Senator STENNIS. General Shuler, you may now proceed with your presentation on these appeals.

General SHULER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are asking this committee, sir, to restore $32,088,000. We have not made a reclama on all the cut, sir. We don't feel that is the way to do it. We have picked out the items that we think are the most important to us and the ones that are most needed. This is the $32,088,000.

Senator STENNIS. $32 million out of how many million dollars? General SHULER. The House reduction, sir, was $121,668,000 but some of that, sir, as you know, was in the authorization cuts. As I say, we have picked out the projects that we think are the most important.

ENLISTED MEN'S BARRACKS COMPLEXES: FORT DIX, N.J.; FORT KNOX, KY.; FORT JACKSON, S.C.; AND FORT LEONARD WOOD, MO.

Department of the Army considers that barracks complexes of size proposed in fiscal year 1966 program are a complete package that is an optimum size for programing, design, construction, and use. Our objective is to have the entire cost of each complex authorized and funded in a single program year whenever feasible. The design for a complete complex proceeds in orderly manner at less cost than would be incurred with incremental programing. All support facilities, including utilities and roads, are integrated. Cost to prepare plans, specifications, and contract documents for construction by complex is less since only one bidding is involved. Construction of a complete complex reduces the cost of supervision and administration, shop drawings, and coordination with contractor representatives. Problems are repetitive and allow one-time solution. Savings accrue also from quantity purchase, reduced overhead, and more efficient use of supervisors. Experience shows that cost for construction by complex are less than for the incremental approach. Problem of contractor interference between first and second increment contractors require additional supervisory effort and provide a basis for claims and change orders. When an earlier increment is occupied there is always the problem of interference between troops and contractors. Incremental construction requires surveying, checking, testing, and possible alterations to items in the portion already constructed. Pavements broken, ditches open and back filled, roads and sidewalks repaired where disturbed by second increment construction and represent added costs for incremental construction.

Department of the Army has no experience that indicates that the inclusion of a full barracks complex has overtaxed the local construction capability. Incremental construction has a detrimental effect on control and morale. Splitting command with portion occupying new facility with remaining portion occupying distant facilities (pending completion of increments) creates a problem of command control. Splitting troop occupancy between new and old facilities would create a morale problem. Department of the Army considers that programing barracks and their support facilities in regimental size complex is a sound premise and a great step forward in improving conditions of troop housing. The points outlined were the basis for the adoption of the concept of construction by complete complexes.

As Fort Dix will still have a deficiency of over 5,000 permanent barracks spaces, it is important that this 1,304 space reduction be restored.

As Fort Knox will still have a deficiency of over 8,900 permanent barracks spaces, it is important that this 978 space reduction be restored.

As Fort Jackson will still have a deficiency of over 10,500 permanent barracks spaces, it is important that this reduction of 978 spaces be restored.

As Fort Leonard Wood will still have a deficiency of over 12,000 permanent barracks spaces, it is important that this reduction of 978 spaces be restored.

General SHULER. As you can see, sir, on the second page we have a list of the items, and then we have them tabbed. There are actually 13 items involved. The first item, sir, on the first tab, which is tab A, is a restoration request of $3.375 million on enlisted men's barracks complex at Fort Dix, N.J.

Now I would like, if I may, sir, since three of the other items are almost the same type, to cover these four at one time.

Senator STENNIS. I think that is a good idea.

General SHULER. The first one I have mentioned is a cut in the enlisted men's barracks complex at Fort Dix, N.J. The second item on your list is the same type of cut for a barracks complex at Fort Knox, Ky. The third is the same kind of cut, for a barracks complex at Fort Jackson, S.C. And the last of this group is just below the middle of the page, the same kind of cut at Fort Leonard Wood, Mo.,. for a barracks complex.

HOUSE COMMITTEE REPORT

Now in the committee report of the House Appropriations Committee, on page 4, is a paragraph which in essence says that we must carry forward most vigorously the modernization and replacement of facilities because the committee in essence feels that this has been neglected in the past. We feel the same way, sir. This is for a very large requirement which has to be taken care of or these wooden building are going to fall down.

Senator STENNIS. We agree on this. This committee has supported the Army plan of redoing all these barracks complexes. We approved them here just a few days ago, these same items, for the same amount. Why not just address yourself to the sole point made here by the House, that there is no use to appropriate all at once, but there can be a small percentage holdback: 2.3, 2.6, 2,6, and 2.7.

General SHULER. The reason I quoted

Senator STENNIS. That is all right, I understand.

THREE-BATTALION IN LIEU OF FOUR-BATTALION COMPLEXES

General SHULER (continuing). Is to show you, sir, that we are all' for moving ahead at full speed. Now they cut these items, though, and they said that instead of coming in for four battalions, which is the regiment, that is, the whole complex, we should approach it on a three-battalion level, which means you cut one out. And this is what they did, they cut one battalion out of each of these total complexes. The reason, sir, was that they felt we might overload the contracting industry and therefore our bids might not save as much money as we could if we were not overloading the contracting industry.

