REPORTS OF COMMITTEES The following reports of committees were submitted:

By Mr. McCARRAN, from the Committee on the Judiciary:

S. 32. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, section 456, so as to increase to $15 per day the limit on subsistence expenses allowed to justices and judges traveling while attending court or transacting official business at places other than their official stations, and to authorize reimburse'ment for such travel by privately owned automobiles at the rate of 7 cents per mile; with amendments (Rept. No. 608).

By Mr. CARLSON, from the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service:

S. 2417. A bill to provide for the creation of a Commission on Judicial and Congres

mit the entry of 500 children under 6 years of age adopted by United States citizens while serving abroad in the Armed Forces of the United States or while employed abroad by the United States Government, which were ordered to lie on the table and to be printed.

ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL QUOTA IMMIGRANT VISAS ΤΟ CERTAIN ALIENS-AMENDMENTS

Mr. WELKER submitted 37 amendments intended to be proposed by him to the bill (S. 1917) to authorize the issuance of 240,000 special quota immigrant visas to certain escapees, German

amendments (Rept. No. 609).

By Mr. MILLIKIN, from the Committee on Finance:

H. R. 157. A bill to provide that the tax on admissions shall not apply to moving-picture admissions; without amendment (Rept. No. 611); and

H. R. 4152. A bill to extend the time for exemption from income taxes for certain members of the Armed Forces; with amendments (Rept. No. 610).

and the Netherlands, and for other purposes, which were ordered to lie on the table and to be printed.

Mr. MCCARRAN submitted 16 amendments intended to be proposed by him to Senate bill 1917, supra, which were ordered to lie on the table and to be printed.

Mr. JENNER submitted 17 amendments, intended to be proposed by him to Senate bill 1917, supra, which were ordered to lie on the table and to be printed.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I submit an amendment, in the nature of a substitute, intended to be proposed by me to the joint resolution (S. J. Res. 1) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to the making of treaties and executive agreements, the so-called Bricker amendment. Since the amendment in the nature of a substitute is short, I shall read it:

Strike out all after the resolving clause and in lieu thereof insert the following:

"SECTION 1. A provision of a treaty or other international agreement which conflicts with the Constitution shall not be of any force or effect. The judicial power of the United States shall extend to all cases, in law or equity, in which it is claimed that the conflict described in this amendment is present.

"SEC. 2. When the Senate consents to the ratification of a treaty the vote shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against shall be entered on the Journal of the Senate.

"SEC. 3. When the Senate so provides in its consent to ratification, a treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through the enactment of appropriate legislation by the Congress.

"SEC. 4. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within 7 years from the date of its submission."

Mr. President, I ask that the amendment be printed and lie on the table.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The amendment will be received, and printed, and will lie on the table.

Mr. WILEY subsequently said: Today, there was issued from the White House a statement by the President in relation to an amendment submitted by the distinguished senior Senator from Cali

fornia [Mr. KNOWLAND] relative to the purported compromise on the so-called Bricker resolution. The President in his statement said, among other things:

All action of the President, either domestically or in foreign relations, must be within and pursuant to constitutional authority. Consequently, I am unalterably opposed to any amendment which would change our traditional treatymaking power or which would hamper the President in his constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs. Today, probably as never before in our history, it is essential that our country be able, effectively, to enter into agreements with other nations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the statement by the President, issued by the White House, be printed following my remarks.

There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Senator KNOWLAND has today introduced a resolution to amend the Constitution of the United States. Its purpose is to assure that treaties entered into by the President and consented to by at least two-thirds of the Senate in behalf of the United States shall not override the Constitution. It provides that treaties and executive agreements shall not violate the Constitution, and that the courts may so declare; that in the future the Senate shall vote on treaties by recorded yeas and nays as is the case now with a vote on overriding a veto; and that the Senate may in each instance, when considering the ratification of a treaty, if it so determines, provide that it shall not be effective as internal law save by congressional action.

This resolution has my unqualified support.

Under our form of Government, the President has the duty to conduct foreign affairs. Every American knows this to be our traditional policy which has functioned so well during the lifetime of our Republic.

