Mr. SHERIDAN. Or the Deputy, one or the other. Now there were alternatives to either approve, disapprove, reduce, and so forth, all sorts or alternatives. We have a record of his action or Mr. Vance's action on every case now. The projects under $1 million went into a catch-all submittal, and that was also gone over, so I can assure the committee that this program reflects Mr. McNamara's personal approval.

Senator STENNIS. To what extent were they considered? That intrigues me, that they would have time to look at every item in this bill that is over $1 million.

Mr. SHERIDAN. Well, they were considered over a period of about 2 months.

I

Senator STENNIS. To what extent was each item considered? mean did somebody take in a dozen or two at a time and explain them, or how was that done, just briefly, if you know?

Mr. SHERIDAN. Well, sometimes there might be a dozen, other times there might be one. But in each case the Secretary of the department concerned had the right of a reclama to the Secretary of Defense on the subject issue.

Senator STENNIS. All right.

Mr. SHERIDAN. In other words, this was not done just provisionally in OSD. A copy of the subject issue was furnished to each department, and they had the right through their Secretary to go back to the Secretary of Defense and request reconsideration, so I would say the program was very thoroughly considered.

Senator STENNIS. All right, excuse me, Senator.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Mr. Chairman, I have just one more that is perhaps an observation rather than a question. Mr. Sheridan, on page 17 you stated that the total value of the Defense real property was $37 billion, as of June 30, 1963, an inventory on the real property owned by the United States throughout the world would substantiate those figures. But in addition the property leased to the United States throughout the world, to the Defense Department, you should add $35,742,000 to that, so that the Federal Government, the Defense Department owns $37 billion, as I see it, as of June 30, 1963, but it also leases additional property which requires rental payment of $35 million annually.

Mr. SHERIDAN. We will furnish that up-to-date figure for the record. (The information requested follows:)

Real property leased to DOD throughout the world as of June 30, 1963

United States--.
Outlying areas.

Foreign countries__

Total____.

Annual rental $18, 063, 865 118,000

17, 561, 000

35, 742, 865

Senator SALTONSTALL. You do not disagree with those figures.
Mr. SHERIDAN. No, I cannot disagree with them. I think they are

accurate.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Those are the figures given to the Congress. Mr. SHERIDAN. Yes, sir.

Senator SALTONSTALL. By the General Service Administration.

Mr. SHERIDAN. Now, at today's costs, the replacement value of the $37 billion plant will be over $70 billion or $75 billion. Senator SALTONSTALL. I do not question that.

Mr. SHERIDAN. That is another, so you add the $75 billion on top of the $35 million, and it is quite a figure.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STENNIS. Yes, sir; thank you.

Senator Cannon, do you have some questions at this point?

Senator CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I assume that we will go into all these items in detail.

Senator STENNIS. Yes.

Senator CANNON. And therefore I think I will wait to raise questions.

Senator STENNIS. Subject to the approval of the committee, it is the purpose of the Chair to go into each service, and each item in each service and then back to the Department of Defense. These are the matters more of policy now, high policy.

Senator Smith, do you have any questions?

Senator SMITH. I have no questions at this time.

Senator STENNIS. Senator Yarborough, I call on you next, sir. Senator YARBOROUGH. I have two questions only, Mr. Chairman. Senator STENNIS. As to the specific items, we will take them up. Senator YARBOROUGH. Two questions generally.

Mr. Sheridan, on the top of page 3 of your statement, you say following the fiscal year 1965 authorization request, that of the monies requested, almost 35 percent are for operations and training, 25 percent for troop housing and related items, 10 percent for research and development, 10 percent for maintenance of production, remaining 20 percent for construction requirements for administration, medical services, supply and utilities. Of the requested amount, $1,945 million on the first page, $735 million for family housing is either for construction or repairs. That is about 3734 percent of the entire amount requested.

There seems to be a conflict in those percentages, or is there an actual one, or can they be reconciled, or what are the facts with reference to the percentages at the top of page 3 and the actual percentage on page 1?

Mr. SHERIDAN. Senator Yarborough, it is not inconsistent because what we are talking about on page 2 are facilities in direct support of the Active and Reserve Forces, whereas on page 1 we are talking about the entire scope of the military construction program which also includes the family housing construction program and the mortgage payments and the maintenance and operation of the existing family housing units. It is not inconsistent.

Senator YARBOROUGH. What are you talking about on page 3? You are not talking about the entire program on page 3?

Mr. SHERIDAN. We are talking about direct Active and Reserve Forces construction only.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Construction only?

Mr. REED. I might help to clarify this. There is a requirement in the authorization bill that all costs of housing including O. & M. and debt payment be specifically authorized annually, so in effect we have much more than construction in this $735 million. As a matter of

fact, just a portion of that is for construction-type functions. The rest is for operation and maintenance of the housing, and the debt payment on the housing. This will be explained later.

Senator STENNIS. That is a special account, Senator Yarborough. Ordinarily this bill is for military construction alone, but there is a special situation in this housing act where we permit a revolving fund to an extent for operations.

Senator YARBOROUGH. $507 million for maintenance then you would not consider as a part of your military construction percentages on page 3?

Mr. SHERIDAN. That is right. There is another thing on page 3, Senator, the use of the term in the fourth line, "troop housing." This does not include any family housing. It is just for the bachelor troops.

Senator YARBOROUGH. One further question, and I think I will defer and then take them up specifically when we get there. On this $735 million for family housing, $228 million authorization for new construction, $507 million for maintenance, a half billion dollars for maintenance—is that not a rather high figure, Mr. Secretary, for maintenance of housing alone?

