details that a budget contains-details that require the combined efforts of the budget staffs of three military departments, the Bureau of the Budget, and many program witnesses, to present in documents running to many thousands . of pages. The Bureau of the Budget, as an agency acting for and on behalf of the President, has a staff of over 400 people just to present the annual budget of the United States to the Congress. It is ridiculous to assume that the President should become a clerk to check the detailed accuracy of each figure or statement in the budget document to see whether it conformed with the basic budgetary assumptions and policies approved by him. The same holds true for the head of any agency, including the Secretaries of each of the three military departments, who have their own budget and review and planning staffs.

Instead of laboring this point, let us spend our time more profitably by looking at what programs for national defense we shall be financing with the dollars in this bill and how far along we are in achieving proper military preparedness.

The Army now has 20 divisions, 18 regimental combat teams, and 113 antiaircraft battalions, together with the necessary supporting elements, and military personnel of about 1,500,000. The divisions are reasonably well equipped, and in many cases the Army is beginning to

accumulate mobilization reserve stocks in certain categories with large quantities of goods still on order. The programs included in this appropriation bill provide for the maintenance during the coming fiscal year of the same basic forces, but with their effectiveness improved by substantially increased modernization of equipment, and with four more antiaircraft battalions. However, the Army will have to make reductions in total military personnel in the overhead and supporting activities, so that the Army total strength will be about

1,421,000 on June 30, 1954, if combat continues in Korea up to that time. If combat ceases, present plans call for a reduction of Army strength to 1,370,000.

One of the essential things, and I be-lieve progress can be made in that field, is to see to it that more persons are trained and placed in combat units and

removed from what is known in busi

ness as overhead. We could not say that the persons in the combat team are productive, as that term is used in industry, but they are the ones who make up the real defense. Therefore, Mr. President, we must have well-trained, modernized, and well-equipped combat units, backed by the people who are spiritually alert to dangers in the world and the dangers to American institutions. That is why

we have to have soldiers and war equip

ment.

For the first time in a regular appropriation bill, funds have been provided to finance combat consumption of supplies and equipment in Korea during fiscal year 1954, and ammunition will

be financed for an additional 6 months

at combat consumption rate. That would be approximately a year and a half. The modernization of the Army will continue at a greatly increased rate,

and reasonable additions will be made to the mobilization stocks of critical items.

The Navy is operating 408 warships and 16 carrier air groups with necessary supporting combatant and auxiliary vessels, a total of 1,131 vessels, with 9,941 operating aircraft, and a personnel strength of slightly over 800,000. Except for aircraft, the Navy is equipped with for aircraft, the Navy is equipped with reasonably modern material and in numerous areas is acquiring mobilization

reserves.

Not long ago, Mr. President, I visited every airfield in Korea and a number of them in Japan. I stayed with the fleet from which aircraft are operating for the Navy. Therefore, I feel that, so far as Korea is concerned, where we have a war at the present time, we have to consider these items. We have to consider also the aircraft of the Marines. The marines in the 1st Division are holding a part of the line.

I became familiar with some of the operations of the air forces in Korea and with the operations of the Navy. Therefore, I wanted to emphasize the 9,941 operating aircraft with the Navy.

I shall not forget that when I was on the deck of the Valley Forge some of the men were complaining that they were taking off in propeller planes and not in jet planes. It was sad to know that they were going over the enemy lines to meet gunfire other than in the best

modernized equipment. The purpose of the bill is to provide all the men in the the Navy with the best planes that can Air Force, the Marines, the Army, and be made.

The funds provided in this bill in general call for the maintenance during fiscal year 1954 of the same basic combat forces in the Navy, with the delivery of a limited number of new vessels and the modernization of others. The Navy program provides for continuation of the gradual modernization of carrier task forces, and funds are provided for an additional new superaircraft carrier of the Forrestal class and for the planning and design of a submarine of the latest type. Naval aviation will be further strengthened by delivery of several thousand new modern aircraft which

will continue to modernize the fleet air

units. These new aircraft are fully capable of meeting the best planes of the enemy and coming out on top. As in the case of the Army, the Navy will have to reduce personnel in the shore establishments.

be delivered in subsequent years as production is accomplished.

