83d Congress (Camp Blanding Military Reservation, Florida); that your veto message presented the constitutional objections to the provision; and that "The position taken by the President in his veto of H. R. 7512 is equally valid with respect to section 601 of Public Law 155."

It thus appears that you have consistently opposed an invasion of executive office functions and powers through legislative devices of the character indicated. Your position in such regard is, I believe, fully supported by sound constitutional doctrine.

I am of the opinion that section 601 of Public Law 155, 82d Cong., 1st sess., reflects the exercise of legislative authority not warranted by the Constitution and that it is, therefore, unconstitutional.

You have also asked for advice as to the appropriate courses of action which might be taken in the event the indicated provisions are viewed as unconstitutional. I believe the most effective and practical course of action would be to urge the repeal by the Congress of section 601, along the lines of the bill (S. 2479) introduced during the last Congress. If you are agreeable to this suggestion, the Department of Justice would be happy to cooperate with the Bureau of the Budget in preparing such material as may be required.

Respectfully,

Mr. NASH. Read the budget message, sir?

WILLIAM P. ROGERS, Acting Attorney General.

The CHAIRMAN. Read what the budget message says.

Mr. NASH (reading):

I have been advised by the Attorney General that section 601 of Public Law 155, 82d Congress, concerning certain real-estate transactions reflects the exercise of legislative authority not warranted by the Constitution, and that it is therefore unconstitutional. I recommend immediate repeal of this provision. Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Bates, will you yield?

Mr. NASH. That is House Document No. 266.

Mr. RIVERS. Will Mr. Bates yield there, Mr. Chairman ?
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bates, do you yield?

Mr. BATES. I do, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rivers is recognized.

Mr. RIVERS. This is not the first Attorney General who recommended that. The military occupies a special place in the Congress, a special place. No other department has that. And, I say, Mr. Chairman, when we require, as we do, the approval of this committee-it makes no difference about my committee going out of existence. It makes no difference at all. But the fact that we have the right to require these things to be approved and disapproved by this committee, it is strictly constitutional because of the fact that the military is singled out, of all the executive departments, to be operated by the Congress. We went into that thing, în a long discussion, in the recent reorganization bill.

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bates, any further questions?

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

The Congress has taken this position within several other departments of the Government, also. So if it is a constitutional question, it probably should be decided on that basis.

Mr. RIVERS. The military especially.

Mr. PRICE. We have taken this position on 2 or 3 different pieces of important legislation having to do, for instance, with the General Services Administration and other agencies of the Government.

Mr. BATES. Mr. Nash, I wonder whether the same thing would apply

to the Sheppard subcommittee, which I understand is performing a similar function.

Mr. NASH. Under what law is that, Mr. Bates?

Mr. BATES. It is under a custom or practice, if not under a law. Mr. NASH. I am not familiar with the Sheppard subcommittee. Mr. BATES. But in the Appropriations Committee. As a matter of fact, we just had a briefing this morning by the Chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks, which requires, under the various things enumerated, that he would get clearance from this particular subcommittee for real-estate acquisitions, and the funding of projects for certain purposes. This is after the money has been appropriated.

Mr. NASH. Mr. Bates, I am sorry I am not familiar with that. Mr. BATES. Don't you think that is just as important to look at, as it is to look at this?

Mr. NASH. Yes, sir; I think so.

Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, I do think that before this committee resolves this entire problem, that we should certainly consider the impact of the Sheppard committee on ours. Because they are waiting for us to complete everything and then they have the final review. Whereas, historically, all the time I have been on the committee I have assumed that we gave final clearance. Now it appears that that is not true. So they are merely doing the same thing that we are doing, as far as I can make out.

The CHAIRMAN. You must always bear in mind that the man who holds the money bag has a tight hold on everything. [Laughter.] We do not hold the money bag.

