Col. G. L. SMITH. Their responsibility, for instance, under this procedure, is approximately 50 percent responsibility on runways. Now, they have certain pecularities here in this respect. The Air Force requires for fighter aircraft a barrier at the end of the runways. FAA does not require this. So this type of an item would be a responsibility of the Air Force, and we would fund it 100 percent, FAA nothing.

Then there is a percentage factor, for instance on lights that we use, but this has been worked out in extreme detail in accordance with FAA's responsibility and then ours on the use basis.

Chairman RUSSELL. Is this difference between the $589,000 and $867,000 all to be provided by the city of Colorado Springs or is the Federal Aviation Agency going to put that up?

Col. G. L. SMITH. Well, it will turn out to be the Air Force has a $589,000 responsibility, FAA will have $226,000, and Colorado Springs $52,000.

Chairman RUSSELL. Do you know if anybody else ever got that good a deal at a commercial airfield?

Col. G. L. SMITH. This is the standard procedure, sir, that FAA adheres to in their operation.

Chairman RUSSELL. $52,000 for a $867,000 operation?

Col. G. L. SMITH. Well, I think we have to look at it from the aspect that the Air Force has a definite requirement to use this, and this does provide us with additional safety and operating area.

To cite an example of why it is so important really to the Air Force, during swift strike exercises, when we deploy units on training exercises, I can cite what happens at Peterson Field in actual operations.

A C-124 that would airlift cargo and/or troops would normally be able to take out 16,000 pounds. The runway they have at Peterson right now will permit them to take out only 8,000 pounds. So they have lost half their payload. With this extension we can get up to 14,000 pounds of utilization.

So it does have a real Air Force requirement.

Chairman RUSSELL. I can see that. But wasn't the existing field built with a 100-percent Federal appropriation fund? Wasn't Peterson base constructed altogether by Federal appropriations?

Col. G. L. SMITH. I would have to research that aspect.

Chairman RUSSELL. I wish you would offer that for the record. I certainly haven't any animosity against the city of Colorado Springs but I just want to find out how they did it. I want to advise some of my people on how they can get in on the proposition.

General CURTIN. We will research that and put the information in the record, Mr. Chairman.

As Colonel Smith points out, however, the Air Force contribution certainly will more than pay for itself in reduced operating costs. Chairman RUSSELL. Well, I didn't know we used it so extensively on operations. I had assumed that that was mostly administrative landing.

General CURTIN. It is used quite frequently with the Army at Fort Carson, Mr. Chairman, in moving the Army troops from Fort Carson. Chairman RUSSELL. Let's put into the record exactly just what you have got in that physical facility there and how much up to now the city of Colorado Springs has contributed, please.

General CURTIN. Yes, sir.

(The information referred to follows:)

The city of Colorado Springs acquired the land for Peterson Field, approximately 2,800 acres, at about $200,000 prior to World War II. Construction expenditures without Federal aid totaled about $100,000 for two hangars, one shop building, administrative building, and airport manager's residence with garage. When the Air Force leased Peterson Field during World War II, there were two runways of 5,000 feet each and 1,000 feet of taxiway. These were constructed partially from city funds and partially from WPA funds. The amount the city contributed is not available.

The Air Force leased the airport at a nominal rental during World War II and added facilities needed for its requirements. It was returned to the city with recapture rights. The Air Force now has a nominal rental lease for an exclusive use area 384 acres with 95 buildings and facilities and joint use of runways and taxiways. The Air Force pays its proportionate share of maintaining the joint use area.

Since World War II, the city contributed $179,620 as its share of the cost of a new terminal building and adjacent parking. A portion of the cost of the terminal building was also paid by FAA.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Saltonstall had a question or two fur

ther.

Senator SALTONSTALL. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
I have two questions, General Curtin.

One, you are putting a substantial amount into alterations. Now, that appeals certainly to this member of the committee as less costly than new construction. But are there any of these bases which you can say it is wiser to scrap some facilities and build new ones rather than to alter the existing ones?

General CURTIN. No, sir.

