Senator will turn to the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, I think he will find it.

Mr. HENDRICKSON. It has not appeared previously in the current debate. Mr. HILL. No, it has not. Mr. HENDRICKSON. It has not heretofore been heard in the present debate.

Mr. HILL. But it did appear at another time, in another body, I may say to my distinguished friend.

Mr. HENDRICKSON. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HILL. I am delighted to give my distinguished friend from New Jersey the information.

In the business of building automobiles one never comes face to face with the complex and difficult problems an Air Force faces in building for the future.

In any industry, one can allocate a relatively small portion of the budget to research and development. But a chromium-plated approach to aeronautical development could be tragic indeed for our country.

Compared to a modern air weapon, the automobile is as complicated as an eggbeater.

The new civilians in the Defense Department may learn the difference, as they get deeper into the Air Force program.

But can we wait for that? Can we afford to base our research and development effort in the Air Force on limited research and development experience with automobiles-where the best way to make money-and incidentally the best way to lose a war-is to be able to sell last year's model as new.

This business of maintaining qualitative superiority in the air calls for big thinking, vivid imagination, and bold action. I recall having often said that, so far as nations and peoples are concerned, the finest passage to be found in the Book is the one which reads, "Where there is no vision, the people perish."

This Air Force research and development program was initiated by a big thinker-by Gen. Hap Arnold. In the last months of World War II, General Arnold, with characteristic vision, called for an effort which would keep pace with the technological revolution then at hand.

This revolution, as early as 1944, saw Germany put the first combat jet into the air, the first rocket plane into the air, the first guided missile into the air.

America escaped the potentially disastrous effects of our qualitative inferiority in airpower-not by virtue of its own achievement, but only because a dictator named Hitler misjudged the true nature of his military strength.

We cannot expect that other dictators will make the same mistake. In fact, we know that Russia has profited by the mistakes of Germany.

Russia inherited, or took as war booty, a number of German experts who, in 1945, already were 10 years ahead of America in guided-missile research.

Russia has proceeded uninterrupted in her airpower research and development program ever since the end of World War II. The research and development program of our own Air Force on the other hand, has been repeatedly cur

From 1947 to 1949 the Air Force sacrificed, entirely because of lack of money, fully half of its research and development projects. The record will reveal, and a sad record it is, that in this period not one new aircraft or guided missile project was initiated by the Air Force. And those were the years that determined the quality of the air weapons with which we fight today.

If in those years the Defense Department had maintained an aggressive approach to airpower research and development, we might not have found ourselves in Korean combat with obsolete piston-engine aircraft.

We might not have had to spend millions in cash programs to modify our jet fighters to keep pace with the appearance in Korea of the Russian-built MIG-15 jet. Instead, we would have had vastly superior models of aircraft ready for production at the start of the Korean war-models which still are some 2 years away from production.

Let us not lull ourselves to sleep in the knowledge that we have out-fought the MIG in Korea. Many factors are involved in that record. Our experts regard the MIG with respect. Even today, over 3 years after the start of Korea, we have only 1 type of plane capable of meeting the MIG.

By far the most important thing is that we have yet to meet the full Russian Air Force.

Do we know what Russia has in the way of bombers? Do we know what it may have in interceptors? Do we know what it may have in other types? No; we do not know what sinister weapons Russia has up her sleeve, but we do know what she is capable of doing, and the prospects are not happy to contemplate. We do not forget the MIG-15. We do not forget the testimony of General Gruenther and of General Ridgway of the Air Force, and the kind, quality, and quantity of Russian airpower.

The Under Secretary of Defense, Mr. Kyes, testified before the subcommittee of the House-just think of this, Mr. President:

We find 27 different bombsights being developed in the Air Force.

When we look at the record we find the Air Force has exactly 5 bombsights under development; not 27, but only 5— an error of more than 500 percent.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield? Mr. HILL. I yield for a question. Mr. MORSE. I know the Senator does not want to yield, but I do not think a statement such as he has just made on the floor of the Senate should not be subject to cross examination. I am sure the Senator knows that I am interested only in getting the facts. But if I correctly understood what the Senator said, he made the assertion that the Under Secretary of Defense, Mr. Kyes, testified that the Air Force had 27 bombsights under development. I understand he made that comment in order to leave the impression that that was a criticism of the Under Secretary of Defense in reference to the research and development

Mr. HILL. The Senator is correct. Instead of having 27, we have only 5.