The Marine Corps is organized into 3 divisions and 3 air wings with supporting elements, and military personnel of about 250,000, and is completely equipped, although many of the equipment items are not as modern as might be desired. The funds provided in this bill will enable the Marine Corps to continue its 3 divisions and 3 air wings, with 230,021 military personnel at the end of the 1954 fiscal year. Deliveries of new equipment during the next year will substantially improve the quality of both Marine Corps aircraft and ground equipment.

Mr. President, it may seem to many persons a strange thing that we state the number of men we have in the various services and the number of planes we have overall. But, Mr. President, this is a Republic. We are preparing to defend it because we believe in it. We give the facts to the people because, after all, the people are the sovereign power, and we are but their representatives. When we take their dollars and invest them in war equipment, they have a right to know how much they are getting and what the men are going to have with which to fight if war should come. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. FERGUSON. I yield.

Mr. MORSE. Does the Senator agree

that so long as it represents adequate strength for our defense and security, it is also good psychology to let it be known what that strength is, because the very knowledge of the strength may have a determining effect on other powers that might seek to violate the peace?

Mr. FERGUSON. I agree with that statement. Of course, those back of the Iron Curtain keep as a mystery exactly what they have. I, for one, feel that on

many occasions we give them credit for having more strength than they really have, because of the lack of spiritual strength back of the weapons they may have made.

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

Mr. FERGUSON. I yield.

Mr. MORSE. It is quite possible that we have given them credit for more strength than they have, but I also think it is true that, with the responsibility we

have in the Senate, we cannot take a chance. If we are going to err, we had better err in the direction of more defense than may be necessary to meet the opposition of Russia than less defense.

Mr. FERGUSON. I agree that we cannot take any chances. I agree that, including the appropriations under the present budget, Congress will have ap

realize we cannot always satisfy the mili$97 billion more than the Commanders

tary. Since Korea, they have asked for

in Chief in both administrations have been willing to give them.

Absolute preparation for defense would turn the United States into an armed camp. Providing for absolute, 100-percent defense insurance by appropriations for the Army, Navy, and Air Corps would, of course, make absurd our laboring to maintain the goal of individual liberty in

this country and a defense adequate to protect the institutions that will provide for it.

At the end of April the Air Force had activated 106 wings, 13 of which had not at that time been provided with their planned combat aircraft, and had a military personnel strength slightly over 970,000. During the summer and fall of 1953 an intensive and detailed study of the entire defense picture is planned by the newly designated Joint Chiefs of Staff. Pending completion of this study, an interim goal of 120 wings has been provided in this appropriation bill.

When I refer to 120 wings, I mean modernized wings; not activated wings, but actual wings. The results of the study to be made by the Joint Chiefs of Staff will provide the basis for the fiscal year 1955 budget and its review by Congress.

The 120-wing program will provide for 114 wings to be activated and substantially well equipped by the end of the current fiscal year for the Air Force, and, in addition, 7 Air National Guard and Air Reserve wings. I wish to underscore that statement, it will provide for 7 Air National Guard and Air Reserve wings, all equipped with modern aircraft, making a total of 121 wings to be attained this year.

Recently, at Romulus, in my State, a publication stated that modern aircraft were not available; that there were only propeller planes, not jet planes. Under the provision in the pending bill those planes will be replaced by jet planes. There was no provision in the previous budget for this reserve.

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

Mr. FERGUSON. I yield.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Any planes which are to be made a part of the Air Force in the years 1953 or 1954, will be planes which were actually purchased years ago, and, therefore, would have nothing to do with the new civilian administration. Is that a correct assumption?

Mr. FERGUSON. I would say practically all of them will be. There may be some that will be acquired as a result of stepped-up production, although they were not in the previous order. Substantially, the Senator from Missouri is correct.

Mr. SYMINGTON. I should like to ask the distinguished Senator from Michigan if the planes which are to be put into the National Guard for reserve, based on a decision as to where the planes would be best utilized, are the current available planes.

Mr. FERGUSON. That is correct. Mr. SYMINGTON. In other words, if in the past, when the administration stripped the Air Force of planes and money, it was felt that it would have been better to have regular units, then that was a decision made at that time. If it is now decided it would be better to have National Guard units, with a limited number of planes, rather than Regular units, that would be a décision made at this time, would it not?

