in operations in the Korean area of hostilities. In August 1951 he received postgraduate instruction in comptrollership at George Washington University, Washington, D.C., from which he was awarded a degree of master of business administration in May 1952. He was next Assistant Director of Programs and Budget, General Planning Group, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Navy Department, Washington, D.C., becoming a captain, and in November 1955 assumed command of the U.S.S. Sierra, destroyer tender. During the period December 1956 to September 1959 he was Assistant Director of Budget and Reports in the Office of the Comptroller, Navy Department, after which he commanded Destroyer Squadron 30. In January 1960 he transferred to command Destroyer Squadron 6 and in March of that year was ordered as commanding officer of the cruiser Des Moines, the flagship of Commander 6th Fleet in the Mediterranean. Upon completion of his tour of duty on Des Moines, in September 1960, he reported to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Fleet Operations and Readiness), Navy Department, first for duty as Assistant Director, Antisubmarine Warfare and Submarine Division and later as the Director, Programs: and Plans Division. After being selected for promotion to rear admiral he assumed command of Cruiser Destroyer Flotilla 6 on July 18, 1963. In July 1964 he reported as Deputy Director for Operations, National Military Command Center (J-3), the Joint Staff, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Washington, D.C. He reported for duty as Director of Budget and Reports, Department of the Navy, on July 6, 1965. In addition to the Purple Heart Medal and the Navy Unit Commendation Ribbon, Rear Admiral Grimm has the American Defense Service Medal with star; America Campaign Medal; Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal with seven operation stars; World War II Victory Medal; Navy Occupation Service Medal; China Service Medal; National Defense Service Medal; Korean Service Medal with four stars; United Nations Service Medal; and the Philippine Liberation Ribbon. He also has the Korean Presidential Unit Citation with two Oak Leaf Clusters. Read Admiral Grimm is married to the former Ernestine Bernardin of Evansville, Ind. They have a son and daughter, both married. Their son is a captain in the U.S. Marine Corps. Rear Admiral Grimm's official home address is 631 South Duke Street, York, Pa. PREPARED STATEMENT Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Rear Adm. Edward E. Grimm, Director of Budget and Reports, Office of the Comptroller of the Navy. I am privileged to appear before this committee for the first time to present a summary of the revised funding program proposed for the appropriation "Military Construction, Navy." The fiscal year 1966 Navy military construction budget submitted by the President requested an appropriation of $338,300,000. This amount together with $3,500,000 that would be saved from prior-year funds was considered sufficient to fund a construction program of $343,943,000. Since that time the funding program has been adjusted to $340,295,000 because of emergency construction requirements and congressional action on the 1966 military construction authorization program. By letter of May 15, 1965, the Secretary of Defense advised you of certain substitutions which were desired in the Navy 1966 construction program totaling $24,336,000. These items consist of (a) the resubmission of certain fiscal year 1965 approved construction items totaling $12,936,000 which had to be deferred to provide funds for emergency construction in southeast Asia which Congress approved under the authority of section 203 of the 1965 Military Construction Act, (b) construction of classified facilities at a classified location for $8,400.000, and (c) the replacement of laboratory facilities at Barrow, Alaska, costing $3 million. On August 5, 1965, the Secretary of Defense requested your consideration of three additional projects totaling $4,684,000 and involving replacement of damaged facilities at MCAS Iwakuni, Japan, and NAF El Centro, Calif., under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 2673 and the removal of a flight hazard at NAS Norfolk, Va., which was authorized by Public Law 88-637. A listing of these substitutions is provided in exhibit I, together with a listing of construction items totaling $24,358,000 which the Navy withdrew from the program. Finally, the congressional review of the construction items for which new authorization was requested has resulted in a reduction of $8.310,000 in the funding program. A complete listing of the items affected by the authorization legislation is provided in exhibit II. Included in the revised program of $340,295,000 is an amount of $44,045,000 for construction and construction planning for which there is continuing or prioryear authorization. Of the $44,045,000, $26,184,000 is proposed under continuing authorization. This consists of planning $17 million, minor construction $6 million, access roads $1 million, and $2,184,000 for restoration of damaged facilities under authority of 10 U.S.C. 2673. The balance of $17,861,000 is for previously authorized construction line items which were not funded by prior year military construction appropriation acts. The program for which there is continuing or prior-year authorization is detailed in exhibit III. The military construction, Naval Reserve appropriation request is $9,500,000. This amount is required to fund new construction authorized by Congress in the amount of $8,890,000, planning and design costs of $600,000, and requirements for minor construction of $100,000, a program totaling $9,590,000. Mr. Chairman, that completes my statement. EXHIBIT I I. Funding program additions A. SECDEF letter of May 15, 1965: (1) Fiscal year 1965 approved items which had to be deferred to provide funding for emergency construction in southeast Asia, now requested for reinstatement: NCS, Londonderry, N.I.