While I have opposed other amendments which would have had the effect of depriving the President of the capacity necessary to carry on negotiations with foreign governments, I am glad to support the Knowland amendment for it confirms that this Presidential power cannot be used contrary to the Constitution.

All action of the President, either domestically or in foreign relations, must be within and pursuant to constitutional authority. Consequently I am unalterably opposed to any amendment which would change our traditional treatymaking power or which would hamper the President in his constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs. Today, probably as never before in our history it is essential that our country be able effectively to enter into agreements with other nations.

As President I have taken an oath to defend the Constitution. I therefore oppose any change which will impair the President's traditional authority to conduct foreign affairs. Senator WILEY and others who have joined in the defense of these constitutional powers so important to the integrity and safety of our Nation, are entitled to commendation and support for their efforts.

It is my belief that the reassurances contained in the Knowland amendment meet all legitimate demands that have been made in this field of foreign relations.

Mr.. WILEY. Mr. President, on receipt of the statement by the President, I prepared a statement of my own, which reads as follows:

Of course, I am very pleased that President Eisenhower has once more stated his

unalterable opposition to the Bricker amendment.

The President's statement is indeed a victory for the forces which have sought to maintain the Constitution unimpaired. It is a decisive repudiation of those who attempted to upset the traditional separation of powers and to strip the Senate of its constitutional powers with respect to treaty making.

It seems essential to me that careful consideration should be given to the proposal made by Senator KNOWLAND. Any amendment to the Constitution is an extremely

serious matter.

Our Constitution has worked exceptionally well for over a century and a half. Like a watch it is in fact a delicate mechanism that is very carefully balanced. We should hesitate a long time before we yield to the temptation to tamper with that mechanism.

While we are relieved that the President has again flatly opposed the Bricker resolution, we must not rush into hasty action on the substitute.

I have in the past questioned the necessity of any amendment of the Constitution on this subject.

A quick preliminary study of the text of the Knowland substitute reveals the following:

Section 1 of the Knowland substitute is a restatement of constitutional law, as defined in the Constitution and in the decisions of our courts. Section 2 is in effect, an amendment of the Senate rules which could be accomplished by simple Senate action. Senate 3 provides, in effect, that the Senate can attach reservations to treaties-a power it already has and one which it has already exercised on many occasions. If this section means more, then it raises most fundamental questions as to the ability of this country to conclude treaties that are selfexecuting in nature.

I make these points only to illustrate the need for comprehensive analysis and public discussion of this or any amendment to our Constitution. It would be fantastic if we were to take up either the Bricker amendment or the Knowland substitute in the few remaining weeks of this session.

I am opposed to any precipitate action on this question at this time.

Since the whole subject has such an important impact on foreign relations, I do not believe that this joint resolution should be taken up on the Senate floor without hearings first being held in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Mr. DWORSHAK. Mr. President, will the Senator from Wisconsin yield?

Mr. WILEY. I yield.

Mr. DWORSHAK. Can the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations advise the Senate whether the distinguished junior Senator from Ohio [Mr. BRICKER], as the author of the Bricker amendment, has been consulted concerning the substitute?

Mr. WILEY. I can assure the Senator that I have not been consulted. I can assure the Senator that, from newspaper accounts, I understand the Senator from Ohio has been in consultation with other persons. But I have never been consulted, and probably I am not entitled to be consulted.

Mr. DWORSHAK. Does the Senator Does the Senator from Wisconsin say those persons have been in constant consultation with the junior Senator from Ohio, or with someone else?

Mr. WILEY. With the Senator from Ohio, and, I think, with the Senator from California [Mr. KNOWLAND).

Mr. DWORSHAK. So the assumption is that the Senator from Ohio is aware of the development?

Mr. WILEY. Of course. The Senator from California [Mr. KNOWLAND] could speak on that subject.