Mr. FERGUSON. That is correct. I am always mindful of the chart the Senator recently had on the floor, showing the great curve up and down, indicating

XCIX- -594

that orders were not always fulfilled, that the number of planes ordered were never produced.

One of the aims now is to achieve the production of those planes. It is a military decision to put the jets in National Guard and Reserve units, instead of in other units, because I take it for granted that the President and the Secretary of Defense believe that the National Guard and Reserve units should be kept up to modern strength.

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

Mr. FERGUSON. I am glad to yield. Mr. SYMINGTON. Of course, the Senator from Michigan knows that putting the limited number of jet planes into either National Guard units or Reserve units will mean a further weakening of the power of the Regular Air Force.

So.

Mr. FERGUSON. No; I would not say

Mr. SYMINGTON. There is only one place to put planes.

Mr. FERGUSON. I realize that a former commander said we had a oneshot Air Force, indicating to many persons that if war came, the Air Force would go all at once into battle. I am certain that was not the intention. If

we are to have a strong Air Force, we ought to be ready to enlarge it immediately. Certainly, if we have seven National Guard units and Air Reserve units completely equipped, there is no reason why they cannot go into battle with the regular force.

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

Mr. FERGUSON. I yield.

Mr. SYMINGTON. There are three parts to the Air Force: The Strategic Air Command, the Tactical Command, and the Air Defense Command. Correlated with them is the air lift. There are not sufficient planes to fully equip the Regular Air Force. That is admitted by both Secretary of Defense Wilson and General Vandenberg. The proof of that is that we are trying to provide regular wings for them now.

As I remember, the representatives of the Air Force testified that if there were National Guard and Air Reserve units, they would not be instantly available, as the Regular Air Force unit would be. Therefore, the only point I was trying to make was that, whereas the planes to make was that, whereas the planes would have gone to the National Guard units and Air Reserve units in the past, if we had had the planes and the money to train personnel for those units, we would have put them there. But inasmuch as we could not have sufficient airplanes for the Regular units as well as the National Guard units, they were put into the Regular units.

It is my personal belief, and I say this with great respect for the Senator from Michigan, because my comment has nothing to do with him, that those in authority in the Department of Defense weaken the Air Force by putting modern jet planes into the National Guard and Air Reserve units instead of into the Regular Air Force, but that is by reason of political inspiration and activation.

I appreciate the

Mr. FERGUSON. fact that the Air Force itself has not the same "respect"-which I think is a good word to use in this connection-for the National Guard and the Reserve, that the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps have in relation to the National Guard and Reserves. I believe their attitude is based on what they think is better for the country and what would result, in the end, in a better fighting force.

As I have said, objection came from Michigan that a National Guard unit had been equipped with prop planes. That objection was similar to one made to me by the Navy, when I was aboard the Valley Forge and the Antietam. The Navy said it did not have modern planes. What we are trying to do in this bill is to provide modern planes.

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

Mr. FERGUSON. I yield.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Year after year I came to the Congress myself with a budget which was prepared by the Air Force and approved by the Department of

Defense. Then someone-usually the Bureau of the Budget-cut the amount of money requested by the Air Force. Therefore, in the interest of the security of the United States, it was felt that it would be better to cut bases, to cut some training, or to cut Reserves, rather than to cut the Regular Air Force, which at that time many persons, including Winston Churchill, felt was the greatest deterrent to Soviet aggression. I do not think it is fair to say that the Air Force has less respect for the National Guard and for the Reserves. Certainly it is not fair to say that it has less respect for the National Guard than the Navy, because the Navy has no National Guard.

Mr. FERGUSON. No. It has its Reserve.

Mr. SYMINGTON. My opinion is that the Air Force has fully as much respect for the National Guard and for the Reserves as have the other branches of the service. The problem was one of money. In order to have a National Guard properly equipped we had to buy hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of planes. The same thing was true of the Air Reserve. Therefore I still say that I believe that this trick-and that is what it is-of the Department of Defense in manipulating these planes into the National Guard and the Air Reserve is an action that is against the security of the United States.