Mr. SHERIDAN. On the maintenance costs for family housing, about 5 years ago this committee-and I think you specifically, Mr. Chairman-asked what the cost per unit of family housing, the average cost was to maintain it, and we came up with a rather quick figure at the time, three unit average, and Mr. Reed and his people have been making detailed studies, cost records, and so forth, and it comes out to practically the same thing, so in answer to your question, Senator Yarborough, I do not feel that it is too high. I think it is reasonable. Senator SALTONSTALL. Will the Senator yield? Senator YARBOROUGH. I yield.

Senator SALTONSTALL. To follow up on what Senator Yarborough has just said, we cannot get a correct interpretation of the $507 million unless you give us the capital costs or the costs of construction of the housing. In other words, how much housing is involved in the $507 million for maintenance of housing, what are the capital costs of the housing on which that $507 million is based?

Mr. SHERIDAN. Senator Saltonstall, that will be given at the time with the approval of the chairman

Senator

question.

SALTONSTALL. That answers Senator

Mr. SHERIDAN. Under title 5.

Yarborough's

Senator STENNIS. Gentlemen, we have always followed a pattern here. We set a special time for housing. It comes really under the Department of Defense. It has its regular place on the agenda, Senator. Your question is very relevant, but I just do not want to get off our main topic this morning. This $507 million is a large sum, and it has to do with maintenance and upkeep and so forth, and to that extent it is not military construction. You are right to detect that. You are right to bring it up. We will get all the facts on this housing later in a special hearning.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I had only these two questions, Mr. Chairman. In accordance with your general policy, we will take those up

specifically later on. I wanted to call attention to them later on so the Secretary's personnel could be prepared.

Senator STENNIS. You are right about it. I still think it is a high figure, but they are doing a lot better than they did with it.

Mr. SHERIDAN. Yes, sir; much better.

Senator STENNIS. I think it is working much better.
Senator Young, do you have some qeustions?

Senator YOUNG of Ohio. Thank you, not at this time.
Senator STENNIS. Senator Inouye?

Senator INOUYE. One question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Sheridan, I note in your testimony beginning on page 18 that since 1961 they have had a total of 669 separate closure reduction actions. When will these actions be completed?

Mr. SHERIDAN. They run over, 2 or 3 years. In one case it will be 10 years.

Senator INOUYE. I also note that you eliminate 149,881 excess jobs. How many jobs have been eliminated as of this date?

Mr. SHERIDAN. I do not have that with me right now. We can furnish it for the record.

(The information requested follows:)

As of April 1965, a total of 89,997 jobs have been eliminated. Of these, 63,428 are military and 26,569 are civilians. The remainder of the job eliminations will occur as the installations are phased out, generally over the next 2 or 3 years.

Senator INOUYE. What percentage of the eliminated jobs have been relocated or somehow assisted in finding new positions?

Mr. SHERIDAN. We have that figure, but I do not have it with me. I will provide that. We have it available.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.

Mr. SHERIDAN. Yes, sir.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (The information referred to follows:)

The figure to respond to Senator Inouye's question: "What percentage of the eliminated jobs have been relocated or somehow assisted in finding new positions?" is being compiled by Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower) and will not be available for a week to 10 days at which time it will be submitted for the committee files.

Senator STENNIS. Senator Jackson?

Mr. SHERIDAN. Good morning, Senator.

Senator JACKSON. I shall defer, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STENNIS. You have a good statement and I think it represents the policy of the Department.

We will take up these items in their regular course and call General Curtin to the stand to represent the Air Force.

Mr. SHERIDAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STENNIS. General Curtin, you are specially welcome back before this committee to justify your Air Force projects. You do an excellent job. You have been with us before, and your work stands up. Your statements are accurate, and we rely on you and your staff a great deal.

You have a prepared statement. Is it all right with you to include your complete statement in the record so we will have the benefit of

all of it, and you may summarize the important parts. What do you wish to do?

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. R. H. CURTIN, DIRECTOR, CIVIL ENGINEERING, U.S. AIR FORCE

General CURTIN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have a rather comprehensive statement which I would prefer to present for the record, if I may with your permission, but I would like to make about three or four brief comments regarding the program.

Senator STENNIS. You may make all the comments you want to. General CURTIN. First of all we are talking about title III of the bill today, which as Mr. Sheridan points out for the Air Force represents $383.3 million. This is about the same size as our last year's program.

However, there are four significant differences in this year's program that I think will be of interest to the committee. First of all, this is the first Air Force program since 1957, that does not include construction for operational missile sites. We do have some money in here for missile sites, but not for new operational missile sites in this program. This is a departure from those programs that you have seen in past years.

The second major point of interest is the fact that this year's program does put primary emphasis on our tactical forces and also gives considerable emphasis to our airlift forces. There is actually $92 million in the program for the tactical forces and a little over $20 million for the airlift forces. This airlift increment is largely associated with the introduction of the C-141 aircraft.

Now the third point of interest, and it will become evident as we go through, is that we have put considerable emphasis this year on things for people in the program. In other words, we want to improve both the living and the working conditions of the people.

You will find that we have considerable emphasis for improved officer and airmen living. We have a continuation of our medical program, considerable emphasis also on community and recreational facilities.

And then the final point I would like to make before we go into the line items is that this year's program for the Air Force includes the first significant increment of facilities to upgrade and modernize our physical plant.

Senator SALTONSTALL. What is that?

General CURTIN. To upgrade and modernize our physical plant. You will recall Mr. Sheridan made this point in his opening statement. I think it is emphasized by the fact that during the last 15 years major portions of the Air Force construction program has had to go into facilities to support missiles and new weapons systems. Very little has gone into upgrading or modernizing the physical plant that we had. So we are now faced with the problem of upgrading and also of replacing the old and the obsolete and the inefficient.

(General Curtin's complete statement follows:)