

Mr. Johnson?

Mr. JOHNSON. I also want to join in the commendation for your very statesmanlike review of the military problems, which I think are the most important problems that face the country. In fact, our survival might be in jeopardy.

The question that I wanted to concern myself with is the statement by you on the bottom of page 3, where you state you are going to dis

cuss new legislative programs. The first of these is your recommendations in regard to an improved national-reserve plan.

I have to make a little preliminary statement before I come to my question, and that is this: In the last Congress, we had exhaustive hearings in this committee by a subcommittee that drafted a law that provided a new promotional pattern for the Reserves, and it was demanded by the Reserves of all components.

We got the law through the House, and I was here at every meeting. I want you to know that sitting out in front of us were representatives of every single department of the Armed Forces, and they concurred in every provision in that law. We passed it through the House and we sent it over to the Senate and it laid there for a long time. I am going to talk very frankly to you. That is the only way I know how to talk to people. And much to our surprise, we found that a man up in your organization was blocking the hearing of that law by the Senate committee. I took it up with the majority leader and with members on the committee. They said they were anxious to have the bill come out. And I also understand that you interposed some objections to it. And we talked to Senator Margaret Smith.

Maybe you remember, that you talked to her, and Mr. Hannah talked to her, and we found that the Defense Department was trying to block the enactment of that law, which all the Reserves wanted and which I think is a good law.

Now, what I would like to know is, if you send up a man here to testify for a reserve system and we listen to it and make some modification of it, are we then going to be confronted with opposition from your Department or are you going to accept the bill that the House and the Senate might enact?

Secretary WILSON. You asked me a question that is easy to answer because we are going to try to present the whole business to you at a very formal, factual and understanding way, and whatever comes out of it we will be happy to accept.

I think the only difference of opinion was that it was too narrow an approach to the thing. And hopefully, we would have liked to have done this last year, but it is a big job. Overhauling a reserve system and how you make it an effective thing is not so very easy we found out. I think if you will be patient with us and listen to our explanation of the whole thing, you will find that we are trying to be very constructive in the whole matter.

Along that line is a point that I feel pretty strongly about and that is we don't have enough regular officers in our organization as compared to the need. For instance, in the Air Force, less than 20 percent of the officers now in the service are Regular officers and the other 80 percent are Reserve officers. That is not a good arrangement.

Then, it makes a great difference between the reserves that are on active duty and the reserves that are real reserves that would be called in.

So that the reason the Department of Defense itself, Doctor Hannah and some of his people-I was along with it. I didn't answer our whole problem for us.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, but it answers one of the very important things that every officer wants to know: Is he going to have a reasonable chance for promotion? Is he going to have that incentive that he