Mr. NEASE. Now that is what we mentioned a few minutes ago, the same thing.

General SEEMAN. Yes, sir; the first one of those is shown on page 448, and the second one is shown on page 454.

They are very similar in composition and design. The authorization requested is $3 million each..

Mr. NEASE. Any more of those contemplated in the future?.
General SEEMAN. Not under present plans, sir.

Mr. NEASE. Can you tell us for the record how many there are altogether?

General SEEMAN. These are the first two and there are not any more under present plans.

Colonel Evans indicated that there is some plan, that this is just the first increment and that they may expand them, but to answer your question specifically as far as the plans are concerned, I don't know that. There may be more than two.

Mr. NEASE. There are none planned at the present time?
General SEEMAN. No, sir.

Mr. NEASE. All right, the next item.

General SEEMAN. The third major item in this category is on page 460 of book II, surface-to-air missile tactical facilities, inside and outside of the United States.

The first subitem is replacement, improvement, and additions, as shown on page 461, which is supported by page 81 of your classified book.

It is a $500,000 authorization request for certain battery control buildings. The locations are shown on page 81 of your classified book. Mr. NEASE. Now is that part of this, getting back to page 436 of this book II-is that part of the 87?

General SEEMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. NEASE. All right.

General SEEMAN. That 87 is broken down on page 460 of book II also.

The second subitem it tactical facilities, Korea, a $4 million item. shown on page 462 with the detailed classified back up on pages 82 to

89.

This is an installation and facilities for certain surface-to-air missile deployments in the locations shown. These are approved delpoyments in the overall defense plan.

Mr. NEASE. Now, General, this is a good deal of money involved in this.

Could you give us a description of where this is for the classified part of this hearing now?

(Deleted for security reasons.)

Mr. NEASE. I have one other thing I wanted to ask before we get into the next section here.

I believe you told me, Colonel Evans, there was a few items in the bill that you did not intend to request funding of this year, that you wanted some long-range planning money, an authority where you could have long-range planning.

Colonel EVANS. Well, there were two things not planned for funding-one was section 103 which is not yet reached, and the time I talked to you we did not think we were going to fund all of Germany.

We have looked at that again and are funding all of Germany. There may be some minor items in Italy. There may be a few items in Italy which we will not attempt to fund.

Mr. NEASE. Could you let me have an up-to-date list of these items you are not going to?

I think, as a matter of fact, if you have some items you don't think you will fund I think we could submit that for the record.

Colonel EVANS. We were preparing that, and we will submit it for the record...

Mr. NEASE. All right.

(The information subsequently supplied is as follows:)

The Army's funding plan to support the appropriation request is still being reviewed in the Bureau of the Budget. In its present form all of the requested specified authorization is planned for funding with the following exceptions: (a) Fort Rucker, Ala.: Item 107, for land acquisition.

(b) Fort Bliss, Tex.: Item 224, for eight ON Nike radar training areas. (c) Baywood Park, Calif.: Item 1, for land acquisition.

(d) Italy: All projects at Site Neptune and Bosco Mantico with the exception of item 43, for a parachute shop.

(e) R&D technical and support facilities: We are funding $51 million of the $67,520,000 requested authorization.

The total specified authorization for which funding is not requested is $18,112,000, the unspecified authorization of $17,500,000 in section 103 also is unfunded.

Mr. NEASE. All right, proceed.

General SEEMAN. The next section, Mr. Chairman, is the one you referred to some time ago when the Navy was here, section 103, that general authorization for new, unforeseen research and development requirements or improved production schedules if the Secretary of Defense determines it.

It has an authorization of $17,500,000 and in the House the discussion was to make that $5 million and our answer on that is the same as the chairman heard before.

It is rather to accommodate ability to meet new and unforeseen. developments. Last year there was no comparable funding. If a new change of direction occurs, it requires a reprograming action. through the Appropriations Committee and approval of the Secretary of Defense to take advantage of it.

Mr. NEASE. There is actually no money requested for this in the funding bill. This is strictly a reprograming?

General SEEMAN. It provides the authority to do it.

Mr. NEASE. Do you have the figures of how much of this you used last year?

General SEEMAN. We did not use this authority at all last year. Colonel EVANS. I might say there were two occasions where we contemplated most seriously.

One was initially on the JPL development center out on the west. coast which ultimately was turned over, as you know, to the Advanced Space Research Agency, NASR.

We had actually initiated action along that line when the decision was made to take it from Army and turn it over to NASR; that precluded any need for coming on in with it.

There was another occasion in which the international situation had us really scrambling to see if we had any device we could use to provide construction in support of certain operations we did last year.

and bookshelves in the enlisted men's rooms and in NCO rooms have had to be deferred in order to make the award on the basic structure. Mr. NEASE. That was a low estimate of the original cost? General SEEMAN. It could have been a low estimate, it could have been due to cost increases during the period or additional difficulties found on the foundations when they opened them up.

Mr. NEASE. That brings us to the last item.

General SEEMAN. The last item which is a summation of the total of Public Law 85-241 which really adds up these previous four items. Mr. NEASE. That is your total figure; $1,186,000 is the total deficit authorization requested here?

General SEEMAN. That is correct. I believe that completes us now, except for the wishes of the chairman concerning the housing and the Reserve Forces facilities.

Mr. NEASE. Thank you very much.

General SEEMAN. And the general provisions of course.

