let contracts to extend the runway and by the time of deactivation about 40 percent of the required runway extension work had been completed. The guard hoped to be able to complete the work, but the contracts were canceled and the work stopped.

What makes the resumption and completion of the runway extension work a matter for serious consideration at this time is the fact that during this quarter 20 F-104 jet aircraft are being assigned to the 134th Fighter Interceptor Group of the Tennessee Air National Guard which is based at McGhee-Tyson. This group has assumed the defense mission formerly fulfilled by the Regular Air Force, and the unusually high proficiency of the volunteers who comprise this unit is reflected in the fact that the group is one of only two in the Nation which has been assigned the F-104 which is, as you know, a high performance aircraft, holding the current altitude record.

Although the technical manual for the F-104 indicates that it is capable of operating from a 7,500-foot runway (the present length of the military runway at McGhee-Tyson), provided all systems are operating normally, I'm told that experience indicates that on all systems of high performance aircraft there will be malfunctions. Therefore it cannot be said that the systems will function properly and in total 100 percent of the time. It is to provide a margin of safety that it is very desirable to extend the runway 1,500 feet for a total of 9,000 feet. In addition, there are factors such as high runway temperatures, failure of the drag chute to function, and the possible necessity of emergency landing with a full load of fuel make a 9,000-foot runway desirable.

Both the Continental Air Command and the Directorate of Flying Safety regard the present runway length as a deficiency which should be corrected in the interest of flight safety, and they have asked the National Guard Bureau its plans for runway extension. Actually, the Bureau is anxious to resume the extension work but up to now budget restrictions have prevented the Bureau from making the budget request necessary for the project.

The plans prepared for the Air Force by the Army Corps of Engineers, Nashville District, are available and would be used for the extension. The corps estimates the construction cost at $675,000, plus or minus 10 percent. This estimate takes into consideration the fact that some of the grading and fill was completed prior to termination of the Air Force contract.

It should be noted that when the Air Force had the runway extension under contract the city of Knoxville relocated Mentor Road and in other ways gave full cooperation to the Air Force. The city is still anxious to complete the extension work and it has very generously agreed to contribute $200,000 toward the runway's construction and will acquire the land necessary for the clear zone. Since McGhee-Tyson is an alternate landing field for commercial jet planes bound for New York and Atlanta, and since many jets have been sent to McGheeTyson when weather conditions have prohibited their landing at their destinations, it is felt that the possibility of using FAA funds for part of the extension work should be explored. It is believed that the extension could be a joint project with the city of Knoxville contributing $200,000, the FAA $200,000, and the National Guard Bureau providing the balance.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say that it seems logical and advantageous to extend the existing 7,500-foot runway. If one were to consider only the dollar value of the F-104A ($1,692,023) and the F-104B ($2,364,950), it must be conceded that maximum safety should be provided in order to protect the aircraft investment. Of course, no dollar value can be placed on the life of a pilot, but we owe these dedicated volunteers every consideration in making the performance of their vital duties as safe as possible.

I know this subcommittee will do all it can to assure that work on this necessary runway extension is resumed at the earliest practicable time, and I thank you again for the opportunity to appear in support of it.

N

аш

MENT OF SENATOR YOUNG OF NORTH DAKOTA

of the subcommittee, I am pleased to have the tement urging the authorization for construcGuard armories in my State of North Dakota. mory construction has been undertaken in has submitted a number of requests for hit that it is imperative in at least two

instances that construction be undertaken at the earliest possible time-both to assure an adequate defense establishment in our area and to fulfill the expectations of anticipated Federal action on the part of the cities involved. These cities, Hettinger, N. Dak., and our capital city of Bismarck, both took action and incurred obligations after they were led to believe by the National Guard Bureau that construction could be anticipated.

The North Dakota National Guard submitted for authorization for fiscal year 1961 a one-unit armory for Hettinger. The estimated cost for this installation is $154,000, including the architect's fee. The same circumstances prevailed with respect to a three-unit armory at Bismarck at a stipualted cost of $347,000. Neither of these two projects nor any other was included in the National Guard Bureau's fiscal year 1961 authorization request, even though the localities concerned fully met their obligations of raising funds and acquiring sites.

About 4 years ago, in anticipation of getting an armory, Hettinger held a special city election and passed a bond issue for $60,000. The bonds were sold and the city has been paying interest on them ever since. In addition, the city purchased property for the armory, removed the buildings on this property, and leveled it off in preparation for construction.

Two years ago, the Hettinger Armory was approved and ready to be programed for construction. Unfortunately, the unit temporarily dropped in strength and the project was thrown out of the assembly line. The unit strength presently makes the project eligible for consideration, but the unit is still unable to get back in.

Recently, the city of Hettinger held another election because some of the local people wanted to divert the money raised to another project. However, the people voted more than 2 to 1 to hold the money for an armory project. The State has long ago appropriated its share. An armory is needed very badly there and, under the circumstances, I sincerely hope that you will give favorable consideration to the requested authorization.