Mr. FERGUSON. I used the word "respect" because I listened to all the testimony, and I discovered from the testimony that the feeling was not the same as that indicated today by the distinguished Senator, former Secretary of Air, when he says it is a trick to put these airplanes into the National Guard and the Air Reserve and make fighting units of the National Guard and the Air Reserve. I do not think it is a trick. Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

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

Mr. FERGUSON. Just a moment. From the evidence, I look at it this way: we must have a fighting force. Are we

going to rely completely on the Air Force, and place every fighting man we can get in the Air Force or are we going to have a strong, virile National Guard and Reserve, in which men can spend so many days during the year putting forth their efforts in flying and preparation so that in case of war, or in a vital emergency, they can be ready for service? I think the American people are behind the idea that if we are to use the National Guard in the air, they should be trained to fly jet planes, to prepare for war if it should come.

Force units. The Air Force dissipated that excellent strength by assigning it to various tasks other than combat. Those units were spread over this country and over Germany and Alaska, as training units, and they were not used for the purpose for which they were trained.

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

Mr. FERGUSON. I yield.

Mr. SYMINGTON. I am sorry the distinguished Senator from Arizona does not approve of some of the actions of

Mr. FERGUSON. I promised my good friend from Arizona that I would yield to him.

Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, I am glad the distinguished Senator from Michigan is discussing the Air National Guard. I have been actively associated with that branch of the service since its inception.

I should like to correct some statements which have been made, which might lead to a misunderstanding of the treatment of the guard. Prior to the Korean incident, I think I am safe in saying that of the 84 tactical squadrons which comprised the 27 wings, fewer than 10-or, at most, not more than 12-were equipped with jet airplanes. My particular squadron received obsolete F-84-A's a month before we were called to duty in 1951. At the present time I do not believe the Air Force is giving new, modern jet equipment to the reactivated National Guard wings. I do not know of a single squadron that has an F-86. I do not know of a single squadron today, with the exception of possibly a few units on the east coast, that are flying jet airplanes. When they are, they are F-80-A's, which are old aircraft. The reactivated squadrons The reactivated squadrons in the West, particularly the California wing, of which Arizona squadron is a member, are flying F-51-D's and H's, which are old aircraft. In fact, our particular wing has only 12 tactical aircraft assigned to it.

I believe the Senator from Missouri is slightly in error in leading us to believe that the Air Force is dissipating modern equipment among the Reserves and the Air National Guard. They are not. But when the Air Force can afford to do it, it should put modern equipment into the Air National Guard and the Air Reserve.

I should like to mention a few figures before I close. The Air National Guard furnished 22 wings for the Korean incident made up of 66 tactical squadrons, a total of 486 units. Five thousand nine hundred and twenty-four officers and 39,670 airmen were called up for duty from the Air National Guard.

I have often criticized the Air Force openly for its misuse of these excellently trained National Guard air units. Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. GOLDWATER. I doubt if more than 10 percent of those units were ever called to Korea; yet I know from personal experience that most of those squadrons had a higher readiness-forcombat rating than many regular Air

that I did not approve of some of the actions of the Regular Air Force; but I believe this country needs an Air Force, because I also believe that today the Soviet Air Force is superior to ours.

I do not believe the Senator from Arizona understood what the Senator from Missouri said. The Senator from Arizona talks about there not being jet airplanes in the National Guard and Air Reserve. Let me say that it is my belief that the more modern airplanes this country can have in the National Guard and the Air Reserve the better for the security of the United States.

However, the point is that today in the Regular Air Force defending the United States we have piston planes. We should have modern jet airplanes in the Regular Air Force. During most of the year members of the National Guard or the Air Reserve are engaged in business, in law offices or doctors' offices, or in other pursuits. I believe that until we have all the modern jet airplanes the Joint Chiefs of Staff-which to me is still a good organization-think are necessary for the security of the country, we should limit the number of modern airplanes in the National Guard and the Air Reserve.

One further point: Again I wish to say that each year we came before Consay that each year we came before Congress with an estimate of the number of modern airplanes which were considered necessary, not only for the Regular Air Force but also for the National Guard and the Air Reserve. When the money was limited we felt that it was better to put the modern airplanes in the Regular Air Force than to put them in the Air Reserve.

