HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION BILL, 1957 JULY 21, 1956. - - ORDERED TO BE PRINTED MR. CANNON, FROM THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE, SUBMITTED THE CONFERENCE REPORT (TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 12138)

Document Type: 
Collection: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
CIA-RDP80-01370R000500060004-7
Release Decision: 
RIFPUB
Original Classification: 
K
Document Page Count: 
75
Document Creation Date: 
November 17, 2016
Document Release Date: 
April 13, 1999
Sequence Number: 
4
Case Number: 
Content Type: 
REPORT
File: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon CIA-RDP80-01370R000500060004-7.pdf3.92 MB
Body: 
Approved For Release 200__ 0LP8/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004 7 84th Congress HOJ_ 2d Session No. Anal AL APPROPRIATION HILL, 1957 July 21, 1956.--Ordered to be printed W. CUMN, from the coaosittee of eoafereaee, submitted t e following (.To accompatiy H. Rr 12138) 1 X T R A C T CCHAAPTIR III ( ITFAL IlrNLLI3311CH Ac.'Y The conference comaittes approves of > 9,000,000, the ataeulat allowed ty the House of Representatives and the Senate for construction of the head- quarters for the Central Intelligence Agency. The c ittee directs that the Agency mace every effort to construct a building to aeee~iate all of its headquarters personnel vitlAia the sue provided, and directs that awe of these funds be spent is such a vay as to ns*a it necessary for the Caopcoos to authorise additional funds at a later date. T W cs ittee farther directs that seas of these funds be obligated or speat until the Directeir of Cewtral Intelligence has obtained from the appropriate local outhsrities written conaitnents for the construction of roads, ssvags tresttasat plants, public transport, and other local facilities vhich are dewed necessary to servo the site selected. Baumsnt No. AVOW of Ibis dossmss$ by oli ba 'EXTRACT determined that -IA has nM eajeellos to #eoloss p It sostalaS tarlarmMMoa of Ilk interest that east fouls classNted of t;I S I Aatberitlr MR Itt" p it contains oelklog of CIA leterod Data /LII- _ SsvlswSr ~~~+~ C' ti- 4-"~ 1 Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved For Wease 2000/08/16.: CIA-RDP80-0137&0500060004,7, 84TH CONGRESS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES I REPORT 2d Session No. 2638 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION BILL, 1957 JULY 7, 1956.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole Houseon the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. CANNON, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following REPORT The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations to supply certain regular and supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1957, and for other purposes. The estimates upon which the bill is based are contained in House Documents Nos. 256, 318, 373, 400, 401, 403, 420, 424, 426, and 440. The bill is divided into chapters corresponding to the subcommittees considering the estimates. The recommendations contained in the bill are a result of deliberations of the several subcommittees as approved by the full Committee. SUMMARY OF BILL Budget estimates considered by the Committee total $1,222,849,525. Appropriations recommended total $1,555,535,425, an increase of $332,685,900. The various items of increase are more than offset by specific and indefinite rescissions in excess of $365,000,000. Amounts of the estimates and recommendations are distributed by chapters of the bill as indicated in the following table. Document No. RovIew of this document by CIA has' deform ed that L8" CIA has no abjection to deolass ^ it contains Information of CIA Interest thax must remain classified at TS S 0 Atthority: MR 7C.2 cc tto ^ ht s B911,109 of CIA iota of _ 71006-56-1 Date t ~- e- Reviewer Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved For Release 200P(08 IAiR a?OBO(Bfl)0060@ I O O O O O O O O O O O ? 0 o o g ?? ?o o I? ? ? o ? o ? o 0 0 o N IrS co 0 o ci 1- 1 ? 00 ? I I ? r: I I IN ci 4 l I X I 00 I I I - I Q Q> O O O O O O O O O ~D ~ a O N q ? o o O 0 O (= ? In 0 ? 0 ? ? k C 0 o -A ? o 0 C ?%~ ? ci o o 1- 0' , 0 c4, 0 In 0 0 LO Ito 1- 00 l C O 0 - 0 dI V r-I 0 00 1 0 m LID O W d+ M O) 1- d 0 , , . C4, k6 C H i-.I ~1 rl ICJ 1fJ O. r ~1 O O O O O O O O O O O cD O I O p -S O p O O O O 4 O - O CCC o ci o d o a o o ti c% o 1 C ?? a o c? c?i c?'i w ?o 00 c6 C o cd - CC 4 00 1-; CC C s9 0 ti I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I N i- I I I I 1 I. W I 1 1 -1 I I N t 1 1 CO yi F _~ ~ ?V ~ I '~ ^~ %a iE-i U I--J 1 W Vl d y I ,.