Much the same situation prevails with respect to the armory needed at Bismarck. For some time, the county commissioners of the county in which Bismarck is located have had $75,000 set aside to help finance construction of this armory. There has been a widespread clamor to divert this money to other uses, but the county commissioners have so far been successful in reserving it for the anticipated construction. The present units in Bismarck, our capital city, are operating under a severe handicap. They are storing equipment in an abandoned swimming pool and the only armory facilities they have available for use are in a basement. Other equipment is being stored in garages. I strongly recommend that North Dakota not be forgotten in the military construction authorization bill again this year, and that the two cities of Hettinger and Bismarck be added to the authorization list.

(The joint statement of Senators Scott and Clark of Pennsylvania follows:)

The Department of Defense has transmitted a letter to the Armed Services Committee requesting that the military construction bill be amended to provide 400 units of Capehart housing for the Fourth Naval District, with headquarters in Philadelphia.

We wish to point out to the committee the urgent necessity of approval of this authorization at this time.

At the present time there are 663 families of Navy enlisted personnel living in a project in Philadelphia known as Passyunk Homes, which was constructed in 1941, and has been occupied by Navy personnel since that time.

Under the terms of the National Housing Act, Passyunk Homes automatically reverted to the Philadelphia Housing Authority for low-income public housing on January 1, 1960. In the 1959 session of Congress, because no Capehart housing had then been approved by Congress to provide for these Navy families the deadline for the reversion of Passyunk Homes was extended to February 1, 1962.

At that time the Senate and House Banking and Currency Committees made it clear to the Navy Department and Defense Department that the extension could not be renewed beyond 1962, and that the Defense Department would have to make other provisions for these families prior to February 1, 1962.

The Navy Department and Department of Defense have meanwhile explored other alternatives for providing housing for these families and has found none to be feasible. A thorough study of the possibility of using section 810 of the

Housing Act of 1959 demonstrates that such housing would cost $30 per room per month, which is far beyond the income capacity of the Navy personnel presently occupying Passyunk Homes.

Other alternatives investigated but found to be unfeasible were the extension of the present authority to inlease housing for military personnel assigned to tactical installations, to nontactical installations, and the modification of existing authorities to permit institution of special station allowances in high-rent

areas.

Surveys completed by the Fourth Naval District, the Philadelphia Housing Authority, and the office of the development coordinator of the city of Philadelphia, and later verified by special study teams of the Navy and Defense Departments, demonstrate that there is no rental housing in Philadelphia to meet Navy requirements.

At the present time the city of Philadelphia has a shortage of 5,000 public housing units for low-income families. The stepped-up pace of Federal highway construction and urban renewal will increase this gap considerably by 1962. The city of Philadelphia, therefore, cannot agree to any extension of the deadline for Passyunk Homes beyond the present date.

Because of the income limitation for public housing, 625 of the 663 Navy families occupying Passyunk Homes will be required to vacate on February 1, 1962. Unless the additional units of Capehart housing are authorized now these 625 Navy families face sure eviction by February 1, 1962, with no other form of housing within their income limits open to them.

During the fiscal year 1959 the Navy recruiting station in Philadelphia enlisted a total of 4,390 individuals for naval service. The effect on recruitment in Philadelpha and the serious damage to efficiency and morale to Navy personnel stationed in Philadelphia if adequate housing within their means is not provided is self-evident.

There is presently a site available within easy commuting distance of the Philadelphia Navy Yard in the development of which the city of Philadelphia is willing to cooperate by bringing it under its redevelopment program, thus providing it with adequate community services and sound city planning. This site cannot be withheld from subdivision for very much longer, however.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD J. SHERIDAN, ACCOMPANIED BY ANDREW MAYER, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, SEYMOUR C. ALENIER, AND HARLOW W. HARVEY, JR., DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Senator STENNIS. I really have not gone over these general provisions. We said we wanted to go through them.

Mr. NEASE. They have been, in part, covered by Mr. Bryant, and I thought we would run through them today.

Senator STENNIS. All right. Let us proceed, Mr. Sheridan.

We are glad to have you here, and your associates, and you want to proceed on any particular one first, Gordon? You have looked into these.

Mr. SHERIDAN. Mr. Chairman, sections 501 through 506 follow the pattern established in all the prior military construction acts. They are standard general provisions.

Section 507 will provide for necessary increase in the limitation on the number of Capehart housing units which can be contracted for after June 30, 1959; and in last year's act, Public Law 86-149, there was a proviso that no mortgages could be insured after September 30, 1960, and that not more than 20,000 units could be contracted for after June 30, 1959.

Subsequently, section 701 (a) of the Housing Act of 1959 further amended the Housing Act by changing the expiration date for insuring 803 mortgages from September 30, 1960, to October 1, 1961.

