One interesting thing to me is the fact that, as will be observed here, in the figures that I gave, that of the 47,000 units which cumulatively are expected to be acquired by the end of this fiscal year, approximately 26,000 are mandatory, which would leave a balance of 21,000 of the voluntary or permissive acquisition type.

Mr. DEVEREUX. Approximately how long does it take to process one of those permissive types?

Secretary BRYANT. Well

Mr. DEVEREUX. Have you any idea?

Secretary BRYANT. No. It varies considerably with the sponsor's attitude and the willingness to negotiate promptly.

Of course, in the case of the voluntary acquisitions, we should have less difficulty than we do on the mandatory, because there is no means of persuading the sponsor through the condemnation route which is afforded us on the mandatory provision, so there is usually a pretty close meeting of minds at the initiation of the negotiations.

But they vary, depending upon circumstances and people.
I do not think that I could give you a timetable.

Have you any general, rough idea, Jack?

Mr. ARRINGTON. No. Our experience has been a very wide latitude of times. I think it could be effected in as little as 60 days, and some of them, of course, have taken far longer. Where we file a declaration of taking, we usually get prompt possession. The subsequent court action, of course, is unpredictable as to time.

Mr. DEVEREUX. I am talking about the permissive.
Secretary BRYANT. Yes. I wish I could give you-

Mr. DEVEREUX. I bring the matter up because of the reaction I have had. Some people say, "It takes months and months and months to get something out, finalized."

We will move on, then: Page 29, on the revised barter program rules.

Have you presented your position on that, as to whether you are in agreement with the revised rules? Do you have anything to say about it?

Secretary BRYANT. Yes, sir.

Mr. DEVEREUX. Who is the final authority?

Secretary BRYANT. Mr. Arrington appeared at a recent hearing before the

Mr. ARRINGTON. House Agriculture Committee.

Secretary BRYANT. Perhaps you can explain to Mr. Devereux what happened I mean what the result of that was and what our position taken was.

Mr. ARRINGTON. Before the House Agriculture Committee, we gave a general résumé of our experience in the commodity housing program to date, with particular reference to a summary of the barter project in France.

Our position is essentially as stated here today, in Mr. Bryant's testimony, that whereas we, the Department of Defense, are quite pleased with the results of the project in France, we have to recognize that the construction is only one aspect of this complex undertaking.

We have to accept the advice of the Department of Agriculture, as experts in that field, as to the impact of the commodity sales and barter programs on the world market.

They contend that they replace normal dollar marketings, and therefore Agriculture does not intend to proceed with additional barter transactions except under very restricted rules.

Mr. DEVEREUX. Then this joint committee that you have in that area: What is their function? Must they accept, then, the Department of Agriculture's advice on it?

Mr. ARRINGTON. The Interagency Staff Committee has cognizance only of country-to-country programs, and not the barter transactions. The decision to proceed with the barter transaction is entirely with the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. DEVEREUX. All right, sir.

Secretary BRYANT. May I add one thing there, Mr. Devereux, to clarify the record?

This has been a matter of considerable concern to me, and I, personally, have at various times met with officers and assistant secretaries of the Department of Agriculture, in an attempt to clarify positions. And I am still determined to proceed on the policy basis further into this matter, because I feel that it is difficult, too difficult for us at this time to take issue with the basic determinations of the Department, because they have all of the facts in their hands as to whether or not they can make all of these dollar sales and receive immediate dollars for the transactions. I am afraid there may be some areas in here where some of our requirements can be accommodated. In other words, I have some of the concern that I think you have expressed. So I am headed, again, in the same direction. And I intend to pursue it further.

Mr. DEVEREUX. All right, sir.

Now, on page 30, on this Bureau of the Budget Circular A-45: Is that, in effect, a directive to different agencies?

Secretary BRYANT. Yes, sir. This is a determination which was issued some time ago by the Bureau of the Budget specifying-and may I interpolate at this point? It was essential for them at that time to take in the whole field-not only just those which were under the cognizance of the Defense Department but other agencies, in determining a basic-not a basic, but basic criteria as to what was adequate and what was inadequate, both with respect, that is particularly with respect to size. We had quite a little difficulty, and through mutual discussions finally got a determination of this issue, which I think is reasonably adequate for our needs. But it did not limit itself, in answer to your question, simply to defense, that is, the circular.

Mr. DEVEREUX. Then this is, in effect-the circular is a directive from the President?

Secretary BRYANT. Yes, sir.

Mr. DEVEREUX. All right, sir.

Now, on page 31, you say:

The Department of the Air Force has completed review of the report from one major command and has determined 600 units to be inadequate.

Secretary BRYANT. Yes.

Mr. DEVEREUX. Now:

Throughout the entire Navy they only had 600 units that were inadequate. There were more units considered by the Air Force than the Navy.

However, in view of the fact that the Air Force bases generally are much newer than the Navy, do you see any lack of uniformity as

to which might be considered inadequate by the Air Force and which might be considered inadequate by the Navy?

Secretary BRYANT. I think I can answer your question this way: It might be a misinterpretation of the language that I used in my statement, which says that

the Navy has completed its 'determinations of inadequacy on 600 units, of an estimated total of 6,700.

What I meant to convey there was that in our opinion they are likely to find most, if not all, of the 6,700 inadequate, but they have only completed and answered the question with respect to 600 as of this moment, as of this day.

Mr. DEVEREUX. You are not troubled, then, about having the same standards?

Secretary BRYANT. I am not, sir. I think it is a matter of intensity of their review.

Mr. DEVEREUX. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
Now, members of the committee-

Mr. Rivers, you want to ask any questions?

Mr. RIVERS. I just wanted to ask the Secretary about the Polaris program.