HOUSE BILLS REFERRED

The following bills were severally read twice by their titles, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

H. R. 684. An act for the relief of Kim Jung Soo;

H. R. 723. An act for the relief of Mrs. Fumiko Sawai Skovran;

H. R. 728. An act for the relief of Helga G. Jordan and her son;

H. R. 752. An act for the relief of Francoise Bresnahan;

H. R. 806. An act for the relief of Sullivan Construction Co.;

H. R. 824. An act for the relief of Demetrious Konstantno Papanicolaou;

H. R. 907. An act for the relief of Wolodymyr Hirniak;

H. R. 917. An act for the relief of Luigi Lotito;

H. R. 953. Ar act for the relief of Jekabs Lenbergs;

H. R. 965. An act for the relief of Michael Demcheshen;

H. R. 1130. An act for the relief of Golda I. Stegner;

H. R. 1339. An act for the relief of Dr. Soon Tai Ryang;

H. R. 1689. An act for the relief of the Frank M. Hill Machine Co., Inc.;

Foreign Service officer of the class of career minister, to be Ambassador of the United States to the Republic of Lebanon.

Also received were the nominations of the following-named persons, who were appointed during the last recess of the Senate, to the offices indicated:

Theodore C. Achilles, of the District of Columbia; Cavendish W. Cannon, of Utah; Gerald A. Drew, of California; Raymond A. Hare, of Iowa; and Edward B. Lawson, of the District of Columbia, for promotion from Foreign Service officers of class 1 to Foreign Service officers of the class of career minister.

Everett F. Drumright, of Oklahoma, now a Foreign Service officer of class 1 and a secretary in the diplomatic service, to be also a consul general of the United States of America.

Robert P. Terrill, of California, for appointment as a Foreign Service officer of class 1, a consul, and a secretary in the diplomatic service of the United States of America.

Erwin P. Keeler, of Indiana; C. Montagu Pigott, of California; and Edward E. Rice, of Wisconsin, now Foreign Service officers of class 2 and secretaries in the diplomatic service, to be also consuls general of the United States of America.

H. R. 2029. An act for the relief of Rose Maria Gradelone Calicchio;

H. R. 2603. An act for the relief of Carmela Daino Davenia;

H. R. 2774. An act for the relief of Endre Szende, Zsuzsanna Szende, Katalin Szende (a minor), and Maria Szende (a minor); H. R. 2785. An act for the relief of Wera Fazio, a minor;

H. R. 2801. An act for the relief of David Zorub;

H. R. 3006. An act for the relief of Ruth Irene Ledermann;

H. R. 3046. An act for the relief of William Urban Maloney;

H. R. 3268. An act for the relief of Hiroki Hollopeter;

H. R. 3396. An act for the relief of Dr. Hamdi Akar;

H. R. 3749. An act for the relief of Woldemar Jaskowsky;

H. R. 4056. An act for the relief of Manfred Singer;

H. R. 4328. An act for the relief of Mrs. Edith D. Williamson;

H. R. 5486. An act for the relief of Irene Andrews; and

H. R. 5950. An act for the relief of Gattas E. Maloof.

NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN NOMINATIONS BY FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE Mr. WILEY. Mr. President the Senate today received the nomination of Cavendish W. Cannon, of Utah, a Foreign Service officer of the class of career minister, to be Ambassador of the United States to Greece, and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation as chief of the American Mission for Aid to Greece.

There was also received the nomination of Raymond A. Hare, of Iowa, a

class 2, consuls, and secretaries in the diplomatic service of the United States of America.

Edward Anderson, of Florida; John B. Holt, of Maine; John P. Hoover, of California; and William Witman 2d, of Pennsylvania, now Foreign Service officers of class 3 and secretaries in the diplomatic service, to be also consuls general of the United States of America.

Robert N. Anderson, of California; John M. Kennedy, of Virginia; Coburn B. Kidd, of Oklahoma; Vernon L. Phelps, of Illinois; Joseph Sweeney, of California; Percy de F. Warner, of the District of Columbia; and Findley Weaver, of Oklahoma, for appointment as Foreign Service officers of class 3, consuls, and secretaries in the diplomatic service of the United States of America.