The execution program for fiscal year 1960 has been restricted to 20,000 units, but since some fiscal year 1959 projects had to be carried over, and we are now requesting in this bill that you are considering, Mr. Chairman, 6,718 units for 1961, the limitation of 20,000 units must be increased to 30,000. That is section 507.

Section 508 would extend from July 1, 1961, to January 1, 1962, the terminal date for the disposition of all inadequate public quarters under the jurisdiction of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Health, Education, and Welfare.

This is requested in order to allow additional time for the orderly disposition of about 10,000 inadequate sets of quarters which cannot be made adequate with a reasonable expenditure of funds.

In some instances, replacement projects have been programed, but will not be available for beneficial occupancy by the present terminal date.

Section 509

Senator STENNIS. Pardon me just a minute.

Mr. SHERIDAN. Yes, sir.

Senator STENNIS. We had fairly well discussed that, I believe, Senator Cannon, the new terminal dates when other witnesses were here. Mr. NEASE. 508. There is one difference that has come up here that I would like to get the reaction to on this; 508 does not, in your estimation, cover Lanham Act housing and, I believe, you are in dispute-not a dispute, but the GAO has a different opinion.

Mr. ALENIER. That is right.

Mr. NEASE. That question shows a difference here.

Senator STENNIS. Let us get it in the record as Mr. Nease has it done. The House-passed bill will extend by 6 months the time limit on the disposition of any inadequate public quarters. You have previously furnished substantial reason why this date should be extended for a year to July 1, 1962. There is now a difference of opinion between Defense and the GAO as to whether this provision covers so-called Lanham Act housing, some of which is still usable.

Now, specifically should the Lanham Act housing be expressly precluded from this provision, precluded or included?

Mr. MAYER. I will answer that, if I may. I am Assistant General Counsel of Defense.

Senator STENNIS. All right, Mr. Mayer.

Mr. MAYER. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Defense does believe that Lanham Act housing should not be subject to the demolition provisions contained in the law at the present time.

I believe the General Accounting Office has also supported this view. Since we feel that we must obtain the General Accounting Office's concurrence in any continued leasing of this housing, we think it would be desirable to have it made clear, either through the act or in the report, that Lanham Act housing is not subject to demolition. Senator STENNIS. Put it on a par with the other?

Mr. MAYER. That is right; other rental housing.

Senator STENNIS. All right.

Now, on the question of retaining the rental proceeds for maintenance and repair in the Lanham Act housing units, do you think an amendment here would be proper for that? In other words, that you

could retain, set up a revolving fund, for the repair and maintenance of the Lanham Act housing?

Mr. ALENIER. May I answer that, sir?

Senator STENNIS. Yes.

Mr. ALENIER. As Secretary Bryant has indicated, if legislation were enacted which would permit the military departments to use the rental revenue for the purpose of maintaining Lanham Act units, some of the better units would probably be retained. However, such units would be kept only when a requirement exists for their use.

A revolving fund arrangement, whereby the income could be used. to at least help defray the costs of maintenance and operation would be of assistance to military comamnders in programing repairs to these units, it would relieve the competition for maintenance and operation dollars which every base commander faces.

Basically, a determination of economic feasibility, together with requirement, would be paramount in deciding what Lanham Act units. would be retained.

In general, the rentals received from these units are inadequate to maintain them.

Senator STENNIS. Well, there you are.

All right. Thank you very much for your observation and testimony. Proceed.

Mr. SHERIDAN. Section 509 prescribes the customary cost limitations on certain common and repetitive types of construction. That has appeared in the bill each year.

Section 510 would repeal section 2662, title 10, United States Code, and section 43 of the act of August 10, 1956.

These are the provisions formerly contained in title 6 of Public Law 155, 82d Congress.

That provided the Secretaries of the military departments and the Administrator of Federal Civil Defense Administration shall come into agreement with the Armed Services Committees with respect to certain real estate actions involving $25,000 or more.

Early in the hearings on this bill, Mr. Chairman, you will undoubtedly recall that Secretary Bryant referred to the President's transmittal of the message to Congress that the Attorney General had advised him that these sections violated fundamental constitutional principles.

We would prefer in lieu of the House passed amendment, we would prefer the original so-called Vinson amendment which Chairman Vinson introduced in the committee, as a substitute for section 510, but which was not passed by the House.

They passed a much more restrictive and repugnant provision as far as the Attorney General is concerned.

Senator STENNIS. You mean in this bill?

Mr. SHERIDAN. Yes, sir; in the House bill.

We proposed that the title 6, former title 6, be repealed, and the House made the provision even tougher.

I do not know if you wish to go into that further or not. I think there has been quite a bit of testimony on that.

Senator STENNIS. Yes. I think that is pretty much before us here, what we already have, our previous knowledge of it. I think that is fairly well presented.