comparable grades in the other military services";

On page 57, line 10, to change the section number from '642" to "641";

On page 57, line 15, to change the section number from "643" to "642";

On page 57, line 20, to change the section number from "644" to "643"; in the same line, after the word "of", to strike out "this or any other" and insert "any"; and on page 58, line 15, after the word "possessions", to insert a colon and the following additional proviso: "Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated by this act shall be available for expenditure under any contract without regard to the provisions of law relating to the making, performance, amendment, and modification of contracts, for the purpose of correcting or preventing economic dislocations";

On page 58, line 21, to change the section number from "645" to "644";

On page 60, line 4, to change the section number from "646" to "645";

On page 60, after line 10, to insert a new section, as follows:

"SEC. 646. During the fiscal year 1954, unexpended balances of allocations heretofore made, and allocations hereafter made to the Department of Defense, from any appropriation for military assistance may be transferred to such appropriations of the Department of Defense as may be determined by the Secretary of Defense and when so transferred shall be merged and consolidated with and be available for the same purposes and period of time as the appropriation to which transferred. The total amount of these allocations (except for funds allocated for offshore procurement purposes) shall be accounted for to the Director of Mutual Security, by title and by country, solely on the basis of the value of material delivered and services performed, such value to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Mutual Security Act, as amended: Provided, That nothing herein shall be construed to authorize the furnishing of military assistance under the Mutual Security Act, as amended, in excess of the amounts appropriated";

On page 61, after line 3, to insert a new section as follows:

"SEC. 647. None of the funds appropriated in this act shall be used for the purchase of passenger automobiles except for replace

ment";

On page 61, after line 6, to insert a new section as follows:

"SEC. 648. None of the funds appropriated in this act shall be used for the expenses of operating the Armed Forces Textile and Apparel Procurement Agency after December 31, 1953";

On page 61, line 11, to change the section number from "647" to "649."

Mr. FERGUSON subsequently said: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, following the remarks I made this morning, I may have printed the statement I prepared explaining the defense appropriation bill. There was so much yielding that my remarks were broken up.

My reason for making the request is that if there is any value to my explanation by way of interpretation, it would be much clearer if presented in the order in which I had prepared my statement.

I, therefore, ask unanimous consent to have placed at the end of my extemporaneous remarks the statement which I had prepared regarding the defense appropriation bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

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

STATEMENT BY SENATOR FERGUSON

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 begining 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.

strength, and our military

We are appropriating now the money with which to buy the military strength, the hard muscle upon which our survival depends.

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 aides. 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.

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 go and We are elimthey will go under this bill. inating the fat and getting down to the hard bone and muscle upon which our survival must depend.

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 your 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 subtract $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. 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. 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 Representtatives.

This bill, Mr. President, is the product of the concerted efforts of the new administration in its review of the programs and policies in the Department of Defense since January 1953, and the detailed and lengthy hearings before your committee on these programs over a period of almost 2 months. The committee has taken more than 2,000 pages of printed testimony, reviewed the 4,500 pages of testimony received by the House committee and 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 our 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 whopping 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 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.

Let me say, further, that no one can be absolutely sure whether the amount we are recommending in this bill is too high, too low, or just about right. If we knew that 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 that 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. Unfortunately, we do not and cannot know either of these things. The only basis upon which we have been able to proceed has been that there appears no evidence which indicates that the threat and danger to the free world has 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.

The military programs provided for in this appropriation bill represent a middle course between the dangerous extremes of feast or famine, as has been our policy in the past. As President Eisenhower has so aptly stated, we must have a national-defense policy patterned for an age of danger, not a day of peril. 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.

In this connection, let me make clear that the dollars recommended in this bill are, in the committee's judgment, ample to provide for the continued improvement 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.

Much has been made in some quarters 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 done without regard to the basic programs and projects for the defense of this country. Such charges are ridiculous.

