General WILSON. Yes, sir. Senator STENNIS. All right, what else? General WILSON. The second one is the runway arresting barriers. We had authorized in last year's bill for a total of $300,000. Due to a change in the type of barrier, it is a later and better model, the increased cost now is up to $480,000, sir. Senator STENNIS. All right, next item? General WILSON. Those are the only two, sir, that I have. General WILSON. Yes, sir. Senator STENNIS. While we are on this matter, let us just finish. up the bill. Going to the Army here a minute, the Army Reserve, section 603 of Public Law 85-685, page 66 of the bill, will someone answer up for the Army? General SEEMAN. Mr. Chairman, you are referring to the amend ments Senator STENNIS. Yes. General SEEMAN. For increased authorization at Canton, Ohio- General SEEMAN. Greenwood, S.C., and Johnstown, Pa. General SEEMAN. This is similar to the case mentioned by General Wilson. It is where the advance stage of our plan exists and possibly some review of the manning strength and the requirements of those stations has required us to come in with this additional request for further authorization. Senator STENNIS. General, that does not sound too strong now for a 50-percent increase. You say a probable increase is manpower? General SEEMAN. May I ask the colonel from the Reserve to answer these questions. Colonel Sewell? Colonel SEWELL. Canton, Ohio, is a 3-bay maintenance shop in addition to an existing center out there which was originally programed on a price list of 1957. I believe the figure there, General, is $40,000 going up to $61,000. Senator STENNIS. Maybe I took you by surprise there. Colonel SEWELL. I believe I can answer that, sir. The price list of this original program was $40,000. At that time we had very little experience really on what these additions of this nature would cost. We since then have a considerable amount of experience on it, and the price of $61,000 represents a more realistic figure. Likewise in the case of Greenwood, which is the addition of an assembly hall and a 2-bay maintenance shop to an existing facility, and the same project at Johnstown, Pa., all based on fiscal year 1958 program price lists which were actually developed in fiscal year 1957 with very little experience to go on at that time, sir. Senator STENNIS. What kind of buildings are they? Colonel SEWELL. The project at Canton, Ohio, consists of an existing 2-unit or 400-man building. At the time it was built we were not authorized to construct the maintenance shop additoin. This does give a 3-bay maintenance shop. Senator STENNIS. What was the building at Greenwood, S.C.? Colonel SEWELL. That was a 1-unit or 200-man building, the same project as at Johnstown, Pa. At the time they were constructed we were not authorized an assembly hall or maintenance shop. Senator STENNIS. Who made those estimates for you, the U.S. Engineers? Colonel SEWELL. Yes, sir; and as I say they were based on at that time no prior experience with this type of an addition. Senator STENNIS. They have vast experience in this matter though. General SEEMAN. I might mention, Mr. Chairman, it is not all in the estimate. There has been an assembly hall and 2-bay maintenance shop added. They reviewed the overall project in that area. It is true that from 1957 to now there have probably been some changes in the estimated cost. Senator STENNIS. The amendment is due to additional facilities? General SEEMAN. Yes, sir; to the project in that area. The items under consideration are additions to existing facilities. The amended estimates for these additions are based on cost experience subsequent to the original estimates. Senator STENNIS. I just don't understand the military language at times. All right, that covers the three items. Thank you very much. General SEEMAN. The next item on that page, Mr. Chairman, is revisions of certain of the authorized list within the National Guard area to accord with their present programed priorities. Colonel Kibbler can answer that in detail. Senator STENNIS. What item are you talking about? General SEEMAN. This is page 66 of the bill at the botom, the Army National Guard. Senator STENNIS. All right, you are proposing to rescind this. Colonel KIBBLER. Two projects in New Jersey, Hammonton and Pitman, N.J. At the time when we presented our program to the Department of the Army and the Department of Defense, the adjutant general of New Jersey stated that in their opinion they would not need these two projects under reorganization. Based on the troop bases furnished to New Jersey they now have stated that they are a requirement and the Legislature of New Jersey has been requested by the Governor for the matching State funds. Rather than delete these and have to resubmit them next year, we felt that we should keep them in as authorized projects. Senator STENNIS. So you request then that they be kept in? Senator STENNIS. What is your justification for striking out these others? Colonel KIBBLER. The rest of them we are striking out are at the request and the suggestion of the adjutant generals of the States concerned. Senator STENNIS. That is enough reason. Anything else on that subject? Now we have two rescissions here for the Navy, Naval Air Station, Denver, Colo., also Naval Air Station, Niagara Falls. What does the Navy say to those? Captain FOSTER. I am Captain