of the new Joint Chiefs of Staff is worth anything, then why, before arbitrarily making this heavy cut in funds, was there not a conference with the old Joint Chiefs of Staff? In all sincerity I ask whether it would not have been better to have relied upon the decisions and opinions of the old Joint Chiefs of StaffGeneral Vandenberg, General Collins, and Admiral Fechteler, as made in October 1951 and continued and confirmed in every quarter until March 1953-in terms of maintaining the program? Would not it have been better to have maintained that program, instead of arbitrarily reducing it by billions of dollars?

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

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, I am glad to yield, and I ask unanimous consent for that purpose.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. out objection, it is so ordered.

With

Mr. THYE. Mr. President, during the time I have served on the Appropriations Committee-not only this year, but when the other political party had the chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations, of which the Senator from Michigan [Mr. FERGUSON] now is chairman-I have noted that the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of the Air Force, and the Secretary of Defense have changed their programs from time to time. At various times they have given us whole lists of figures on what might be called the trestleboard. They have shown us pictures of numbers of planes and of the planes they expected to be delivered in 1 month. Six months later they would return with an entirely different set of figures and an entirely different schedule of end achievement.

Today I have listened to my good friend, the distinguished Senator from Missouri [Mr. SYMINGTON], who formerly was Secretary of the Air Force. In the committee I have listened to distinguished and able officers give us reports on what they were endeavoring to achieve in the Air Force and what they needed in the way of funds. Even while the Senator from Missouri was Secretary of the Air Force, I have seen the schedule changed and new reports given to us in regard to when the planes would be delivered. When we interrogated the Secretary and his staff assistants, the testimony always was that they had not gotten all of the engineering difficulties or "bugs" out of the plane construction in which they were engaged, but that within the course of a short time thereafter the engineering difficulties should be over and they should be able to put the factories into full production.

Mr. President, if I did not have all this background information in my mind, I would be alarmed and fearful today that the proposed reduction in appropriations might be a serious mistake. But having had the benefit of listening to such factual statements, as given to us in the committee during the past several years, I am not so alarmed as the Senator from Missouri apparently is, because I recall that at such times, when the Senator from Missouri, who then was Secretary of the Air Force, and the

other gentlemen in the Defense Department had all the dollars they could possibly spend or commit, they made changes and deferments, and there were delays and slowups, and they made extensions in the schedules.

I wish to say to the Senator from Missouri that I sat through the hearings in the Appropriations Committee. I endeavored with all the ability I possessed to obtain all the facts. I had the feeling that in the future we would get everything on schedule, in accordance with the schedules which previously had been set. I had observed that at times there was as much as $102 billion in unexpended funds, although the amount would change from time to time, sometimes decreasing to $99 billion or to $96 billion, and with all of it committed on what might be called long-lead-time contracts. With all those figures and that situation in mind, and after having worked for a period of several years with those officials, we find that a very forceful argument can be made, and it is possible to throw a terrific scare, in discussing the proposed cut of $5 billion and in making statements to the effect that such a cut will seriously weaken our air strength. Yet if that is the fact, why in the world did the Air Force permit an accumulation of $99 billion of funds on long-lead-time contracts? Why did they translate those funds into finished products, ready for delivery at the airbases, where they were on demand.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, will the Senator permit me to answer the question?

Mr. THYE. Mr. President, the Senator from Missouri should let some of the rest of us do a little talking. He should permit us to counsel with him. He should not be so impatient, and should not try to pull the rug from under us every time we make a statement. Let him be patient; we will give him any amount of time.

We sat through the hearings. I wished to be critical. I wanted our Nation to have, in terms of aerial strength, a defense second to none. I wanted our Nation to be able, if occasion called for it, to hit the enemy not only on one front, but on all fronts. I wanted our Nation to have real air power. If it is a question of dollars, I will be found among the Members of the Senate who will be voting the dollars.

Now for several years I have participated in hearings on these appropriations, and I have had the privilege of looking respectfully to our leaders in the Defense Department, among whom the distinguished Senator from Missouri testified in the past, just as the present Secretary of the Air Force did this year. I have seen the money pile up year after year, although production of the end products was being slowed down, and although we were receiving reports to the effect that, "The only reason why we do not get this out as the end product is that we do not have all the 'bugs' out of it; and if we did produce it now, it would not be the kind of machine we want." I recall having them tell us, "We are going to have the plants and facilities and tools and the nucleus of an organization, so that when an emergency

comes we shall have the 'bugs' out of the planes, and we shall be able to proceed with production on a 24-hour schedule, and have an excellent production for defense, but first we must be certain that we have developed just the type of machine we want."