Let me say, in the first place, that the budgets of all the agencies of the Government for the 1954 fiscal year were reviewed as soon after the new administration took office as possible. 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 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 he 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 repeat-I have studied this budget thoroughly and am in full accord with it, recognizing of course that your com

mittee'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."

The charge has been made that this budget was prepared by money men and that the President did not formulate this 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, nor head of any agency can possibly know all of the details that a budget contains-details that require the combined efforts of the budget staffs of 3 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 will be financing with the dollars on this bill and how far along we are in achieving a 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. In addition, and 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 rates. The modernization of the Army will continue at a greater 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 military personnel strength of slightly over 800,000. Except for aircraft, the Navy is equipped with reasonably modern material and in numerous areas is acquiring mobilization reserves.

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 super aircraft 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, and in overhead activities so as to accomplish this objective, within a military personnel strength of 745,066. Naval aviation, including the Marine Corps, will have 9,941 operating aircraft, which will be available to support United States foreign policy wherever needed. In addition to delivery of several thousand modern planes this year funds are provided to the Navy for setting contracts for about 1,300 additional aircraft in the 1954 fiscal year to 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.

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. 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 the 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 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.

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. 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, etc.

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 hard-to-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 $1,430,000 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 concerning progress in this field by all three military services.

In summary, the funds provided by the bill before us 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.

While it is admittedly very difficult to control the rate of expenditures, the Secretary of Defense and the National Security Council have expressed the hope that the expendi

tures for the Department of Defense military

functions 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, in total spent $43 billion and during the coming year, spending plans call for expenditures of $43,200,000,000.

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. 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. Certainly arbitrary and capricious acrossthe-board cuts could only result in upsetting the balance which must exist between the equipment, the facilities (training stations, airfields, repair facilities, supply systems, etc.), and the manpower to utilize them.

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 ship or politics-there should be no politics in our national security.

I believe this 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.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to further amendment.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to make a very brief statement of the reasons which have prompted me to take the position which I have decided to take with respect to the pending legislation. Few legislative matters have given me greater concern than the position which I should take with respect to this particular bill.

I have always been a very strong advocate of national defense-national defense sufficient to protect this country in any emergency which may occur. I have had the great honor to be a member of the Armed Services Committee, and one of its predecessor committees, for nearly 21 years, first as a member of the Naval Affairs Committee, and then as a member of the Armed Services Committee, serving as ranking Democratic member to my very distinguished and able colleague, the Senator from Georgia [Mr. RUSSELL]. I was named to represent the Armed Services Committee on the ApArmed Services Committee on the Appropriations Committee considering the question of appropriations for the armed services.

I wish to commend the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LONG] for his congratulations to the Senator from Michigan

[Mr. FERGUSON] for the excellent manner in which he conducted the hearings. In all my experience I do not believe that I have seen so much detail gone into, or such long hearings as occurred in the consideration of this bill.

Mr. President, I do not underestimate the great dangers which confront this country. I think we are confronted with one of the most serious conditions in the history of our Nation. We are confronted with the threat of war, a threat of war which may last for 20 or 30 years. No one knows how long it will last. We must meet that threat. A threat of war, from an economic standpoint, if long continued, may be even worse than war itself, because a war ends sometime, while the threat of war may continue for a long time.

I have tried to evaluate, in terms of our security, the questions which have arisen with respect to this bill. Let me first repeat that we have appropriated $160 billion for the military since the beginning of the Korean war. We have expended $100 billion, and there remains unspent, as of June 30, 1953, in appropriated bal

ances, approximately $60 billion. We have spent $33,300,000,000 on the Air Force since the Korean war.

The immediate problem which concerns us in this bill, as I see it, is the reduction which has been proposed by President Eisenhower in the Air Force appropriations. First, I wish to go over the expenditures which will be made untablishments, and compare those exder this bill, in the various military espenditures with expenditures for the previous fiscal year, so as to lay at rest any anxiety which may exist on the part of anyone that we are reducing military expenditures as compared with the expenditures of the previous fiscal year.

