The CHAIRMAN. All right. That is agreed to. Mr. BATES. What are they going to do down there, Mr. Chairman? Mr. KILDAY. We had quite a hearing here the other day on it. Mr. BATES. Well, I missed that one. The CHAIRMAN. Now, members of the committee, that is the three amendments Mr. BATES. They are going to be flying cadets up there? The CHAIRMAN. Who is here from the Marine Corps? Mr. LANKFORD. They are going to go in the air as passengers, as testified here. Mr. BATES. I will never go along with that. Admiral AILES. They are going as passengers only. They are not flying the plane. Mr. BATES. We ought to eliminate the whole thing. The CHAIRMAN. Who is here from the Marine Corps? Mr. KELLEHER. No one is here, Mr. Chairman. So many of the installations are California installations that the Navy did not bring witnesses here today. The CHAIRMAN. That finishes everything except the California items. About half of the bill is California items. That makes a reduction up to date of $30,029,000, plus an addition of $10 million. That will give a net reduction of $20 million in the Navy's items. Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment, on page 17, line 4, that I would like to offer. And maybe we would have to have the Department give us some more information about it. Read the amendment. Mr. KELLEHER. Page 17, following line 4, insert a new item as follows: Naval Auxiliary Air Station, Kingsville, Tex., troop housing $1,041,204. The CHAIRMAN. That is in connection with Corpus Christi? Mr. KILDAY. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. That is right. Mr. KILDAY. In connection with Corpus Christi Naval Air Base. Now, give us brief information in regard to Kingsville and Corpus Christi. They are all tied there together. Admiral AILES. Yes, sir This is in our Advanced Air Training Command, sir, where the final training is given to our pilots. Kingsville is one of the main stations in that complex. This housing is for the housing of enlisted personnel who maintain the planes that the officers The CHAIRMAN. How much is it, Mr. Kelleher? Mr. KELLEHER. $1,041,000. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to. Now, I don't hardly think of course, we have to wait now until these members get back from California. Their presence wouldn't help us very much anyhow, because we are in a very constructive mood. They would also be in that atmosphere. But we will hold them up. Now, the next section of the bill is the Air Force. Mr. Kelleher. Mr. KELLEHER. Yes, sir? The CHAIRMAN. Are you through now, Admiral? The CHAIRMAN. Admiral, I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for your usual thorough knowledge in presenting your bill. It is a very constructive and magnificent job, and conveyed to the committee the information that enables us to reach a right and correct decision on each of these items. Thank you, very much. Admiral AILES. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your consideration of our program. The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Kelleher, get the Air Force up here tomorrow. Mr. RIVERS. Nine o'clock? The CHAIRMAN. The committee will take a recess until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning. Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, you want me to present these projects this morning? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Present Mr. Rivers' projects, Mr. Kelleher. You have it, Mr. Kelleher? Mr. RIVERS. I have it right here. Mr. Chairman, your Real Estate and Construction Subcommittee met on last Wednesday, May 28, and considered a number of housing and real-estate projects. It recommends approval of the following: Army disposal projects: No. 109: Declaration to GSA of 93 acres at Camp Simms Military Reservation, D. C. No. 110: Transfer of 40 acres also at Camp Simms to the National Park Service, Department of the Interior. No. 107: Declaration as excess to GSA of 68 acres of unimproved land at Twin Cities Arsenal, Minn. Air Force acquisitions for Capehart housing as follows: No. 423: 133 acres at Langley Air Force Base, Va. No. 424: 150 acres at McClellan Air Force Base, Calif. No. 425:70.7 acres at Bunker Hill Air Force Base, Ind. No. 426: 64.7 acres at Sioux City Municipal Airport, Iowa. No. 427: 127 acres at Sheppard Air Force Base, Tex. Air Force acquisition No. 429: 449 acres at Reese Air Force Base, Tex., for the construction of an auxiliary runway. Air Force acquisition No. 418: Transfer from the Navy to the Air Force of almost 27 acres at the Mishaum Point Military Reservation, Mass. Wherry acquisitions: Army: 459 units at Fort Belvoir, Va. Navy: 400 units, Naval amphibious base, Little Creek, Va. Civil defense acquisition No. 38: The continued leasing of facilities at Olney, Md. 20066-58-No. 86-26 Navy Disposal No. 148: The sale of the Naval Industrial Reserve Shipyard at Newport News, Va., to the Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. This is a drydock-it wasn't a drydock. Mr. KELLEHER. No, it is a scrambled facility, and the Navy owns facilities scattered throughout the area. Mr. RIVERS. What it is is a building ways. Mr. KELLEHER. And a number of smaller items. Mr. RIVERS. The Government has money in it and also the private facilities. We went into that thing very fully and recommended approval. Then, Navy disposal No. 138: This involves the outleasing of the Reserve shipyard at Tampa, Fla. The rental will be $150,000 a year for the first term. The term is for 5 years with options to renew for 4 additional 5-year periods. A performance bond, insurance, and other protections will be provided for in the lease. The following Air Force Capehart housing projects are also recommended for approval: 504 units, Grand Forks Air Force Base, N. Dak. 490 units, Kirtland Air Force Base, N. Mex. 500 units, Sheppard Air Force Base, Tex. 500 units, Langley Air Force Base, Va. 540 units, McClellan Air Force Base, Calif. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that the subcommittee also took up the Nike-Hercules real-estate project for the Dallas-Fort Worth area. The subcommittee took no specific action but has the project under advisement. Also, the subcommittee passed over the Army Wherry acquisition of 760 units at Sandia Base, N. Mex. The improvement of these quarters will be in excess of the $3,000 limitation, and you will recall that in such cases as this, specific agreement with the committee is necessary. If the other members of the subcommittee have no objection, I believe this project could be approved at this time with the understanding, of course, that further communication be had with the committee since plans are firm with respect to the improvement costswhatever the committee wants. The CHAIRMAN. Now, I think this-which project was that? The CHAIRMAN. I think this: I think the committee should reach a decision in regard to the Dallas-Houston item. And if the committee is unable to reach a decision, then I think the full committee should have a hearing on it. But I trust the subcommittee either will approve it or disapprove it and report it to the full committee, so the full committee will know what decision is reached. I trust at the very earliest possible date a recommendation will be made. Mr. HARDY. I think on that the full committee ought to have a hearing on it and ought to understand what it is doing. Now, we were led to believe that much of this dispersal would make unnecessary the kind of installations that they are now proposing to put in all over areas that heretofore they thought might have to go in, too. If they were that far wrong before on this, I am not sure they are right now. Personally, I have no present disposition to support the present plan they have. Maybe what they ought to do is reverse themselves on the dispersal program. Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the subcommittee taking it up and having jurisdiction. As far as I am concerned, they didn't make a case. The CHAIRMAN. Now Mr. RIVERS. Wait. If you could have seen what we saw on maps, it is difficult for me to approve it. The CHAIRMAN. The point is this, Mr. Rivers: We must reach a decision. Mr. RIVERS. We will. The CHAIRMAN. All right, reach a decision and then report back to the committee. Mr. RIVERS. Report it back to the committee? The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the items are approved. Mr. KILDAY. Off the record, Mr. Chairman. (Further statement off the record.) The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. We will take a recess until tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 11:03 a. m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 9 a. m., Tuesday, June 3, 1958.) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., Tuesday, June 3, 1958. The committee met at 9 a. m., Hon. Carl Vinson, chairman, presiding. The CHAIRMAN. Let the committee come to order. This is a continuation of the hearing on H. R. 12360. Before the committee takes up this bill, I think we have for consideration by the committee the clearance with reference to some armories that have been submitted to the committee. Mr. Smart, have you got-who has it? Mr. DUCANDER. I have, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Mr. DUCANDER. We have some armories that have been submitted for consultation: Army National Guard, Army Reserve, and Naval Reserve, that is. They total approximately $25 million. These projects have all been sent to the members previously. They have been in the hands of the members about a week. The Department would like to have them expedited because it is close to the end of the fiscal year. Money has all been authorized and appropriated. The CHAIRMAN. Well, advise the Department that there is no objection on the part of the committee for the construction of these armories. Mr. DUCANDER. Yes, sir. Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. Ducander: Does that include the armories in Pennsylvania? Mr. DUCANDER. It does. Mr. VAN ZANDT. Bellefonte? Mr. DUCANDER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Read the armories off. Mr. RIVERS. Lebanon and Tomaqua. Mr. VAN ZANDT. There is another one there. Mr. DUCANDER. Lebanon and Tomaqua The CHAIRMAN. These are National Guard armories? Mr. DUCANDER. National Guard. The CHAIRMAN. What Reserves, Army Reserves? Mr. VAN ZANDT. That is it. Mr. RIVERS. That is Reserve. The CHAIRMAN. Let the clerk prepare a letter to the Department to that effect. Now, who is the first witness this morning is the distinguished Under Secretary of the Air Force, Mr. Malcolm A. MacIntyre. Mr. Secretary, it is a pleasure for the Armed Services Committee to have you this morning to advise us with reference to the various items in H. R. 12360 that apply to the Air Force. I understand you have a prepared statement and I respectfully ask the members of the committee to permit you to make your statement without interruption. Then we will ask some questions later on. Secretary MACINTYRE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Mr. Secretary. Secretary MACINTYRE. I am very happy to have this opportunity to introduce the Air Force presentation of the fiscal year 1959 military construction program. The development of the Air Force base structure is of particular significance during this current period when we are seeking to accelerate the dates at which we will achieve operational capability for certain key offensive and defensive weapon systems. Our base structure is a vital element in the achievement of these goals since the ability to utilize effectively new and improved weapons is directly dependent upon the timely availability of supporting base facilities. The nature of the Air Force mission creates a special problem when considering base facilities and construction requirements. Most important is the timing of our military actions after the outbreak of hostilities. The Air Force, by its nature, must play a principal role during the critical first few days or weeks after a war begins. It must, therefore, fight any general war from bases in being which have sufficient facilities in existence prior to D-day for instant combat readiness and maximum operational capability. Our deterrence capability depends to a very large degree upon the operational availability and capability of modern and proven weapon systems which must possess the following characteristics: (a) Capable of rapid reaction time (both offensive and defensive.) (6) Highly capable in terms of its technical system and combat 8 accuracy. (c) Flexibility to respond decisively and quickly to varying conditions and requirements. The achievement of each of these elements is directly dependent upon the availability of proper base facilities. I shall discuss briefly the status of the force structure and major Air Force programs, their effect on our base development programs, |