Слике страница
PDF
ePub

Sixth. Personnel facilities, which are desirable for welfare morale purposes and to increase the reenlistment rate. Seventh. Family housing, and

serves me correctly, in authorizations proposed for the Air Force was for concrete pavements. We were also disturbed by the fact that the estimates for Eighth. Quarters for technical per- paving showed such great variation in sonnel.

Beginning with the ninth item, enlisted barracks, and continuing through item 10, auxiliary warehouses and augmentation of service facilities, and item 11, land acquisition, the committee has applied some reductions.

At this point, Mr. President, I should like to refer to the classification of operational shortages, which includes runway extensions and aprons. The Senator from Louisiana, earlier during the day, pointed to the large amount of money which is proposed in this authorization for the extension of runways, and of aprons, in particular.

The extension of runways and the building of larger apron areas has been occasioned, and is justified in the committee's judgment, by the switchover from conventional aircraft to jet aircraft. We find that jet aircraft require longer runways.

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

Mr. CASE. I shall yield in a moment. Jet aircraft, particularly the new jet bombers, require longer runways than conventional type aircraft. The aprons are required of a larger size and to a larger extent because of the tremendous blasts which are emitted in the operation of jet aircraft, which sweep up gravel and fine cinders and other material, and create a stream or blast which is very detrimental to the operation of jets.

Consequently, the testimony is to the effect that, in the interest of sound operation and economic operation, and to avoid a high rate of deterioration, jet aircraft require aprons that can be free of the gravel and cinders which are found when taxiways and aprons are so limited that grime and gritty material are swept into the succeeding plane. I now yield to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. LONG. Did the Senator make any effort to determine how the service went about calculating the amount of parking aprons they would need?

Mr. CASE. The Senator from South Dakota would like to call attention to the fact, as he has earlier, that the review by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Installations resulted in a reduction of approximately $550,400,000 in the requests made to Congress, and that of that amount 9 percent was a reduction in parking areas due to design changes. I submit that figure indicates that there was some screening of the requests.

Mr. LONG. I should like to ask the Senator if the committee undertook to determine how the Air Force arrived at its requirements for parking areas?

Mr. CASE. We did, in this respect, that we went through each proposal for each installation, and we called attention to the amount which was requested for aprons and for runway extensions, and the whole category of concrete pavements. I may say that we were somewhat bothered by the fact that approximately $236 million, if my memory

different sections of the country.

The Senator might note that at page 13 of the committee report there are three different items in which specific reductions in the proposed authorizations for paving were made, because we felt that the unit cost per yard of paving was too high on the record that had been established during the questioning of witnesses. In those three specific instances, namely, at Plattsburg, N. Y., Portsmouth, N. H., and the BismarckMinot, N. Dak., area, we proposed specific reductions ranging from $214,000 at Portsmouth to $1,094,000 in the North Dakota area with respect to that particular item.

Mr. LONG. I should like to suggest to the Senator that he will find he has not been getting the full story on the requirements of the parking areas. This is an important subject. I believe the I believe the Senator will find that more than 50 percent of the $235 million allocated for concrete is for parking areas. So far as I am concerned, the service can have runways as long as they would like to have them, but I believe that if the Air Force wants to spend millions of dollars on parking areas, someone should look into the necessity for them.

Unless I miss my guess, the Senator will find that most of this amount is for parking areas. The Senator will find that the Air Force determines its requirements for parking areas in this way. They take a square area measured by the width of a plane from wingtip to wingtip, and multiply that distance by the length of the plane from the propellor to the tail. Then they multiply the result by 32. If every plane were placed wingtip to wingtip, they would still have 32 times the space they would need, even without the planes overlapping one another. training bases the Air Force uses a ratio of 5 to 1.

On

It has been my experience in working with this problem that the Air Force never stated any difference in requirements, whether it was asking for parking areas for use by jets or by conventional aircraft. The Air Force used the same parking ratio, namely, 32 to 1 for their operational bases, and 5 to 1 for their training bases.