Are you authorizing the Navy to construct the bases for the Polaris missiles?

Secretary BRYANT. No, sir, not at the present time, except in an experimental fashion. The greatest amount of that activity will be confined, insofar as authorization is concerned, to the procurement angles, involving the submarines, themselves, from which they are to be launched.

There is a little experimental work which requires a minimum amount for testing purposes landwise.

Mr. RIVERS. Doesn't the Navy allege that they may have a breakthrough at any time and they are urging you to approve that program?

Secretary BRYANT. I know of no formal request on the part of the Navy for any construction requirement, that has not already been granted.

Mr. RIVERS. Didn't the Navy request permission to build these Polaris bases?

Secretary BRYANT. Any information?

Mr. FORE. No.

Secretary BRYANT. I know of no instance where the Navy has made any request of us that has not been granted so far as military construction is concerned. If there is some doubt, that again is something I would be very happy to review, specifically, with the Navy, and answer in my next appearance.

Mr. RIVERS. I wish you would. Because I understand differently. That is why I asked you.

Secretary BRYANT. Yes, sir, I am sure you do, and why you asked the question.

The CHAIRMAN. We will find out from the Navy when the Navy representative comes on.

Now, Mr. Bryant, I want to thank you. And we will have to ask you to return when the committee reads the sections, because we want

to ask you a great many questions in reference to the sections. But for the time being, we will excuse you, with the thanks of the committee.

Tomorrow morning we will have some representatives of the Army here, and we will go right on to the bill, after the general statement from the Army.

And Mr. Kelleher will keep in touch with Mr. Bryant when we reach these sections in the bill.

Mr. KELLEHER. Yes, sir, the general provisions.

The CHAIRMAN. And have Mr. Bryant back.

Thank you very much, Mr. Bryant.

Members of the committee, we will recess until tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 12:04 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 9 a. m., Friday, May 23, 1958.)

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, D. C., Friday, May 23, 1958.

The committee met at 9 a. m., Hon. Carl Vinson (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

Members of the committee, this is a continuation of the hearing on H. R. 12360.

This morning, members of the committee, we have the pleasure of having our distinguished former colleague, Hon. Dewey Short, Assistant Secretary of the Army, appear before us.

Mr. Secretary, on behalf of the committee, I welcome you here. It is always a pleasure for the committee to have the benefit of your counsel and advice.

The committee will be pleased to have you submit any statement you desire in reference to this bill.

Secretary SHORT. Well, Mr. Chairman and honorable members of this distinguished committee, naturally it is a pleasure for me to meet with you this morning and to open the Army presentation of the fiscal year 1959 military public works bill.

The total estimated cost of the projects in the Army title bill before you is $347,028,000 in new authorization, divided into $239,959,000 for the continental, United States, $82,069,000 overseas, and permissive authorization in the amount of $25 million for unforeseen urgent requirements as qualified under the language provisions.

The request now before you has been developed within a background of austerity. We have really trimmed, I think, all the fat and almost cut to the bone, if not a few of the nerves. Within budget limitations, concerted effort has been applied to insure that our construction supports the most urgent requirements of vital Army missions and operations.

Before taking up a broad categorical summation of the projects comprising this request, I would like to review the planning procedure upon which the program is based. I am sure all of you are more or less familiar with this, but it won't take a minute to review

or remind you of the planning procedure upon which we base our program. The military construction program is planned and developed only after a thorough examination and consideration of both our current and long-range requirements, weighted against our existing assets. The relative priority of these requirements, within the budget resources available, determines the line item makeup of our request, which I am sure will be ably presented and reviewed in detail by General Shuler, who has worked long and hard on this bill. Broadly defined, our construction requirements fall into two major program elements-one, the emergency or modified emergency type, and the second the permanent type facilities.

The first comprises facilities needed for special missions and deployments of other than permanent nature. Examples of these are construction for our surface-to-air missile tactical sites, logistic facilities in support thereof, construction required to meet the operational needs of our forces deployed in overseas base-rights areas, and special training facilities worldwide. The type of construction used to satisfy these needs is either of modified emergency type or emergency type, whichever is in consonance with the foreseeable tenure of the mission.

The other major element of this request comprises permanent type facilities. In this connection the Army, some 5 years ago, reviewed and redetermined its long-range construction requirements. These requirements, specifically for providing permanent type facilities at our permanent installations, are in support of a stationing plan for phase I (650,000 men) of the long-range Army. At that time it appeared realistic and feasible to translate the overall requirements into annual increments programed over a 20-year period. This we refer to as the Army's 20-year plan for permanent plant which_was initiated in the fiscal year 1954 military public works program. During the past 5 years, from 1954 through the present 1958 fiscal year that will end next month, we have experienced a cumulative shortfall in this area of $403 million which must be recaptured to maintain the schedule for completion in 20 years. Expressed otherwise, we will have completed only 18 percent through fiscal year 1958, although 25 percent of the time has elapsed. The reason for this shortfall is a combination of budgetary and fiscal restrictions, and compelling priority for construction within these restrictions, of the "other than permanent" category.

I wish now to review briefly the new authorization content of title I and relate to the Army's mission and operational responsibilities. This can best be summarized in three broad categories.

First is the sum of $202.5 million directly related to the area of missiles which represents 58.3 percent of our total request; that is, out of our total request for $347 million, $202.5 million, or 58 percent, goes for the missiles. Starting with the surface-to-air missile program for defense of our key bases and our metropolitan and industrial centers in the United States and our key military installations overseas, we are proposing a total of $147.0 million, including $6.3 million for logistic support facilities. The next group applies to research, development, and test facilities for missiles, which involves a sum of $38.5 million.