Under the Eisenhower plan there will be spent for the Army $16,500,000,000 this fiscal year. We spent last year $16,493,000,000. In other words, we shall spend $7 million more this fiscal year than last year.

For the Navy we shall spend under the Eisenhower plan $11 billion. Last year we spent $11,776,000,000. We shall spend $776 million less on the Navy this year than last year.

On the Air Force, under the pending bill, we shall spend $15,100,000,000. Last year we spent $14,800,000,000. In other words, we shall spend $300 million more on the Air Force the coming year than we spent last year.

The total expenditures under this bill will be $43,193,000,000. Last year we spent $43,151,000,000. Therefore, we shall spend this year $41 million more than we spent last year. I wish to make that clear, because by reason of the discussion involving the reduction of appropriations-not expenditures in this fiscal year, but appropriations-it may appear to some that we are cutting the expenditures for the coming year, which is not the case.

I have concerned myself with the Air Force. I am an Air Force man. I believe in a strong Air Force. I am not an enemy of the Air Force in any respect. I believe that the basic security of this country lies in a great Air Force. However, my investigation-and I shall attempt, in very brief and concise language, to describe it-impels me to believe that the reduction which is proposed will not weaken our Air Force to a point which will represent a threat to our security.

As of July 1 the Air Force had a carryover of $28,500,000,000. Not a great deal has been said about that so far. It had that money, not in the bank, but as an unexpended appropriation. Three billion three hundred million dollars was not even obligated. If there was such a great demand for the construction of planes and other things, why was it that, of an appropriation made a year ago, $3,300,000,000 has not been obligated, and is still not obligated?

Let us take as a base the carryover of appropriations, $28,500,000,000. The pending appropriation will add to that sum, so that we shall have for expenditure $40,500,000,000; I mean for expenditure, but not necessary in this fiscal year.

In other words, the Air Force, under the present appropriations, has $40,500,000,000 to spend. That is a huge sum of money when we consider that the total expenditures for military purposes in the fiscal year 1951, which was the year the

I have been confused, as I believe other Members of the Senate have been confused, about the 143-wing program or the 123-wing program. The point that concerns me is, How many planes are in these wings?

Mr. President, it is possible to have all kinds of wings. A wing can consist of 100 planes, or 50 planes, or it can be undermanned.

So I took occasion to get the facts. I do not know whether they have been brought out. I obtained the facts as to exactly what a 143-wing program means. Mr. President, the 143-wing program means 21,069 aircraft. That figure was given to me by Mr. Talbott, the Secretary of the Air Force. It includes 11,000 combat planes. That is what 143 wings consist of. Of course, wings vary. Some wings have more airplanes and other wings have fewer airplanes. These figures do not include Navy, Marine Corps, and Army aircraft.

Mr. Wilson testified that there were 10,000 aircraft at present in the Naval and Marine air wings. should be added.

Those figures Those figures

Mr. President, I have a letter before me, written to me by the Secretary of the Air Force, Mr. Talbott. Unfortunately part of the letter is marked in strict security, and I cannot read the letter on the floor of the Senate. However, if any Senator wants to read it, under security provisions, he may do so. It gives the contracts that have been let with the airplane companies, and it shows the delivery on the airplanes, and so forth. I can say that there are on hand and on order, for the Air Force alone, 24,900 planes, as compared with the 143-wing staff strength of 21,069 planes. And we have in addition on hand now as I have stated 10,000 planes in the Navy, Marines, and Army.

The proposed appropriation will provide 2,662 additional planes. Therefore there will be a total of 27,000 planes in the Air Force. These figures do not include the Marine Corps, the Navy, and the Army.