FOUR-BATTALION COMPLEXES MORE ECONOMICAL

We maintain, sir, and we have kept very careful account of this, that we have not overloaded them, and we will not overload them. It

is much more economical, sir, to do this at one time. It does not disrupt the training, because if you do it in two increments you have two different contractors working in there eventually, you have part of these men continuing to live in temporary facilities because you have delayed a part. We make the plea, sir, that if Congress wants us to come in at a reduced rate, we would hope that they could tell us in the committee report and do it next year; because we have these plans all finished, we are ready to advertise, sir. This means tearing them apart and it is not really an efficient way to do it, sir. I say that most respectfully.

Senator STENNIS. I understand your whole plan is based on a fourbattalion plan.

General SHULER. Yes, sir. Ten barracks, four battalions; yes, sir. Senator STENNIS. Everything is built around that general theme. General SHULER. Yes, sir.

Senator STENNIS. The effect of the House committee is not to disapprove that, but merely delay the facilities for one battalion. General SHULER. For one battalion. They don't disagree with the concept of the regimental area at all. They merely think we should not come in for a total complex.

Senator STENNIS. Now the administration building, storage, that will go forward as planned?

General SHULER. We will have to cut back on everything so that we only support three battalions and come in the next year for the other battalion with its supporting facilities. This, sir, I maintain, is not the efficient way to do it.

Senator STENNIS. Does this plan include an administration building there for each one of the battalion ?

General SHULER. For each battalion; yes, sir. There are five companies in one of those buildings; five companies, that is a battalion. Senator STENNIS. Are there some buildings in common to all four battalions?

General SHULER. Yes, sir.

Senator STENNIS. How would they fare under this House action? General SHULER. We would have to build those four type buildings, a chapel, a little gymnasium, for the full size complexes. We could not do it any other way.

Senator STENNIS. The House action does not require you to cut back on them?

General SHULER. It did not specifically say so; no, sir.

ADVANTAGES DERIVED FROM FOUR-BATTALION COMPLEX CONSTRUCTION

Senator STENNIS. You could live, then, with the House figures. It does not disturb your plan at all. It just delays one-fourth of it for 1 year.

General SHULER. Sir, we could live with it; yes, sir. What I am trying to say is about four major things. One is that it costs you more to do it twice than to do it with one contractor for a larger amount.

By experience, we know this. The second is, instead of getting the job done in the normal time, we really add a year on getting it done. Therefore, that particular area is disrupted a year longer. It is hard to do your work in the area, train your troops, and so forth.

The other thing is that-and I agree, sir, we can live with it-it is just going to cost in the end more money. This is one reason. And Congress has always supported us, sir, on this full complex, and we came here in good faith this year, the same way, and we did not really know this was going to happen to us.

Senator STENNIS. How much is the reduction on these four items? General SHULER. It is a little over $11 million, sir.

CONSTRUCTION OF THREE FOUR-BATTALION COMPLEXES SUGGESTED

Senator STENNIS. Maybe instead of doing that you would rather knock out one of the four entirely and build the three like you want to and pick up the other one next year. How about that?

General SHULER. I certainly could not argue. That would be a better way to contract it, and the better way to do it, if the cut has to be made; yes, sir.

Senator STENNIS. That would meet all your objections that you have made to this reduction except one, and that is that it delays for 1 year this item.

General SHULER. That is correct, sir. We don't like to do this, but this would be a better way to do it than to cut them up when we are ready to advertise. We have it all designed.

ENLISTED MEN'S BARRACKS COMPLEX, FORT RILEY, KANS.

Senator STENNIS. You did not ask for any money here for Fort Riley, Kans.

General SHULER. We presented that in full before the joint committee and before the House Committee on Appropriations, and they have approved it. It was not a prior authorized item. We presented it fully before the joint Senate committees and we presented it to the House Appropriations Committee, and they have approved it.

Senator STENNIS. For the full amount?

General SHULER. Yes, sir; $9 million.

Senator STENNIS. Why didn't they reduce it?

General SHULER. Because it was at that level, sir.

Senator STENNIS. Just three battalions?

General SHULER. Yes, sir. We could not avoid this because the item we took out of the program, the HAWK facilities in Europe, was $9 million, and the Bureau of the Budget would not allow us to substitute more than $9 million.

Senator STENNIS. After all, you adopted the House plan for three battalions?

General SHULER. We did not want to, sir, but that is all we could do. We were not allowed to substitute any more than we took out of the program.

Senator STENNIS. It was not anybody else's fault. You made that decision. I didn't know why it was less. I noticed that. I just thought you learned how to get better bids.