Mr. MORSE. Am I correct, then, in my conclusion from the premise laid down by the Senator from Alabama that the Under Secretary of Defense, Mr. Kyes, appears before a congressional committee and makes the statement that the Air Force has under development 27 bombsights and leaves the critical connotation of that statement reflecting upon the deficiency of the Air Force, when the fact is that the Air Force has only 5 bombsights under development?

Mr. HILL. That is correct.

Mr. MORSE. If that be true, Mr. Kyes better be called before the appropriation committee of the Senate. Let me say that if I were still a member of the Armed Services Committee I would demand that he be brought before that committee and have a vacuum cleaner put over him when he is placed on the carpet, because, if what the Senator says is true, I think it is inexcusable for a man to give such misinformation to any congressional committee of the House or of the Senate.

Mr. HILL. Knowing the Senator from Oregon as I do, I will say that I know that if he were on that committee he would make an investigation.

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield? Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. FERGUSON. Did I correctly understand the Senator to say that Mr. Kyes is the Under Secretary for Air?

Mr. HILL. He is the Under Secretary for Defense. He is next to Secretary Wilson.

Mr. MORSE. That makes it worse.

Mr. FERGUSON. I should like to ask this question: Where was this testimony given?

Mr. HILL. It was given before a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee.

Mr. FERGUSON.. Has the Senator given us the page of the testimony? Mr. HILL. I do not have the page in my notes.

Mr. FERGUSON. I should like to have a page reference.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield? Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Considering some of the testimony, this is fairly good for Mr. Kyes. It is only 500 percent incorrect.

Mr. FERGUSON. I do not want to be personal.

Mr. SYMINGTON. The testimony, as I remember it-because it was brought to my attention-was used in the House of Representatives. One of the distinguished Members of the House used it in the RECORD in the House of Representatives. I had heard about it before. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield? Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. FERGUSON. Has the Senator inquired of Mr. Kyes with reference to his testimony?

Mr. FERGUSON, Who later gave the testimony with reference to the five bombsights which are under development?

Mr. HILL. I checked with the Air Force to find out how many bombsights were really under development, and the information was that it was only five.

Mr. FERGUSON. Will the Senator say with whom he checked in the Air Force?

tion of $62 million, and that reduced figure was submitted to Congress. The House reduced this lower figure to $440 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee reinstated the $35 million cut by the House, and the bill now before the Senate calls for $475 million.

Mr. HILL. The liaison man, I believe, is Colonel Cox.

new electronic aids to the close support

Mr. FERGUSON. I wondered whether a search had really been made to ascertain the actual number of bombsights under development.

Mr. HILL. It is my understanding that that is what the record shows.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield? Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. SYMINGTON. An honorable Member of the House repeated the testimony, and it was a matter of interest to everyone who had an interest in the Air Force, because no one could figure out how 27 bombsights could be under development at one time. The only problem about divulging information today is that everyone in the Air Force has been notified not to give out any information. But this fact came out on the floor of the House. Some of us felt that it was advisable to check it. I have not checked with the same person with whom the Senator from Alabama checked, but I can report to the Senator from Michigan that the information I received coincides exactly with the information given to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. FERGUSON. I have never had any of this information. I shall attempt to check the record now. I think it would have been wise to have checked with Mr. Kyes as to where he had obtained the information and how he came to have it. Mr. HILL. Mr. Kyes is Under Secretary of Defense. Certainly when he speaks, one does not check with him as to where he obtained his information. He is supposed to be talking for the Department of Defense.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield? Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. SYMINGTON. To me, this illustration of inaccuracy is typical of information that has been coming from the Pentagon Building to Congress, and on which we are basing our decision with respect to the Air Force cut.

Mr. HILL. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, in the defense budget submitted to the Congress by the present administration for the fiscal year 1954, the figure for Air Force research and development was $537 million. This figure represented an orderly continuation of the research and development program. However, hardly had the new Defense civilians taken office, than the Air Force was directed by the new administration to revise its estimate downward to $475

unconventional and highly promising engine design; the development of certain components such as new type radio sets, instruments, landing gears, ground handling equipment; and the elimination of a study into new techniques for all-weather navigation.

