Mr. STRATTON. I hope it will be kept under effective review, Mr. Secretary.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Stratton.

Mr. Cohelan?

Mr. COHELAN. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, I noticed you were going to build some new hospitals. I am also sure that you are aware that we have some old hospitals that are in pretty bad shape. I am specifically referring to Letterman General in San Francisco and Oak Knoll in Oakland.

I am wondering if there is anything in the bill to put these things back together because they are falling to pieces. These are existing facilities.

Secretary MORRIS. Our policy, sir, is to replace in order of need. Mr. COHELAN. You are not seriously suggesting that there isn't a need at Letterman General Hospital?

Secretary MORRIS. Sir, I do not know those conditions. I should not comment.

Mr. COHELAN. This record is filled with testimony on this subject, and I personally have had the opportunity to inspect the facility on many occasions. My district is adjacent to it.

I am terribly interested in this particular kind of problem and also medical administration generally. They are in very bad shape. I am also for new hospitals; don't misunderstand me." But this is an important facility and so is the Oakland facility. And there is one contradiction that occurs to me. Mare Island has a hospital already in existence that has been phased out and it is not being utilized and yet we have Travis Air Force Base just up the line aways. Now I don't understand this. I understand that something else is going to go in this year in that Mare Island operation, but that was built for a hospital and it happens to be a very beautiful hospital facility. These are contradictions that I don't understand, but I would like to have them explained.

Now that is No. 1. No. 2, Mr. Secretary, I also want to concur most strongly in everything that has been said as to section 409.

In the short time that I have been a member of this committee, I have made it my business to learn something about military housing and everything that has been said would merely be repetitious, but I share those feelings and I urge that you reexamine this very closely. I would like to, at the appropriate time, add remarks of my own that have nothing to do with the physical problems, but the sociological problems that are associated with this whole business.

Now the other thing that I would like to comment on has already been pointed out and that is on this change order problem.

I understand that you participated in the Sheppard hearings. I merely wanted to, for the benefit of the record, state my great concern about this because there are many contractors in my district who have called this to my attention.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Now, Mr. Clancy, any questions?

Mr. CLANCY. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Governor Stafford, any questions?

Mr. STAFFORD. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Pike, any questions?

Mr. PIKE. I would like to ask one.

I see on page 6 that for fiscal 1960, over 185,000 acres of military land were declared excess. You are only asking for 816 acres of

acquisition this year.

Is this 185,000 a typical figure? Do you have any anticipation say that it will equal that in 1961, and what is the policy as far as-I would like to agree with what Mr. Bates said about getting rid of these white elephants.

Secretary MORRIS. We would anticipate about the same level, I think, sir, and we are very interested in maximum utilization and prompt "excessing" of unneeded real property.

Mr. PIKE. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I will say, Mr. Pike, that whenever the departments find they do not need an installation, they reach a decision as to whether it should be disposed of by General Services Administration.

Under the law they have to submit that information to the committee and the committee over in the Senate, and that is sent here and we circularize the members with that information.

Of course, we don't want to own any realty unless it is absolutely necessary, but at the same time, just because a piece of property is not being used doesn't by any means say it follows that it should be disposed of because I can recall instances where we have disposed of bases and later on had to buy those identical bases back at a large sum of money. If it does not cost too much to maintain it, it is not good business to adopt a policy to just get rid of it because it is vacant and not being used. Each case has to stand upon the facts and circumstances relating thereto.

Thank you very much, Mr. Pike.

Mr. Wickersham?

Mr. WICKERSHAM. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, with reference to the houses, when you build a new Capehart house, or houses, I think most of the members feel that you should tear down the old ones for which you originally acquired the new homes. That has happened in a number of cases to my knowledge. I do think that in certain areas, like Fort Sill, when the city is selling the water to Fort Sill at cost, that the cost of a new filtration plant should be borne by the military, and I do one thing with reference to the hospitals. Wherever possible, it seems to me it would be logical to use your U.S. Engineers in that area and use the architectural engineering firms in that area to carry on the workload and do the architectural engineering work rather than trying to have one plan for hospitals adaptable to all areas.