Senator STENNIS. Gentlemen, I know everything is entirely all right, but I want to make clear, General Seeman, that anything else you want to put in the record later, don't feel hesitant at all in sending it over, or if you feel like you need to testify orally, any of you, just

come on in.

Even though we will announce except for the housing and the general provisions that we have finished with the Army, that does not mean that the Army is precluded.

General SEEMAN. And the Reserve Forces?

Senator STENNIS. Yes, that's right, the Reserve Forces. Now, is there any reason why the Reserve Forces will take much time?

General SEEMAN. I shouldn't think so, sir. There are two backup books that are quite voluminous in this line-item procedure this year. They are quite well detailed and justified, and of course, with me is General McGowan and General Palladino and they are always available too, sir. It is really much more detailed in presenting it before the committee than it was last year.

(Discussion off the record.)

Senator STENNIS. Suppose we try and see how we get along on section 104. I believe that we submitted a list of housing questions to which you were going to supply the answers for the record. Before we begin the justification on the housing items, suppose we insert at this point in the record, the Army's answers to these questions. (The following is the information referred to:)

Question 1. This committee has long been concerned over the family housing program, feeling that it is programed without proper coordination with longrange defense plans and troop strengths. You are requesting in this bill 7,082 housing units, and I have noted in General Seeman's statement that the Bureau of the Budget has approved asking for an additional 1,200 units of Capehart housing for Fort Devens, Mass. Just what kind of review is made of the housing program?

Answer. A request for a family housing project is initiated at installation level by the installation commander. In developing the project, full consideration is given to the availability of adequate community support both in being and proposed. This project request is reviewed by the major command and forwarded to Department of the Army. The Department of the Army staff conducts a very thorough and detailed review of each individual project to insure that community support is utilized to the maximum possible extent and that the project request is in consonance with the approved long-range plans and strengths of the Army. As a further safeguard to insure against overbuilding, the Army does not

program construction for more than 90 percent of the long-range requirement of an installation in the United States and possessions and not more than 80 percent of the long-range requirement of an installation in overseas base-rights areas. These program safety factors are employed to take care of any possible future fluctuations in requirements or increase in adequate community support. After the Department of the Army has reviewed individual project requests and determined which projects are justified and should be approved, they are consolidated into a proposed annual family housing construction program and submitted to Department of Defense for approval. The Department of Defense conducts a very stringent line-item review of the requested program and submits their approved program to the Bureau of the Budget. After review and approval by the Bureau of the Budget, the approved projects are submitted to Congress as part of the annual military construction authorization bill. During the review of the family housing program at all levels, careful consideration is given to the long-range requirement for the project and to the full utilization of all existing adequate Government assets and available community support.

Question 2. What was the original request for housing units submitted by the various Army commands as compared to the number of units actually requested in the bill?

Answer. The Army commands requested 1,455 appropriated fund housing units, 24.140 Capehart housing units, and 7,856 surplus commodity housing units for inclusion in the fiscal year 1960 "Military construction, Army," program. Title I of the military construction bill, S. 1086, as amended, includes 326 appropriated fund housing units, 7,399 Capehart units, and 557 surplus commodity housing units.

Question 3. What is your estimate of the cost of housing units proposed in the bill, both the initial and eventual cost?

Answer. Title I, S. 1086, as amended by the addition of a 1,200 unit Capehart project at Fort Devens, Mass., provides authorization for 7,399 Capehart units, 326 MCA (appropriated funds) units, and 557 surplus commodity units. The combined estimated total cost of the above housing is $27.2 million for the initial cost and $229.5 million for the eventual cost.

Question 4. When it is necessary to acquire land on which to construct Capehart units, is the price of the land included in the overall limitation of $16,500 per unit?

Answer. The price of the land is not included in the $16,500 limitation per unit. As a matter of interest, the only private land which has been acquired for Army Capehart housing has been small acreages at some of the Nike sites.

Question 5. How many Wherry housing units has the Army acquired? What has been the cost?

Answer. The Army has acquired 14,409 Wherry units. The acquisition cost to date of these 14,409 units has been $10,310,170 for sponsors' equity and $110,041,627 for the mortgages assumed as of the date of each acquisition for a total of $120,351,797. The cost of the sponsors' equity is subject to change based on court awards for projects now in condemnation.

Question 6. You are requesting 326 units of appropriated fund housing, of which 156 are to be at the U.S. Military Academy. It is my understanding that these units will exceed the statutory limitations. Will you give us your views as to the necessity for this?

Answer. To assist in alleviating the critical shortage of officer housing at the Military Academy, the Congress last year in the Military Construction Act of 1958 authorized the construction of 156 units of family quarters for company grade officers under the provisions of title VIII of the National Housing Act, commonly referred to as the Capehart program.

The Chief of Engineers, acting for the Department of the Army, in developing this authorized housing project, found out it was impracticable to construct the Capehart housing because of high costs. It was not possible to construct housing of the authorized space and acceptable standards within the statutory limitation for Capehart housing of $16,500 per unit plus off-site utility costs of not to exceed $1,500 per unit. The $16,500 per unit Capehart Act limitation includes the cost of the house and all utilities within the boundaries of the project.

Various studies were made of the type of family housing that could be constructed using appropriated funds as an alternative to use of Capehart authorization. These studies were in accordance with the solution which the Congress had provided in other instances where it was impracticable to construct Cape