Arthur S. Abbott, of Illinois; Edward Anderberg, of New York; H. Reid Bird, of Utah; Mrs. Elizabeth C. Bouch, of Oregon; G. Edward Clark, of New York; Francis J. Galbraith, of South Dakota; Miss Constance L. Grant, of Massachusetts; William F. Gray, of North Carolina; Albert Harkness, Jr., of Rhode Island; L. Douglas Heck, of Maryland; Valdemar N. L. Johnson, of Florida; William B. Kelly, of Ohio; Duncan A. D. Mackay, of New Jersey; Harold M. Midkiff, of Florida; Givon Parsons, of Texas; Albert A. Rabida, of Colorado; Robert E. Reed, of New York; and Elbert R. Williams, of Pennsylvania, for appointment as Foreign Service officers of class 4, consuls, and secretaries in the diplomatic service of the United States of America.

Hermann F. Eilts, of Pennsylvania, and Curtis F. Jones, of Maine, now Foreign Service officers of class 5 and secretaries in the diplomatic service, to be also consuls of the United States of America.

Miss Anna E. Simmons, of Texas, for appointment as a Foreign Service officer of class 5, a vice consul of career, and a secretary in the diplomatic service of the United States of America.

John B. Anderson, of Illinois; Malcolm R. Barnebey, of Texas; Roger N. Benson, of Wisconsin; John A. Billings, of Missouri; Lewis W. Bowden, of the District of Columbia; William G. Bradford, of Illinois; William R. Brown, of Ohio; Charles B. Cook 3d, of Pennsylvania; Thomas A. DeHart, of California; Thomas I. Dickson, Jr., of Texas; William B. Edmondson, of Nebraska; Alfred J. Erdos, of Arizona; Leo Espy, of Oregon; Miss Barbara C. Fagan, of New York; John E. Feissner, Jr., of the District of Columbia; William Lee Frost, of New York; Charles A. Gendreau, of Minnesota; Robert K. German, of Texas; James E. Goodby, of Massachusetts; Richard C. Harmstone, of the District of Columbia; Roy T. Haverkamp, of Missouri; Robert T. Hennemeyer, of Illinois; Robert W. Kent, Jr., of California; Lucien L. Kinsolving, of New York; Burton Kitain, of New Jersey; Paul H. Kreisberg, of New York; Jerome M. Kuhl, of Texas; William W. Lehfeldt, of California; John A. Linehan, Jr., of Massachusetts; John Lloyd 3d, of New Jersey; John G. MacCracken, of California; David P. Mann, of the District of Columbia; Thomas G. McGowan, of New York; Thomas N. Metcalf, Jr., of Massachusetts; Harry J. Mullin, Jr., of Kentucky; Miss Marian L. Nash, of Louisiana; Michael H. Newlin, of North Carolina; Donald R. Norland, of Iowa; Richard B. Owen, of Michigan; Russell R. Pearson, of Minnesota; Richard St. F. Post, of Connecticut; Jess F. Reed, of Washington; James F. Relph, Jr., of California; Ralph W. Richardson, of California; Theodore Sellin, of Pennsylvania; Lawrence L. Starlight, of New York; Yancey M. Taylor, of Tennessee; Lewis R. Townsend, of New Jersey; Robert B. Warner, of Michigan; Victor Wolf, Jr., of New York; Thomas A. Wolfe, of New York; and Dan A. Zachary, of Illinois, for appointment as Foreign Service officers of class 6, vice consuls of career, and secretaries in the diplomatic service of the United States of America.

George A. Berkley, of Pennsylvania; Philo Dibble, of Utah; Miss Marjorie F. Ferguson, of New York; Arthur W. Hummel, Jr., of Maryland; Donald H. Robinson, of New Jersey; Schubert E. Smith, of Michigan; Ben A. Thirkield, of Virginia; John N. von der Lieth, of New York; Victor E. von Lossberg, of New York; and Walter M. Walsh, of California, Foreign Service staff officers, to be consuls of the United States of America.

J. Howard Garnish, of New York; Milton J. Helmick, of New Mexico; and Donald L. Nicholson, of Florida, Foreign Service reserve officers, to be consuls of the United States of America.

Richard C. Salvatierra, of Arizona, Foreign Service officer, to be a vice consul of the United States of America.