I thank the Senator from Michigan. Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President,

will the Senator yield? I should like to ask my distinguished colleague from Missouri a question.

Mr. FERGUSON. I will yield for that purpose if I may have it understood that I shall not lose the floor by so doing. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. GOLDWATER. Under the Air Force program of the past several yearslet us say up until the present time-the Air Force has received substantially the money it has asked for, has it not? Mr. SYMINGTON. No. I do not think the Senator is correct. Mr. GOLDWATER. I said "substantially."

Mr. SYMINGTON. I do not know what the Senator means by "substantially." I know this much: I left the Air Force in April 1950 in protest at the cuts which were being made in the airpower of the United States. Up until April 1950 the National Guard and the

Air Reserve were getting nothing like the money the Air Force requested in order to build up those units.

Mr. GOLDWATER. My question was not directed at the Air National Guard or the Reserves. It was directed at the program of procurement under which the Air Force had been operating for the past year.

Mr. SYMINGTON. I do not know about that.

Mr. GOLDWATER. I should like to mention the current status of a few companies, to indicate how little the program is being affected by the proposed cut. posed cut. I agree with the Senator when he says that the Air National Guard and Reserves should receive modern equipment. However, if the Air Force believes that the program under which they have been working is sufficient, I should like to have Senators listen to some of the facts I have before me. I read the names of companies which make aircraft for the Air Force:

Beech: T-36A eliminated, T-34 orders continue.

Boeing: B-52, C-97, and B-47 orders remain unchanged.

Canadair: United States Air Force orders for Beech-licensed T-36A canceled. Royal Canadian Air Force orders for F-86 and T-33 are untouched.

I may say here is a perfect example of waste in the Air Force. We had available a very good twin-engine trainer, but the Air Force has gone ahead and spent $400 million on the T-36. I have nothing against the Beech company. I am a pilot, and I fly one of their airplanes, and I like it very much, but $400 million was spent to develop an airplane, a type of which was already in the air. Mr. SYMINGTON. What is the point of the Senator's reading those figures?

Mr. GOLDWATER. I want to get the facts into the RECORD because the remark has been made-and I have heard it said in the distinguished Senator's speeches and I have read it in the newspapers-that the proposed reduction in the appropriation will cut vital aircraft out of our Air Force program.

Mr.

SYMINGTON. The reduction will cut vital aircraft out of our Air Force program. Is that the point the Senator is making?

Mr. GOLDWATER. I am trying to make my point:

Cessna: Model 318 twin-jet trainer powered by Continental Marbore engine believed canceled.

Chance Vought: F7U-3, A2U, and new day fighter continue.

Chase: C-123B scheduled output cut to about half.

Consolidated Vultee: B-36, F-102, F3Y-1, T-29B, and R3Y orders as before. Douglas

Which makes our heavy transport equipment

Douglas: B-47, AD-5, A2D, A3D, C-118, and C-124C continue.

Fairchild: C-119 output continues unchanged.

Grumman: F9F-6, SA-16, S2F, and AF-2

orders continue.

Lockheed: No changes in orders on the F-94C, T-33, P2V, WV-2, C-130A, B-47, R7V1, and C-121.

Martin: B-57A, P5M-1, and XP6M-1 orders untouched.

McDonnell: F-101, F2H-3, F3H-1 continue as before.

Temco: F3H second source work presumably continues. Company has not yet been informed of any possible changes.

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

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

Mr. SYMINGTON. The questions of obligations, programming, and authorizations are such that although the Department of Defense took out more than 200 of the most modern bombers, they took them out of a program which was agreed to, even though it was not a straight obligation.

My point is, first, that I do not believe it to be fair for the Senator to say that the Air Force wanted 143 wings. They did not want 143 wings.

Mr. GOLDWATER. I do not recall mentioning that point.

Mr. SYMINGTON. I thought the Senator said all of the airplanes that the Air Force wanted were still in the program.

Mr. GOLDWATER. I merely tried to make the point

Mr. SYMINGTON. If I may continue

Mr. GOLDWATER. I said there have been no cuts made of any consequence in the procurement program.

