Senator STENNIS. I want you to file something that you can live under now, but give your reasons for your position.

Mr. FORE. Yes, sir.

Senator STENNIS. And there will be no attempt here at any meat ax legislation, but I am satisfied that something ought to be done about this. We have got to look at some source from you fellows to get us some figures that we can go by. All right.

What is your next item, please?

Mr. FORE. 413, Mr. Chairman, and that pertains to increasing the prior authorization from $500,000 to $900,000 which was granted by Public Law 85-365 for the military to provide certain support and assistance to the winter Olympic games in Squaw Valley, Calif. That assistance consists of the loan of equipment, certain services in snow compaction using mechanical equipment, certain communications, and the loan of communications equipment. Now, that work has gone on very well, and the services' contributions to the Olympic games has been very good. However, costs have exceeded expectations, particularly for snow compaction, and further, there is a special requirement that has arisen to guarantee financially the equipment which has been loaned to Olympic Games Committee people who guarantee that by a bond, and the cost of that bond requires that certain of the money, of the $500,000 previously authorized, be placed in

escrow.

For that reason it is not usable. So they need more money for that

reason.

Senator ENGLE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? Will you get part of that back? In other words, this money that is put up for the bond, are you going to get that back?

Mr. FORE. We hope to. We have a letter here from the Olympic Games Committee, and I would like to read it.

We hope that they get it back to us too.

They say:

A portion of this money may be returned, but it is obvious that the committee's need for all of its available funds is now.

In other words, they have got $200,000 of the $500,000 that has been previously authorized for them now tied up. It is placed in an escrow

account.

Senator ENGLE. I don't understand that. Why on earth would we have to put up a bond if we are going to put up equipment?

Mr. FORE. Well, sir, it has become necessary for the Department of the Army, which is the coordinating agency for this support, tothe committee must place a deposit in escrow because you see the amount of equipment is in excess of $2 million that is being used out there, and to take that equipment out of military hands and place it in other hands requires that a bond be established for that purpose. Senator ENGLE. Who is the beneficiary of the bond?

Mr. FORE. The military, the owner of the equipment, Senator. Senator ENGLE. In other words, what we are doing is we are putting up our own money to guarantee we will get our own equipment back, is that it?

Mr. FORE. It isn't our own money in that it is the military's money. The law which this pertains to was enacted purely for the support of the Olympic games, and it is in this act, sir, only because of its relation to the military. The funds for this will be appropriated against

the other act, not against the Military Construction Act. They will be appropriated as provided in Public Law 85-365 which is this Olympic Games Support Act.

Senator ENGLE. I can't see how there can be any question that $200,000 of that money would come back if it is put up. In other words, if the equipment is redelivered to the military, it seems to me the bond would necessarily, except premiums on it, and when you put up bond you don't have any premiums.

Mr. FORE. The purpose of the bond is to guarantee any damage that may occur to the equipment,

Senator ENGLE. Can't you put a string on that money to be sure you get it back minus any money for repairs to the equipment?

Mr. FORE. Of course the money can't be spent if it is in escrow. It can't be spent for anything else, and if when the equipment is returned that money is not used to repair it, then there is no legal-it must come back. It can't be spent.

Senator ENGLE. I understand that you are using these ski troops and other units that are involved in high mountain training.

Mr. FORE. Yes, sir.

Senator ENGLE. Is there some incidental benefit to the military by reason of their participation because of the experience they gain in snow packing and that kind of operation, the use of this sort of equipment and that kind of thing?

Mr. FORE. Yes, sir; there is an incidental benefit of that sort.

Senator ENGLE. Is this equipment operated by military personnel or is it under the supervision of military personnel?

Mr. FORE. Much of it is operated by and under their supervision. Certain other of the equipment, however, you see there are a limited number of military people there, not a great many, and the rest of it is operated by people employed by the Olympic Games Committee.

Senator ENGLE. Do we have some of our ski troops in there?
Mr. FORE. They are.

Senator ENGLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STENNIS. Do I understand that this asks for additional money now?

Mr. FORE. Additional authorization.

Senator STENNIS. I mean additional authorization.

