In addition to the family housing authorization requested as indicated under various installations noted previously, section 304 (b) of the bill also authorizes construction of family housing with private capital under the provisions of title VIII of the National Housing Act as amended for the following bases in the amounts indicated:

In addition to the family housing authizations requested, as indicated under various installations noted previously, section 304 (c) of the bill also authorizes acquisition of Wherry housing as follows:

Section 309 of the bill provides $4,372,000 of authorization for construction of facilities at the Air Force Academy which is located 15 miles north of Colorado Springs, Colo. This increase in authorization is effected by amending section 9 of the Air Force Academy Act (Public Law 325 of the 83d Cong.), as previously amended, to increase the total amount authorized for construction from $135,425,000 to $139,797,000. This increased authorization requested provides for construction of three items.

The first item is storage facilities for diesel fuel, including the storage tank, pump, and dispensing line. This facility is for the storage and dispensing of diesel fuel used for operation of various types of installation engineer heavy equipment which are utilized in the maintenance of the base facilities, and for buses which are used to transport the cadets to various training locations at the site, to the flying field at Lowry Air Force Base, and to other events within commuting distance.

The second item is erosion control and landscaping at the site to protect the grounds and slopes, much of which has been disturbed by construction activities from washing and eroding.

The third item provides for completion of the newly constructed road net within the Academy site. The work consists generally of paving certain roads constructed earlier and allowed to compact under construction traffic, reshaping of grades, improvement of drainage structures, installation of curbs, gutters, guardrails, and so forth, and construction of certain additions to the road net.

In addition, authorization is requested in section 304 (b) of the bill for construction of 1,500 units of family housing with private capital under the provisions of title VIII of the National Housing Act as amended.

The CHAIRMAN. We have been striking that section out, and I think it is proper to strike it out here, because that is not a good, proper way to legislate.

Mr. BROOKS. What is that, 303?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir. We struck it out before. Without objection, that is stricken out. We don't need to argue that.

General RENTZ. Can't I say a few words on that, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Well, put it in the record. With deference to you, General, of course, go ahead and say what you want.

Mr. KELLEHER. Go ahead.

General RENTZ. As this Committee remembers, they gave us $50 million worth of emergency authorization in 1957. We have made very judicious use of that $50 million emergency authorization. We have just funded items that were absolutely mandatory.

Now I can give you the type of items we have funded out of that $50 million you gave us in 1957.

The CHAIRMAN. How much-
General RENTZ. Right today-

The CHAIRMAN. How much of the $50 million did you spend? General RENTZ. Approximately $16 million is spent or is in the process of being spent.

The CHAIRMAN. Give us a breakdown of how you spent your $47 million.

General RENTZ. Well, I would like to mention the type of items we have used it for. We moved the FEAF headquarters from Tokyo back to Hawaii. We gained a full year in the movement out of Japan by having this type authorization, we could apply against this unforeseen construction requirement.

We changed the aircraft at Thule and put in a new fighter interceptor squadron at Thule. It required a revision of the alert hangars. The alert aircraft at Thule have to be under cover. We could not have relocated that FIS unit to Thule had we not had this emergency authorization.

We had a new engine that was developed, a rocket engine. We needed test facilities and we needed them immediately. We put those in out at Edwards Air Force Base, under this emergency authorization.

We again gained a full construction year by having this type authorization.

We had the pavement at Altus break up under 52's. We would have had to wait until the 1959 program to get the replacement pavement for Altus in the 1959 program.

Mr. GAVIN. What kind of pavement was it?

Colonel EDMONDS. Runway.

General RENTZ. Runway pavement.

Mr. GAVIN. I mean

General RENTZ. It was 100,000-pound pavement, Mr. Gavin.

Mr. KELLEHER. Concrete?

Mr. GAVIN. Was it macadam or cement?

General RENTZ. Asphalt.

Mr. GAVIN. Asphalt?

General RENTZ. We were able to go in immediately under this 302 section we had in 1957 and replace that pavement, losing very little time with deployment of the units at Altus.

We had a security service project that came up, of the highest magnitude of importance. We were able to go ahead with that after getting the approval from the Secretary of Defense and the Bureau of the Budget and the Appropriations Committees.

Those are the type projects, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, general, you make a good case for your $50 million there. Why shouldn't you apply it all through the bill? Why should we line-item any of it? You can make a good case for a lumpsum appropriation. But that is not the correct way to legislate. Mr. KELLEHER. This is not being funded.

The CHAIRMAN. The correct way to legislate is to earmark as much as possible the money that is being spent. Now, you have $25 million that you can spend any way you see fit to spend it.

Mr. KELLEHER. It is not being funded, Mr. Chairman.

General RENTZ. No, sir; there are no funds against that $25 million.

Mr. KELLEHER. There are no funds against it, you see.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand. It is authorization to get the $25 million.

Mr. KELLEHER. They are

General RENTZ. No.

Mr. KELLEHER. They are not going to ask for the $25 million. General RENTZ. When we fund an item under the emergency authorization, we have to take it out of our existing resources. We notify the Armed Services Committee

The CHAIRMAN. If that be true, then the larger amount that you ask, then, there is more criticism to the likely positiveness of the other items in the bill. If it comes out of the other items of the bill, then that shows you got plenty of water in the other items of the bill.