Mr. SYMINGTON. The Air Force wanted 163 wings. At the time they were called groups. That was rejected, and there was unanimous agreement among the Joint Chiefs of Staff-the Army, Navy, Air Force, and the Chairman himself that the Air Force should have 143 wings. In the original testimony of the Secretary of Defense the impression was given that-and the testimony so reads that he felt 143 wings were too many. Immediate criticism came from the people with respect to cutting the Air Force.

I might add at this point, too, that, whereas the armament for the Army has been heavily increased, and shipbuilding has been heavily increased for the Navy, by hundreds of millions of dollars, this year the procurement of aircraft, as against last year, in appropriations, has been cut more than $72 billion. At the same time, the Secretary of Defense and the Department of Defense feel that the impact of what they were doing to the Air Force did not have the effect of cutting any combat aircraft out of the program.

Mr. GOLDWATER. The Senator from Missouri misunderstood what I have read into the RECORD. It is an actual statement of the aircraft industry's position in relation to the cut and to the program which has been carried on for the past 2 or 3 years in the Air Force.

In the whole list of fine aircraft companies in the country, we find only Beech, Temco, and Chase with cuts. Their aircraft were untried, so to speak, so far as the Air Force was concerned.

I merely wanted to get those facts into the RECORD early in the debate, because

I have heard so much said about what is going to be done to the production program of the Air Force. I believe the distinguished Senator from Michigan will touch on the B-47 program later in his speech. The orders for the 200 planes the Senator mentioned have not been placed, so there has never been any official cancellation. The modification of those airplanes is being done in Tucson, Ariz., near my home, and the modification of the first batch of planes that came through is just now being completed.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Michigan yield for one more comment?

Mr. FERGUSON. I yield.

Mr. SYMINGTON. I never thought, Mr. President, I would be debating with a former member of the United States Air Force the question of whether the billions of dollars which have been taken out of the Air Force appropriations are hurting it or helping it.

Despite the fact that I have great respect for the junior Senator from Arizona, when it comes to the question of whether the cuts are affecting the Air Force, leaving aside the Senate or the Department of Defense, and despite the fact that he said in the discussions several times that he is a pilot, and the truth of the matter is that he had also

been engaged in business over a period of years and there are thousands of other pilots in the Nation-and even though I am not a pilot, many pilots agree with me when I say I would prefer to take the opinion of General Spaatz, General LeMay, and General Nordstadt as to what these cuts are doing to the Air Force, than the opinion of the Senator from Arizona. I thank the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Michigan yield once more?

Mr. FERGUSON. I yield.

Mr. GOLDWATER. I agree with the Senator from Missouri that it seems unheard of to have any member of the Air Force speak out against the Air Force. I spent a considerable time in the Air Force. I have great admiration for the Air Force, and I take great pride in having served in the Air Force. However, I do not believe the fact that I am a former member of the Air Force, and am now an active member of the Air National Guard, dictates that I should stand in awe or say "salam" to everything that comes from across the river in the Pentagon. I have seen the waste that goes on in the Air Force.

Mr. SYMINGTON. So have I.

Mr. GOLDWATER. I want to see it stopped. As a former member of the Air Force, I am convinced that the $5 billion cut will not affect the security of this country through the Air Force. I have lived with it. I have worked under the Senator from Missouri when he was at the head of the Air Force. I have great pride in it, but I would be amiss in my duty to my people and to the United States if I sat silently by and allowed pure sentimentalism to dictate to me as to whether or not we should spend $5 billion, more or less, when in my heart I am convinced we are right.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Michigan yield further?

Mr. FERGUSON. I yield.

Mr. SYMINGTON. It has been known for many weeks how the Senator from Arizona feels about the Air Force. I fully respect his opinion and his right to come before the Senate to give his opinion. That does not affect my surprise at the depth of his feeling against the Air Force.

I will say to him that I have much more sympathy with respect to his feelings about the Air Force than some Senators had and some persons in the Department of Defense had about the feelings of the former Chief of Staff of the Air Force. I fully respect the Senator's right to say what he wants to say about the Air Force. the Air Force. I mean that with absolute sincerity. It is probably one other reason why I particularly regret the outrageous treatment which was accorded the former Chief of Staff of the Air Force because he had the courage to come before Congress and tell Congress and the American people the truth with respect to what he thought about our airpower, as against the airpower of the Soviet Union.

