Now the committee did not reach a decision last night in reference to the Research and Development Headquarters Command at Baltimore. Now are you in position to advise the committee in the next 2 or 3 days after a survey has been made with reference to Friendship, as to whether or not you can put this establishment at Friendship instead of putting or building a brand new establishment with all the utilities and everything? General MYERS. Yes, sir. The site selection board is in session right now, sir, and we expect to come up with an answer. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Then the committee will, for the time being then, not include that item. Now the action of the committee should be that we will strike it out for the time being and report the bill, if the committee acts on the bill before that comes in, and if the site selection board agrees on this, why then we can offer an amendment on the floor of the House. Is that correct, Mr. Secretary? Mr. MCCONE. Yes, sir; that is all right. The CHAIRMAN. All right, we will strike out "headquarters, Baltimore" until later on. All right. Now give me the figures-what did you say the total amount is now for deficiency in continental United States? General MYERS. It is $54,000,000, sir. The CHAIRMAN. $54,000,000. Now, Mr. Smart, in writing up the report, be sure that you point that out, that there is a deficiency of $54,000,000 to carry out Public Law 910. That is caused by increased cost of material and labor, about 50 percent each. Mr. SMART. That is one phase of the total deficiency of $80 million. The CHAIRMAN. That finishes everything except the miscellaneous facilities? General MYERS. Yes, sir; we have some deficiency items. Mr. RIVERS. What about the one under research The CHAIRMAN. Well, outside the United States now. That is right. General MYERS. Yes, sir. Mr. RIVERS. Did we pass on this $7,000,000 for research and development? The CHAIRMAN. That is the one we just passed on then. It makes up the $54,000,000. What page outside the continental United States? General MYERS. Page 72, sir. The CHAIRMAN. That is right. Various locations: Prefab buildings, $10,000,000, restoration and replacement of facilities damaged or destroyed and provision for other urgent construction, reequipment, $26,000,000. Well, let's go to the one up on top of the page. General MYERS. Twenty-one The CHAIRMAN. Various locations: Airfield-page 27, line 6$21,000,000. Now is that outside continental United States? General MYERS. Yes, sir; that is outside the continental United States and pertains to operational facilities there. The CHAIRMAN. Now that was taken care of in Public Law 910? General MYERS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And it falls exactly in the same situation? General MYERS. Yes, sir. Mr. RIVERS. Well what about The CHAIRMAN. And you have slowed down your outside bases to the amount of $21,000,000? General MYERS. We have, we may say, deferred the awarding of contracts to the extent of $21,000,000 at the present time. The CHAIRMAN. This is to carry out Public Law 910? General MYERS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, we approve that. Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, on page 71, line 23, they got the same terminology there: "Various locations, $21,000,000." General MYERS. That item, sir Mr. RIVERS. What is that? For construction costs? General MYERS. I think that item was previously covered. It covers bases on [off record]. Mr. RIVERS. I see. General MYERS. And is a specific item in this present bill. The CHAIRMAN. Now the next one is down there: Various locations, prefab buildings General MYERS. May we take the next item under various locations under depots and logistics facilities on page 720, line 13? The CHAIRMAN. All right. sir. General MYERS. That is another deficiency. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, we approve that. The CHAIRMAN. That was communications. General MYERS. That makes a total of $26,000 deficiency overseas, The CHAIRMAN. Now let's see. $54,000,000 in the United States and $24,000,000 Mr. SHORT. Twenty-six. Mr. RIVERS. $26,000,000. The CHAIRMAN. No. Now $54,000,000 in continental United States? General MYERS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And $24,000,000 outside of continental United States. General MYERS. Twenty-six, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Twenty-six. That is $80,000,000. General MYERS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Then let the report show that there is $80,000,000 deficiency out of a $199,000,000 appropriation. General MYERS. No, sir. Mr. RIVERS. Eight hundred-and-some-odd-million dollars. General MYERS. $818,000,000, sir, that this would apply against. The CHAIRMAN. That is right. All right. Now we get all that straight. Now what is your next item? General MYERS. The next item, sir, would be on the same page there, page 72, of the bill, line 22: Prefab buildings. We might take it while we have it there, sir The CHAIRMAN. Wait one minute. We have one that I want to talk to you about. Why not let's go back up here to miscellaneous facilities, on page 69. Let's clean that up. Various locations: Improvements to existing family housing, $2,173,000. General MYERS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Modernization of mobilization barracks, $143,000,000. General MYERS. That is on The CHAIRMAN. Construction for reserve force, $29,511,000. Now we O. K.'d that one? General MYERS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. For restoration or replacement, $15,000,000. Now let's take the last item. Now, members of the committee, the Army asked for $10,000,000 for that item. The Navy asked for $2,000,000 for that item. That is for restoring or replacement of facilities damaged or destroyed and provision for urgent construction requirements, $15,000,000. Why not reduce that down to what the Army had, $10,000,000? Now this is pure guesswork. How much did you have on that item last year? General MYERS. Last year, sir, we had an authorization of $50,000, 000. The CHAIRMAN. No; I mean how much did you have to use to rehabilitate on account of fire and on account of floods or anything? Mr. BROOKS. What was your damage? The CHAIRMAN. How much was your damage? General MYERS. As I remember, sir, we did not apply this money against any project of that type, of this authorization against any project of that type. The CHAIRMAN. How much General MYERS. We did have an urgent requirement to apply it against another project which you remember, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Well, how much damage did you have last year? General MYERS. I can't answer that, sir. I can get the information. The CHAIRMAN. You just picked this $15,000,000 out of the air. The Army picked its $10,000,000 out, but it based along some previous standard it had, and the Navy based it along some previous standard it had for $2,000,000. If we fix it at $2,000,000, that certainly is a pretty good guess. So I think you ought to reduce it down at least to what the Army had on a similar item. If you have any great damage, why you can come back before the committee. I think $10,000,000 would be ample for this item. General MYERS. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, may I make a statement there? This item it also in our opinion intended to be utilized for urgent construction unforeseen, sir. The CHAIRMAN. It don't say that in the law. It don't say anything about construction. General MYERS. Other urgent construction requirements, sir. General MYERS. Replacement of facilities damaged or destroyed The CHAIRMAN. Then, that is that much more reason why we should have some control over it and not such a latitude that you can just go out and construct anything without Congress knowing something about it. We can't give lump-sum appropriations. General MYERS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. So I suggest, members of the committee, we are exceedingly liberal if we reduce this down to the Army-$10,000,000. Without objection, we reduce $15,000,000 down to $10,000,000. Now, a very important question now is this modernization, and we make the language read the same as the Army language and the same as the Navy language. All three are in that position exactly, but we are leaving out urgent construction requirements. Now go to your next item up there: "Modernization of barracks, $143,304,000," Now here is the thought that was raised yesterday: Mr. Kilday suggested it to me and I am going to bring it up now. You know the Wherry Act was designed, Mr. Secretary, to aid housing. The Wherry Act expired on the end of the fiscal year. The Banking and Currency Committee had it somewhat in an omnibus kind of bill, while the Wherry Act in all probability should have been considered by this committee in the first instance because it is strictly military housing. It has expired. Now, why wouldn't it be a good idea, and I offer this for consideration of all members of this committee, to put a provision in this bill restoring the Wherry Act? Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Chairman, I think we have to do it because our previous authorizations took out all family housing so that it would be constructed under the Wherry Act. Our authorizations were based on that. I assume that the maximum of five units in this bill is related to the previous action of the committee in taking out quarters and placing them under the Wherry bill and you just adopted a rule of thumb of not to exceed five-family units on a base. So we have gone so far that we have integrated our authorization for the services with the Wherry Act. Now it is true it was in the Housing bill that the Banking and Currency Committee presented. They had it in along with public housing, slum clearance, and everything else, and the House refused to grant a rule for the consideration of it. But I think we have jurisdiction of it. And we have gone so far in integrating our authorizations with Wherry, that we are going to have to extend the Wherry Act in this bill in order to round out our program. I would suggest that we use the identical language that the Banking and Currency Committee had, so that if there is any objection on the question of jurisdiction, they certainly couldn't complain about the language we used if we used their language. The CHAIRMAN. Everybody knows the Wherry housing is a strong item. There is good justification for it. So when Mr. Kilday called my attention to this yesterday, I called Mr. Smart and asked the staff to go to work on it. They are going to work on it. I think we should put it in this bill, whatever is necessary to reestablish the Wherry Act. Now what is your situation in regard to it right now? Secretary MCCONE. Right now we are, of course, very anxious to have the Wherry Act reinstated. The CHAIRMAN. I mean, is everything stopped? Secretary McCONE. Everything is stopped. We have some projects that were sufficiently advanced in negotiation so that they can be completed under the act as it existed prior to June 30. The CHAIRMAN. Then 87039-51-No. 39- -50 Secretary MCCONE. However, we have a great many projects covering ten or fifteen thousand very necessary residences that are in a state of negotiation, but everything is stopped on the negotiations because of the status of the act. The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Secretary, then the committee can understand that the projects that are under way will go to completion? Secretary MCCONE. Projects under way will go to completion; that is right. Mr. KILDAY. Let's develop this for the record. Those were projects processed under the 48-group program, isn't that correct, those that are now in such condition that you can go ahead and complete? Mr. RIVERS. No. Seventy-group. Secretary MCCONE. Well, they were projects that were processed for permanent bases. Mr. KILDAY. I understand, but not with 95 groups in mind? Secretary MCCONE. No. But I think I would like to make this point for the record, and that is, Wherry housing can't be used at these so-called semipermanent The CHAIRMAN. That is right. Secretary McCONE. Or 10-year life bases. The CHAIRMAN. That is right. Mr. KILDAY. I understand. Secretary McCONE. And the bases that are to accommodate the build-up from 48 groups to 95 groups are under a rule established by the Defense Department to be built as semipermanent bases and, therefore, Wherry housing is not eligible at any of those bases. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Secretary, may I ask you this question: I have seen some of the Wherry housing that seemed to be very satisfactory. Some of it was excellent. But what is your experience? Secretary MCCONE. My experience is that the Wherry housing units that I have inspected-and I have inspected a great many of them—are satisfactory. The ones that were built or contracted for earlier are better quality than the ones we are getting now because there is a limitation on the mortgage and the rental that can be paid and as prices rise the only thing that can be done is to cut down the house a little bit. Mr. BROOKS. Should we go into the question of the limitations there? That is what really I had in mind there. Should we go into the question of raising the limitations? The CHAIRMAN. Of course, Mr. Brooks Secretary McCONE. I think ultimately we will want to do that. I can't answer offhand because it gets into the matter of commutation of quarters and so forth and I would like to Mr. BROOKS. Before you get away from this, I consulted with our counsel some time earlier in the consideration of the bill about this same matter. Now, if you use the Senate language, the language of the regular housing bill, it was drawn up before the lapse of the housing bill. The question came up as to whether or not you could legislate under that same language or legislate by reference. The CHAIRMAN. Well Mr. BROOKS. I just throw out that suggestion there. It presents a problem where we are going to have to look into the housing matter. The CHAIRMAN. That is right. Here is the situationMr. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask―― |