I believe we should return to the $537 million figure for Air Force research and development for fiscal year 1954. It would be a wise investment.

But this is far from the whole story as to what the Department of Defense has done to air power research and development. Months ago the Air Force received a directive from the Secretary of Defense demanding that no more than three-quarters of the approved budget estimate for research and development in the fiscal year 1954 be obligated during that period. The balance of 25 percent was to be spent or not spent at his discretion.

This cuts research and development to $365 million, and is seriously delaying vital programs throughout the United States. In effect, this represents the impounding of moneys appropriated by Congress.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HILL. I yield.

I believe the distinguished Senator from Alabama stated that the budget of the previous administration for research and development, one activity that many people believe should go on regardless of production, in order to maintain our air quality as against that of the Soviet Communists, was cut to $475 million by the present administration.

As I understood the Senator from Alabama, that figure was further reduced in the House to $440 million, but was replaced by the Senate Appropriations Committee, and raised to $475 million, if I am correct.

Mr. HILL. The Senator is correct.

Mr. SYMINGTON. There has been a

great deal of talk today, and on previous days, especially on the other side of the aisle, about the impounding of money and the refusal of the President of the United States to spend money appropriated by Congress. I believe I am correct in my statement.

Mr. HILL. The Senator is exactly correct. As the Senator knows, Air

Force funds have been impounded before, and the Executive has refused to spend the funds. That action has been very severely criticized on the floor today.

Mr. SYMINGTON. I respectfully point out to the Senator from Alabama that what the new Secretary of Defense has done, with complete inexperience on his part as to the research and development program, has been exactly what was so heavily criticized in the past. A few weeks after he went into the Pentagon for the first time, he impounded large sums of money from the research and development program of the Air Force, with cuts far below those which the House had made, and therefore even further below the amount the Senate Appropriations Committee has restored.

Mr. HILL. The Senator is exactly correct. He has stated the case exactly as it is. He has given facts to the Senate.

I believe we should return to the $537 million figure for Air Force research and development for the fiscal year 1954. It would be a wise investment.

But this is far from the whole story as to what the Department of Defense has done to airpower research and development. As the Senator has said, the appropriation has been cut down and impounded. The Department has assumed the right to impound 25 percent, which would reduce the figure to $365 million.

We have had one sad experience in this approach to our security. Is it necessary to have another? Should not Congress decide what moneys shall be spent for national defense?

Certainly the Constitution provides that Congress shall make the decisions in such cases. Above all, let us get the facts straight. Congress and the people have a right to know the truth. Let us not pile calculated risks in quality upon calculated risks in numbers.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield?

Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. MORSE. With regard to the impounding practice, which seems to be growing at an alarming rate in the executive branch of the Government, does the Senator agree with me that steps should be taken to safeguard Congress from the practice of Government by men, which is developing, by requiring that if an executive officer seeks to impound money which has been appropriated for a specific purpose because Congress believes public policy calls for its expenditure, that officer should be required to come before Congress, or to send an agent in his behalf, even if the officer is the President of the United States, and to get the permission of Congress for the impounding? If that is not done, then the function of Congress to make appropriations can be defeated by the arbitrary discretion of the executive

branch.

Mr. HILL. Our functions can be entirely vetoed, or, as the Senator from Oregon says, defeated. I think we know the Air Force budget cut was made on the basis of money and not on the basis of national security. I asked Secretary

Wilson, when he was before the committee, as to who was responsible for this cut. He said:

same room was due to appréhension with respect to what the results might be? Mr. HILL. I think the Senator has

I think I had the greatest responsibility good grounds for the thought which he for it, to be honest with that.

Then he added:

The two men that had the most to do with it are waiting on either side of me. Before I left [for Europe], I had a conference with the President, and I told him what I thought we could do. I did not divide it up between how much the cut would be for the Air Force or the Army or anything else.

He continued:

We had a whole bunch of figures and we were working day and night on them, and Mr. McNeil here—

He is the Reserve admiral who is Comptroller of the National Defense Department

has been through it so many times that he is really not so bad on the figures in getting them together. I don't know how he does it like he does.