Mr. President, we appropriated the funds which were requested. At this time I am stating a little of the history of this matter over the past 2 or 3 years, in connection with the committee hearings, at which we received testimony from the Secretary of Defense and other authorities in the Defense Department. They have said, "What we want is to make certain that we have ample funds, in order that we can let the contracts, some of which will require from 18 months to 2 years for completion." We have given them the money. The distinguished Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD] will bear me out when I say there have been times when $102 billion in total funds was lying on the barrelhead, and that only the mere scratch of a pen on paper was needed.

I wish to say one further word in connection with what we have endeavored to do. We have an able and distinguished Secretary of Defense, who is a realistic, sound businessman. I have greater confidence in the judgment of our President on the question now before the Senate than I would have in the judgment of the average man, because surely a military general of his ability and genius would not for one minute make a mistake which would jeopardize the security of the Nation, or which would jeopardize the life of one American youth. For that reason, I felt, after listening to all the testimony, that we were justified in announcing our support of the reduction that is proposed in the pending appropriation bill.

I may say to my distinguished friend, I am always perfectly happy to yield to him, and I was not trying to be impolite or discourteous to him. However, the Senator had been moving in a little rapidly at times, and I simply wanted to counsel with him a moment.

Mr. SYMINGTON. I appreciate the advice of my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Minnesota. In view of his vast experience in the Senate, of which I am aware, I apologize for having interrupted him. As a matter of fact, this is the first time since I have been in the Senate that I have ever requested the Senator from Minnesota to yield, to my knowledge, on any point of any kind whatever. Therefore, if I have irritated or annoyed or hindered the Senator in the adquate and orderly presentation of his views, I desire to apologize to him deeply, and to assure him it will never happen again.

Mr. THYE. Mr. President, I merely want to say to the Senator that I was occupying the chair this afternoon, and I presided over the Senate for quite a while. I was merely making a little observation, when I told the Senator that he seemed to move in a little too rapidly at times. That was not by way of criticism. It was done simply in a man-toman, friendly manner. Once in a while a Senator may show a little irritation; and to one who is presiding over the Senate, since all Senators are before him,

it is an easy matter for him to observe what takes place on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. SYMINGTON. I deeply appreciate the advice of the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. THYE. It is all given in good nature and in a spirit of friendship.

Mr. SYMINGTON. I assure the Senator I shall always treasure his advice in my memory.

Mr. THYE. It is said with good will, in a spirit of friendship for a Senator whom I respect and admire very much.

Mr. SYMINGTON. I appreciate the Senator's remarks very much, and I hope that at some time in the future I may have an opportunity to reciprocate in offering the Senator from Minnesota some advice that may be instructive to him, as his advice has been to me.

Mr. President, going back to the point at issue, I do not remember ever having defended the budget before the Senator from Minnesota. I shall look up the record, for the purpose of verifying my statement. Perhaps the reason I do not remember it is because I have a poor memory. But I do know that I defended certain budgets when they came to the Senate.

I should like to correct one statement the Senator made, to the effect that I always received enough money, as the representative of the Air Force, and that I received all I wanted. Unfortunately, that is not true. The appropriation for which I wish the distinguished Senator from Minnesota had voted, was in the summer of 1949. I wish I might add his name to the list of nine Senators

Mr. THYE. Now, Mr. President, let us get this straight.

Mr. SYMINGTON. May I ask the Senator to observe the remonstrances that he gave to me? [Laughter.]

Mr. THYE. Yes.

Mr. SYMINGTON. I trust the Senator will bear with any ignorance I may have of parliamentary procedure, in view of his vast experience, and in view of my very considerable ignorance. The fact is that when it comes to the question of airplanes, I would hope that I could add the Senator's name to the list of nine great Senators who in 1949 voted not to reduce the appropriation for the Air Force. Had the Senate voted to give us the appropriation for the airplanes then contemplated, we would have had much less difficulty thereafter. Now, Mr. President, one more point. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at that point?

Mr. SYMINGTON. I yield.

Mr. FERGUSON. That was the time the President made the cut. What the Congress allowed, the President cut. Is not that correct?