I should like to add that the testimony of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and the testimony of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with respect to our air strength as compared with the Soviet air strength, were at direct variance with that of the Secretary of Defense. It was for that reason that I requested that the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman before the committee, to see who was of the Joint Chiefs of Staff be brought telling the truth, because the testimony of the Secretary of Defense was at direct variance with the other testimony. Even though the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is my constituent, I wish to say I think he is a great gentlemen and a great soldier; I refer to Gen. Omar Bradley. He is not an Air Force officer.

I still think the Senate and the House major decisions with respect to our fuof Representatives are are now making ture security, despite the fact, by the admission of the Secretary of Defense, that there has been no concurrence whatever on the part of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in these incredible and radical cuts in the Air Force, and despite the fact that there is complete disageement, not only by the Chief of Staff for the Air Force but also by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with the statements made before congressional committees in the course of the testimony of the Secretary of Defense.

Mr. HENDRICKSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Michigan yield, to permit me to ask a question of the Senator from Missouri?

Mr. FERGUSON. Yes, if I may obtain unanimous consent for that purpose.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. LENNON in the chair). Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. HENDRICKSON. Mr. President, did I correctly understand the Senator from Missouri to say that he sincerely regrets that the Congress of the United States is deciding the security position of the country?

Mr. SYMINGTON. I said the Congress is deciding the amount of money that should be appropriated

Mr. HENDRICKSON. If the Senator will let me interrupt, let me say

Mr. SYMINGTON. Does my distinguished colleague wish me to answer his question?

Mr. HENDRICKSON. I think the RECORD Will show that the Senator from Missouri said he regretted that the Congress of the United States was deciding the security of the country.

Mr. SYMINGTON. If the RECORD shows that, I appreciate my colleague's kindness in letting me correct the technical aspect of the statement, as he sees it.

What I am saying, and what I am glad to repeat, is that the Congress of the United States is deciding how much money should be appropriated to the three services and to the Department of Defense, without deciding whether the testimony of the Secretary of Defense was accurate or whether the testimony of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was accurate.

Does that answer the Senator's question?

Mr. SYMINGTON. Apparently the Senator from New Jersey would like me to correct the RECORD. I would be very happy to visit with him afterward, so that the RECORD will be in accordance with the way he thinks it should be and the way I think it should be.

Incidentally, let me point out to my colleague that there has been no Air Corps for some years; we now have an Air Force. Those who believe in the Air Force like to call it by that name.

So both my colleague and I can make technical mistakes in our testimony.

Mr. HENDRICKSON. I must admit that I have become accustomed to use the term "Air Corps."

Mr. President, in order that the RECORD may be straight on this point, inasmuch as I would not wish the American people to labor under the misapprehension that the administration which las just come into office has cut aircraft procurement up to this point, I wish to read from the testimony of General Vandenberg on June 5, at the committee hearing.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Will the Senator from New Jersey state the page from which he is about to read?

Mr. HENDRICKSON. Yes; page 339. Mr. SYMINGTON. In what volume, please?

Mr. HENDRICKSON. In the committee hearings, part I:

Senator HENDRICKSON. You do not mean to imply that the presentation of the Eisenhower budget has caused a 6 months' delay,

Mr. President, will the Senator from do you? Michigan yield further?

Mr. FERGUSON. I am glad to yield. Mr. HENDRICKSON. I understood the Senator from Missouri to state, in the course of his colloquy with the Senator from Arizona [Mr. GOLDWATER], that some $7 billion had been cut from the Air Force appropriations. Did I correctly understand the Senator from Missouri?

Mr. SYMINGTON. Will the Senator from New Jersey please allow me to read the figure from the record which has been prepared:

In 1953, the appropriation for aircraft for the Air Force was $11 billion.

That was the appropriation.