It appeared to me, as I believe it would appear to any person, that the Air Force request was excessive in asking for enormous seas of concrete. Of course, the Air Force could operate with much less concrete. Under actual fighting conditions, they do operate with much less concrete. For example, the Marine Corps informs me that during the war the Marine Corps, under actual fighting conditions, where it would be desirable to spread out their planes, used a ratio of 12 to 1, instead of the 32 to 1 the Air Force is using.

If the Air Force were willing to use a little dolly to move airplanes, as airline planes are moved into position, and methods that many people use in commercial parking areas, it could get along

with a great deal less concrete, and would not require this enormous sea of concrete.

I have visited many airbases, and I have yet to find one where there was not this enormous surplus of parking areas.

I

That is one of the largest items in the bill. I do not have amendments prepared on parking areas, but I suspect that that is one place where the services might be requested to limit themselves to what is absolutely necessary. I should like to suggest to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee that in his study of these matters he attempt to determine whether it is necessary to have this enormous amount of concrete. know he will find that the Air Force in its testimony admits that this enormous amount of concrete does not increase the security of the base, and it does not increase the safety of the airplanes. Their testimony shows that if a match were set to one of those planes it would explode, and it would be impossible to get any of the other airplanes off the parking apron, because the flames would spread too rapidly from one plane to another.

The Senator will probably find that overseas we tried to separate these aprons, while in the United States there is one big, continuous apron where a single hit igniting one plane would burn up all the rest of them.

Mr. CASE. Obviously, on the floor of the Senate I do not think one can go into the details of all these installations, but I can assure the Senator from Louisiana that the committee was concerned with the question of paving and with the great amount that is incorporated in the authorization, but we were also impressed with the fact that we were dealing with a new situation in the

United States. When we talk about the development of bases in the United States we have to assume that there may be combat conditions affecting the operations of bases even in the United States.

I have before me a breakdown of justifications on some of these bases. I shall not identify it, because I do not think a particular installation should be identified in the record, but it is one of the new fighter bases. The total amount requested for paving aggregates $3,213,000. $1,430,000 of that, almost 50 percent of it, is for the main runway. The taxiways account for another million dollars. Then there are some warmup pads and some other items, but the amount for aprons is approximately 20 percent of the total amount. The amount for parking aprons is less than 10 percent of the total. In one instance the cost of the apron was approximately $300,000.

Mr. LONG. Is that an existing base?
Mr. CASE. It is a brand new base.

Mr. LONG. I shall be glad to make some comparisons for the Senator, because it is my impression that, generally speaking, the parking aprons will cost more than will the runways. I shall be glad to acquire some information on the subject and make it available to the Senator.

Mr. CASE. The Senator is welcome to inspect the breakdown if he cares to do so.

Mr. LONG. The Senator is referring to one particular base. I do not quarrel with his judgment in that particular instance. However, I believe I can find for the Senator many examples where the cost of parking areas greatly exceeds the cost of the runway.

Mr. CASE. The Senator may be able to do that. With the percentages, we have a concrete picture of the various items.

Mr. President, at this point I ask unanimous consent to have placed in the RECORD a letter dated June 16, 1954, from Franklin G. Floete, Assistant Secretary of Defense, which is addressed to me, in response to a request which I made during the time he was testifying before the committee. I should like to read the first paragraph:

During my testimony before your subcommittee on June 1, 1954, concerning the Department of Defense public works authorization bills (S. 3260 and H. R. 9242), you requested that information be furnished covering the items totaling approximately $550,400,000 which were deleted during my review of the original programs submitted by the three services.

There is in the letter a breakdown showing the various categories in which deletions were made.

A study of the letter will support, I think, what I said earlier, that the review by the Assistant Secretary of Defense and his staff resulted in some definite reductions in the program as submitted to the Congress. The review by the committee accomplished a further reduction.

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

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,

Washington, D. C., June 16, 1954.

Hon. FRANCIS CASE,

United States Senate.