Mr. THYE. Mr. President

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, I yielded only to the Senator from Michigan. I should like to make a correction. It was in 1948 that we got the money. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, I am learning rapidly from the instructions given me by the Senator from Minnesota,

Mr. THYE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I demand the regular order.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair must state to the guests of the Senate in the galleries that they are here as guests, and they are expected to make no demonstrations. We shall appreciate their cooperation with us by making no demonstrations either of approval or disapproval of what may be said by Senators.

Mr. SYMINGTON. I I thank the Chair.

name among the 9, I shall be glad to stand corrected. The 9 Senators who voted for a higher appropriation than that provided by the House in House bill 4146, making appropriations for the National Military Establishment appropriations, were the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Hill], the Senator from Texas [Mr. Johnson], the Senator from California [Mr. Knowland], the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Morse], and the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Mundt]; the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. O'Mahoney], the Senator from Florida [Mr. Pepper],

Mr. SYMINGTON. I should like to continue for a moment, after which I shall be glad to yield. The question arose on the subject of constantly refitting and constantly changing the airplanes.

Shortly after I left the Air Force, the Korean war began. We found that airplane production could not be carried on in the same way in which the production of automobiles is handled. We found it necessary to take back planes that had been produced and were being used for purposes of training, for a very simple reason, which I am sure the Senator from Minnesota would agree was valid, regardless of his interest in production efficiency. We found that our fliers could not live, flying the Saberjets they were then flying against the MIG-15. We therefore put them back in production, and used them in further training, in order to make them better. I respectfully submit that airplane factories cannot be operated in wartime on the basis on which automobile plants are run. It is necessary to make changes, in order to protect the lives of the men who are called upon to fight and defend our homes against an enemy.

Mr. THYE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SYMINGTON. I am glad to yield to the Senator for a question.

Mr. THYE. Is the Senator certain as to how the Senator from Minnesota voted on the Air Force appropriation in 1949?

Mr. SYMINGTON. No, I am not, but I have the vote here. I shall consult it, and if I am wrong, I shall be happy to stand corrected, and shall be the first to apologize to my distinguished colleague.

Mr. THYE. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield further, was it not in 1949 that the funds were impounded by the President?

Mr. FERGUSON. If the Senator will yield, I may say that was in October 1949.

Mr. THYE. Then I may remind my friend that the Senator from Minnesota voted for the 70-group Air Force, and was

one of those who were very much disappointed when the President impounded

the funds.

Mr. SYMINGTON. I may say to the Senator from Minnesota that if I am wrong in this matter, it will not be the first time that I have been wrong.

Mr. THYE. We all make mistakes. Mr. SYMINGTON. I should like to read the names of the 9 Senators who voted for the larger appropriation, and

Mr. THYE. What was the vote on? Mr. SYMINGTON. The vote was on a committee amendment proposing to allow a 48-group Air Force instead of a 58-group Air Force, by reducing the Air Force authorization from $1,992,755,000 to $1,415,000,000.

Mr. THYE. Is the Senator speaking of the reduction in funds, or is he speaking of the funds impounded by President Truman?

Mr. SYMINGTON. I may say respectfully to the Senator from Minnesota, I am referring to what I was speaking about before. It was an appropriation voted upon in 1949, for the fiscal year 1950. The list I read gives the names of 9 great Senators who voted not to cut the Air Force from 58 groups to 48. I notice in this connection that among the Senators who did not vote at that time was my distinguished colleague from Minnesota,

Mr. THYE. Mr. President, in order that the RECORD may be absolutely clear on that question, it was at that particular time that I and certain other Senators were en route to England. This was what date in October 1949?

Mr. SYMINGTON. The date is August 26, 1949. Did the Senator make two trips to England?

Mr. THYE. I did not. Will the Senator refer to the record again and find where the Senator from Minnesota was at that time? I have never voted against an increase in air strength or against appropriations of funds for the Air Force. It surprises me that I should be recorded as having voted in the negative.

Mr. SYMINGTON. The vote shows that the Senator from Maine [Mr.

Brewster], the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Bricker], the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Bridges], the Senator from from Indiana [Mr. Jenner], and the SenIndiana [Mr. Capehart], the Senator ator from Minnesota [Mr. Thye] were necessarily absent.

from Connecticut, Mr. McMahon-I forThe RECORD also shows the Senator got that great Senator-was paired with the Senator from Michigan [Mr. FER

GUSON], and it is stated:

If present and voting, the Senator from Connecticut would vote "nay," and the Senator from Michigan would vote "yea."