I should like to feel at liberty to give further data to the Senate, such as when the planes would be delivered and the character of them, but Senators realize that I cannot do so. However, the letter is before me, and any Senator who desires, under the same security provisions in which this letter was given to me, may read it. It is a vital question. Let me repeat that 143 wings contemplate 21,069 airplanes, which include 11,000 combat planes. We have on order and on hand a total of 24,900 airplanes, for which contracts have been made. Under the proposed appropriation, 2,162 more planes will be provided, making a total of 27,000 planes.

Mr. President, of course I agree that we must deduct from that figure the attrition by loss and obsolescence between now and the time that these planes will be delivered. I have that figure, but I do not feel at liberty to give it on the floor of the Senate. However, after deducting the number of planes that must be deducted because of attrition by loss and obsolescence, we will have

tained in the pending bill, nearly enough with which to complete 143 wings.

Mr. President, all that Congress can do is appropriate the money. We do not make the contracts. We cannot say We cannot say when the planes are being delivered. All we can do is appropriate enough money for a given program, as we believe it for a given program, as we believe it is needed. I am told by Mr. Talbott that they are pushing the airplane production program as fast as they can push it. It is not a question of lack of money. it. It is not a question of lack of money. If there is any question at all about it it is a question of lack of facilities.

Mr. President, I have before me, which I shall be glad to show to any Member of I shall be glad to show to any Member of the Senate, another letter showing the actual production by month of the airplanes in this country. I can only say planes in this country. I can only say that we are producing on the basis of 5 or 6 times as many per month as we produced in the first months of the produced in the first months of the Korean war.

It is for that reason, assurance is given me that the sum of money will be sufficient-after we take off obsolescence and loss figures-and that there will be enough planes for 143 wings, or nearly enough, by number of planes.

I submit that that is the real test. There is nothing sacred about a certain number of wings. The number of airplanes is the important consideration. planes is the important consideration. They are the machines that do the fighting. They are the machines that are going to protect us in time of war. We do not know what a wing may consist of. of. We have wings now, I am toldand the same was true in the past which are paper wings, or contain only a few planes.

In Mr. Talbott's letter, the information is given as to the definite number of planes in the wings, the number of planes on hand, the number of planes under contract, and the number of the estimated planes that must be deducted due to attrition by loss and obsolescence during the next 2 or 3 years.

Mr. President, that is the reason why I have decided to vote for the committee's recommendations.

I was much impressed this morning by the remarks made by the distinby the remarks made by the distinguished acting majority leader, the Senator from California [Mr. KNOWLAND]. He said we are faced with a long-range program. We are, Mr. President. We are faced with a threat that will test this Nation right down to its very roots, if we are to keep up our military preparedness for the 15, 20, 30, or 40 years which are ahead of us. There is no assurance that we can ever trust Russia, no matter what agreements she makes. We must keep up our military preparedness, and at the same time we must preserve the solvency of our country. We must preserve the freedom of the private enterprise system at home. The freedom of our private enterprise system can be destroyed by insolvency. It can be destroyed by a system of taxation that brings diminishing returns if we impose too great taxation upon the people.

We must balance these things, Mr. President. It will require the greatest judgment and the finest patriotism that this country has ever been called upon to exhibit. I believe we have done in

this bill all we can do. I believe we have done what the advocates of 143 wings have been asking for, because we appropriate the money for the 143 wings.

I can show by the figures I have here, after we deduct the attrition by loss and obsolescence, that practically the number of planes that Mr. Talbott says will compose 143 wings will then be in existence.

Therefore, Mr. President, I shall vote for the bill as reported by the committee. I realize as I believe other Senators do also the situation we are in. I am not critical of the Air Force. I am a supporter of the Air Force. I am a critic of waste in the Air Force. It has been my privilege to be a member of the Committee on Nonessential Expenditures in the Executive Departments. The waste that exists in our armed services is almost unbelievable until one sees it. I say it is also inexcusable.

It

The Air Force, in its present status of strength, is a new department in the Government, comparatively speaking. It has been expanding tremendously. would not be reasonable to expect the Air Force at this period of its development to be as efficient as the other armed services. I say that hundreds of millions of dollars, can be saved by reasonable efficiency in the Air Force, as well as in the other operations of our Government relating to our military services.