FORMER SENATOR LEAHY, OF RHODE ISLAND

Mr. GREEN. Mr. President, it is with sadness that I announce to the Members of the Senate the death of my personal friend, my former colleague in this Senate and a patriotic American, Judge Edward L. Leahy. He died in the early hours of this morning at his home in Bristol, R. I., where he was born and lived his entire life.

He served in many official positions, not only in his home town but also in the State and in the Nation.

It was my privilege when I served as Governor of Rhode Island to name him a member of my military staff. He also served as a State tax official during my administration as governor. Many times I conferred with him on matters concerning the State in which he was interested and his advice was always sound and helpful.

My colleague, Senator PASTORE, then Governor of Rhode Island, appointed him to the United States Senate to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of former United States Senator J. Howard McGrath, who had been named Attorney General of the United States.

Judge Leahy served as a Member of this body with distinction and honor and made many friends while he was here. Later he was appointed United States district judge for the district of Rhode Island and served in that capacity until his death this morning.

I know I speak for all the Members of the Senate in extending to Mrs. Leahy and the members of his family our deep and heartfelt sympathy in their great loss.

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I associate myself with the eloquent and fitting tribute paid to the late Edward L. Leahy by my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Rhode Island, and join with him in extending to Mrs. Leahy and the Leahy family my sincere sympathies in their great loss. The passing of Judge Leahy is a shock and personal loss to me. For a long time we were associated together in State government and enjoyed many pleasant moments of sincere friendship. It was more than a relationship of two fellow workers, for in Ed Leahy I had the pleasure and honor of knowing a man who took a paternal attitude in my career as Governor of the State of Rhode Island.

During the time I was privileged to serve my State as Governor, Ed Leahy was my director of finance. In that capacity he earned for himself the reputation of being a noble, conscientious public servant; so much so that when the time came that he desired retirement from that responsibility, I was fortunate enough to persuade him to remain on a consulting basis in fiscal policies. This was hailed from all corners of the State, because the loss to the service of the State of a man with his background of experience would have been deeply felt. Consequently, when a vacancy arose in this august body in the month of August in 1949, it was my privilege and joyous opportunity to appoint him to serve as the junior Senator from the State of Rhode Island in the United States Senate.

Nothing gave me more satisfaction than when I came here myself to learn that he had made a legion of friends in the Senate, and hardly a day passed when somebody did not inquire of me of Senator Leahy.

In December of 1950 he was appointed by the President to serve as judge of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, a position which he filled with equal dignity and distinction. His passing is a tragic loss to his friends. Rhode Island will feel his absence but will always remember that in Ed Leahy they had every exemplification of what an honest, able, and conscientious public servant should be.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I know that every Member of this great body will be distressed to learn of the passing of our former Member, Judge Leahy.

I had the pleasure of serving with Judge Leahy shortly after I came to the Senate. He was a judicious man, an extremely conscientious American, and one of the most patriotic men I have ever known. I extend to his wife and his family my deep sympathy in their great hour of sadness.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I speak for the Members of the Senate on this side of the aisle when I say I know every Member joins with me in asking to be associated with the remarks of the two distinguished Senators from Rhode Island and the remarks of the distinguished minority leader relative to the passing of our late colleague, Senator Leahy.

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, all of us are saddened by the announcement of the death of our former colleague. I know that every Member of the Senate wishes to extend his sympathy to the family of the deceased and to the people of Rhode Island.

As has been said, after leaving the Senate, Senator Leahy went upon the Federal bench, which is one of the coordinate branches of the Government. In both that capacity and in his capacity as a Senator he rendered most important service to both his State and his Nation. I am sure he will be greatly missed.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

APPROPRIATIONS, 1954

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 5969) making appropriations for the Department of Defense and related independent agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1954, and for

other purposes.

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, the Senate has now proceeded to consideration of H. R. 5969, the Defense Department appropriation bill for the 1954 fiscal year. As chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee which considered this bill, I propose to make a general presentation of the nature of the bill.

The purpose of this legislation is to provide financing for the various programs of the Department of Defense for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1953, and ending June 30, 1954. This bill provides the money needed during that period.