Now, there is one question I would like to develop some thought along, and it is with reference to the $50 million for the Department of Defense. That is not itemized. I think the justification of it may be well-founded, in view of the fact that it is being asked to implement the research-activity authorization and the new Office of Research and Engineering. But I do think that the Secretary, by statute, should be required to report to Congress how he spends the $50 million. And I think the section in the bill that requires those kind of reports should include the Secretary of Defense as well as the three military Secretaries, to make their annual report.

Now, I grant you that under the broad language of the research section that was just reported out yesterday, under the Advanced Research Agency section, in the February bill, latitude is given for contracts relating to engineering and laboratory work. But if we do give the blanket authority, I do think the law should be amended to require the Secretary to say how the money has been spent, so Congress will have complete knowledge of how every dollar, of the money that is not earmarked has been finally earmarked and spent. Mr. Kilday.

Mr. KILDAY. I notice in the bill the $50 million is in a lump sum. Secretary BRYANT. Yes, sir.

Mr. KILDAY. And without any line items. Was it proposed that we be given any justification, any type of categories in arriving at the total sum of $50 million, or anything equivalent to line item justification, even though it not be carried in the bill?

Secretary BRYANT. Yes, sir.

As a matter of fact, the customary backup justification books covering this $50 million, sir, for the Advanced Research Projects Agency, are being provided to Mr. Kelleher. They are classified and in considerable extent.

The CHAIRMAN. We have the information on that.

Mr. KILDAY. Two other questions, Mr. Chairman.

I notice you expected to get 400 additional family units in France, out of Commodity Credit Corporation funds. Later on, you state that the barter arrangement will probably not be available again. Do you think you can get those 400 units?

Secretary BRYANT. Yes, I do. I am hoping that those funds will be available through generation of country-to-country title I type of transactions.

Mr. KILDAY. With the Government of France taking them?
Secretary BRYANT. Mr. Arrington, are you here?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. KELLEHER. John Arrington.

Secretary BRYANT. Mr. Arrington has been following this in detail. If you would be so kind, I would like to have him answer that more specifically, sir.

Mr. ARRINGTON. My name is John Arrington, Chief of the Family Housing Division.

We understand that there is a possibility of a small title I sale with the Government of France during the coming fiscal year. Mr. KILDAY. You weren't able to get that in the past.

Mr. ARRINGTON. That is correct. It was previously not possible. Mr. KILDAY. One more question on Commodity Credit.

Has there been any consideration given to the possibility of perhaps recreational facilities being provided out of Commodity Credit funds?

Secretary BRYANT. Yes, sir. In some degree, we have accomplished that.

Again, this will be in my opinion confined to those funds which can be generated through title I sales.

Mr. KILDAY. Well, actually you are probably going to have to resort only to title I?

Secretary BRYANT. Yes, sir.

Mr. KILDAY. In view of the position of the Commodity Credit Corporation, which I think is probably correct.

Secretary BRYANT. That is correct, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Devereux.

Mr. DEVEREUX. On page 7, with respect to the Navy providing the barracks and messhalls, 6,000 so and so, for enlisted personnel, dormitories, classrooms and administrative facilities

Secretary BRYANT. Yes.

Mr. DEVEREUX. To what degree have you looked over the situation-I am not making reference to the Naval Academy. That is pretty clear as to what other facilities might be available throughout the Navy and Navy-owned property, where perhaps some of these activities could be moved to existing facilities rather than building new facilities-new barracks, and that sort of thing? How much of a review has been given on that?

Secretary BRYANT. Well, I think I can safely say conscientiously say that that is part and parcel of our constant review, sir, in order to determine whether or not we can with propriety and in satisfaction of the requirement utilize that which we have before undertaking any new construction.

So I am reasonably satisfied that in this particular instance that same answer would apply.

Mr. DEVEREUX. Well, it has come to my attention, however, that there is some question, for instance, within the Department of the Navy, as to whether or not that is actually so.

Secretary BRYANT. Well, I should be very happy to review that item particularly.

Mr. DEVEREUX. All right, sir.