[ ~ ~ I O C LC V_r I C 1 I I C F+ y y O +~ I i 0)) 1 I I I I, i yy 0 " 1 i I a S~F i a ; 'd r n o y a~ v i o _ . V A r2 ~-/ N H 1-~ U 1 H +~ N H N N ~ M1 N H H ,~ 11 YY I ~~ 1'Y. IN.1 I'V N H A I N N y '/ N I ~ rv C 7 m IC oo N c~ W ca In d+ d+ O a+ ' w In COD I--I eo o L c q r? I as Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved For Ree 2000/08/16.: CIA-RDP80-01370R00060004-7 JAMIE L. WHITTEN, Mississippi, Chairman FRED MARSHALL, Minnesota H. CARL ANDERSEN, Minnesota, CHARLES B. DEANE, North Carolina WALT HORAN, Washington WILLIAM H. NATCHER, Kentucky CHARLES W. VURSELL, Illinois DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE Salaries and expenses.-House Documents Nos. 403 and 407 in- cluded estimates of $2,500,000, $2,175,000 for eradication of the Mediterranean fruitfly in Florida and $325,000 for the burrowing nematode problem in Florida. Of the amount for the Mediterranean fruitfly, $1,250,000 was provided for the fiscal year 1956; the balance was proposed for the fiscal year 1957. Inasmuch as these items were included in the regular appropriation bill for fiscal year 1957 (P. L. 554, 84th Congress), they have beert excluded from the accompanying bill. COMMODITY STABILIZATION SERVICE Sugar Act program.-Language was included in House Document No. 403 to increase by $189,000 the limitation for administrative expenses for fiscal year 1957 to meet additional functions contained. in revisions to the Sugar Act approved on May 29, 1956 (P. L. 545,. 84th Congress). To enable the Department to meet these new- responsibilities, and to place compliance checking on a current basis as rapidly as possible, the Committee recommends the budget proposal- FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION Subscription to cajaital stock.-The proposed language contained in the accompanying bill will authorize the Secretary of the Treasury too provide an additional $13,000,000 for capital stock of the corporation. Capital stock of $100,000,000 is authorized of which $27,000,000 has been subscribed to date. In view of heavy crop losses in certain disaster counties in recent years, the capital stock of the Corporation has been substantially reduced. It is estimated that the Corporation's net capital was about $13.7 million as of June 30, 1956. Since a major portion of indemnities for the current year will be due in August and the bulk of premium collections are not available until several months later,, early loss claims could exhaust the $13.7 million before premium_ income is available. The Committee therefore recommends the proposed increase in the capital stock at this time to assure continued. operation of. this pro- gram, particularly in view of possible heavy losses in drought ands disaster areas. It believes that assistance in disaster areas' through this program is preferable to aid through disaster relief programs.. Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved Fpr Release 2 0 CIp R~pR~ n1 7 00 4-7 g UPrL L Appf~6l'T~TA7~i0 BTLQ, T57" C F H U d -Fi ?~ N c co t- 0 CD 0 Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved For Rele a 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR00 U060004-7 CHAPTER II SUBCOMMITTEE PRINCE H. PRESTON, Georgia, Chairman ALBERT THOMAS, Texas CLIFF CLEVENGER, Ohio JOHN J. ROONEY, Now York FRANK T. BOW, Ohio SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois WALT HORAN, Washington JOHN F. SHELLEY, California EDWARD T. MILLER, Maryland DANIEL J. FLOOD, Pennsylvania DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION Land acquisition, additional Washington Airport.-The Committee recommends the budget estimate of $2,429 to cover two deficiency judgments in connection with land acquired near Burke, Va. in 1951. This amount will complete settlement with landowners who had requested court review of land appraisals acquired under initial con- demnation proceedings. COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY Salaries and expenses.-The bill includes language which will permit the use of up to $10,000 during the calendar year 1957 to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Coast and Geodetic Survey. A similar event was hold at the time of the 100th anniversary of this organization. BUSINESS AND DEFENSE SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Salaries and expenses.-The sum of $75,000 is provided to undertake a special study by contract of available supplies of scrap within the United States. House Document No. 403 proposed this amount to undertake such a study for iron and steel scrap pursuant to Public Law 631, 84th Congress. In approving this amount, the Committee directs that such survey be expanded to include a similar study of supplies of nickel pursuant to legislation now pending before Congress. BUREAU OF FOREIGN COMMERCE Export control.