Actually, while I pointed out the 45-percent figure in my statement referring to actual numbers of line items, the dollar amount is somewhat smaller. This is because in making an alteration, for example taking a warehouse space and altering it into administrative space, we can do a real fine job for about $8 a square foot, while to build new administrative space such as the last one we built at Hanscom Field in Bedford, Mass., cost us close to $19 a foot.

Through altering we are getting real usable space at about onethird what it would cost us to provide it by new construction.

Senator SALTONSTALL. My second question is this: You are going to prepare a priority list for the chairman.

General CURTIN. Yes, sir.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Now, it would help us in our work and in conference with the House to know if there are any items that the House included that you think are of sufficiently low priority that we could take them out to counteract the ones that we have put in of high priority?

General CURTIN. I know of none right offhand, sir, but I will reexamine that.

Senator SALTONSTALL. I hope you will. I didn't expect you to answer that question affirmatively.

I think it would be very helpful to us if in the list you give to the chairman you could indicate some of those with the amounts opposite them that perhaps could be yielded.

General CURTIN. I will look into that, sir.

Senator SALTONSTALL. It would help us a great deal.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman RUSSELL. I assume you will file a detailed statement with respect to each one of the items you reclaim?

General CURTIN. Yes, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. Will you now proceed to give the committee the details of your program?

INSIDE THE UNITED STATES

AIR DEFENSE COMMAND

Col. G. L. SMITH. The first command to be considered is the Air Defense Command.

The mission of this command is to provide for the air defense of the continental United States. The program contains a total request for $17,166,000 which provides operating facilities to support the basic mission at 14 locations and the completion of the NORAD Combat Operations Center.

The total program includes $8,640,000 for airfield pavements, navigational aids, aircraft maintenance facilities, troop housing and messing, personnel facilities and utilities in support of the ADC mission at 14 locations; $7 million for completion of the NORAD Combat Operations Center; $1,080,000 for airfield pavements, refueling facilities and aircraft maintenance facilities in support of the Strategic Air Command mission at two locations and $446,000 for an air freight terminal in support of the Military Air Transport Service at one location.

Facilities in support of the Air Defense Command are also included in the Strategic Air Command program for $197,000, in the Air Force Systems Command program for $323,000 and in the Air Force Logistics Command program for $356,000.

Also included in another part of the program is $45 million for dispersal of the ADC fighter interceptors.

ENT AIR FORCE BASE

The first Air Defense Command base is Ent Air Force Base, located in Colorado Springs, Colo. The planned use of this base is for the headquarters of the Air Defense Command (ADC), headquarters of the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD), and headquarters of the Continental Air Defense Command. The total program requested amounts to $677,000 and consists of the following items:

The first item proivdes a 2,308-foot extension to the existing 9,092foot runway at Peterson Field, the flying field which supports ADC, NORAD, and CONAD headquarters. The existing runway is not long enough, at this high elevation to safely accommodate high performance aircraft, and its use will be limited if this extension is not provided. Total project cost is $867,000 of which the requested $589,000 is the Air Force share, with the balance of the cost to be borne by the Federal Aviation Agency and the city of Colorado Springs. This is the project which we discussed earlier.

The second project is for a 1,740 square feet addition to the existing dental clinic, which will provide three additional dental operating rooms plus proper X-ray, oral surgery, and dental laboratory space. The total requirement to adequately serve the military personnel at Ent Air Force Base and Peterson Field is 12 dental operating rooms,

and only 9 exist. Existing X-ray, dental laboratory and oral surgery functions are now performed in very limited space which is not adequate for proper performance of these specialized operations.

GRAND FORKS AIR FORCE BASE

The next base to be considered is Grand Forks Air Force Base, located approximately 16 miles west of Grand Forks, N. Dak. The planned use of this base is for an Air Defense Command fighter interceptor mission, a Strategic Air Command bomber and tanker mission and a Strategic Air Command missile mission. The program requested is for $1,439,000 and consists of two items.

The first project is for a 12,500 square yards taxiway that will connect the runway end to the existing parallel taxiway and provide an accelerated takeoff capability. The existing parallel taxiway does not extend to the runway end and it is necessary to taxi 800 feet along the primary runway and then execute a 180° turn in order to utilize the entire runway length for maximum load takeoff.