DEAR SENATOR CASE: During my testimony before your subcommittee on June 1, 1954 concerning the Department of Defense public-works authorization bill (S. 3260 and H. R. 9242), you requested that information be furnished covering the items totaling approximately $550,400,000 which were deleted during my review of the original programs submitted by the three services.

The greater portion of this sum ($444,500,000) consisted of: (1) limitations in the scope of various Air Force projects in order to attain maximum utilization of existing structures, and to assure that facilities were not programed in excess of firm requirements; (2) the deferral of construction not vitally needed at this time; (3) the elimination of projects considered infeasible from an engineering or economic standpoint; and (4) other necessary changes in the Air Force program. A breakdown reveals that the major categories comprising this $444,500,000 total are: warehousing-15 percent (arrangements are being made to meet a portion of the storage requirements by transferring to the Air Force excess Army storage space); hangars and shops-14 percent (the provision of less expensive type hangars, and

increased utilization of maintenance facilities previously provided); utilities-13 percent (deletion of unnecessary roads, and elimination of water and electric services programed for structures deleted from the bill); airfield pavements-9 percent (reduction of parking areas due to design changes); community, recreational and administrative items-9 percent (deletion of projects not considered essential under conditions of ordinary austerity); special Air Defense Com

mand projects-9 percent (savings due to use of existing bases in lieu of proposed new installations, and other program revisions). Reductions and deferrals of miscellaneous projects for medical, operational, and communication facilities, together with other required changes make up the remaining 31 percent of the $444,500,000 total.

The reduction of the Navy program from the original submission amounted to approximately $103,619,000. Similar to the reductions in the Air Force program it consisted, for the most part, of reductions to attain and assure that facilities were not in excess of firm requirements, deferrals of items not considered vitally needed at this time, deletion of projects infeasible from an economic standpoint, and reductions in estimate not in consonance with current policies. Of this reduction of $103,619,000, policies. Of this reduction of $103,619,000, 21 percent are research and development facilities (deleted or deferred for further planning); 24 percent are fleet-shore facilities (deferred for further planning); 11 percent are Marine Corps facilities (considered not vitally needed at this time); 10 percent aviation overhaul facilities, 7 percent airfield pavements, and 6 percent storage facilities (considered in excess of firm requirements or not vitally needed at this time); 6 percent utilities (considered in excess of requirements); together with miscellaneous reductions amounting to 15 percent.

The reduction in the Army program initially submitted amounted to $2,281,000, resulting for the most part from estimating adjustments. The only items specifically deleted were a project for family housing at Killeen Base, Tex., estimated cost $496,000; a project for road construction at Sandia Base, N. Mex., estimated cost $54,000; and a utility item at Fort George G. Meade, Md., estimated cost $70,000.

Sincerely yours,

FRANKLIN G. FLOETE. Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Dakota yield?

Mr. CASE. I yield.

Mr. LONG. The Senator referred to a parking apron costing around $300,000. I should like to refer the Senator to the 1952 bill, where the cost of the parking apron requested at Lake Charles, La., was $3 million, which is 10 times the cost of the apron to which the Senator has referred. It indicates what I have stated, that at many bases the cost of the aprons runs into the millions of dollars. They are more expensive than are the runways.

Mr. CASE. The committee will be glad to make a specific investigation of it. The committee was disturbed by the great variation in the unit costs. It found them running all the way from $7 a yard up to $25 a yard. We found in We found in some instances that the engineers based the unit cost upon a history of recent contracts, and in many cases they were round figures. The $25 cost concerned the committee a great deal, and we took some special testimony on that subject. We found that in that instance a heavier base was required than that which was required at some other places, and the cost of excavation was higher. We admonished the Department of Defense that we shall expect closer estimating in any subsequent presentation, and that we shall expect them to accomplish such savings as can be had through calling for competitive bids.

Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Dakota yield? Mr. CASE. I yield.

Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of myself and the senior Senator from Delaware [Mr. WILLIAMS] and ask that it be printed and lie on the table. The The PRESIDING OFFICER. amendment will be received, be printed, and lie on the table.

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I have no objection to the amendment being printed and lying on the table, but I understand from the majority leader that it is his purpose to complete action on the bill this evening.

Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, if the Senator will accept the amendment, I shall appreciate it. Will the Senator permit me to call it up?

There

The PRESIDING OFFICER. is no amendment pending at the present moment.

Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, I should like to call up my amendment.

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I had not completed my statement. I should like to complete it before considering the Senator's amendment.

If it would be of any particular assistance to the Senator from South Carolina to consider the amendment at this time, I have no objection to interrupting my remarks for that purpose.

Mr. SMATHERS. Mr. President, may we have the amendment read?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from South Dakota yield for the purpose of having the amendment read at this time?

[blocks in formation]

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Dakota yield, with the understanding that he will not lose the floor?

Mr. CASE. I yield.

Mr. KNOWLAND. It is now approaching 7 o'clock. It is not my desire to keep the Senate in session beyond that hour. If the distinguished Senator from South Dakota would be prepared to finish his opening statement, it would be printed in the RECORD and would be available for the information of all Senators tomorrow. I shall then propose that the Senate recess until 12 o'clock noon tomorrow.

Of course, if there are insertions to be made in the RECORD or speeches to be made, the Senate will be held in session for that purpose. But I give assurance to the Senate that there will not be any voting tonight, nor will there be any quorum calls for the purpose of voting on motions or amendments.

I understand that upon the conclusion of the discussion of the amendment now under consideration, the Senator from Louisiana desires to speak for about 5 minutes.

Mr. CASE. Speaking for myself, I would have no objection to the amendment which the Senator from South Carolina has offered, provided it be modified in one or two respects. Instead of using the word "fund," I suggest, since this is an authorization bill, that the word "authorization" he used.

I also suggest the insertion of the clause: "and so long as the national security shall not be impeded," following the phrase "so far as practicable."

Would the Senator from South Carolina agree to modifying the amendment which he has offered for himself and on behalf of the Senator from Delaware?

Mr. MAYBANK. I appreciate the Senator's suggestion. I shall ask that the amendment be changed so as to substitute the word "authorization" for the word "fund." I had intended to offer the amendment to an appropriation bill, because hearings are being held on a deficiency appropriation bill.

Mr. CASE. The amendment then will be consistent with the assurance which was received from representatives of the Department of Defense, during the consideration of the bill, that it was their intention to use competitive bidding so far as was practical, and so far as it did not impede the national security.

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

Mr. CASE. I yield. Mr. MAYBANK. This is a construction bill. It is not a bill relating to atomic energy or to other matters about which we are not at liberty to speak. As the Senator from South Dakota has said, I see no reason why the amendment is not acceptable.

Mr. CASE. I may say that the bill contains items for about $68 million of highly classified projects, as to which no printed testimony will be found. Some of the projects are to be located over

seas.

The import of the language, likewise, is contained in all the testimony I have read. I think the Senator from South Dakota will bear out my statement that the representatives of the various departments have indicated that what the amendment provides is what they intend to do anyway.

If the suggestion of the Senator from Massachusetts is adopted, it will not be practicable to solicit bids, in that Congress will have determined that in certain cases bids will not be practicable. I think the language as submitted will think the language as submitted will cover the situation.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. As I see it, the words "national security" are extremely important, simply for the reason that the Department of Defense and everyone else who has anything to do with the matter will have knowledge that competitive bidding should be carried out in every instance, unless the national security is involved in some way.

For instance, I know of some bases which are now being built, as to which which are now being built, as to which it will be necessary to have 3 or 4 different contractors combine to form a new company, so that they can go forward with the bidding. The words "so far as practicable" may be sufficient, but I cannot see how the words "in the interest of national security" will hurt the bill in any way. They add a little, and they hurt in no way whatsoever.

I hope the Senate will accept the amendment in that form. If the amendment shall be agreed to, I shall gladly fight for its acceptance in conference.

Mr. CASE. The phrase suggested was "national security," not "national de"national security," not "national defense."

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from South Dakota desire to have the amendment restated?

Mr. CASE. I should like to have the amendment restated.