General RENTZ. No, sir, I disagree, Mr. Chairman. It means we have to defer for another year items that we may possibly be able to defer in order to get a facility

The CHAIRMAN. Now, let the committee understand it. This $25 million: You would not increase your budget on account of the $25 million, but you would absorb it from other items earmarked in the bill?

General RENTZ. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. What?

General RENTZ. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Then it follows there is $25 million worth of water in the bill.

Mr. HESS. No, there isn't.

General RENTZ. No, sir. If we had that $25 million emergency authorization in fiscal year 1959, we may only use 5, 10 million dollars of it.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, but you used $47 million of it. You know you are going to use it all, and I know you are going to use it all. General RENTZ. No, sir. It took us 2 years. We held onto that $50 million that you gave us for 2 years, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McNeil let us use $47 million.

General RENTZ. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And that comes out of other items in the bill.

General RENTZ. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, can you tell where it came out?

General RENTZ. No, sir; I could not give you the line items. As we passed through the bases, you notice there have been unfunded

items. Some of it is caused by using the appropriation against the highest priority type items, such as I mentioned here.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, for instance, if we earmarked something for Barksdale Air Field, there is no assurance it is going to be constructed or used, because you may want to absorb that and apply it on an emergency under this provision.

General RENTZ. No, sir. When we go in with our appropriation plan, everything in this authorizing bill is in our appropriation plan. The CHAIRMAN. Well, let's pass this over for the time being and discuss it a little bit later on and see. We want to do what is right and proper for the defense of the country.

General RENTZ. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. But at least we want to know as much as possible what goes on.

General RENTZ. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I am not willing yet to wash my hands completely of our responsibilities.

Mr. BROOKS. No.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the general this, too: Under the program, if the Defense Department doesn't want to spend the money after they get it, they don't spend it. That is Mr. McElroy's statement, because I have it in my hand, as it came out in the paper, in an article by Edgar Prina. He is a staff writer. He simply holds back the money if he doesn't want to spend it.

All right. Under this program he would then use that money he is holding back. For instance, he is holding back now in Army Reserve installations something like $40 million he won't spend. He can use that type of holdback for this emergency, couldn't he? General RENTZ. He could.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes.

General RENTZ. I would like to say

The CHAIRMAN. Wait 1 minute. He could go 1 step further. A line item in this bill designated for any purpose-he would say, "I won't construct that; I will take that money and use it as a part of this authorization here." Isn't that correct?

General RENTZ. If we went forward requesting him to do that, that is a possibility, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Then Congress has no assurance that even these line items which we have written all in these 4 or 5 books will be carried out, unless you abandon your $25 million section of the bill?

Mr. HESS. You have no assurance now, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, we have.

Mr. HESS. No, you don't.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, to follow up my question. If he cuts down on the National Guard from $400,000 to $360,000, can he use the money that he saves to spend here under this provision?

General RENTZ. No, sir. It would not be in this public law, sir. He could not use it.

Mr. BROOKS. You mean because it is not in the same bill?

General RENTZ. That is right.

Mr. BROOKS. He couldn't use that?

General RENTZ. No, sir; in my opinion he could not.

Mr. BROOKS. But the principle is the same?

General RENTZ. The principle is the same, Mr. Brooks, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Now last year we gave you $50 million right here. General RENTZ. No, sir.

Mr. SMART. Two years ago.

General RENTZ. Two years ago, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. What did we give you last year?

General RENTZ. Nothing, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. We denied all three services-
General RENTZ. We did not request anything last year, sir.
Mr. KELLEHER. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, can you give us some idea how you are going to spend this? Of course you can't, because you don't know now. General RENTZ. No, sir. If we knew exactly how we are going to spend it, it would be a line item in the bill, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. That is right, exactly.

General RENTZ. But when you have things like these security listening stations coming up overnight and they want to get them in operation within 60 days, we have no authorization to use against them.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, further on this bill, members of the committee, there is a section here to give the Secretary of Defense $50 million in blanket authorization. Now, why couldn't-if you do that, why couldn't the Secretary of Defense use his money to meet your emergency? And you may have occasions when you will be warranted to do something. Why should they come out of that? That would be $75 million in the bill that is not line items.

Let's pass this over. We will debate this later on, without reaching a decision now.

Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman, may I make one observation on Mr. Brooks' observation, which I think is an unusually good one?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. HARDY. If this kind of provision is included in legislation, then it would actually put the Congress in the position of not being able to exercise its judgment in increasing anything that the Secretary of Defense or the various service Secretaries hadn't asked for.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. HARDY. Because if we increase funds for anything, all he has to do is say "Oh, we are not going to exercise your judgment. If you want to increase the number of wings, for instance, and provide the money for it, we are not going to provide the money for that. We will provide the money to use it on the provisions in the bill which we find necessary in our judgment."

I think Mr. Brooks' suggestion is a good one.

The CHAIRMAN. We will pass it over for the time being.

General RENTZ. May I add one thing to what Mr. Brooks has said, and Mr. Hardy has said? The Department of Defense has not held one dollar back in the construction items in the 1958 program or the 1958 supplemental. We got the money, and we got it in toto. When we had to go back and fund one of the emergency items, we had to defund one of the items they had already given us clearance on.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, in reference to the holdback, this same paragraph is in the Reserve bill, and it refers to holding back funds on Reserve armories. The same identical principle.