Mr. THYE. Does the Senator find any comment about the Senator from Minnesota?

Mr. SYMINGTON. Nothing except that he was absent from the Senate.

Mr. THYE. That is correct. The fact that the Senator read a certain rollcall and had no explanation for it would lead the general public to believe that I had voted in the negative. That is my reason for asking questions and developing the facts, because I have never voted against increasing the air strength.

Mr. SYMINGTON. I said the Senator was not one of the Senators who voted for increased air power.

Corps. They are overshadowed by the Corps. They are overshadowed by the Air Force.

No major type combat aircraft are eliminated from the original program by this budget with the exception of the B-47's previously scheduled to equip combat training wings, and these aircraft are not yet on order.

430,000,000 for research and development work in the military services for hundreds of research projects.

In this connection, the committee has provided ample funds for continued progress in the field of guided missiles. The committee received impressive testimony in executive session from all

Mr. SYMINGTON. I was surprised that if the Senator was so interested, he was not paired for it instead of being counted absent.

Mr. THYE. The Senator from Missouri will find that he will be absent at times.

Mr. SYMINGTON. I thank the Senator.

Mr. THYE. I would say, again, Mr. President, that I believe I have been on the side of trying to make certain that we have proper air strength for the safety of the Nation and the security of our people. In this particular instance one of the greatest military generals in the history of the Nation, who is now the President, sitting with his Defense Secrétary, making a study of the overall question, looking at the huge unexpended balance, determining what is best insofar as the overall security of our Nation is concerned, both economically and militarily, came to the conclusion that we could reduce the defense budget by $5 billion. After due study and after hearing all the testimony, we in the committee determined that we should support the President, the Secretary of Defense, and their assistants, in this general budget recommendation.

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, I should like to state a few figures, if I may do so, without interruption, and then I shall relinquish the floor.

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 all equipped with modern aircraft-a total of 121 wings to be attained this year. By June 30, 1955, the total number of wings for the Air Force, provided by this bill, will be 120, plus an additional 23 wings in the Air National Guard and Air Reserve. All of these wings will be equipped with modern aircraft, thus making a total of 143 wings.

The Air Force is currently operating more than 27,000 airplanes of all types. The Navy and Marine air wings contain another 10,000 aircraft, giving this country a total military aircraft strength of 37,000. Of course, not all of these planes are first line combat aircraft, but almost all of them do have military effectiveness under some conditions.

If the combat planes in the Air Force, Marines, and Navy were all organized on the basis of an Air Force wing, our military air strength now would be the equivalent of 152 wings, and by June 30, 1956, this total air strength will rise to 176 equivalent wings.

But very little has been said about the air strength of the Navy or the Marine

Mr. FERGUSON. I yield.

Mr. MAYBANK. I am glad the Senator mentioned that. I do not intend to make a long speech. The Senator says these are only training planes. Mr. FERGUSON. Yes; and they are not yet on order.

1 group and 53 in another group. Because this is going to be an issue, a majority of the Democratic members of the Appropriations Committee joined with me in an amendment. As the Senator knows, I offered the amendment in the committee, but it was defeated. I called up the Air Force today and was told that these B-47's, if we should approve them, would be fast ships, needing no further development, and they could be used in the wings in any emergency, whenever we wanted them.

In summary, the funds provided by the bill before the Senate will enable us to continue our defense program on an effective basis under a frugal management of the money. It does not provide funds for financing the crash programs and easy spending of the past. At the same time, we have tried to provide necessary funds below which we cannot safely go without endangering the whole complicated fabric of our military program. We have kept both need and cost in mind. It is our objective to achieve greater efficiency and economy, while continuing to improve the combat effectiveness of our forces. Our program calls for a total military strength of 3,356,000 as of June 30, 1954, with a reduction to 3,300,000 if war ceases in Korea.

Mr. FERGUSON. That is not my understanding from the record.

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, the funds provided in this bill, when considered together with funds provided the Air Force in prior years by the Congress, will finance completely the procurement of aircraft for the full 143-wing program.

In addition to the provision for new aircraft for the modernization of the Air Force, funds are provided in this bill for continuing the necessary procurement of ground equipment, ammunition for combat operations and related equipment, including the latest electronic devices.