The CHIEF CLERK. On page 73, after

Mr. MAYBANK. I read the report line 18, it is proposed to add the followwhich the able Senator made.

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

Mr. CASE. I yield.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. I hope and trust that the Senate will accept the amendment as now offered, containing the language, "so far as practicable and if the interest of the national security shall not be impeded thereby."

If that language is included, I, as chairman of the committee, with the approval of the Senator from South Dakota, shall gladly accept the amendment. I feel that that language should be included, because authorizations relating to national security are contained in the bill.

ing new section:

SEC. 510. All contracts entered into by the United States pursuant to the authorization contained in this act shall be awarded, so far as practicable, and if the interest of the national security shall not be impaired thereby, on a competitive basis to the lowest responsible bidder.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Do I understand that the amendment as just read is acceptable?

Mr. CASE. It is agreeable to the committee.

Mr. MAYBANK. And the phrase will be "national security," not "national defense"?

Mr. CASE. That is correct.

Mr. MAYBANK. The Senator from

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, will Delaware and I wish to protect the nathe Senator yield?

Mr. CASE. I yield.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I might say to the Senator from Massachusetts that the words "so far as practicable" would take care of cases which I pointed out, in which a contract related to some highly classified material. I see no reason to modify the language further than as the amendment has been written, and as it is now at the desk. It was accepted by the Senate, and was adopted overwhelmingly last year.

tional security, as do the Senator from South Dakota and the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Certainly; that is all we want to do.

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

Mr. CASE. I yield to the Senator from Mississippi, our colleague on the committee, and a very useful member of the committee.

Mr. STENNIS.

Speaking simply as a member of the subcommittee, I believe

I

the amendment to be very timely. think the legislative history which is being made makes very clear what is intended, and that it is necessary to have the words relating to the national security included in an amendment of this kind. I hope the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from South Carolina are entirely satisfied, because I am heartily in favor of the amendment.

Mr. WILLIAMS. If it is agreeable to the Senator from South Carolina to accept the change in the wording, I am willing to accept the amendment.

Mr. MAYBANK. The amendment is agreeable to me, for the reason that the words "national security" mean something much different than the words "national defense."

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is correct. Mr. MAYBANK. If Air Force bases, shipyards, or forts are necessary for the national defense, that is a different question.

The

The PRESIDING OFFICER. question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified, offered by the Senator from South Carolina for himself and on behalf of the Senator from Delaware.

The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I shall now decline to yield further until I have completed by statement, in accordance with the observation made by the distinguished majority leader.

The largest single reduction was made in a program for the replacement of temporary barracks at BOQ's at several Army installations throughout the country. This program was presented to the Congress as a result of the President's budget message to the Congress and his state of the Union message, in which he pointed out that adequate housing would contribute to the improvement of morale and the maintenance of the high professional character of our military services. Almost $97 million of the Army program is intended for this purpose. While the committee is sympathetic with the objective of improving existing housing, it has recommended a lesser, yet substantial, program for the replacement of temporary barracks and bachelor officer quarters. When it is important to limit our military expenditures, the committee believes that this replacement program can be spread over a longer period of time. In taking this action, the committee was mindful that the barracks and BOQ replacement program was added to an earlier hard-core program of $158 million that was evolved under the initial guidance furnished by the Secretary of Defense.

TITLE I-ARMY

The Army would be authorized $228,829,000 by this bill. Of this total, $121 million is authorization within the Continental United States, $19 million is outside Continental United States and $87 million is for classified installations and facilities.

Of the total Army authorization, $87,700,000, or 38 percent, is for the continuation of the so-called NIKE program for defense of the United States and of installations outside the United States; $54,600,000, or 24 percent of the program is to provide replacement of temporary

[blocks in formation]

The Navy program is based on a continuing shore station improvement plan to support the current and planned force levels. The facilities requested are necessary to meet strategic requirements, to keep abreast of technological advancement in materials and weapons, to replace deteriorated facilities, and to conduct research to meet operational needs of the fleet. For shipyard facilities, the Navy is authorized almost $11 million to develop facilities within the United States for the repair and revision of the Forrestal type carrier, for modernizing shop facilities, for the replacement of badly deteriorated waterfront facilities, and for improving research facilities in

the mine field.