Then Mr. Wilson voluntarily, and of his own free accord, really let the rabbit out of the hat when he said that he was sur

prised to find that practically all the $5 billion cut comes out of the Air Force. In other words, as the Boston Herald said, Secretary Wilson shot the Air Force and asked questions afterward.

Then he told us this subject was to be reviewed by the new Joint Chiefs of Staff when they came in in September some time. I said to him, "Now, Mr. Secretary, are we going to have the 120 interim wing goal?"

has just projected. We know that if there ever was a selfless, devoted, patriotic, loyal public servant, it is Omar Bradley. There is no politics in any deBradley. There is no politics in any decision by Omar Bradley. His decisions are made exactly on the merits, as he sees them. That has always been Omar Bradley. He has no campaign pledges or promises of any kind to fulfill. He is looking for nothing in the future. He has one purpose, and he has rendered one service, and that was to his country and to his country alone.

Mr. SYMINGTON. I thank the Senator. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. HILL. I yield to my friend from Missouri.

Mr. SYMINGTON. If the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense differed in their testimony before the committees of Conmony before the committees of Congress, is it not true that it is not only the right of Senators, but the duty of Congress to find out the truth before we pass on what, in effect, is the security

of the United States?

Mr. HILL. I thoroughly agree with my friend-bearing in mind, too, that after this decision was made in October 1951, by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, every 90 days that decision was reviewed. Every time, after making a careful review, they reaffirmed the decision. They reviewed it in March 1953. What did they say? In March of this year,

He said, "I do not know."
I pressed him. He said, to use his the last time they were given an op-

exact language:

It might be 120 wings, or it might be any old thing.

"It might be any old thing." Mr. President, that was the spirit and method in which these Air Force reductions were made. That is the testimony of Secretary Wilson.

Beginning in October 1951, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had unanimously agreed that the necessities of the situation and the dangers and risks to our country required 143 Air Force wings. There was no dissension. There were no cross-purposes as among the various services represented. There sat General Bradley, the Chief, a great American soldier. There sat the representative of the Army, the representative of the Navy, and the representative of the Air Force. The Army and Navy representatives, along with General Bradley, agreed to the 143 wing necessity, just as did the representative of the Air Force.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HILL. I yield to my friend from Missouri.

Mr. SYMINGTON. The Senator has been in the Senate for many years, and has had long experience. I am quite new here, so I would not know; but I was wondering if the Senator from Alabama felt that the inability of our side of the aisle to get the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a great soldier, Omar Bradley, from the good State of Missouri, in the

portunity to review it, they said that any reduction in the 143 Air Force wing program would increase the risk to our country beyond the limits of national prudence.

Mr. TOBEY and Mr. McCLELLAN addressed the Chair.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Alabama yield; and if so, to whom?

Mr. HILL. I yield, provided I do not lose the floor.

Mr. SYMINGTON. I answer my distinguished colleague from New Hampshire by saying that the amount of unexpended balance at this time is approximately $28 billion, all of which was a part of an overall, long-term program for purchasing airplanes on an efficient basis, which has now been pretty well messed up.

Mr. TOBEY. My question is this. If there is $28,475,000,000 on hand now, unexpended, in God's name, why do we need to make any appropriation at all this year? It cannot be spent. What is the matter with us? Are we fools? Kindly educate me.

Mr. HILL. I yield to my friend from Missouri.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, that is the greatest compliment that has been paid me since I came to the Senate.

Mr. TOBEY. I mean that very humbly. If we have on hand unexpended $28 billion-plus, in Heaven's name why does the Air Force ask for a single dollar this year?

Mr. SYMINGTON. Let me try to answer the Senator's question.

If the Senator and I were to talk about the building of a dam, and the Senator were to say to me, "How much money do you want to build the dam? How much do you need?" I might say, "I need $100,000,000." The Senator might say, "Very well. How much do you need a year?" I might say, "On the basis of a 10-year program, $10 million a year."

The Senator might say, "All right. I will start."