The next project is for an addition to the base heating plant and was deleted by the House. This project is urgently required to provide adequate heat to existing facilities and new facilities proposed for construction in support of Minuteman. The existing four boilers are barely adequate to serve the currently connected load and in the event one boiler has to be removed from the line for maintenance and repair, heat has to be shut off from certain buildings. This project is urgently required even with the deletion of the SAGE mission. The SAGE mission had little impact on the existing heating plant since heat for the large SAGE computer facility was provided from the SAGE powerplant. The added Minuteman mission for which construction is proposed in fiscal year 1964 will require the construction of several new facilities on base. The added heat load demand caused by Minuteman facilities will make the existing heating situation more critical. Originally, this boiler project was programed so as to allow the removal of one existing boiler from the line without disrupting heat to any facility. This project is now required so as to provide heat to the on-base Minuteman facilities. Now instead of being a "one down" plant, this boiler will be required continuously as part of the heating plant to serve the base plus the Minuteman load. This project is an extremely important requirement in support of the new mission. The strategic missions at this base are firm for the foreseeable future.

HAMILTON AIR FORCE BASE

The next base is Hamilton Air Force Base located 16 miles north of San Francisco, Calif. The planned use of this base is for an Air Defense Command fighter interceptor mission, an Air Defense Command combat support squadron, a Tactical Air Command transport mission, reserve troop carrier mission, a Military Air Transport Service air rescue squadron and headquarters of the 28th Air Division. The total program being requested amounts to $675,000 and consists of three items as follows:

The first project is for 22,222 square yards of overrun at the north end of the primary runway required for the safe operation of aircraft. The shortness of the runway, 8,250 feet, has resulted in a number of

century series aircraft overrunning into the rough area beyond the

runway.

The next project, a 2,740 square yards aircraft washrack, is required for quick and efficient cleaning of aircraft so as to prevent airflow drag, corrosion, imbalance, and fire hazards. An improvised area of existing aircraft parking apron currently being used is unsatisfactory and is critically needed for aircraft parking.

The next project is for the alteration of three open bay dormitories, total capacity of 474 men, to provide proper sleeping quarters. The open bay sleeping areas do not meet minimum standards of livability and do not offer reasonable privacy for proper rest. These dormitories are in use for sleeping purposes 24 hours a day.

K. I. SAWYER AIR FORCE BASE

The next base is K. I. Sawyer Air Force Base located 16 miles south of Marquette, Mich. The planned use of this base is for an Air Defense Command fighter-interceptor mission, an Air Defense Command sector headquarters and a Strategic Air Command heavy bomber and tanker mission. The program requested is for one item ($238,000) and consists of approximately 2 miles of new base entrance road to connect the base to a new road being built leading to U.S. Highway 41. It was deleted in the House.

This on-base road is urgently required to alleviate unsatisfactory traffic conditions at the base. The existing entrance road serves as the only access to the important ammunition storage area and excessive traffic adversely affects the transportation and supply of ammunition to operational aircraft. Also, currently all traffic has to pass through the approach lighting system at a point 2,000 feet from the end of the runway. The new on-base entrance road requested will alleviate these conditions. It will connect to an off-base road to be constructed by the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads. The off-base road to which it will connect is also included in the fiscal year 1964 military construction program as part of the access road program, at a cost of $1,147,500.

It is essential that both the on- and off-base portions be undertaken concurrently. Under the current plan, if this project is approved, both the on- and off-base roads can be constructed concurrently and the necessary timely coordination of this joint effort can be accomplished.

The off-base road is expected to be complete in the fall of calendar year 1964 or early 1965. The on-base-road is expected to be complete in the fall of 1964. It the on-base road is deferred to the fiscal year 1965 military construction program, it could not be completed until the fall of 1965. The Air Force would then have no use of the completed off-base road for three-fourths of a year.

Chairman RUSSELL. I have a question about this road at K. I. Sawyer Air Force Base that is over Federal lands.

General CURTIN. Yes, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. Has any effort been made to get the State or local authorities to construct that road?

Col. G. L. SMITH. This, sir, is an on-base road. It connects with an off-base access road that will be used exclusively for military operation and, therefore, would be a normal military requirement.