I shall mention only one instance. Consider the Kaiser-Frazer contract for constructing airplanes for the Air Force. I happened to serve on the subcommittee which investigated that matter. The Kaiser-Frazer Co. received $1,250,000 per plane, whereas the Fairchild Co. was building the same planes for $250,000 each. In other words, the Kaiser-Frazer Co. was paid five times as much for each plane as the Fairchild Co. was. Perhaps there was some justification for Kaiser-Frazer to proceed on that basis when the contract was first given to it. But in response to my question, it was stated that it would take 7 years for Kaiser-Frazer to be in a competitive position with the Fairchild Co. Then Secretary Talbott-and properly so, I believe-cancelled the contract with Kaiser-Frazer. As I have said, Kaiser-Frazer was receiving five times as much for each transport plane-and those planes did not involve any construction difficulties-as the Fairchild Co. was. When the contract was cancelled, $212 million was saved. Certainly that was worth saving.

Some reference has been made to the ammunition shortage. I shall refer to it briefly. As is well known by all Members of the Senate now present who served on that subcommittee with me, the investigation of the ammunition shortage disclosed most colossal inefficiency and waste. It showed that although Congress had appropriated every dollar that when the Korean war began it took 2 had been requested for ammunition, years' time before the first shell was manufactured, and in the meantime the Army was depleting our national stockpile of ammunition. Under those circumstances, there developed one of the most critical and dangerous situations we have ever experienced, because in

that way our national stockpile of ammunition was rapidly being depleted. Every shell which was fired in Korea during a period of 2 years was taken from our national stockpile of ammunition which was left following World War II.

The Army did not begin to replenish our ammunition stockpile until 2 years had passed. When the funds were appropriated, it took 30 days to allocate them to the departments. Then it took 5 months to draw up the specifications and award the contracts, and then it took 18 months to obtain delivery.

When we see things of that sort occur, if Senators then say there cannot be tremendous economies in connection with the operations of the armed services, I say they do not know all the facts.

Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will the Senator from Virginia yield to me? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PURTELL in the chair). Does the Senator from Virginia yield to the Senator from South Carolina?

Mr. BYRD. I yield.

Mr. MAYBANK. I was glad to hear the Senator from Virginia make the statement he has just made, because certainly reductions can be made. The Senator from Virginia well knows that I also favor the making of reductions. On the other hand, I would not want it said-and I know the Senator from Virginia would not make such a statement that the Air Force was responsible for the shortage of ammunition.

Mr. BYRD. I did not say that.

Mr. MAYBANK. Of course, the Senator from Virginia did not. The ammunition shortage certainly was a terrible situation, and it occurred because of the great delays in connection with the letting of contracts and the per

formance of the work under the contracts when they were let.

Mr. BYRD. At that time we were investigating the Army, not the Air Force. The ammunition shortage investigation had to do with the Army.

The testimony showed that it took 10,000 miles of travel before contracts were signed; the signing of the contract involved sending it back and forth for a total of 10,000 miles, and then they had 33 different kinds of bookkeeping, and a great deal of other inefficiency.

Under those circumstances, I simply am unable to agree with those who say it is impossible to make savings of many millions, and even in fact, billions of dollars.

Therefore, Mr. President, I shall cast my vote in favor of the action taken by the subcommittee, because I know of the great care taken by the subcommittee headed by the Senator from Michigan [Mr. FERGUSON]. I know they went into great detail in regard to these matters. Furthermore, I have confidence in President Eisenhower, the greatest military general, I imagine, now living. If he says the recommended appropriation is sufficient, that should go a long way toward convincing the people of the United States, because he is responsible, not only as a great general who has led our forces to great military victories, but

course.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, I wish to commend the Senator from Michigan [Mr. FERGUSON] for the overall, comprehensive statement he has made in support of what is perhaps the largest appropriation bill that has been largest appropriation bill that has been before the Senate in many years.

Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will the Senator from Massachusetts yield to me at this point?

Mr. SALTONSTALL. I yield.

Mr. MAYBANK. As I understand the situation, the chairman of the subcommittee, the senior Senator from Michigan [Mr. FERGUSON], who did so much fine work both day and night on this fine work both day and night on this bill-and I think he will agree that I sat with him-has agreed to the adopsat with him-has agreed to the adoption of all the committee amendments tion of all the committee amendments except my amendment. Is that correct?

Mr. FERGUSON. All the committee amendments have been adopted, but it is understood that from now on they can be amended or can be rejected. That is the present situation.

Mr. MAYBANK. Yes. Of course, the distinguished Senator from Michigan and the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts realize that only five of us were present in the subcommittee at the meeting which was held late in the evening; and thereafter, because of the great work pressure upon Senators, some members of the full committee were not able to be present at the full committee meeting.

Let me say that I deeply appreciate what the distinguished senior Senator from Michigan has done for so many weeks in working on the bill; and I can ator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD] has said, supplement what the distinguished Senby stating that everyone who wished to testify regarding the bill had a chance to do so.

At this time let me inquire about the procedure in connection with the various amendments, including the committee amendments. Will it be necessary to have the bill read for amendment?

Mr. FERGUSON. That will not be necessary. Amendments of any sort, either to the text of the bill itself or to committee amendments, will be in order, just as if the committee amendments had not already been agreed to.

Mr. MAYBANK. Will the legislative part of the bill be taken up before the socalled money part of the bill? It is immaterial to me, of course.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the understanding of the Chair that the bill can be amended at any point, whenever a Senator who wishes to offer an amendment obtains the floor.

Mr. FERGUSON. Yes; just as if the Yes; just as if the committee amendments had not already been agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

Mr. FERGUSON. I point out that the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina is included.

Mr. MAYBANK. I thank the Senator from Michigan. I know he is agreeable to having that course followed, and I was not attempting to quarrel with him about

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, it is not my intention at the present time to discuss the amendment the Senator from South Carolina offered. At a later time the Senator from Michigan will discuss it.

Mr. MAYBANK. The Senator from Massachusetts is referring to one of the amendments the Senate has approved temporarily, is he not?

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Yes.

Mr. President, again I commend the Senator from Michigan for the fine work he has done on the bill and for the comprehensive statement he has made regarding it.

Mr. FERGUSON. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. Let me say that he also labored very greatly, and we apprecite very much, indeed, his outstanding service as chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

OBJECTION TO COMMITTEE MEETINGS DURING SENATE SESSION Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Massachusetts yield to me? Mr. SALTONSTALL. I yield.

Mr. MORSE. I have been called to my office and will be off the floor for a few minutes. I object to the holding of any committee meetings today or tomorrow while the Senate is in session. I now ask unanimous consent that during my temporary absence from the floor, if a request is made for authority for a com

mittee to meet while the Senate is in session, my objection be applied.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, while the Senator from Oregon is still in the Chamber let me say I think the acting majority leader, the distinguished senior Senator from California [Mr. KNOWLAND], who has temporarily left the floor, should hear the request in order that there may be no misunderstanding.

Mr. MORSE. I assumed that another Senator was acting for him.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, I see the Senator from California returning to the Chamber at this time. For his information let me say that the Senator from Oregon has just requested unanimous consent that when he is not

the floor, either today or to

morrow

Mr. MORSE. Oh, no.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Then will the Senator from Oregon restate his request? Mr. MORSE. Yes. I have stated that I have been called to my office for a few minutes. I have asked unanimous consent that if during my absence a request is made for authority for a committee to meet today or tomorrow, while the Senate is in session, it shall be understood that I have a standing objection to such a request, and that during my absence for a few minutes, that objection will be applied.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That was the understanding of the Chair.