Mr. BROOKS. That is clear.

All right, take the next subsection.

Mr. DUCANDER. Reading on page 2, line 1:

Section 2233 is amended by adding the following new subsections at the end thereof:

"(e) The Secretary of Defense may procure advance planning, construction design, and architectural services in connection with facilities to be established or developed under this chapter which are not otherwise authorized by law." You want to discuss that first?

Mr. DEININGER. Yes, sir. The addition of that section is consistent-in fact, it is provided for in the laws over a number of years in connection with the regular military public works.

This allows the preparation of preliminary plans prior to the actual authorization of a line item by the committee. So when the Department of Defense comes before the committee for a line item they will have done a certain amount of planning so they can present better estimates to the committee-in other words, a more crystallized project. That is what would be accomplished under this particular provision. Mr. BROOKS. Now, how much money will that cost?

Mr. DEINNGER. Those design costs normally, sir, run anywhere from, I would say, 2 to 5 percent of whatever is the ultimate construction

cost.

Mr. BROOKS. Should we set a definite amount in this?

Mr. DEININGER. We believe not, sir. We believe this follows exactly what is done in the military public works field, without any such limitation. It merely provides for the advance planning.

Mr. BROOKS. How much do you contemplate would be used for that purpose?

Mr. DEININGER. We could not give you any estimate at this time what that would amount to, sir, because it is the money that is spent in the day-to-day advance planning by the military departments in preparing these programs for eventual submission to the committee. Mr. WINSTEAD. Is this new projects?

Mr. BROOKS. Yes; these are new projects.

Mr. DUCANDER. Why is this authority necessary in law? Don't you have authority for your people to make advance plans and designs. and things like that without it being specified in the law?

Mr. DEININGER. I would like to ask Mr. Mayer, who is our legal counsel, if he will answer that, please.

Mr. MAYER. Well, with respect to military public works, that authority is contained in earlier public works authorization acts-in Public Law 155 of the 82d Congress and Public Law 161 of the 84th Congress.

Now, our attempt in this bill has been to separate the Reserve facilities from the public works, so that we will not have to rely on other authority that should apply only to public works. We have kept this separate throughout. And that is the reason for many of these provisions here, so that the authority

Mr. BROOKS. I think that is a very worthy objective. But don't you think there should be some limit on the amount that could be spent in that respect?

Mr. MAYER. Well, Mr. respect to public works. ultimately of the total

Chairman, no limit has been provided with And, of course, this is a cost that comes out authorization and appropriation for that

project. So that is a built-in limitation which I think adequately safeguards the use of the authority.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me I am just about lost here. This is a line item bill, is it not?

Mr. MAYER. That is correct.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Haven't these projects already been approved?

Mr. DEININGER. The projects that are referred to here, sir, which are not otherwise authorized by law-this is advance planning before the projects are submitted to the committee. So the advance planning can be done in order to present a crystallized project to the committee for authorization.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Haven't these projects already been analyzed by the Army and approved by the Army and sent to the Defense Department and approved by the Defense Department?

Mr. DUCANDER. These have, but I think they mean fiscal year 1960 and future years, don't you?

Mr. DEININGER. This is looking ahead, sir.

Mr. WINSTEAD. You are given additional authority to plan beyond? Mr. DEININGER. That is right, that is planning the 1960 and 1961 program. This is looking forward.

Mr. BROOKS. All right. Is there any objection to it?

(No response.)

Mr. BROOKS. If not, we will proceed to the next one.
Mr. DUCANDER. Reading on page 2, line 7.

"(f) Facilities authorized by subsection (a) shall not be considered ‘military public works' under the provisions of the military construction authorization acts that repeal prior authorizations for military public works."

Mr. DEININGER. This is a provision which we feel it is essential be put in here to eliminate any possibility of a misconstruction on these repeal provisions that are put in each year in the military public works bill, so that no one will interpret those provisions in the public works bill as applying to the rescission of authorization for projects for the Reserve Forces that are covered under the Reserve Forces Construction Authority.