-The budget estimate of $3,000,000 is proposed for the fiscal year 1957 for this program. This item was not included in the regular annual appropriation bill in view of the need for legislation to continue the program after June 30, 1956. Now that continuing legislation has been enacted, the Committee recommends funds for the coming fiscal year. Effective enforcement of export controls requires checking of export declarations and inspection of outgoing shipments by Customs Agents. In order to permit more careful checking and more complete inspec- tions, an increase of $200,000 for transfer to the Bureau of Customs is provided for the next year. Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved*or Releasb 0fb L OAff -I61T3f 0 0066000004-7 BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS Jones Point Bridge.-The Committee recommends the full budget estimate of $14,325,000 for this project. This amount provides $12,755,000 for construction, $500,000 for right-of-way and approach grading in Maryland, and $1,070,000 for field supervision and con- tingencies. It Is expected. that work will get underway early in calendar year 1957 and will be completed in about three years. Insofar as the Committee is advised, this is the first time Federal funds have been appropriated to cover the full cost of constructing a bridge between two States with neither end touching the District of Columbia. It does not feel that approval of this appropriation estab- lishes any precedent on this matter, however, since the principal purpose of the bridge is to provide a by-pass for interstate traffic and thereby relieve congestion on District of Columbia streets. The Committee does feel, however, that benefits to the States of Maryland and Virginia justify their assumption of the full cost of maintenance and operation, as contemplated by the authorizing legislation. INDEPENDENT OFFICE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON WEATHER CONTROL Salaries and expenses.-The Committee has denied the estimate of $350,000 for this activity, feeling that serious question exists as to whether or not its continuation is necessary. In addition, legislation authorizing extension of the Advisory Committee has not as yet been approved. Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved For Re seVDNWMry'P AEM MQUOD060004-7 7 o d o 0 ,~ 0 0 ?y V I 0 LCD 0' L~ 21 1 M M ~ ' a 8 t 1 I t c p CC I q C c1 't C C C t" I ~M Cv >n O c CV C` O cl 0 y `. c+J dl C~ C~ B r - o o C1 c i 0 C ? cv ? o 0o '1 o c~ r ti FA t t G t , C c. , e ? , a O m ~ y F ' 0 ' o - ~ b o ya,' ,~ rya q x ~ C n N 1 IS 0 q y all" m O y , EJ .. C 75 00 E, Ul trz O r-+' U U 9.Ui 0 0 A o W G , P `j 0 0 41 C O t d P 10 a c~ w ~w z t7 Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP8O-01370R000500064-7 CHAPTER III. SUBCOMMITTEE GEORGE H. MAHON, Texas, Chairman HARRY R. SHEPPARD, California RICHARD B. WIGGLESWORTH, Massachusetts ROBERT L. F. SIXES, Florida W. F. NORRELL, Arkansas JAMIE L. WHITTEN, Mississippi GEORGE W. ANDREWS, Alabama JOHN J. RILEY, South Carolina CHARLES B. DEANE, North Carolina DANIEL J. FLOOD, Pennsylvania, ERRETT P. SCRIVNER, Kansas GERALD R. FORD, Jr., Michigan EDWARD T. MILLER, Maryland HAROLD C. OSTERTAG, New York GLENN R. DAVIS, Wisconsin CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY The bill includes the full budget estimate of $49,000,000 for proceed- ing with the construction of a building to house this agency. This amount represents the balance of the total of $54,500 000 authorized for the project, although the Committee is informed that an increase in the amount authorized will be requested of the Congress next fiscal year. Of the total thus far authorized and appropriated, $46,000,000 is for the building and appurtenances and $8,500,000 for transfer to the Bureau of Public Roads for extension of the George Washington Memorial Parkway. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION The budget documents (H. Doe. 318 and 373) contained a total request of $1,041,450,001) in direct appropriations for military con- struction, including $5,450,000 to be transferred to the Coast Guard for construction of Loran stations. The bill includes the total amount of $1,398,450,000, an increase of $357,000,000, which increase results from a decision of the Committee to provide a direct appropriation to the Air Force in lieu of partially funding this program by a transfer of $357,000,000 from the Army Stock Fund as proposed by the Budget. Instead, a rescission of this amount is recommended in the Army Stock Fund. The total in direct appropriations represents an increase of $210,080,700 over the amount provided for fiscal year 1956. However, an accurate statement as to the cost of the