Fleet facilities would be granted new authorization of $11,320,000 to keep abreast of technological advances in underseas weapons, and to develop installations used directly in support of fleet operations.

The largest category in the Navy program is for aviation facilities, which would be authorized almost $70 million in the bill, approximately 49 percent of the Navy program. This authorization is intended to continue the development of the master jet airfields and their auxiliaries, to provide operational facilities for modernizing several air-training stations, and to provide additional research and development facilities to keep pace with modern advancements in aircraft

and weapons.

Supply facilities would receive $9,660,000 in new authorization, largely for bulk storage of fuels, cold-storage facilities, and fire-protection facilities.

The Marine Corps would receive an authorization in the amount of $3,330,000 to correct deficiencies in existing training installations and logistic support installations of the Marine Corps.

Ordnance, service school, medical, and communication facilities make up the remainder of the program, in a total of some $38 million. These authorizations provide improvements to ammunition storage and handling facilities and safety devices at ordnance depots, correction of deficiencies in training facilities, and improvement of living conditions for uniformed personnel at several continental training installations, and augmentation of an installation in the

Pacific which is a link in the worldwide naval communications system.

Sixty-three million three hundred and fifty-eight thousand dollars of the Navy authorization is for classified installations, which will not be further discussed at this time for obvious reasons.

TITLE III-AIR FORCE

The fundamental purpose of the construction authorization contained in title III of the bill is to provide, by the end of fiscal year 1957, the minimum facilities required for sustained operation of the 137-wing Air Force which is presently planned and programed.

Of the total construction authorization for the Air Force of $834,827,000 proposed by this bill, only $398,954,000 represents new monetary authorization. By a method of reapplying existing unfunded authorization against the total new requirements, 40 percent of the construction required in this year's program will be accomplished without new authorization. At all the stations requiring additional construction, the Air Force determined the amount of unfunded authorization presently available. This amount of unfunded authorization was applied against the total requirements now existing at the station so that the net effect of the action is to reduce the new authorization required by reprograming unused monetary authorization with the necessary changes in authorizing language. The pending bill readjusts the language to conform to the current program while

retaining the monetary authorization.

The Air Force construction authorization contains approximately $26 million in authorization for personnel facilities. This term includes items such as enlisted men's clubs, chapels, educational buildings, and swimming pools. Past experience has indicated that such items are the ones which are likely to suffer in review, both within the Department of Defense and in the course of congressional consideration. From personal inspections of bases in the United States and overseas, the committee is of the opinion that facilities of this type have a measurable effect on morale and reenlistment rates. In their appearances before the Armed Services Committee, the top ranking civilian and military officials of the Department of Defense have stressed time and again that the problem of securing and retaining military personnel of the desired caliber is probably the chief problem with which those officials must deal. Mr. LONG.

paired by the difficulty of retaining trained mechanics in the Air Force.

Mr. LONG. I should like to suggest to the Senator that the way to keep mechanics in the Air Force is by hiring them as civilians, and requiring such civilians to have reserve status, in order that, in the event of an emergency, they may be called into service immediately. Most of our air bases are here in the United States. If mechanics at those bases were to be hired on a civilian status, it would be much easier to obtain mechanics who are needed for the service, and they could be available as reserves. They could be called into service immediately in the event of war.

It seems to me that would be a much

better arrangement than the idea of trying to provide enormously costly fringe benefits. I have not made an attempt to determine what the total cost of all the fringe benefits would be, but I

am sure the cost would amount to an enormous figure. Even if fringe benefits are provided, there will still be a great majority of service personnel whom no

one expects or desires to have re-enlist. For example, in the Army, most of the manpower is obtained by drafting young men. Most of the young men will leave that branch of the service when their period of service expires, regardless of the fringe benefits provided.