The first year we agree, and $10 million is spent. In the second year, after spending $5 million, the Senator might say, "I do not want to go ahead with the program." As a result I might complain, and the Senator might say, "You have $75 million that you have not expended in the program, so why do you need any more money?"

Mr. TOBEY. That is a good question.

Mr. SYMINGTON. I have tried to answer it.

Mr. TOBEY. It is beyond me. I think the taxpayers want to know the answer to the question. They all believe in national defense. But if there is $28 billion on hand, who has the nerve to ask for a single dollar more until that is used up?

Mr. SYMINGTON. I try very hard not to compare services; but the distinguished Senator from Michigan [Mr. FERGUSON] told me on Sunday that there was $23 billion in the Army. I think today that figure is considered to be less. However, any long-term program implies automatically a great deal of unexpended funds. Airplanes should be bought like battleships and carriers. They should be bought on the basis of a long-range program. I respectfully say to the Senator that if we did not spend the money it would make no difference. After all, appropriations mean nothing to the Treasury. The only thing that means anything to the Treasury is expenditures.

Mr. TOBEY. Yes.

Mr. SYMINGTON. So if we get the money and do not spend it, why worry about it from the standpoint of the fiscal situation?

Mr. TOBEY. What is the game? Is it to give the aircraft-building companies contracts years ahead?

Mr. SYMINGTON. If we have contracts for 5 years, the situation can be better organized and the program can be better tooled. There can be a better financial program. If we go into a 5-year program and then have spasmodic production year by year, we find that that is one of the greatest reasons for high costs and inefficiency in the Air Force, as the Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD] pointed out.

Mr. TOBEY. There is something very definitely wrong with the picture. Ask any man on Main Street. He will say, "They have $28 billion and they are asking for more money."

Mr. SYMINGTON. There is something wrong, but I do not think the Senator from New Hampshire was on the floor when I said I thought one of the things that was wrong was the fact that the statement given out by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which goes into detail-and the Senator can see the statement with the approval of the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services-shows that in many categories, even in combat airplanes, the Soviet Union's air force, regardless of money, is still ahead of the Air Force of the United States and is now in a position to strike the United States with an atomic attack and has enough bombs and enough bombers to do so.

Mr. TOBEY. Why do we not have planes like the Soviet Union? What are we waiting for? Why spend the money and not get enough airplanes? If we spend the money and do not get the airplanes someone is negligent. should get delivery of the planes.

We

Mr. SYMINGTON. During the past 5 years the Air Force has received a great deal of money, appropriated by Congress. I believe it will interest my good friend from New Hampshire to know that the Army has received much more than the Air Force.

Mr. TOBEY. I am not interested in the Army or in the Navy or in the Air Force particularly; I am interested in the country as a whole.

Mr. JACKSON, Mr. MCCLELLAN, and Mr. MAYBANK addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Alabama yield; and if so, to whom?

Mr. HILL. I promised to yield to the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. MCCLELLAN]. Does the Senator from Washington wish to ask a question on this point? Mr. JACKSON. Yes.

gate the funds. So it was carried in the budget as a contract authorization. Mr. TOBEY. To be paid for on delivery.

Mr. JACKSON. It is exactly the same now, except that we stop the practice of net carrying the dollars in the budget, which does not portray the true budgetary picture, because we must pay for the contract authorizations with dollars at a subsequent date.

Mr. TOBEY. The $28 billion constitutes a bookkeeping item. It is a suspense account; is it not?

Mr. JACKSON. It represents obligations. I served on the House Appropriations Committee when we changed the policy. For years the money we are now talking about-the $28 billion, for example-was not carried as it is now in the budget, but appeared under another item as "contract authorization." Today it appears as dollars, as it should appear. I believe the old system was misleading-and in the case of a contract authorization it should have appeared as dollars-because it represented a direct obligation of the United States Government which would have to be paid in another fiscal year.

I believe 90 percent of our difficulty stems from doing our business in a 12month period. I can answer the distinguished Senator's question very simply. The conflict is between the fiscal year of 12 months and the fact that we cannot build airplanes in 12 months. Nor can we build dams within 12 months; or turn out all munitions of war in 12 months. That is why there arises a constant discussion of the subject.