To survive as a free and independent Nation in this complex, hate-ridden world, our spiritual strength must be buttressed by our economic strength, and our military strength.

We are appropriating now the money with which to buy the military strength, the hard muscle upon which our survival depends if war should come. The committee in its recommendations also has been aware of our economic strength.

Remember that production of defense items does not add to the Nation's economy. War is wasteful. Production for war, or the possibility of war, is wasteful. The materials used, the man-hours used, are materials and man hours which cannot go into production of those things which can raise our standard of living.

But we must be prepared, and we must be prepared realistically to defend our institutions and moral values.

Between the idea of total defense, or the idea of putting everyone into uniform, and the idea of no defense at all there is a proper middle ground which can be found only by close analysis of the facts, sound experience, and sound judgment.

Our recommendations are based on the sound military experience of our Commander in Chief, the President of the United States, and the sound industrial experience of the Secretary of Defense and his aids. Their combined thinking of what type of defense this Nation needs in these times, and of how much can be produced in our industry is reflected in this bill.

To my way of thinking, the defense program authorized in this bill is sincere and realistic. It is aimed at providing a dollar's worth of defense for every dollar of tax money. It will not permit extravagances which in the past have plagued the taxpayer in the myth of necessity. It has been no easy task for the administration during the past few months to eliminate the extravagances, but it has been working on the job.

There has been too much fog in the past around what was necessary to defend this Nation and what was merely desired as a frill.

The ornaments and the gay trappings which in the past formed a fat cushion around the defense program must goand they will go under this bill. We are eliminating the fat and getting down to the hard bone and muscle upon which our survival must depend.

We are not unmindful of the fact that since Korea much money has been provided in defense appropriation bills, and it is difficult to find just where cuts can be made at the present time, but we have done our best.

We are clearing the fog which obscured the proper paths and are assuming a completely realistic view of what

our Nation must have and what it can have. This realistic approach will assure us of economic strength and military strength to safeguard our spiritual strength.

The bill H. R. 5969, as recommended by the committee, is the largest single appropriation for the Federal Government in the 1953-54 fiscal year.

The

amount of cash appropriations provided in this bill total $34,511,302,000, which includes $275,000 for the National Security Council and the National Security Training Commission; $769,600,000 for the Office of the Secretary of Defense; $13,013,156,000 for the Army; $9,480,408,500 for the Navy; and $11,247,862,500 for the Air Force. In terms of new obligational authority, we must substract $80,454,000, which represents cash appropriations to liquidate prior contract authorizations in the Navy. Thus the bill contains a grand total of $34,430,848,000 of new money, which is over half of the total new funds for the entire Federal Government in the new budget year.

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

Mr. FERGUSON. I yield.

Mr. MORSE. Perhaps I misunderstood the Senator. Would he return to the item of $80 million or $80 billion which he mentioned?

Mr. FERGUSON. It is $80,454,000. Mr. MORSE. To what does it refer? Mr. FERGUSON. It represents cash appropriations to liquidate prior-contract authorizations in the Navy.

Mr. MORSE. I thank the Senator. Mr. FERGUSON. The amount of new money-the obligational authority-in this bill is $10,491,810,412 less than was appropriated by the Congress last year for the Defense Establishment. The amounts recommended by the Senate committee are $77,161,500 more than the amount of $34,353,686,500 as passed by the House of Representatives.

This bill, Mr. President, is the product of the concerted efforts of the new ad

ministration in its review of the programs and policies in the Department of Defense since January 1953, and the detailed and lengthy hearing before your committee on these programs over a period of almost 2 months. The printed hearings are on the desks of Senators, and comprise a total of more than 1,960 pages. At the hearings literally piles of evidence which the committee did not deem advisable to have printed as a part of the official record were accumulated; but they are retained in the committee as a part of its records, and of course are subject to examination. Some of those matters are classified, for security reasons, and therefore could not be included in the printed record. The committee has reviewed the 4,500 pages of testimony received by the House committee, and has also reviewed an additional room-high pile of supporting data.