The Air Force is provided funds for an average strength of 970,000 military personnel in fiscal year 1954, with an end strength of 960,000 by June 30, 1954. This reduction of about 2 percent will be accomplished entirely by the elimination of unnecessary overhead personnel, such as excess bands, air police, and so forth.

The committee has included in this bill rather large sums of money, $356 million for the continued development, on a well-coordinated basis, of the program for building up reserves of hardto-get machine tools and standby plant and manufacturing facilities. This is a program which will assure the existence of a production base which can be swiftly expanded if the need arises, and provides the Nation with a national defense establishment that is much stronger than the number of divisions or air wings we now have or plan to acquire.

This appropriation bill contains the tangible evidence that the new administration and the committee have great confidence in the research programs of the military services and a realization of their importance to our long-time national security. This bill provides $1,

aim at a goal of $43.2 billion for the 1954 fiscal year.

From the overall expenditure picture, there will be a planned increase in defense spending during the current, 1954 fiscal year. Last year the armed services spent a total of $43 billion, and spending plans call for expenditure of $43,200,000,000 during the coming year. No one questions that, and it is required for the production of military material.

With the funds provided in this bill, that would leave an estimated unexpended balance on June 30, 1954, of about $51.2 billion, as compared with the estimated unexpended balance, a carryover, of $62.6 billion on June 30, 1953.

As we all know, substantial unexpended carryover amounts are always necessary to provide for the lead time required in the production of military material. Particularly is this true in the early stages of a buildup period. Often lead times can be reduced, and smaller amounts of money can be provided through intelligent planning.

Once the program is well under way, and a reasonable level of production is under way with designs becoming firm, there is a lesser requirement for advance financing to provide for lead time. We are now approaching this stage of the buildup period, and the estimated unexpended balances reflect this fact, as does the amount provided in this appropriation bill.

Although our defense program started after the Korean war, it was only partly because of the Korean war. Hence that program must go on even if a reliable peace comes in Korea. Our major danger remains. To cut any additional funds from this appropriation bill would mean that we would be cutting into the

basic combat effectiveness and military preparedness of the Armed Forces.

We should also say to the Military Establishment that even with the present budget, even with the present planned personnel, a duty rests upon them to eliminate every dollar of extravagant spending, every dollar that could be considered "plush," every dollar that it is possible to save. Certainly arbitrary and capricious across-the-board cuts could only result in upsetting the balance which must exist between the equipment, the facilities-training stations, airfields, repair facilities, supply systems, and so forth-and the manpower to utilize them.

The present administration has shown signs that it wishes to join in a reduction in the budget. They want to help cut it. Otherwise, there is only one way the budget can be cut, and that is by means of what some persons call a meatax cut.

I say frankly that unless this administration comes through with a plan of production and an elimination of waste and extravagance, then Congress in the coming January should take steps to prevent a waste of money.

Let me conclude by pointing out that this bill was considered by the committee with our national defense uppermost in mind. It was not considered on the basis of partisanship or politics-there should be no politics in our national security.

I believe the bill as reported by the committee is a good bill, and one that provides adequate financing for the continued strengthening of our national defense. It is a bill for national security, and I urge Senators to support it.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I made an inquiry awhile ago regarding cooperation that had been received by some of us who had tried to find some way of saving money in the Military Establishment. I wish to read an excerpt from the Sarnoff Commission Report, indicating that the Sarnoff Commission may not have had all the cooperation it should have received in suggesting reductions that many of us would have liked to make. I read from page 28 of the report, paragraph 4, as follows:

That the Commission has received tons of information and not an ounce of interpretation on the problems it is expected to consider and upon which it is to make its recommendations. Cooperation of the servIces boils down to furnishing the Commission with voluminous, lengthy, and complicated documents, of all sorts, which deal largely with the past rather than the future and which leave the reader with a greater sense of bewilderment after than he had before reading these documents.

That is what the Sarnoff Commission thought of the cooperation they received from the armed services.

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments may be agreed to en bloc, and that the bill as so amended be considered as the original text for the purpose of amendment, and that no points of order shall be waived.

Mr. DOUGLAS. The discussion this afternoon has centered almost entirely on reductions in the Air Force. I wish to ask the eminent Senator from Michigan if the budget as proposed calls for a reduction in the number of Army combat divisions from 21 to 20, or a net reduction of 1 division?

Mr. FERGUSON. Let me state the figures for the Senator from Illinois.