Mr. FORE. That's right.

Senator STENNIS. How much new money?

Mr. FORE. The money will be presumably enacted under another act, but this merely increases the authorization which the prior act provided.

Senator STENNIS. I might have missed a point too about the bond, but does this mean that you are asking to spend an additional sum of money on the Olympic games?

Mr. FORE. We hope that this entire amount, $400,000, will not be spent; because, as we have explained, it will be placed-much of it will be used to replace funds, a corresponding amount of funds which are in escrow, and we hope and expect and the committee has so stated here but not in very definite terms, that this money will be tied up and that it will come back, but I don't want to mislead the committee in that we have any definite assurances from the Olympic Games Committee. that it will, because as that activity shrinks down and equipment can

be pulled off and returned, presumably a corresponding amount of that bonding money should come back. Now, whether that will occur so gradually that they can meanwhile spend some of that money, I am afraid I cannot say.

Senator STENNIS. Senator Engle, I never have thought much of the idea of the Army or any other branch of the service going in here. I know we had it up last year and it was kicked around back and forth.

Senator ENGLE. You probably observed the other day they passed a resolution putting up some money for these pan-American games to be held in Chicago. I handled this legislation on the floor of the House, and we got into it because we think it is important for America to turn out a good show in California on these international winter Olympics, and the Congress agreed with that.

The State of California put up about $8 million, and the Federal Government got into it a little bit because we had invited them over here, and of course we want to put on a program that reflects credit upon America.

Senator STENNIS. I wasn't objecting so much to that.

Senator ENGLE. The way the military got in, Mr. Chairman, is because they have a snow problem up there in those high Sierras, and the military had to train troops and the type of equipment that can do the job.

For instance, impacting snow for these runs and all of that kind of business and the construction of these trails, which have to be built up steep mountainsides with which ski troops have a special aptitude and training and we thought to put the two together and say to the Army, "All right, you have the fellows trained to do this. Now we will put this through in a military proposition so you can exercise your ski troops with their information, their knowledge and their equipment." What happened is the military went in there and said, "We are glad to put up the equipment. Some other people are going to operate it and if they do we want a bond established so that we are sure we get the equipment back."

So that took $200,000 or more of the money. What I am saying is that there ought to be some way so that a string is put on the $200,000 so that it does not leak away from us. If they have to use a part of it to restore equipment to usable condition after it is used in that program, that ought to come out of the funds, and any balance then ought to come back.

That is the question I was asking. In other words, I don't want this Winter Olympic Committee out there under the pretense of holding a bond to lay hands on that money when it wasn't intended that they should.

I think this section ought to require some attention to be sure that except for the repair of the equipment to put it back in condition, and that would put the Army back then in status quo that the money ought to come back. With that kind of a kicker on it, I would certainly be in favor of providing the money.

But I think we ought to have it. I know the disposition of these fellows to get their hands on more money and they ought to justify it incidentally if they are going to do it and not go through this kind of a program, even if they are Californians.

38060-59-41

Senator Stennis. It would be nice if we could have this-this is an international project and a State Department matter-it seems to me that it would be nice to handle it in such a way that it wouldn't be a military matter, involving these gentlemen in appropriations authorizations. I once tried to get the Army and the Air Force to provide a bridge on a temporary basis until a State bridge could be built across a small stream down there close to an airport in Mississippi.

It wasn't agreed to here and anyway it wound up at that that the Air Force could not do it and the Army could not do it.

It was strictly for a military purpose for a small SAC base. I favor the games and favor the help, but it seems that as a matter of policy we ought to keep our military services out of these matters. All right, is there anything further on that?

Mr. FORE. No, sir. I fully appreciate the views that have been expressed, and I will be glad to file for the record the information we have received from the Olympic Games Committee.

(The information is as follows:)

EXPLANATION SHEET RE MILITARY SUPPORT, OLYMPIC WINTER GAMES Organizing Committee, VIII Olympic Winter Games, San Francisco, Calif. Public Law 85-365 provides, among other things, that the Secretary of a military department may, with respect to the VIII Olympic winter games

(1) Permit personnel of the Armed Forces under his jurisdiction to prepare courses, fields, and rinks, maintain avalanche control, and provide communications;

(2) Lend necessary equipment; and

(3) Provide such other support as he considers appropriate.

