Mr. RILEY. Could you tell us the over-all cost, taking into consideration the increased construction cost, the deletions and additions! Could you give us the total as it now stands?

Mr. JERNIGAN. I am not sure that I understand, sir.

Mr. RILEY. The over-all cost of the whole Moroccan project.

Mr. JERNIGAN. The over-all cost of the Moroccan project as we now understand it to be planned is $258 million, to be financed from fiscal year 1952 funds, plus $42,000,000 which has been authorized to be financed by later funds from some other source, plus approximately $120,000,000 to be included in a program for fiscal year 1953 which we have not been given any direct line item breakdowns on, as to the amount of work.

Mr. RILEY. In other words, the potential or proposed program now would cost $420 million, in round figures?

Mr. JERNIGAN. Approximately. That is the best information we have now.

General MYERS. That is correct, sir.
Mr. GARLOCK. I have one more question.
Mr. RILEY. Yes.

BASES UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Mr. GARLOCK. How many bases do you actually have construction work on, now under way?

Mr. JERNIGAN. Construction work is under way now at three bases. Also, the area POL pipeline system.

Mr. GARLOCK. What is the total number of bases included in the $420 million?

Mr. JERNIGAN. The $420 million includes five bases, plus a headquarters site at Rabat, and the area pipeline system.

I would also like to add that in this $420 million are not included auxiliary facilities such as aircraft-warning systems, communications systems, ammunition storage, and several other separate programs which have not yet been completely firmed up, which I am not prepared to give any estimate of the cost on, except that we do know that they are to be built.

Mr. RILEY. Are there any other questions?

We will recess, then, until 2 o'clock, and Mr. Jernigan will be excused.

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. RILEY. The committee will come to order.

I will ask Mr. Donnelly to make the next presentation.

APPORTIONMENT SCHEDULE FOR RELEASE OF $100,000,000 IN 1951 Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to put in the record at this point standard form 132, which actually released the $100,000,000 for the Moroccan air base in 1951, and I would like to invite the committee's attention to the footnote at the bottom of the page, which is as follows:

Explanation of unequal apportionment: The third and fourth quarter apportionments represent only the phasing of the most urgent construction pro

grams which are ready for immediate implementation, and those projects which qualify under established ground rules for apportionment.

Mr. RILEY. The schedule will be inserted in the record at this point. (The schedule referred to is as follows:)

REAPPORTIONMENT SCHEDULE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1952-AGENCY No. 8-300-5

Explanation of unequal apportionments: The third and fourth quarter apportionments represent only the phasing of the most urgent construction programs which are ready for immediate implementation, and those projects which qualify under established ground rules for apportionment. Submitted November 14, 1951.

EXPLANATION OF APPORTIONMENT BASIS

Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. Veatch, does this mean that a portion at least of these construction projects was being apportioned on a time basis rather than on a project basis?

Mr. VEATCH. No, sir.

Mr. DONNELLY. What does it mean?

Mr. VEATCH. To me, it means they are showing the spread of dollars by quarters, anticipating when the actual obligations will be made. It does not in any way affect the number of dollars that can be obligated in any one quarter.

Mr. TURNER. For one particular project.

Mr. SCHAUB. That is right. It does affect the amount they could obligate in any one quarter, but not the amount for a particular project. What I think Mr. Veatch means is, if they had wanted all the funds apportioned and they put all the funds in the first quarter, there would be no objection if that was the way they wanted to obligate it, but as far as the apportionment regulations go, they cannot overobligate the total amount shown on there per quarter. Mr. DONNELLY. Which puts it on a time basis. Mr. SCHAUB. It meansMr. DONNELLY. You just said, Mr. obligate what they had for a quarter. Mr. SCHAUB. To that extent; yes. holding them to that, as far as the initial apportionment was concerned.

Mr. VEATCH. May I see the footnote?

Mr. DONNELLY. Yes [handing].

Schaub, they could not overThat puts it on a time basis. But there was no intention of

Mr. VEATCH. This is an Air Force's note, is it not? The note at the bottom is an Air Force note.

Mr. DONNELLY. It is an Air Force note?

Mr. VEATCH. Yes.

Mr. DONNELLY. Since you approved the form, I will ask you what it meant to you, because the form is prepared for the information of the Bureau of the Budget. I adverted to this at this time because Mr. Harvey yesterday, I think, pinned down the proposition that this form is not designed actually to take into account the apportionment by projects.

Mr. GARLOCK. That is right.

Mr. VEATCH. That is right.

Mr. TURNER. The note is an Air Force note, and as I understand it. when we get these projects that qualify for submission of apportionment, we are required to estimate in which quarter these funds will be obligated, and we do on this left-hand side, as shown on the form. That note was put there to explain the fact that in the fourth quarter no obligations were anticipated because all we were requesting here were projects which were ready, the funds were ready to be obligated and therefore this did not apply to the over-all availability of funds available to the Air Force under the construction appropriation.

Mr. DONNELLY. Did this mean that all projects were not funded in their entirety within the available appropriations on a project basis? Mr. TURNER. No. This meant that regardless of the appropriated amount, that this particular apportionment request was for those project only which were ready to be let for contract.

Mr. DONNELLY. As to those projects, was the apportionment for those on a project basis?