Mr. DUCANDER. This is a savings provision?

Mr. DEININGER. It is a savings provision.

Mr. BROOKS. Hadn't we better word that just a little differently? Because your explanation to "(e)" was that we wanted to handle this just like the public works bill was being handled. Then you go ahead in "(f)" and you refer to the fact that these items should not be considered public works.

Mr. DEININGER. Sir, if I may

Mr. BROOKS. Military public works.

Mr. DEININGER. Sir, if I may address an answer to that question? Mr. Mayer a moment ago said that we were trying to set up the provisions for the reserve facilities construction to parallel those of military public works. We expect that as we come up in successive years, for the 1960 program and the 1961 program, we will have provisions in the reserve facilities act to rescind old, unneeded authority for reserve facilities, the same as they are doing in public works.

Mr. BROOKS. It is already in this bill, the provision for 2 years. Mr. MAYER. Mr. Chairman, if I might elaborate a little on what Mr. Deininger just said. The public works bill presently before the

committee provides that certain public works authorizations heretofore provided are rescinded, but it excepts from this general rescission the authorization and appropriations of funds contained in sections 2231 to 2238 of title 10-in other words, these are reserve facilities. Now, if we do not put a provision similar to this one in our reserve facilities bill, then each year the public works bill will have to except the reserve facilities from the general rescission.

Mr. BROOKS. I am in favor of the purpose. The question is whether or not we are doing it just the proper way. If you feel like that this is the best way to do it, all right. But it seemed to me you are contradicting yourself when in one breath you refer to the fact that you want the authority to provide for construction, planning, design, and architectural services in accordance with the policy of the military public works, and in the next breath you just declare that this shall not be considered military public works.

Mr. MAYER. Well, Mr. Chairman, the purpose of that is to-as Mr. Deininger says parallel the provisions relating to public works, but in this bill we shall relate them to reserve forces facilities. So the concept of reserve forces facilities will be completely distinct from military public works.

Mr. BROOKS. All right. Is there any further question on this item?

(No response.)

Mr. BROOKS. We will pass it on, then.

Mr. DEVEREUX. Mr. Chairman, I unfortunately had to come in late. I haven't

Mr. BROOKS. General, you haven't missed anything as far as the reading of the bill is concerned. The first section on page 1 there, I may say covering acquisition, 2233. That simply eliminates the requirement in the future under these sections for a reporting or submission of these matters to the committee for consultation. That all that does. Since the bills in the future will be in line items, it won't be necessary to come in and consult with the committee. And that is the reason why they wish a repeal of that requirement. Now, that is all we have covered.

Then on page 2, subsection (e) is the one we were discussing when you came in. And that simply provides authorization for the Secretary of Defense to proceed with planning, construction, design, and architectural services in future programs for Guard armories, and for Reserve armories.

Now, if you want to ask any questions about either one, it will be fine. Here would be a good place.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Mr. Chairman

Mr. DEVEREUX. I haven't anything.

Mr. WINSTEAD. While he is thinking on that, may I ask one other question?

Mr. BROOKS. Sure.

Mr. WINSTEAD. That means these line items have been already submitted to us, and that is why they are striking out this section. Mr. BROOKS. Yes, sir.

Mr. DUCANDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Now, in section (e) they are talking about some new construction.

Mr. BROOKS. A new program.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Something beyond all this.

Does that mean they would not have to be submitted?

Mr. DUCANDER. They would come in this way, Mr. Winstead, in line items.

Mr. WINSTEAD. All right.

Mr. BROOKS. Now, let's go ahead, then, with (f), if there is no objection, and counsel for the Defense Department has satisfied himself that there is no irregularity between (e) and (f). I am willing to pass it by for the time being.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Mr. Chairman, you raised a question that since there is a total amount of money in this bill, will that plainly come out of this money? If so, he ought to give us some guess or some estimate or some figure in between what we could expect that cost to be, if it is to come within the limitiation of this bill.

