I do not think is economically justified in doing on these old buildings but if we are to continue to use them, at least some of it will have to be done. The buildings were not designed to meet college requirements the first place. They are indaequate as to their siting on the ground, interior layout, and their basic design features. These handicaps reduce the effectiveness of the work which is being accomplished by the college. Elimination of these handicaps I permit the kind of excellence of achievement that I believe shot characterize this kind of graduate college which is performing important role in improving our real unification. The proposed new building will correct these handicaps and w provide adequately under one roof for all of the functions which ar currently being performed in seven buildings. The question of th permanent location for the Armed Forces Staff College has been th subject of much study since 1952. In the period 1952-56, 28 locations proposed as sites for the Armed Forces Staff College wer investigated and a total of 14 onsite surveys were made by two jo committees reporting to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and one joint co mittee reporting to the Chief of Naval Operations. Membership of these committees represented the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marr Corns, the Bureau of Naval Personnel, as well as the Armed For Staff College. The first joint committee, reporting to the J Chiefs of Staff on an examination of 15 locations, recommended For Totten, N.Y., as the best permanent location for the Armed Forces S College. This site, upon further examination by the Commanda Armed Forces Staff College (then an Army officer), among other short comings was found deficient in facilities for proficiency flying and declared unsuitable for the college. The Commandant then formed Armed Forces Staff College joint committee of Army, Navy, and A Force officers who made onsite surveys of six locations. This comr tee recommended that the "site board" (committee No. 1) estimate t cost of providing all new facilities in lieu of rehabilitation of existi facilities as at Fort Totten. In November 1954, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reviewing the work the first committee, made the decision to table the report and direct the Chief of Naval Operations to activate a third committee to inq into and recommend potential permanent sites. The third joint mittee investigated 23 locations, 18 at military installations and colleges and universities where the Department of Health, Educa and Welfare assisted, and made 5 onsite surveys. This commit stated: The existing facility at Norfolk is the site which most nearly satisfied Armed Forces Staff College requirements. The committee, however, recommended as an alternate site S mons Island, Md. (NAS Patuxent River Annex), as the best of those investigated. The Commandant, Armed Forces Staff Col (at this time an Air Force officer), then compared the Sole Island site with the Norfolk site then in use and found that the la was much more satisfactory under almost all criteria (including for site selection. The Joint Chiefs of Staff were advised of analysis and in July 1956, upon review of the report of the t mmittee, made their decision that the Armed Forces Staff College uld remain at its present site in Norfolk, Va. During 1958 the Navy Department and the Armed Forces Staff llege continued to study existing facilities as possible relocation es for the college, particularly with a view toward finding one ving permanent construction that might be adaptable to the college eds and thus obviate the need for new construction. Nine other es were considered in comparison with the present Norfolk site. e conclusion was reached that the Norfolk site was the most adntageous of those studied. None had existing permanent builds that met the needs of the Staff College. Thus far, in 1959, 13 additional sites have been considered but the esent Norfolk location still is the one that most nearly satisfies the teria for a permanent site for the Armed Forces Staff College. To sum up, the Armed Forces Staff College is now operating in standard facilities. I believe that the college is making a contrition to national defense that amply justifies the cost of construction its proposed new building. It is my considered opinion that no e superior to Norfolk is now available and that none is likely to It does not appear to me to be advisable further to defer the lacement of the present makeshift Armed Forces Staff College faties on the basis of a tenuous hope that something better may be and in the future. I am therefore here to ask that funds now be propriated for the construction of the proposed academic building the Armed Forces Staff College. The following additional information was supplied later :) The preliminary engineering report for program item was completed by Lubin, Gaughy & Associates, Norfolk, Va., about August of 1956. Final plans and cifications were by same architect-engineer and were completed in 1957. Ir. SHEPPARD. Then your most recent survey and study for demination purposes was made in the early part of 1959, is that rect? Admiral WELLBORN. Yes, sir. Mr. SHEPPARD. What was the last date? Admiral WELLBORN. Those studies were made early this year. ose were along in February or March, sir. I do not have the predate, but it was early in this year. Mr. SHEPPARD. When the record comes down, indicate the date of determination of the most recent study, will you, please? Admiral WELLBORN. Yes, sir. The information requested follows:) SITES STUDIED etween 1952 and 1956 many sites were studied as possible location of the ed Forces Staff College. Commencing in 1952, two successive joint comees made preliminary studies of possible sites. As a result of these studies, JCS directed CNO to convene a committee to inquire into and recommend ntial permanent sites. n February 9, 1955, an adhoc committee, made up of representatives of the Navy, U.S. Army, and the U.S. Air Force was ordered, by CNO, to convene Select and recommend a suitable site for the permanent occupancy by the ed Forces Staff College and to submit a general plan for effecting retion." This committee studied 17 existing military installations and 6 lian educational facilities during an 8 month period. On November 4, 5, this committee reported its findings to the Chief of Naval Operations. The following sites were studied by the committee as a site for the AFSC and rejected: Military ACTIVITY STUDIED Andrews AFB, Md. Fort George Meade, Md. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md. REASONS FOR REJECTION Fully committed under Air Force mo- This site is presently overloaded, is not Naval Powder Factory, Indian Head, Fully committed under Navy mobiliza Md. tion plans. Present miiltary activities in the area not compatible to academi endeavor. Within the Washington target area. Naval Air Station, Patuxent River, Md. Fully committed under Navy mobiliza Fort Belvoir, Va. Dahlgren Proving Ground, Va. Ringfield Estate near Norfolk, Va. Fort Eustis, Va. Fort Bragg, N.C. tion plans. Required acreage not available. Fully committed under Army mobilia tion plans. Within the Washington target area. Fully committed under Navy mobiliz tion plans. Present military activity in the area not compatible to academic endeavor. Within the Washington tar get area. Required acreage not available. Fully committed under Navy mobilia tion plans. Presently an open storage area, not suitable for required construc tion. Fully committed under Army mobilize tion plans. Required acreage not available. Fully committed under Army mobilization plans. Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Fully committed under Marine Corps Point, N.C. Pass Christian, Miss. mobilization plans. Prime target area. Area is inaccessible. Required scre age is not available. Existing build ings are unsuitable and in poor repai Naval Mine Warfare Facility, Charles- Required acreage not available. ton, S.C. Fort Monroe, Va. Fully committed under Army moblin tion plans. Required acreage not avaiable. Naval Ordnance Laboratory, White Fully committed under Navy mobiliz Oaks, Md. Naval Air Facility, Pungo, Va. tion plans. Required acreage not av able. Site not suitable for required constru Civilian 1. Acreage in the Camp Pendleton-Sand Ridge Beach, Va. area-Required acreage not available. 2. Of civilian institutional sites considered, the following were investigated and found not available for purchase or not suitable for the acreage required: (a) Kings College, Delaware (near Wilmington, Del.) (b) Furman University, Greenville, S.C. (c) Wake Forest University, Wake Forest, N.C. (d) Howard College, Birmingham, Ala. (e) Manhattanville College, New York, N.Y. (f) Emory University, Atlanta, Ga. The committee stated in their report, "The existing facility at Norfolk is the site which most nearly satisfied the AFSC requirements." The committee, however, recommended as an alternate site to Norfolk, the Patuxent River Annex, Solomons Island, Md. This latter site, however, would require upward of $10,000,000 of construction to make it suitable for use. The committee report was referred to the Joint Chiefs of Staff by the Chief of Naval Operations. The Joint Chiefs of Staff in July 1956 made the decision that the Armed Forces Staff College should remain at Norfolk. During 1958 the Armed Forces Staff College continued to study existing facilities as possible relocation sites for the college. Ten sites were studied and nine rejected for the following reasons: Marine Corps Supply Forwarding An- Requires almost complete development nex, Portsmouth, Va. Naval Proving Ground, Stewart Air Force Base, Naval Hospital, Corona, Calif. Retraining Command, Naval Base, as college. Initial investment $9.5 million to provide academic and support facilities before operation is possible. Not acceptable because of $15.1 million initial investment required to provide academic and support facilities before operation is possible. Increased maintenance and operation Not acceptable because of $9.2 million The Armed Forces Staff College as a result of these studies has concluded that The present site most nearly meets all the criteria for a Joint Service Staff College with due regard to realistic budget limitations. The AFSC has continued its study of existing, available facilities and so far in 1959 has studied 13 sites. These sites have been rejected for the following reasons: SITES STUDIED Naval Air Station, Niagara, N.Y. Naval Air Station, NAD, Hingham, Mass. NOP, Pocatello, Idaho NAS, Denver, Colo. NAD, Fort Miflin, NATTC, Jacksonville, Fla. NAD, Shumaker, Ark. REASON FOR REJECTION Land area too small. Temporary buildings not suitable to college use. Requires considerable new construction. No government-owned land. Tempor ary buildings not usable for college. Predominantly temporary construction not usable for college requirements. An industrial ordnance complex neither designed for nor convertible w college use. An ordnance manufacturing plant neither designed for nor convertible to college use. All but reserve hangar is temporary construction not usable for college requirements. An ammunition storage and processing plant neither designed for nor con vertible to college requirements. Predominantly temporary construction neither designed for nor convertible to college use. An ammunition manufacturing and storage plant neither designed for nor convertible to college use. The following activities were rejected because they had insufficient physical plant: (a) Supervisor of Shipbuilding, New Orleans, La. (b) Navy Material Catalog Office, New York, N.Y. (c) Training Device Support Office, Port Washington, N.Y. (d) Navy Regional Accounts Office, Boston, Mass. TOTAL COSTS Mr. SHEPPARD. Does this represent the total cost contemplated for the Staff College, or do you plan to request additional increments for support facilities at a later date? Admiral WELLBORN. We do have a program for additional facilities which we would like to request in subsequent years. Mr. SHEPPARD. What will be the total amount contemplated to be pent, not only in the present funding request, but those contemplated for future vears? Admiral WELLBORN. The total amount is $12,953,000. Mr. SHEPPARD. How long have you operated in the existing facil ities? I mean insofar as the Staff College itself is concerned. Admiral WELLBORN. The Staff College was established there in 1946. The first class convened in 1947. Mr. SHEPPARD. Have you had any personnel refuse either to teach or attend classes here because of existing facilities? Admiral WELLBORN. Not to my knowledge, no, sir. TYPE OF BUILDINGS Mr. SHEPPARD. The justifications state that the buildings which are occupied at the present time are temporary buildings. they actually classified by the Bureau of Yards and Docks? How are |