Foster, Mr. Chairman, Admiral Keith mentioned in his statement that, because of the closing of the naval air stations at Denver and Niagara Falls, which is a part of the readjustment of the Shore Establishment to make it commensurate with the size of the operating forces, two line items that were previously authorized for these stations are no longer needed. Senator STENNIS. Does that mean you are cutting down on your program as a whole or that these are two that just didn't fit in or just what did you mean there? Captain FOSTER. There are actually four disestablishments coming up in 1959. They will not be with us in 1960. This has to do with, as the admiral said, a readjustment of the Shore Establishment because of the size of the operating forces. Senator STENNIS. Just what does that mean? Does it mean cutting down on the size of the Navy? Captain FOSTER. Not personnelwise. The aircraft inventory next year will be smaller than this year. Therefore we need only to train aviators to man the aircraft that we have or will have in prospect in case we mobilize. The fewer aircraft that would have been at these stations next year are being moved over to the remaining air stations and we will still use them. We will train aviators to the extent needed. General WILSON. That does not mean the field is being closed at Buckley Field. We are taking over the facility there that the Navy has. Senator STENNIS. You have a reduction in your naval aviators, isn't that correct, in the last few years? Captain FOSTER. That's right in the Reserve, yes, sir. I can't speak for the Regular Establishment. Senator STENNIS. As a naval man don't you know they are reducing the number they are training for naval aviation, I mean as fliers? Captain FOSTER. I can't speak to the numbers. I am sure they have. We have come down from 645,000 active duty personnel to 630,000 this year, but just how many are aviators I cannot answer, Mr. Chair man. Senator STENNIS. You are not in the naval air arm then? Captain FOSTER. No, sir; if you desire an answer, I would be happy to provide it for the record. Senator STENNIS. I think that is one of the few points I already know. All right, I have had the report on that. We want to cover all these points in the bill because we want our record to be complete and we ask questions about it. Letters come in here and we want to know the position. General Wilson, you are asking for money in this place and the Navy is asking to cancel the authorization. General WILSON. That's right, sir. The facility that we are asking, sir, there is none available for that type of facility on the naval field, sir. We are using all the facilities that the Navy has, but we will have to build for the aircraft control and warning units. Senator STENNIS. All right, do you have something else that you want to bring in now before we close? Is that all you have, Mr. Clerk? General WILSON. I have nothing, sir. Senator STENNIS. We thank you very much. We are glad to have had you here. If there is nothing else, with the thanks again of the committee, I am going to recess now subject to the call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 1 p.m., the committee adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.) S. 1086 AND H.R. 5674 AUTHORIZATIONS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 1959 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., in room 212, Senate Office Building. Present: Senators Stennis (presiding), Jackson, Engle, Cannon, Case, and Beall. Also present: Harry Wingate, chief clerk; Gordon A. Nease and Herbert S. Atkinson of the committee staff. Senator STENNIS. The committee will come to order. This is an open hearing. I am going to ask everyone to cooperate by having quiet and order. In that way we will help each other. I have a short prepared statement here, but even before I make that statement I am going to call on Senator Mansfield, and Senator Dworshak for their testimony first. I know they are quite busy. Congressman Springer is here, too, and I know you gentlemen are quite busy. We are going to hear you. This is a general hearing for the public on any part of the bill for military construction in which they are interested. And, of course, we are glad to hear from the Senators on any point that they have in mind concerning their own State or any part of the bill, of course. Senator Mansfield, we are glad to have you. STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE MANSFIELD, U.S. SENATOR, STATE OF MONTANA Senator MANSFIELD. I believe the appropriation of adequate funds for military construction is vital to the defense of the country and the orderly development and expansion of existing and new military bases is a large part of our defense effort. The State of Montana has two Strategic Air Command bases. Malmstrom Air Force Base at Great Falls has been in operation for several years and is strategically located in the airlanes crossing the polar regions. At Glasgow we now have under construction what may eventually be the largest SAC base of its kind. I am very pleased to know that the military construction authorization bill now being considered by this committee is taking into consideration the orderly improvement and expansion of Malmstrom Air Force Base, and the rapid construction of new facilities at the Glasgow Air Force Base. 705 * 38060-59- -46 |