military construction program must include the amounts made available by transfer from other appropriations or departmental funds. The total fund availability for the fiscal year 1956 program (including $2,250,000 for access roads) is $1,928,446,300, of which $740,077,000 was derived by transfer from the procurement and production appropriation of the Army. The comparable fund availability for the fiscal year 1957 program, as recommended, is $1,826,450,000, of which the amount of $428,000,000 is to be derived by transfer from Army, Navy and Marine Corps stock funds. Accordingly, total funds made available Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved For Rele 2@Ofl *%.iLC4 MZQa 7pR2O 060004-7 9 for the fiscal year 1957 program are nearly $102,000,000 less than for the 1956 program. The total of unobligated. balances anticipated to be carried into fiscal year 1957 by the three military departments is approximately $873,000,000. While nearly all of these funds are expected to be com- mitted, the Committee feels that such large unobligated balances are unnecessary and discusses the matter subsequently in this report. The total cost of projects contained in the 1957 program, as pre- sented, is estimated at $2,967,000,000. Reduction by the Committee of the number of projects that may be initiated during the ensuing fiscal year reduces this total to approximately $2,305,000,000. The Committee recalls its recent investigation of procurement policies and procedures of the Department of Defense and the im- provements which have been made are continuing to be made as a result of this inquiry. A similar investigation covering all phases of military construction will be soon initiated and the results thereof considered in connection with the fiscal year 1958 program. FAMILY HOUSING The matter of adequate family housing continues to be of great interest to the Committee, and the bill reflects substantial approval of the family housing program which was presented. The major portion of the military construction program is based on peacetime requirements projected into an indefinite future. Methods of warfare are becoming increasingly complex and technical, and, similarly, the duties and responsibilities of the individual serviceman have become increasingly complex and technical. The tremendous annual cost resulting from the large turnover of military personnel is undoubtedly one of the most wasteful features of our defense spend- ing. The Committee ascribes a substantial portion of this turnover and resultant costs to inadequate and substandard family housing. Legislation, recently enacted and pending, will do much to retain the highly skilled and trained technicians required to operate our present-day war machine. One important factor which has been lacking and to which the Department must devote greater effort is that of family housing. Technicians trained by the Services are in constant and increasing demand for employment in private industry. While the Services cannot provide all of the benefits entailed in private employment, reasonable living conditions, a basic requirement, can and should be provided. The fiscal year 1957 program provides for a total of 84,218 housing units, as follows: Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved q, - Releas OO tBAXWORM80 71ROD( 660w 004-7 Army- Appropriatedfunds ---------------?- -------------------------------- Public Law 480, 83d Cong. (surplus agricultural commodities) --------------- Public Law 345, 84th Cong. (Cape hart) ----------------------------------- ___ Number of units 196 505 19,000 00 $4 5, ,048136,0000 , 1 15, 000,000 Navy-p Public Law 845, 84th Cong. (Capehart) Subtotal------------------------------------------------------------------- Air Force- Appropriated funds-------------- -------------------- Public Law 480, 83d Cong (surplus agricultural commodities)________________ Public Law 345, 84th Cong (Capehart)_____________________________________ Public Law 534, 82d Cong. (rental guaranty) -------------------------------- Subtotal ------------------------------------------------------------------- Grand total--------------------------------------------------------------- 338 7, 670 3, 349 607 52,000 553 6,807,000 (1) 54,292,000 12,541,000 115,238,000 -------------- 1 Provides for land, utilities and site preparation. I Revolving fund of $2,000,000 previously established. While it is notexpected that more than 10 or 20 percent of the Public Law 345 housing will be constructed during 1957, the Department is urged to do everything possible to expedite all family housing con- struction. GROUND-TO-AIR GUIDED MISSILES Recent developments and testimony before the Committee have disclosed the fact that the