Mr. TURNER. Technically, as far as this form is concerned, they are not. The apportionment is in total and may include one or many projects.

Mr. GARLOCK. I think there is another factor that is important here, Mr. Donnelly. That form relates to the total obligations in the appropriation. As of the end of November my record shows there were $3,774,000,000 in this appropriation, including the $144,000,000 carried in the fiscal year 1951. Of that $2,391,000,000 had been apportioned and $1,258,000,000, or 57 percent had been obligated.

As of the end of March, against the same $3,774,000,000, $3,058,000,000 was apportioned and $1,699,000,000 obligated, or 56 percent of the total amount apportioned was obligated by the end of March. Therefore, I would say that within the total amount available for obligation in any one quarter, any project that was ready to go could have been funded in full without violating the apportionment form. Mr. DONNELLY. Let me ask this general question:

Before the Air Force could initiate a request for apportionment, did the Air Force have to have the permission or the acquiescence of the Office of the Secretary of Defense?

Mr. GARLOCK. No, sir.

Mr. DONNELLY. Or the permission or acquiescence of the Bureau of the Budget?

Mr. VEATCH. No, sir.

Mr. DONNELLY. After the $100,000,000 was apportioned, as we have just seen, on November 27, 1951, actually before the next apportionment was approved the Air Force attempted to initiate three separate apportionment requests, as I have noted here, and the first two of which did not get off the ground, and the third was cut drastically in half somewhere along the line. Let us see if Colonel Curtin can explain that.

DISAPPROVAL OF APPORTIONMENT REQUEST OF DECEMBER 27, 1951

Let us take this first one which is identified as request No. 14. The date of it is December 27, 1951. The amount requested is $78,670,000, and that was disapproved in its entirety.

Colonel CURTIN. I can add this to that, Mr. Donnelly: That request, if I recall correctly, was submitted by our office to the Air Force comptroller on the 28th of December, 1951, and it gets back

Mr. DONNELLY. Is that December or November?

Colonel CURTIN. December.

It gets back to the question that you brought up this morning and provides continuity to that picture wherein you requested an explanation of what happened to the list of projects that was made up, dated December 1, 1951, and referred to the letter by Mr. Jernigan. As you recall, I stated that list was transmitted to the Air Force through the headquarters of the Air Force in Europe, and was received by us in the latter part of December, say the 20th. I had personally worked on it for some time and from that date we developed the list, or the spread sheet that I referred to this morning, the initial spread sheet. That spread sheet is what was available when this apportionment request fo December 28 was submitted by the Director of Installations to the Air Force comptroller. That request was returned to us under date of January 14.

Mr. DONNELLY. By whom?

Colonel CURTIN. By the Air Force Comptroller, or Director of the Budget, rather, to be specific. A further outline and clarification of

additional information that was required was set forth. Unfortunately, in the submittal of this-and I did not actually participate in the submittal-but as near as I can figure out, the detailed sheets which were developed were not in fact transmitted to the Comptroller. They asked for the sheets plus additional information, and perhaps Mr. Turner can elaborate as to the source of the requirements. În any event, we got the request back from the Director of the Budget on the 14th of January. We reworked the request and resubmitted it on the 17th of January, as my records show. The request was then in a revised amount of $73,396,000. This second request, in turn, was returned on the 4th of February for additional refinement, and I cannot recall specifically whether additional information was required or not, but at least there was an additional refinement in the format when it was resubmitted.

From the 4th of February to the 13th of February we reworked it and we submitted it, and that submittal was the one, if my understanding is correct, that finally culminated and was used as a basis for the release of the $22,500,000 that has been referred to as the release that Mr. Huggins participated in.

Mr. DONNELLY. That was released February 28?

Colonel CURTIN. Yes. I do not recall the date, but it was finally used, I believe, in the discussions that led up to that release.

Mr. DONNELLY. As I understand it, you were the one who got up the three successive apportionment requests?

Colonel CURTIN. As a matter of clarity, I make a request on the Director of the Budget to initiate apportionment requests. He normally initiates the request and prepares the 131 and 132 forms and the letter of transmittal. I prepare the back-up and other detailed information that is required or specifically requested.

Mr. DONNELLY. Did you understand the type of information required in order to initiate a request?

Colonel CURTIN. In the general format; yes. There was no doubt in my mind as to the general type. I would like to make it clear, however, that in certain cases there were areas of particular interest in various review echelons on which additional information was required. I think the type of information has been always fairly known by all concerned. As to whether we submitted it with the request varied as to procedure. However, we were required to have that information in support of each request, and to have it available for intelligent discussion with review agencies.

Mr. DONNELLY. Do you want to take it up from there, Mr. Turner? Mr. TURNER. I think what Colonel Curtin said is generally true. From the point of view of the Director of the Budget we were still operating, both from good management and from Mr. Garlock's memorandum, which said that no more money would be apportioned until the cost of what we have done in line items with previous money was known, and what we proposed to do with the money that was appropriated by Public Law 254. We felt in the Comptroller's Office there was not much point in resubmitting the thing and having it returned. We were trying to get it to meet our requirements, those of the Office of the Secretary of Defense and of the Bureau of the Budget.

Colonel CURTIN. I would like to add to that and extend those remarks, if I may. I overlooked that particular requirement. The