Under "Summary of forces-divisions," in the Truman budget, the number was 20; under the Eisenhower budget it is 20. That is the number of divisions planned as of June 30, 1954. Under "Regiments and RTC's," the estimates, respectively, are 18 and 18.

For "Antiaircraft battalions," the figures are, respectively, 117 and 117. So there is no difference.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Is it not true, or am I misinformed, that the Bureau of the Budget called for creation of an additional combat division during the entire year, and the number of divisions has year, and the number of divisions has been held at 20?

Mr. FERGUSON. I do not have any advice on that. The evidence presented to the committee, under "Summary of forces," was as I have read it.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Can the chairman assure us that there will be no reduction in the number of divisions as compared with the number that was planned?

Mr. FERGUSON. That is correct. However, I will have that checked at once through the Pentagon.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Michigan deserves our congratulations and compliments upon a very diligent, conscientious job as chairman of the subcommittee. We who have observed him at his task realize that it was not easy. But certainly, in pursuance of his practice, he has made every effort to achieve economies that could be made.

I only hope we can follow through year after year in paring down the unnecessary expenditures to the point that one of these days the taxpayer can expect that he, too, will share in the relief for which he has waited so long.

Mr. FERGUSON. I certainly appreciate the remarks of the Senator from Louisiana.

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

Mr. FERGUSON. I yield.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. The Senator from Michigan has made a unanimousconsent request that all the committee amendments be agreed to en bloc. Personally I opposed in the committee, and I wish to oppose on the floor of the Senate, the committee amendment to section 643. If the request of the Senator from Michigan is granted, will it be possible for the Senator from Massachusetts to oppose that amendment?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Michigan?

Mr. FERGUSON. I believe that it will still be possible for the Senator from Massachusetts to oppose any committee

Mr. FERGUSON. I yield.

XCIX-596

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, may we have the request stated again?

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments be agreed to en bloc, and that the bill, as proposed to be amended, be considered as original text for the purpose of amendment; and that no point of order be waived.

Mr. RUSSELL. The bill as proposed to be amended would be considered as original text for the purpose of amendment, and any amendment would be in order.

Mr. FERGUSON. That is correct. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and the request is agreed to.

The amendments agreed to en bloc are as follows:

On page 2, line 18, after the word "appropriation", to strike out "$37,000" and insert "$55,000";

On page 4, line 12, after the figures "$365,000,000", to insert "and, in addition, the Secretary of Defense may transfer from other appropriations available to the Department of Defense such amounts as may be necessary";

On page 6, line 3, after the word "Information", to strike out "$400,000" and insert "$500,000";

On page 6, line 16, after the word "for", to strike out "$500,000,000" and insert "$250,000,000"; and in line 17, after the word "than", to strike out "$100,000,000" and insert "$50,000,000";

On page 7, at the beginning of line 15, to strike out "enlisted"; and on page 8, line 1, after the word "activities", to strike out "$4,708,859,000" and insert "$4,713,859,000";

On page 10, line 2, after the word "military", to strike out "and civilian"; and on page 11, line 1, after the word "Government”,

to strike out "$4,329,594,000" and insert "$4,355,750,000";

On page 14, line 1, after the word "expended", to strike out "No part of any funds herein appropriated shall be used to maincility for any of the technical services of the tain or aid in maintaining a tire-testing faArmy at any place within or without the continental limits of the United States either directly or in collaboration with any other department or agency of the Government or with any private concern";

aries", to strike out "$185,873,000" and inOn page 18, line 25, after the word "salsert "$200,864,500";

On page 19, line 19, after the word "salaries", to strike out "$927,000,000" and insert "$952,000,000";

On page 20, at the beginning of line 9, to strike out "$1,379,000,000" and insert "$1, 394,000,000";

On page 21, line 16, after the word "appropriation", to strike out "$691,500,000" and insert "$731,500,000"; and on page 22, line 2, after the word "exceed", to strike out "$3,285,339,000" and insert "$3,325,339,000";

At the beginning of line 20, to strike out "$114,700,000" and insert "$115,500,000"; to strike out On page 26, at the beginning of line 24, "$104,000,000" and insert "$104,234,000";

On page 28, line 10, after the word "vehicles," to strike out "$600,000,000" and insert "$615,000,000";

On page 28, line 22, after the word "military," to strike out "and civilian"; and on page 29, at the beginning of line 25, to strike out "$3,050,000,000" and insert "$3,169,862,500";