Well, I will bring that to your attention, then.

Secretary BRYANT. Yes, sir.

Mr. DEVEREUX. Now, on page 13, with the Air Force hospitals, up at the top of the page

Secretary BRYANT. Yes, sir.

Mr. DEVEREUX. On what sort of chassis are those hospitals? Secretary BRYANT. They are all 50-bed. They have no additional chassis or expansion capacity.

Mr. DEVEREUX. Why is that?

Secretary BRYANT. They are straight 50-bed. Because it would seem to be sufficient and has been so determined by both the services and the Health and Medical Assistant Secretary, to satisfy the requirement for that particular installation.

Mr. DEVEREUX. There is no anticipated future, or expanded requirement?

Secretary BRYANT. That is right, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gavin

Mr. DEVEREUX. No, sir.

I thought when we listened to his statement-it was my idea that we should make notes and things that are not clear to us.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. DEVEREUX. And we should then ask questions.

Who is in overall charge of the surplus commodity program? Secretary BRYANT. Well, it comes under the Family Housing Division. Mr. Arrington is most familiar with it, sir.

Mr. DEVEREUX. I mean so far as the Department of Defense is

concerned.

Secretary BRYANT. In connection with military housing, it comes within my domain.

Mr. DEVEREUX. Yes, sir.

Secretary BRYANT. If you are talking about military construction;

yes.

Mr. DEVEREUX. Well, the implementation of the public Law 840; isn't it?

Mr. KELLEHER. Public Law 480.

Mr. DEVEREUX. 480.

Secretary BRYANT. Well, you mean the agency with which we deal, then?

Mr. DEVEREUX. Yes.

Secretary BRYANT. Well, the Commodity Credit Corporation, which of course, is also subordinate to the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. DEVEREUX. Well, who coordinates all the efforts within the executive department?

Secretary BRYANT. Well

Will you answer that, please, Mr. Arrington?

Mr. ARRINGTON. There is an interagency staff committee on the surplus agricultural disposal, which consists of representatives of the Bureau of the Budget, Treasury, Agriculture, Commerce, and the Department of Defense, and they establish country programs which include both a list of the commodities to be sold and a list of uses to which the foreign currency proceeds are to be put.

Mr. DEVEREUX. All right.

Is the State Department represented?

Mr. ARRINGTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. DEVEREUX. All right.

Who chairs that committee?

Mr. ARRINGTON. I believe the Chief of the Foreign Agricultural Service in the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. DEVEREUX. Do you know anything about his background, whether he is experienced in world trading or anything of that nature?

Mr. ARRINGTON. He has just been replaced, Mr. Devereux, and I don't know the current incumbent's name. We can supply that for the record.

Mr. DEVEREUX. Well, I think that is rather important, because you are somewhat disappointed, and I have been disappointed-actually, at one time, several years ago, I talked to the commercial attachés, both in Paris and in Bonn, and they didn't even know what I was talking about. I must say that I brought that to the attention of the Secretary of Agriculture, and he said they were thoroughly briefed as of the time I spoke to them.

It has been my reaction that in many cases we do not have the capable person in there to try and tie this whole package together, of the various agencies. I thought we had somebody at the White House level who was doing that, but apparently not.

Mr. ARRINGTON. I believe there is an interagency committee at the White House level. But the day-to-day work is carried out by the staff committee.

Mr. DEVEREUX. On the Wherry housing units, do you have here how many units-I mean you spoke about these-I beg your pardon. You do have that.

The permissive Wherry housing units: Do you think they are going ahead at the proper rate, the acquisition of permissive Wherry housing?

Secretary BRYANT. I think about as fast, if not faster, than they can be handled, sir, as a matter of fact, because involved is not only the acquisition and the details of the acquisition but also the subsequent problem of making them adequate for occupancy as public quarters, a matter which we have discussed at great length with the subcommittee of this committee under Mr. Rivers.

My answer to you question, again, is that, yes, as a matter of fact, it is going speedily.