Section 4 of this act authorizes an appropriation not to exceed $500,000 to carry out the above motion.

Early estimates of the cost of this military support, as well as the necessary extent of the support, have proven to be inadequate primarily because of the lack of complete information at the time of the enactment of Public Law 85-365. While the support from all of the services has been very generously and freely provided within the limitations of the Congress, it has become necessary for the Department of the Army (coordinator of the military support activities) to require the Organizing Committee, VIII Olympic Winter Games to guarantee the return and rehabilitation of the military equipment and supplies which are being loaned to the committee. This guarantee has had to take the form of a deposit in escrow, and as of this date the committee has irrevocably placed for disposition by the 6th Army $50,000 in an escrow account. It is estimated that by the time of the games in February 1960 the committee will have in its possession $2 million worth of military equipment. On the formula that for every halfmillion dollars in equipment the committee shall deposit 10 percent, or $50,000 in this account, this contemplates an eventual tying up of the committee's funds to the extent of $200,000. A portion of this money may be returned, but it is obvious that the committee's need for all of its available funds is now. The effect of the understandable requirement, therefore, results in a cost to the committee of $200,000 in order that it might receive the $500,000 of military support which has been authorized by the Congress. This, of course, is the committee's primary cause for concern. Added to this apparently necessary freezing of $200,000 of the committee's badly needed operating capital is the fact that other contemplated types of military support, such as snow compaction, are running considerably in excess of the early estimates.

It is for these reasons, coupled with the necessity to do the job right, that the administration now seeks authorization raising the limitation from $500,000 to $900,000 for this essential element of a successful Olympics' military support.

Senator STENNIS. Section 414, did you say anything about that?

Mr. FORE. No, sir; we haven't come to that. That is the next one and that would have the effect of striking out the present requirement in the code that real property transactions

Senator STENNIS. Yes; I believe we asked you about that the other day.

Mr. FORE. Yes, sir.

Senator STENNIS. Or someone representing your Department.
Is there anything further you want to say on this?

Mr. FORE. The President's message, Mr. Chairman, recommends the enactment of this.

Senator STENNIS. I think I will call on any of the services that have any special interests in any of these provisions that have been mentioned.

General Seeman, do you have something you want to point out about it that might help the committee?

General SEEMAN. No, sir; I don't have anything particular to add except in this section 414, this requirement to come back to the Armed Services Committees for title VI clearance is believed to be redundant because of the clearance in this authorization bill.

It not only includes coming back for acquisitions but it includes coming back for all transactions.

So if we are about to dispose of property under studies which we make for more economical use of our utilizations we have to come back to the committees. I just offer that for the record.

Senator STENNIS. Does the Navy want to say anything on that or the Air Force?

Captain CHEW. No, sir.

Senator STENNIS. General Dreyer?

General DREYER. Yes, sir; I feel very much the same way as General Seeman does.

Additional administrative costs involved in reclearing these items, and in addition to that, of course, inherent in the system there is some time consumed in both acquisitions and disposals.

While the committee has been most helpful in giving us our clearances on acquisitions so that we have not been held up on any new construction, we have not been hurt too badly insofar as our time is concerned. But on disposals, sometimes the delay in getting the clearance does cost us some additional funds in maintaining the facilities until we do get that authority, and we can make that disposal. That is all I have to say, sir.

Senator STENNIS. We welcome more disposals. Maybe that would make us act a little faster if we got more disposals. All right, if there is nothing further on that, on those items, we will pass over to a new provision of the bill. Senator Cannon, did you have anything on these general provisions of the bill?

Senator Engle, do you have anything more?

All right, what is your next item, Mr. Clerk?

Mr. NEASE. Title V-Reserve Forces Facilities, sir. We begin with

the Army on the Army Reserve.

Senator STENNIS. Just rearrange yourselves at the table, gentlemen, and make room here now for the Army Reserves.

All right.