Before going into some of the broader aspects of these programs, let me say at the outset that this bill, like all other appropriation bills coming before the Senate, represents the committee's most earnest and sincere efforts to consider and provide for our national defense in light of the serious fiscal problems confronting this nation, which has just completed the fiscal year 1953 with the highest peacetime budget deficit in the history of this country-a total of $9,389,000,000. One of the first and most important tasks of the new administration has been to review the 1954 budget submitted by the previous administration, and to determine the steps that could be taken in proceeding toward accomplishment of a balanced budget as soon as practicable. At the same time, the administration and the committee have not taken the point of view that we could proceed to balance the budget without regard to the continuation of an effective military strength. We have striven to weigh and evaluate the programs, insofar as time has permitted us to determine, on the one hand, whether some programs might not better be eliminated or at least deferred until subsequent fiscal years without impairing the military posture of the Nation, and, on the other hand, how much we could anticipate reducing expenditures in the current fiscal year 1954 in order to assist in reaching a balanced budget as soon as practicable.

Of course, Mr. President, the sums of money we are speaking of are beyond human imagination. We are speaking now of billions of dollars, instead of millions of dollars, with which we dealt only a few years ago.

Let me say, further, that no one can be absoutely sure whether the amount we are recommending in this bill is too high, too low, or just right. If we knew we would be involved in a major war in the near future, then the amount we are recommending would be clearly inadequate. On the other hand, if we knew there would definitely be no future war, and that the Korean truce would in fact mean a complete cessation of combat, then the amount we are recommending could be cut. There would be no excuse for not cutting it, in that event, because, after all, appropriations and expenditures of money for the Military Establishment are not simply for the

purpose of providing employment for the military; the purpose is to provide for the defense of the Nation. Unfortunately, we do not know and cannot know when war may come. Since we are not an aggressor nation, we cannot determine that time. In view of present conditions, it would seem that that determination must be made by those in the Kremlin. The only basis upon which we have been able to proceed has been that there is no evidence that the threat and danger to the free world have appreciably lessened. At the same time, the drain on the resources of this country by the Korean war has been substantial; and, although important progress has been made in increasing the military strength of the free world, we are considerably short of what our state of readiness ought to be. In some aspects it is shocking to observe what little defense we have. So we must turn the wheels of industry as rapidly as possible, in order to obtain the needed strength. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Michigan yield at this point? I seek information.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DANIEL in the chair). Does the Senator from Michigan yield to the Senator from Oregon?

Mr. FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. MORSE. When the Senator from Michigan says, if I correctly interpret his remarks, that in some phases of our defense program it is really shocking to observe what little defense we have-and I hasten to state that I do not wish him to disclose the nature of such shortages, because I am as anxious as is he to protect our security secrets-I assume that he wishes to give the Senate assurance that he believes the pending appropriation bill will strengthen as rapidly as possible, commensurate with efficiency and wise spending, the weak spots in our defense program. Is that correct? Mr. FERGUSON. That is correct, and that is the purpose of the bill.

Mr. MORSE. The Senator makes that statement with the understanding that reasonable men may differ as to whether the amounts recommended by the committee, particularly for the Air Force, are adequate.

Mr. FERGUSON. One is reminded of the remark made on one occasion by William Knudsen, the man who guided our industrial program through World War II, "You cannot hatch an egg any faster by putting two hens on it."

Mr. MORSE. No; but one can get more chicks if he puts double the number of eggs under two hens, provided they

can cover them.

Mr. FERGUSON. That is correctThat is correct provided they can cover the eggs.

Mr. President, the subject under discussion involves a recognition of the fact there must be production. We must be We must be sure that the things which result from our research and development programs have been perfected, and that the final models leave nothing to be desired; and we must know where we are going in connection with their manufacture.

By reason of these requirements, I am pleased to know that we have in the Defense Department men who are admittedly industrial geniuses, men who will endeavor to increase production and

to get the industrial machine running smoothly, keeping in mind that the fewer the changes that are later found necessary, the smaller the amount of money that will be required. that will be required. We have heard of even as many as 3,000 changes being made in an airplane. No one wants development to be at a standstill, and no one wants to prevent desirable changes. It is a question of holding the changes down to the minimum, in the interest of speedy production.