On page 32, line 1, after the word "awards", to strike out "$3,270,000,000" and insert "$3,300,000,000";

to strike out "$440,000,000" and insert On page 32, line 6, after the word "things," "$475,000,000";

On page 36, line 15, after the word "concerned," to insert a semicolon and "and all

necessary expenses, at the seat of government of the United States of America or elsewhere, in connection with (1) instruction and training, including tuition, specifically approved by the Secretary of the Department concerned and not otherwise provided for, of civilian employees, and (2) communication and other services and supplies as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this act";

On page 39, line 23, after the figures "$35,000", to insert "except units for the Alaska Communications System the individual cost shall not exceed $40,000";

On page 40, line 8, after the word "of", to strike out "$225” and insert “$240";

On page 43, after line 2, to strike out: "SEC. 618. No appropriation contained in this act shall be available for expenses of operation of messes (other than organized messes the operating expenses of which are financed principally from nonappropriated funds) at which meals are sold to officers or civilians except under regulations approved by the Secretary of Defense, which shall (except under unusual or extraordinary circumstances) establish rates for such meals sufficient to provide reimbursement of operating expenses and food costs to the appropriations concerned which rate shall in no case be less than $2.25 per day: Provided, That, for the purposes of this section payments for meals at the rates established hereunder may be made in cash or by deductions from the pay of civilian employees." And insert:

"SEC. 618. No

appropriation contained

in this act shall be available for expenses of operation of messes at which meals are sold to officers or civilians except under regulations approved by the Secretary of Defense which shall establish rates for such meals sufficient to provide reimbursement of operating expenses and food costs to the appropriations concerned which rate shall not be less than $2.25 per day, except (1) when officers are subsisted in messes with enlisted personnel, the rate shall be $1.60, or (2) when officers are subsisted in messes operated with appropriated funds but where food costs are not borne by appropriated funds, the rate for operating expenses shall be $1.15 per day, or (3) under unusual or extraordinary circumstances including (a) meals sold in combat areas or aboard ships, (b) to operating crews of aircraft in flight, (c) to patients in hospitals, (d) to food advisory personnel subsisted at messes in connection with their assigned duties, (e) to meals served during maneuvers and field exercises, (f) to troop movements, (g) and to catastrophe feeding: Provided, That nothing herein shall apply to organized messes the operating expenses of which are financed principally from nonappropriated funds. For purposes of this section payments for meals at the rates established hereunder may be made in cash or by deductions from the pay of civilian employees";

On page 46, after line 3, to strike out: "SEC. 624. No appropriation contained in this act shall be available in connection with the operation of commissary stores of the agencies of the Department of Defense for the cost of purchase (including commercial transportation in the United States to the place of sale but excluding all transportation outside the United States) and maintenance of operating equipment and supplies, and for the actual or estimated cost of utilities as may be furnished by the Government and of shrinkage, spoilage, and pilferage of merchandise under the control of such commissary stores, except as authorized under regulations promulgated by the Secretaries of the military departments concerned, with the approval of the Secretary of Defense, which regulations shall provide for reimbursement therefor to the appropriations concerned and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, shall provide

for the adjustment of the sales prices in such commissary stores to the extent necessary to furnish sufficient gross revenue from sales of commissary stores to make such reimbursement: Provided, That such commissaries as are established within the continental limits of the United States in pursuance of the provisions of this section shall be operated for the sole use of members of the Armed Forces and their immediate families: Provided further, That under such regulations as may be issued pursuant to this section all utilities may be furnished without cost to the commissary stores outside the continental United States and in Alaska."

And insert:

"SEC. 624. No appropriation contained in this act shall, after December 31, 1953, be available in connection with the operation of commissary stores, within the continental United States, of the agencies of the Department of Defense, unless the Secretary of Defense has certified that items normally procured from commissary stores are not otherwise available at a reasonable distance and a reasonable price in satisfactory quality and quantity to the military and civilian employees of the Department of Defense, and that privately operated organizations are unwilling or unable to operate on military reservations, such commissaries to provide necessary goods and services at reasonable rates and in the quality and quantity required: Provided, That commissary stores are hereby authorized to be operated by private persons and privately owned organizations under such regulations as may be approved by the Secretary of Defense";

On page 49, line 20, to strike out "nine" and insert "twelve";

On page 50, after line 20, to strike out:

"SEC. 628. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, Executive order, or regulation, no part of the appropriations in this or any other act shall be available for any expenses of operating aircraft under the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces unless (1) the primary duty of officers of the flight crew of such aircraft involves participation in operational or training flights; or (2) the duty of such officers is under orders prescribing participation in aerial flights for not to exceed 12 hours, with a variation of 30 minutes more or less, during any 3 consecutive calendar months: Provided, That, during the fiscal year 1954, officers of the Armed Forces otherwise entitled to receive flight pay and who have held aeronautical ratings or designations for not less than 15 years shall be entitled to receive flight pay at the rates prescribed in section 204 (b) of the Career Compensation Act of 1949, without regard to any provision of law or Executive order prescribing minimum flight requirements." And insert:

"SEC. 628. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, Executive order, or regulation, no part of the appropriations in this or any other act shall be available for any expenses of operating aircraft under the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces for the purpose of proficiency fiying except in accordance with regulations issued by the Secretaries of the Departments concerned and approved by the Secretary of Defense which shall establish proficiency standards and maximum and minimum flying hours for this purpose, but not to exceed 100 hours during the fiscal year 1954: Provided, That, during the fiscal year 1954, without regard to any provision of law or Executive order prescribing minimum flight requirements, such regulations may provide for the payment of flight pay at the rates prescribed in section 204 (b) of the Career Compensation Act of 1949 (63 Stat. 802) to certain officers of the Armed Forces otherwise entitled to receive flight pay (1) who have held aeronautical ratings or designations for not less than 20 years, or (2) whose particular assignment

makes it unfeasible to participate in frequent or regular aerial flights."

On page 53, line 14, after the word "grades", to insert a colon and the following proviso: "Provided, That the officer of the Army now assigned as special assistant to the Comptroller, Department of Defense, shall, effective upon the date of enactment of this act, be considered to hold the grade of major general for all purposes, and while so serving shall receive the pay and allowances of an officer of that grade and his length of service, and when retired under any provision of law shall be advanced on the retired list to such grade and shall receive retired or retirement pay at the rate prescribed by law computed on the basis of the basic pay which he would receive if serving on active duty in such grade."

On page 54, after line 12, to strike out: "SEC. 633. None of the funds provided in this act shall be available for training in any legal profession nor for the payment of tuition for training in such profession in excess of 20 persons at any one time, exclusive of students in ROTC units, and exclusive of those persons attending law courses on July 10, 1952, until such persons have completed their courses."

And insert:

"SEC. 633. None of the funds provided in this act shall be available for training in any legal profession nor for the payment of tuition for training in such profession: Provided, That nothing contained in this act shall prohibit persons now attending law courses from completing same."

On page 55, line 1, after the word "exceed", to strike out "$5,000,000" and insert "$4,500,000";

On page 55, after line 2, to strike out:

"SEC. 635. No part of the funds appropriated in this act for procurement which are limited for obligation during fiscal year 1954 shall be obligated during the last 2 months of the fiscal year at a monthly rate more than 125 percent of the average monthly rate of obligation during the first 10 months of the year."

And insert:

"SEC. 635. Not more than 20 percent of the appropriations in this act which are limited for obligation during fiscal year 1954 shall be obligated during the last 2 months of the fiscal year";

On page 55, after line 20, to strike out: "SEC. 637. During the fiscal year 1954, the agencies of the Department of Defense may accept real property, the use of real property, services, and commodities from foreign countries for the use of the United States in accordance with mutual-defense agreements or occupational arrangements; and such agencies may use the same for the support of the United States forces in such areas without specific appropriation therefor." And insert:

"SEC. 637. Amounts appropriated in this act may be used for purchase of foreign currencies (including foreign currencies and credits owed to or owned by the United States): Provided, That such currencies or credits are authorized to be made available for use, without reimbursement to the Treasury, for liquidation of obligations legally incurred against such currencies prior to July 1, 1953."

On page 56, after line 22, to strike out: "SEC. 640. No part of the funds appropriated in this or any other act shall be available for the payment to any United States citizen resident in one of its Territories or

possessions, of any station, subsistence, quarters, or other foreign duty allowances over and above the authorized pay and allowances for comparable grade or rating in the continental United States unless such person is serving outside the Territory or possession in which he is resident.”

On page 57, line 5, to change the section number from "641" to "640"; and in line 7, after the word "officers", to insert above the grade of first lieutenant in the Army, or