-Transmitter facilities-- 1, 100 Subtotal... (2) Additional new items: NARL, Barrow, Alaska-Laboratory facilities_ Subtotal___ Subtotal May 15 submission___. B. SECDEF letter of August 5, 1965: NAS, El Centro, Calif.-Restoration of damaged facilities__ Subtotal, August 5 submission__. 12, 936 13, 000 8,400 11, 400 24, 336 Total funding program substitutions_ 1, 041 1, 143 2,500 4,684 29, 020 1 Authorization denied by Congress. II. Funding program reductions A. SECDEF letter of May 15, 1965: (1) Fiscal year 1966 items voluntarily withdraw from program to provide funding for the additional items listed above, within the total approved program: Installation and item: NS, Adak, Alaska-Airfield lighting.. NAS, Cecil Field, Fla.-Aircraft systems training Amount (thousands) $296 993 NS, Rota, Spain-Dependents school. 245 3,000 239 7,283 400 193 275 266 NTC, Great Lakes, Ill.-Station entrances and roads_ MCAS, El Toro, Calif.-Survival equipment shop-- Camp Butler, Okinawa-Disbursing office and bank NPWC. Pearl Harbor, Hawaii-Automatic control NCU, Argentia, N.F.-Low-frequency antenna______ Camp Butler, Okinawa-Vehicle body and paint shop Classified location-Classified item. Total funding program reductions__. EXHIBIT II Construction items affected by authorization legislation 203 371 222 191 233 63 55 144 1, 697 592 104 7, 293 EXHIBIT III Program for which there is continuing and prior-year authorization B. Restoration of damaged facilities (10 U.S.C. 2673): Subtotal____. C. Unfunded items authorized in fiscal year 1965: FA, Ryukyus-Bowling alley--. 1, 041 1,143 2, 184 793 318 278 NAS, Cecil Field, Fla.-Barracks‒‒‒‒ 358 MCALF, Camp Pendleton-A/C systems training building__ 150 503 MCAS, Cherry Point, N.C.-Combat vehicle maintenance 111 NAF, Naha, Okinawa-Survival equipment shop. 204 164 Camp Butler, Okinawa: Branch PX----- Brig Combat fueling equipment facility- NA, Annapolis, Md.-Science building NPGS Monterey, Calif.-BOQ--- NRL, Washington, D.C.-Operations and technical services NAS, Norfolk, Va.-Remove flight hazard (Taussig Blvd. underpass) Subtotal___ 139 411 184 334 7,600 330 3, 484 2,500 17,861 Total____ 44, 045 ITEMS IN BILL Senator STENNIS. Now do you propose to come back to the prior authorization items? Captain CowART. Yes, sir; I propose to lead off with those. Senator STENNIS. Senator Yarborough, there are a great number of items in this bill, the ones recently authorized this year. I don't think the President has signed it yet, but it is on his desk. There are some authorized by previous-year authorizations and then there are some reclamas where the House failed to include the items in the appropriation bill this year. All right, proceed, please. STATEMENT ON PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED LINE ITEMS NAVAL RADIOLOGICAL DEFENSE LABORATORY, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. Captain CoWART. The first item is on page 2 of the program book. It is a single line item in the Bureau of Ships facilities class. This item is at the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory in San Francisco, Calif., for construction of a research animal facility at the estimated cost of $793,000. This item was authorized last year but was not funded. The Laboratory conducts basic and applied research on the physical and biological effects of hazardous nuclear and thermal radiation in order to develop protective devices and techniques for the safety of personnel. Live clinical animals are used in the Laboratory operations. These research animals must be completely free of common diseases and any disease-causing pathogens, so that the effects of the radiation may be accurately detected. Approximately 95 percent of the animals for experimental use are provided by the Laboratory animal facility and the remainder by outside sources. Outside sources have been able to furnish only limited numbers of animals of marginal purity of strain. The proposed facility will provide a structure for housing and breeding of research animals under precisely controlled and environmental conditions. This calls for the provision of germ-free air of uniform temperature and humidity in an antiseptically clean laboratory building to accommodate over 25,000 small animals. It is also necessary to provide a separate sanitary kennel with 110 dog runs for housing larger animals used in the research work. Senator STENNIS. Why did the House leave it out? Captain CowART. The House approved it, sir. This was prior authorization-it was authorized last year. Senator STENNIS. Excuse me, that is right. POSSIBLE DUPLICATION Now the last sentence here on page 2 says: This Laboratory does not unnecessarily duplicate any work performed by any Government or private organization in this field. That is anticipating a question which comes to our mind, of course. There are bound to be others that are engaged in similar work, such as the Atomic Energy Commission. You want a million dollars here just for a building alone for the Navy. It is hard to understand why so many agencies have to have so many different setups. Captain CowART. This Laboratory uses a large number of animals, of which 95 percent are raised at the facility. Captain Ginn is here from the Bureau of Ships. He may be able to answer that more specifically. Senator STENNIS. Proceed, Captain Ginn. Captain GINN. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this facility is essentially to breed animals and also to hold the radiologically exposed animals after experiments have been made. They study the genetic changes in these animals as they carry through their life cycle. The problem to date is that we have in use three temporary structures that |