The military programs provided in the pending bill would present a middle course between the dangerous extremes of "feast or famine," as our policy has been in the past. As President Eisenhower has so aptly stated, we must have a national-defense policy patterned to meet the requirements of an "age of danger"-and in view of the present danger”—and in view of the present situation in the world I emphasize "age of danger"-not a "day of peril." Instead of saying, as we did in the past, that war would come in 1950, and again, that it would come in 1952; and instead of trying to attain a peak of preparedness as to some particular date, we are now endeavoring to be ready at all times, and to continue to be ready. The programs of national defense represent achievement of a military posture that can be sustained over an indefinite period for as long as international tensions continue, without exhausting the Nation, without continuing to induce inflation, and, without continuing high taxes indefinitely, and without inviting aggression because of national financial weakness.

In this connection, let me make clear that the dollars recommended in this ample to provide for the continued imbill are, in the committee's judgment, provement of the state of military preparedness which we ought to have in light of our defense problems of today. A great deal of confusion has been created in the minds of the American people by statements made in the press and in the Halls of the Congress about the dollars in the revised budget for 1954, without regard to the basic programs for which these dollars provide the financing. To continue these statements about the billions appropriated or spent without telling the American people what we have obtained for these billions is certainly unfair to them. In many instances, these statements about dollars could only be interpreted as half truths at best, promulgated to serve a special interest.

There has been much comment in

some quarters to the effect that the budget recommendations of the new administration for the Defense Department represented private decisions and policies of the Secretary of Defense and his assistants, and did not represent the views of the President. Apparently, those who have attempted to make something out of such a charge have done so because the new administration, in keeping with its policy of attempting to balance the budget as soon as practicable, reduced the amounts requested of the Congress by the Truman administration in January 1953 of $41.3 billion to $36 billion, or a reduction of $5.3 billion. Also, some people have erroneously concluded that this reduction from the

former administration's budget was made without regard to the basic programs and projects for the defense of this country.

Let me say, in the first place, that the budgets of all the agencies of the Govern for the 1954 fiscal year were reviewed as soon as possible after the new administration took office. This review was required of the Department of Defense along with the other departments and agencies. The Director of the Bureau of the Budget, on behalf of the President, launched the general review by his memorandum of February 3, 1953. During the months of February, March, and April, the Department of Defense instituted a detailed review of the previous appropriations and current budget requests. This review was conducted under the direction and with the guidance of the National Security Council, of which the President of the United States is Chairman. The fiscal and budget staffs of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the Bureau of the Budget, presented detailed studies for the consideration of the National Security Council in its endeavor to scrutinize carefully the plans and programs of the Department of Defense. The President was present at all of the deliberations of the National Security Council, and personally approved the guidance directives to the Department of Defense. The budget requests to the Congress

were the result of this review and were based on this guidance of the National Security Council. The President himself approved the revised budget estimates, and is fully conversant with the force goals and budgetary matters.

In his letter of June 30, 1953, to Representative SCRIVNER, Who was in charge of the bill in the House, the President stated that his letter offered him another opportunity to reiterate publicly that this budget "represents my own views and bears my personal endorsement in all major particulars," the President went on to say: "to repeatI have studied this budget thoroughly and am in full accord with it, recognizing of course that your committee's detailed analysis of the budget presentation may reveal some areas where further reductions may be made without impairment of the force goals and overall defense objectives." In other words, the President of the United States was not setting himself up as a dictator, but he merely endeavored to give the House the benefit of his best judgment, a judgment he was able to form by reason of his military standing, his military experience, and his present position as Commander in Chief.

The charge has been made that this budget was prepared by money men, and that the President did not formulate the budget, and is not aware of its implications. Such a charge is unfair and completely misleading.

The budget for the Armed Forces, which is the basis for this appropriation bill, was developed, as I pointed out, under the direct guidance of the President and the National Security Council.

No President of the United States, no Secretary of Defense, no head of any agency, can possibly know all of the