One other thing with reference to missile sites. It seems to me it would be in the interest of orderly procedure and economy, too, to break those contracts down to such an extent that smaller companies would have an opportunity to bid rather than one or two larger companies where you are installing 10 or 20 missile sites in 1 area.

Based on the information that I have had, I think it is time to put the Nike-Zeus program on a 24-hour, round-the-clock basis rather than 8-hour day, because it seems to me the need is really apparent. One more

The CHAIRMAN. As to your last question, I would say the Secretary, let me advise him, would withhold any comment. That is purely a military question to be determined by the military and not the. logistics and installations branch of the military.

Mr. WICKERSHAM. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman.

One more thing: In connection with your installations of missile sites, no provisions have been made to my knowledge for repair of the roads that belong to the State or county that have been seriously damaged by the tremendously heavy equipment of the contractors and the Air Force. And I hope that when you are making provisions. for your roads around your military bases, that you will take that into consideration.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Off the record.

(Further statement off the record.)

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rivers, have you any questions?

Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Secretary, I would like for you to insert in the record the difference in cost between appropriated housing and Capehart housing. I am sure Mr. Sheridan and your able assistants can procure that.

Mr. SHERIDAN. Yes, sir; will do.

Mr. RIVERS. And also I would like to ask, on the subject of hospitals, if you know the reason, since I recall a part of your background was in the Bureau of the Budget, why not the hospital which this committee authorized and for which the Appropriations Committee made the money available and this committee again gave some new light to the appropriation as it almost expired, at Fort Jackson, S.C., an Army hospital at Fort Jackson?

Secretary MORRIS. I am sorry, sir, I had no contact with that

matter.

Mr. RIVERS. Well, you can, if you don't mind, find out for me and find out just where it was stopped, please. My information is that the Army approved it; the Army asked for it, and that it was stopped by the Bureau of the Budget, and if that will help you get startedI would like to find out about that during this session of the hearings because, as you know, that is a going installation at Fort Jackson. Secretary MORRIS. Yes.

Mr. RIVERS. The only one we have in our State.

Mr. SHERIDAN. Mr. Rivers, I think that was stopped in the Army the last time but we will check that and furnish the information to you.

Mr. RIVERS. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Rivers.

Any other questions which any other members of the committee have?

Mr. Kowalski?

Mr. KOWALSKI. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to return to your statement where you say that 43 percent of these projects will be in support of missile facilities.

Can you break that figure down to show how much was in intermediate and how much was ICBM's? I am trying to find out more specifically about the Atlas missile.

Secretary MORRIS. We can insert some data in the record if you would like, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, put it in the record.

(The information referred to is as follows:)

Of the more than 43 percent, or $337 million, for projects in support of missile facilities, $259 million is in support of ICBM's and $12 million is in support of

IRBM's. The remaining $66 million is in support of Nike-Zeus, Nike-Hercules, Hawk, Mace, and related missile support facilities. No new authorization is included in H.R. 2743 for the Atlas missile.

Mr. KOWALSKI. All right. Can you tell me how much or what percentage of the money is going toward the Atlas missile facilities? Mr. SHERIDAN. There is none in this bill.

Mr. KOWALSKI. Thank you very much.

I want to go on. I am happier for that because

Mr. SHERIDAN. That was previously authorized, so there is none in this bill.

Mr. KOWALSKI. Can you tell me why?

Mr. SHERIDAN. We are finished. This finishes up the necessary authorization for the Atlas. Then you go into the next family of missiles.

Mr. KOWALSKI. I will pass on that question, though I intend to develop something.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right. Do it later.

Mr. KOWALSKI. I wonder, can we go back to how much delay there was in the past in the facilities that you were building for these ICBM's? You said a few weeks. Could it have been as long as 6 months?