There is only a small percentage of the total service personnel that it is desired to retain in the service. It seems

to me the best way to assure retaining them in the service is to employ them as civilians and require that they have a reserve status. Certainly that could be done with regard to mechanics stationed at bases in this country.

Mr. CASE. The question of whether or not that would be a more successful method than the present one is, of course, a matter of opinion. A study has been made by the Secretary of Defense recently

Mr. LONG. I am sure the solution I have suggested is not one which would be particularly palatable to a commanding officer who likes to have his men under his command 24 hours a day, subject to his orders at all times, rather than have civilian employees who would work only 8 hours a day. However, I think the Senator will find that at many of the bases most of the highly qualified persons working in the servicing of aircraft are civilians in various capacities.

Mr. CASE. The Senator from South Dakota is of the opinion that in some places solutions may be found by the em

Senator yield for a question?
Mr. President, will the ployment of trained mechanics; but I

Mr. CASE. I yield for a question. Mr. LONG. Will the Senator tell us is today among enlisted personnel? what the reenlistment rate in the Army

Mr. CASE. I am sorry I cannot give that figure exactly at this time. How ever, I shall obtain it for the Senator from Louisiana. The figure varies in the different services. Eighty-two percent of the officer personnel in the Air Force is in the Reserve category. The committee was impressed by a statement made to it, both in the hearings and in our inspection of bases, that the operational efficiency of aircraft is seriously im

heard a commander at one station make a statement, which was not very comforting, that he was bothered at times about the condition of his aircraft because trained mechanics had been taken away from him by competition in civilian life. What the bill provides is necessary if we are to hold some of the trained mechanics, when they obtain skills that command a high wage in civilian life, and have families that wish to move into civilian communities. It is hard to retain such mechanics at times when they are needed. That is a personnel problem. It is a little outside the immediate jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on

Real Estate and Military Construction, although it is related to the problem of providing these facilities, which we hope will result in an increase in the reenlistment rate.

We are impressed by the argument that the primary responsibility for determining whether the Defense Establishment will seek to obtain its mechanics by employment from civilian life, rather than by enlistment, is one for the entire Committee on Armed Services, rather than to have the decision reached as a

matter of policy on the basis of recommendations made by the Subcommittee on Real Estate and Military Construction.

Mr. President, at this time I should like to complete my statement on the bill:

From the realization that the cost of losing trained personnel and of training their replacements is likely to exceed by many times the relatively modest authorization for personnel facilities included in this bill, and because the committee is inclined to the view that there is a relationship between the existence of these facilities and reenlistment rates, the personnel facilities program has been recommended in substantially the same amount as was presented to the committee.

The largest single category of construction authorized for the Air Force is airfield pavements, which category represents approximately 31 percent of the total authorization, or some 235 millions of dollars. Modern bombers, fighters, and transports are larger, heavier, and faster than their predecessors. Since the modern plane is larger, more paved area is needed for parking purposes; since it is faster, more paved area is required for longer runways, for landings, and for takeoffs; since it is heavier, the weight on the wheels is increased, thus requiring the strengthening of existing pavements, to support the added load.

The great preponderance of the Air Force authorization is for existing bases. Exceptions to this observation are the reactivation of the Strategic Air Command bases at Clinton-Sherman Airport, Okla., and Columbus Air Force Base, Miss.; the initiation of construction at Seymour-Johnson Air Force Base, N. C., and Myrtle Beach Airport, S. C.; and seven new bases required to strengthen the air defense of the United States. Bases in the latter category are the Bismarck-Minot area, North Dakota; the Fargo area, North Dakota-and the committee understands that to mean the Fargo-Grand Forks area, North Dakota-the Glasgow-Miles City area, Montana; K. I. Sawyer, Mich.; Klamath Falls, Oreg.; the southern California area; and the Traverse City area, in Michigan.

In conclusion, Mr. President, I wish to say the committee spent a great deal of time on the hearings; and the committee submits its recommendations in the belief that they represent a constructive program, with the emphasis placed upon research and development of the facilities for handling strategic weapons, and on such defense activities as NIKE; A. C. and W. systems; installations of

Tacan, about which I may say something further tomorrow; and personnel facilities.