For the fiscal year 1954, under the Wilson regime, the appropriation for aircraft for the Air Force is proposed to be $3,495,000,000. Therefore, I have stated that this year, under this regime, the American people are being asked to appropriate $7,500,000,000 less for aircraft procurement for the Air Force than was appropriated in the fiscal year 1953. I was also shocked to see that the same thing is true with respect to the Navy, in that slightly more than $2 billion less aircraft procurement is being requested for the fiscal year 1954 than was requested and obtained for the fiscal year 1953.

The reason those figures shock me is that procurement in the Army has much increased, and procurement in ships has much increased, at a time when we are in an air age.

Mr. HENDRICKSON. I gathered that the Senator from Missouri said the Air Corps had already lost, in procurement, more than $7 billion.

General VANDENBERG. As you have called it, the Eisenhower budget in itself is a budget for the Department of Defense, as I understand it. What is causing the Air Force to have gotten to the position of not being able to pick up the loss in time by a 6 months' period has been due to certain restrictions along the line of building of bases, of personnel, and so forth. I do not know whether that answers the question, sir.

Senator HENDRICKSON. Not quite. General VANDENBERG. I believe that was explained in my initial statement.

Senator HENDRICKSON. As a result of this modified budget, you had no cancellations, did you?

General VANDENBERG. We have had cancellations, a few; yes, sir.

Senator HENDRICKSON. Cancellations contracts?

of

General VANDENBERG. It is not pertinent. We have to all intents and purposes the combat aircraft for the 143-wing program. Senator HENDRICKSON. Thank you, Gen

eral. You said there were some cancellations. Where were these cancellations? General Vandenberg replied, after conferring with one of his aides:

I am informed there have not been any cancellations of combat aircraft as yet.

So the program has not been cut, up to this time.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Michigan yield to me?

Mr. FERGUSON. I am glad to yield. Mr. SYMINGTON. Let me say that, of course, in any business there are programs. All the airplanes in the program for the Air Force are not necessarily under order, but the program is not canceled. Aircraft may be withdrawn from the program, and an order may be canceled.

Many combat planes have been taken out of the program. Even though there

was verbal agreement with the manufacturer that the planes were in the program, the orders had not been placed.

In the testimony of General Vandenberg-which, I repeat, he gave only at the request of the United States Senate-there are undoubtedly technical mistakes, which it is only natural that he would have made after 3 days of long grilling. But in this case he was technically accurate.

There were no cancellations of orders; but combat aircraft were taken out of the program, and that has been admitted by the Secretary of Defense in his own testimony, although he said that the combat aircraft-B-47 bombers-which were taken out, were not bombers, because they were going to be used for training-which, to me and to anyone else who knows anything about airplanes, is absurd.

Mr. HENDRICKSON. Mr. President, I should like to point out that in business one does not create and establish programs which cannot be successfully carried out.

Mr. SYMINGTON. When I was in business, I had quite a little experience with respect to programs, and I would remind my distinguished colleague, the Senator from New Jersey, that before he becomes too sympathetic toward the slippage criticism of the Secretary of Defense after he came to the Pentagon, he had better start analyzing the slippage occurrences in the company he left prior to coming to the Pentagon.

Mr. HENDRICKSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Michigan yield, that I may reply to the Senator from Missouri?

Mr. FERGUSON. I yield, provided I do not thereby lose the floor.

Mr. HENDRICKSON. I am not defending the Secretary of Defense. I am today speaking in criticism of the Air Force program in the months and years gone by.

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, I feel that this debate is valuable. I appreciate that one point in connection with the defense budget on which people may become emotional is that related to airpower. There is no doubt about that. It has been stated by the Senator from Missouri, when referring to his own administration, that the Air Force appropriation was reduced, and produc-. tion therefore was not had. It is true that the 80th Congress provided for a 70-group Air Force. The groups are now called wings. "Wing" has now become a magic word. I shall speak a little later about that. But, Mr. President, the former President of the United States took $730 million out of the appropriation. But, notwithstanding that, the Air Force was never able to spend what remained of the money which the Congress appropriated for them. That is why it is necessary to state the actual facts on the floor of the Senate.

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

Mr. FERGUSON. I will yield in a moment, but I will ask the Senator to wait until I can put certain figures in the RECORD, in order that the Senator may have them in mind.