Mr. BROOKS. Well, let's proceed and see what restrictions they place later on in the bill. It may be covered.

Go ahead, Mr. Ducander.

Mr. DUCANDER. Page 2, line 11:

(3) The following new section is inserted after section 2233:

"SEC. 2233a. Limitataion

"No expenditure or contribution that is more than $50,000 may be made under section 2233 of this title for any facility that has not been authorized by a law authorizing appropriations for specific facilities for reserve forces. This requirement does not apply to the following:

"(a) Facilities acquired by lease.

"(b) Facilities acquired, constructed, expanded, rehabilitated, converted, or equipped to restore or replace facilities damage or destroyed, where the Armed Services Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives have been notified of that action."

Mr. BROOKS. Now, why is it necessary to have this special provision (b)?

Mr. DEININGER. The (b) section in there, sir, is to permit the replacement of facilities where there may be a fire, there may be a cyclone or something of that kind, or through the familiar term where a facility is destroyed by act of God, and it would permit the replacement of that facility without waiting for the next annual authorization program.

Mr. BROOKS. Is there such an emergency that we couldn't authorize them in the usual way?

Mr. DEININGER. In many cases there is, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. For instance, have you a case in mind?

Mr. DEININGER. I believe the most recent one I recall, I believe at Nashua, N. H., there was a fire which virtually destroyed an armory. Mr. BROOKS. At the utmost, there is only 6 months' delay, and this is a Reserve facility. It seems to me all you are doing is to take the authority from this committee and putting it over in the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. DEININGER. The provision, of course, does require that this committee be advised of the action. It does not require

Mr. BROOKS. But if it is vacation time when we are at home or even if we are up here, simply advising the committee is not the sameas getting the authorization.

Mr. DEININGER. There are provisions of this nature in connection with the facilities of the regular services.

Mr. BROOKS. There is a limitation placed, isn't there?

Mr. DEININGER. There is a limitation placed in there normally as to the number of millions of dollars in a year that they are authorized to do on that.

We feel that the limitation here is the fact that there are only so many dollars available in any year, that would not permit any promiscuous use of this, where it was not an absolute requirement that could not await the next public works authorization bill, which may

be a year hence.

Mr. BROOKS. Even in the flood-control bill, where you do have such things as major disasters, there is a limitation placed on the use of emergency funds.

Mr. DEININGER. If it is the desire of the committee that there be a limitation-I am not aware of whether it should be in terms of the total amount of dollars that could be used for this purpose, or for a specific project—or just what the committee might desire, I am sure we could work out

Mr. BROOKS. What it is going to do is simply knock out some line items ot take care of these. That is all you could do.

Mr. DEININGER. Yes, sir; that is right.

Mr. DUCANDER. They couldn't go above the total authorized amount, but they would have to knock out line items in the bill where they plan to build something else.

Mr. DEININGER. We would have to defer certain line items in order to be able to do that.

Or in the case of the existing situation, where for instance, the Army Guard and Army Reserve do not have any new authorization in here, we would have to eliminate or defer some projects on which consultation had been effected with the committee, in order to do a replacement of a fire-damaged structure.

Mr. DEVEREUX. Mr. Chairman

Mr. BROOKS. Any objection to that?

Mr. DEVEREUX. No.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. I see no objection.

Mr. BROOKS. If not, we will pass it by.

Mr. DUCANDER. Mr. Chairman, I suggest a change in the language, where it refers to the Armed Services Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives. It should be changed to "the Congress.” I understand the Speaker would prefer that wording.

Mr. BROOKS. Yes, I think that should be changed.

Mr. DUCANDER. It will be referred to the necessary committees.

Mr. BROOKS. Strike out "Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House."

Mr. DUCANDER. And insert "the Congress."

Mr. BROOKS. Yes.

Mr. DUCANDER. Page 3, line 1.

(4) The analysis of-

This is just amending an analysis of the code.

The analysis of chapter 133 is amended by inserting the following new item: "2233a. Limitation."

Mr. BROOKS. No objection.