We commend the bill to the consideration of the Senate, and we hope it will be passed in substantially the form in which it is reported.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Dakota yield to me?

Mr. CASE. I yield.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Let me say that the Armed Services Subcommittee

headed by the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. CASE], the other members being the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. DUFF] and the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS], worked more than a month on the bill, and went into it very thoroughly. I wish to commend them for the conscientiousness with which they studied this massive bill.

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I certainly appreciate the kind remarks of the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I can assure the Senate that my colleagues on the subcommittee-the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. DUFF] and the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS]-have been faithful in their attendance and in their work on the subcommittee.

Mr. President, at this time I desire to submit, for printing, a few amendments which are largely technical in nature. They relate to the titles and also to a correction and to an addition. These amendments have been prepared by the clerk, and I ask unanimous consent that they be printed and be available as one amendment, for consideration tomorrow.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments will be received, printed, and lie on the table.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,

if the amendments are merely technical in nature, I am sure there will be no objection to adopting them at this timeif they are merely for the purpose of making corrections.

Mr. CASE. I should say that in one instance they correct one application of the ground rule on the deletion of enlisted men's barracks; and in another instance they include authorization for a land acquisition at Paine Air Force Base, Wash.-which was a special request, and it was the intent of the committee to include it in the recommendations. The amendments can be considered as committee amendments.

Therefore, Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the amendments be considered at this time, and be considered en bloc.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from South Dakota?

Without objection, the amendments will be considered en bloc, and will now be stated.

The CHIEF CLERK. On page 4, in line 6, it is proposed to strike the figures "$2,739,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$3,400,000."

On page 5, line 24, strike the figures "$4,036,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$3,871,000."

On page 40, line 5, strike the figures "$489,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$1,214,000.”

On page 69, line 1, strike the figures "$121,865,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$122,361,000."

On page 69, line 4, strike out the figures "$228,829,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$229,325,000."

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing en bloc to the amendments offered by the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. CASE].

The amendments were agreed to.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, pursuant to the request of the majority leader, it was planned to have the Senate take a recess at this time. However, I understand that the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LONG] wishes to make a few remarks. I now yield to him for that purpose.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the subcommittee for the very diligent work that has been done both by the chairman of the committee, the distinguished senior Senator from South Dakota [Mr. CASE], and by the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS], and the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. DUFF], who also served on the subcommittee.

At one time I had the pleasure of serving on the same subcommittee with the distinguished junior Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS]. I must say it was a great pleasure to serve with him; and I found him to be extremely diligent, and he made every effort to economize where worthwhile economies could be put into effect.

I approached the members of the subcommittee when I heard they were going to conduct hearings on the bill. I told them that it seemed to me there was considerable waste in the bill, and I particularly called their attention to the item on Army barracks, because we had

previously turned down the item, and I

felt that we were very correct in turning it down. When we turned it down, 2 years ago, the Army was 20 percent larger than it is today. Yet here is what the Army said, 2 years ago, when the same proposal was submitted for the same barracks-but with a slightly different argument to back it up. I shall read now from page 6 of the committee report (No. 2078) submitted on House bill 8120 in the 82d Congress, 2d session:

ARMY BARRACKS

The committee heard testimony from the Army in some detail with respect to the rather large number of barrack spaces which it requested. At many installations substantial numbers of barrack spaces were requested, although existing facilities were more than enough to house the present strength and any foreseeable increase. As a general rule the barracks facilities available are of a permanent or semipermanent type.

The justification of the Army for this request is that it has calculated its construction capabilities in the event of full-scale mobilization, and finds that the demands upon its capabilities in the early stages of such mobilization will be in excess of its capabilities. It, therefore, proposes to take up this slack at the present time by the construction of barracks of a permanent type. Had the Army suggested that the slack be taken up in the heavy construction fields, such as ordnance production and other industrial facilities, it would have appeared more logical to the committee. The

« ПретходнаНастави »