Mr. HILL. Mr. President, what the Senator from Washington is saying is absolutely correct. It takes 3 or 4 years to build airplanes. If the Air Force could build airplanes

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, does the Senator want the 3- or 4-year statement to stand on the RECORD?

Mr. HILL. Some airplanes take 3 or 4 years to build from the time they are started. The evidence shows that to be the fact.

anything to do with contract authorizations, and in the past 3 years we have had to appropriate the money. That accounts for some of the difficulty.

Mr. HILL. That is correct. In the old days, before the House took the position it takes now, if it cost $250 million to build a certain airplane, but if only $50 million would be needed during the current fiscal year, Congress would appropriate $50 million, and give contractual authority for the additional $200 million. In that case all the appropriation bill would show would be an appropriation of $50 million. The House having taken the position that it will not agree to any more contract authorizations, Congress must appropriate the full amount of the contract, although that full amount may be spent over a period of several fiscal years.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield once more? Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. There is a great deal of merit to the position taken by the House, in that we now know what we are doing.

Mr. HILL. We do know what we are doing.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. On the other hand, it does build up the lead time.

Mr. HILL. There is another argument in favor of the position of the House. By taking the position of the House, we have a true picture of what we are spending when we sign a contract, and the Government must carry out that contract, but as the Senator says, the position the House has taken has necessitated building up the lead time, and we appropriate money months ahead of the time the money is to be expended.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one more question?

Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. On the airplanes on which we cut down the lead time, we thereby make it possible to cut down the appropriations, without damaging the program, I will say in answer to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. HILL. If we cut down the lead time; and in some instances we do cut

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HILL. The Senator from Arkansas has been patiently waiting for me to yield to him. I shall yield first to my friend from Arkansas.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. I thank the Senator. At the time the Senator yielded to the Senator from New Hampshire

Mr. HILL. I promised first to yield to my friend from Arkansas. However, I will yield to the Senator from Massachusetts, and then I will yield to my friend from Arkansas.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Without getting into the argument, it is a fact that the House has forbidden or refuses to have

recall, as late as March of this year.

Mr. HILL. In March 1953 the Joint Chiefs of Staff made another review. They had reviewed the program every 3 months. They made another review in March of 1953. As a result of that latest review, they declared that any reduction in the program of the 143 air wings would increase the risk to our

country beyond the dictates of national security.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for another question? Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. I assume we agree it is the highest authority upon which Congress can rely. If there is any higher authority, I do not know about it. Mr. HILL. I would say certainly it is the highest military authority, and it is set up in the National Defense Act as the highest military authority.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. I would say it is not only the highest but the most competent authority within our knowledge. Mr. HILL. That is correct.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. As I understand

the revised budget, and the testimony of the Secretary of Defense and others who support it, it is actually designed and geared to only a 120-wing Air Force.

Mr. HILL. There is no question that the Senator from Arkansas is absolutely correct about that. In referring to the interim goal after there had been a review by the new Chiefs of Staff, the Sec

us the defensive power or the striking power that 143 wings would have given

us.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. Then if we reduce the size of the Air Force to 120 wings, so far as the record shows, we shall be reducing our national defense and our security to just that extent; is that correct?

Mr. HILL. That is entirely correct. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield to me?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PURTELL in the chair). Does the Senator from Alabama yield to the Senator from New York?

Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. LEHMAN. We have heard a great deal about budgeting, but I believe the time has come to talk turkey.

Mr. HILL. That is what we have been trying to do.

Mr. LEHMAN. I agree. I am very glad to support the Senator from Alabama, for, as he knows, I think he is correct at least 99 percent of the time. We have a Secretary of Defense whose

be 120 wings or any old thing.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. I should like to ask another question. I shall be brief. Now we are told there is no magic in the number 143 as applied to the wings of to us. There may not be any magic to the figure 143, but I wish to ask the Senator, for the record, whether it is true that the fighting power and striking power and defensive power that 143

wings would have given us at the time

when the 143 figure was arrived at, did have some magic because at that time 143 wings were thought to be necessary for our defense?

Mr. HILL. That is absolutely correct.

The Senator from Arkansas will recall

that when he and I were in World War I we talked about firepower, and at that time the fundamental thesis was that the side having the greatest firepower would win; that if we could put more bullets on the enemy than the enemy could put on us, we would win. That was considered a very good thesis.