Mr. SHERIDAN. It could have been on one installation, the first or second one.

Mr. KOWALSKI. I might say for the record that that is what the Assistant Secretary of Defense told me in writing, a delay of 6 months. You also made a statement that this was in great measure due to labor difficulties.

Mr. SHERIDAN. No, sir; I don't think it was.

Mr. KOWALSKI. I am sorry.

Mr. SHERIDAN. It was a design problem. The missile was being designed at the same time that the facilities were being constructed to support the missile. A change in the missile necessitated a change in the installation. That is what Mr. Hardy referred to as a feud between the Engineers and the Air Force. It is not, really.

It is a question that the Air Force is doing the design; the Engineers are doing the construction. There is a change in the design that holds up the construction. If the change isn't made, the missile doesn't fly. So the delay is necessary.

Mr. KOWALSKI. Thank you.

Mr. HARDY. Could I just on that point

Mr. KOWALSKI. Yes.

Mr. HARDY. Actually, the Air Force tried to do the construction too, along with the Engineers.

Secretary MORRIS. No.

Mr. SHERIDAN. No, sir; I wouldn't think so.

Mr. HARDY. Then I don't read the hearings right.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, members of the committee

Mr. KOWALSKI. Mr. Chairman, I have one more question.
The CHAIRMAN. All right, go ahead.

Mr. KOWALSKI. I found in my visits that an installation, for example, as Boulhaut in Morocco, costing $20 million was built and was never used one single day for any tactical purpose. I can understand what happened there. I don't blame anyone, but I am concerned about the expenditure of funds in this very rapidly advancing tech

nological age, and I wonder whether we have the management skill to know whether we are wasting money or not.

My question in line with this is as follows: Do you have any provision that when you take up a project, that someone in responsible positions will say this is good for 5 years and is needed for 5 years? Secretary MORRIS. (Nods.)

Mr. KOWALSKI. You do have them?
Secretary MORRIS. I think so.

Mr. KOWALSKI. And someone puts his name on the line.
Now, how often do you review these projects?

Mr. SHERIDAN. That particular one at Boulhaut was reviewed while it was under construction and the Secretary of Defense stopped the construction of that project. It was never finished.

Mr. KOWALSKI. Let's go on. used it?

We still own it and no one has ever

Mr. SHERIDAN. That is right. Never really completed.

Mr. KOWALSKI. Now, how often do you review the project for which you have authorization or funds, to determine whether they have any utility for the future?

Mr. SHERIDAN. That is a constant review, sir.

Mr. KOWALSKI. What does this mean, constant?

Mr. SHERIDAN. Well, it is done jointly by the

Mr. KOWALSKI. I mean you can't review everything constantly. Mr. SHERIDAN. No, but when a change is made in procurement, for example, in the missile field, that will affect the number of installations. necessary to support it, either increase or decrease, then we take a reading on that as far as the reflection on the construction program is concerned.

Mr. KOWALSKI. And do you at that time determine how much longer this particular facility will be useful for?

Mr. SHERIDAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. KOWALSKI. I am examining management skills here.

Mr. SHERIDAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. KOWALSKI. Because we are certainly spending millions, hundreds of millions of dollars, and there is some question but what we have the management setup to determine whether we are spending it correctly.

I am not questioning the need and the mistakes that we have made. The CHAIRMAN. His answer was, Mr. Kowalski, that he constantly reviews the construction and the bases all the time, and if it so develops that there is a change in the weapons system or some other changes that would not warrant the continuation, it would be stopped. He just referred to the fact, as you pointed out, that they spent $20 million and it has never been used because something changed. That has happened down here in North Carolina on two or three places which I could recall now.

Mr. PRICE. And Wisconsin.

The CHAIRMAN. We spent $12 or $15 million and it has never been used because something changed. But, if it hadn't changed, they would use it.

Mr. KOWALSKI. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you might say that a man-well, I won't Say it.

57066-61-No. 2- -3