So it is important for us to realize that 143 wings have a great deal more firepower and constitute a much more powerful destructive force than do 120 wings.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. That is the point I wish to make. Is there any testimony from any source that technological advances and improvements have been made to such an extent that today 120 wings have the same fighting power, striking power, and defense potentialities that 143 wings had when that figure was originally agreed upon?

Mr. HILL. If there is any evidence to that effect, I have never seen it. I know of no witness who has ever testified that at this time 120 wings would have the power that 143 wings would have had.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. In other words, there is no evidence to show that today 120 wings would give us the same defense that 143 wings were designed to give us? Mr. HILL. There is no such evidence at all. I know of no evidence to the effect that 120 wings at this time would give

nection with the defense of the Nation, and after careful study, scrutiny, research, and consultation, a budget for the Department of Defense. However, I subdrafted by the Secretary of Defense after careful scrutiny, study, research, and consultation at all. I maintain that this budget has been submitted to Congress under instructions by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, who instructed the Secretary of Defense to re

mit that the present budget has not been

duce the budget by $5 billion.

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield to me? Mr. HILL. Just a minute, please. Mr. LEHMAN. Senator from Alabama has yielded to me. Mr. President, the

The

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senate will be in order. The Senator from Alabama has the floor. yield; and if so, to whom? Does he

Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from New York for a question.

tion? However, has not the Senator from New York been making a speech?

Mr. HILL. He was asking a very long question, I thought. [Laughter.]

Mr. LEHMAN. I began by asking, "Is it not a fact?"

Mr. HILL. Mr. President, in answer to the question of the Senator from New York, let me say that that is exactly what we are doing. Instead of closing this gap, not only are we failing to close it, but we are giving notice to the Russians and to the rest of the world that we are going backward instead of forward, and that instead of narrowing the gap, we are widening it. Mr.

Mr. SYMINGTON. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield to me for a question?

Mr. HILL. I yield for a question. Mr. SYMINGTON. Would not the Soviet Union prefer, above all other things, to force us into a quantitative war on the ground, as opposed to a qualitative war in the air?

Mr. HILL. The answer is that we know from the experience of Napoleon, Hitler, and many other military leaders, that no military commander, regardless of what his genius may have been, has ever been able to carry on a successful war of invasion of Russia.

will the Senator from Alabama yield to me for another question?

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President,

Mr. HILL. I yield for a question.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Is it not true that as a result of the new group of inexperienced civilians who have come into the Pentagon, this year we shall be spending

hundreds of millions of dollars more for

Army procurement and for ship procurement, as opposed to the appropriations of last year, but over $2 billion less for our naval airpower and over $7,500,000,000 less for our Air Force power, as compared to the appropriations of last year?

Mr. HILL. I think the Senator from Missouri is absolutely correct. The 143-wing figure was arrived at, after careful consideration, in October 1951, by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, based on the following four factors: First, Soviet

are still far behind the Russians in mili

tary strength, and that this is the time for us to catch up with the Russians, and to narrow the gap between our military strength and their strength-which still is very great, even in a time of such confusion as exists in the Soviet Republics today; yet, instead of trying to narrow that gap, we are trying to broaden it and widen it, and thus leave ourselves less able to defend ourselves

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, I rise to a point of order.

The

Mr. HILL. Mr. President Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. PresidentThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Chair recognizes the Senator recognizes Senator from Michigan [Mr. FERGUSON] to state the point of order.

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, I propound a parliamentary inquiry, based on a point of order: Did not the Senator from Alabama yield for a quesSenator from Alabama yield for a ques

the known intention of the Communists to dominate the world-surely there is no question about that; third, the known commitments in Western

Europe; and, fourth, the known and anticipated capability of the Soviets' longrange air force.

Certainly every Senator knows and certainly General Gruenther, General Ridgway, and others of our great military leaders have warned us, that today the military capability of the Russians is far greater than it was in 1950, when the 143-wing program was agreed upon.

Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield to me? Mr. HILL. I yield for a question.

Mr. MAYBANK. I wish to ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Alabama may yield to me, in order that I may submit an amendment.

Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield for that purpose, without losing the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none,