Army and the Air Force are planning ground-to-air guided missile installations for air defense purposes that appear to be duplicative from the standpoint of missions assigned to each of these Services. In this regard, the Air Force is now pro- posing to purchase sites and install launching equipment for the- ground-to-air Talos guided missile for the air defense of certain important areas in the Same manner that the Army is planning an increase in the present number of equipped sites for launching the Nike-B guided missile for air defense of similar areas. This raises the question as to which Service can best carry out the mission. In the opinion of the Committee, based on currently available informa- tion, this mission should not be divided between the two Services., There has been considerable discussion of the relative merits of the Talos and Nike missiles as air defense weapons, as well as charges by both Army and Air Force officials that each Service is invading mis- sions in the air defense field assigned to the other Service. It appears. that the taxpayer will be the principal loser in such a quarrel. It is the responsibility of the Secretary of Defense to see that funds and effort are not wasted in useless competitive rivalry between the Services. The Committee has previously requested, but not yet re- ceived, a statement from the Secretary on this problem. That request is reiterated. The Committee is most anxious that this phase of the air defense program be finalized and specific service assignments made. This problem should be immediately resolved in the interest of national defense and the most effective utilization of appropriated funds. The Committee is very much concerned that squabbling between the. Services will delay the necessary build-up of our air defenses. Con- Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved For ReeQQQ*1Qd]47g}Q00/060004-711 sequently, it is strongly urged that ? the Secretary take immediate steps to appoint a committee of qualified experts in this field, selected from outside of the military departments or private business enter- prises which may be directly involved, to make an impartial and objective evaluation as to the merits and potentialities of the Talos and Nike missiles as air defense weapons. In addition, it is impera- tive that the question of air defense missions in the missile field be resolved and definitized as between the two Services involved. APPORTIONMENT AND FUNDING PROCEDURES It has become increasingly apparent to the Committee that the methods of handling military public works funds and projects from the time they are presented for approval by the military services through the authorization, appropriation, and apportionment pro- cedures, are so time-consuming and extensive as to be indefensible. Prior to the presentation of construction programs to the Congress for authorization, the individual projects are reviewed by both the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Properties and Installations) as well as the Bureau of the Budget. These three offices similarly review the estimates submitted to Congress for funding these same projects. The programs are subsequently authorized and funded by the Congress after thorough reviews by the Armed Services and Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate. In presenting the fiscal year 1957 program the individual military services and the Office of the Secretary of Defense justified to the Congress the immediate need for these projects, and the Bureau of the Budget in its formal submission states as follows: The foregoing proposed supplemental appropriations will be necessary to implement existing statutory authority for military and naval public works as well as authority ex- pected to be provided during the current session of Congress for projects which are essential in the current and long-range programs to strengthen and modernize our Armed Forces. Yet, it is disclosed that in implementing the authorization and appropriation actions of the Congress in the past, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Bureau of the Budget did not consider these approved programs as being sufficiently firm and specific to permit the release of funds for construction work. Instead, they repeat almost the entire action of review, examining and requiring rejustification of each individual line item in the request of each military department for the necessary apportionment of funds, and frequently changing policies and programs previously presented to the Congress as firm and necessary. Such action clearly indicates that the programs were not properly reviewed by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Bureau of the Budget in advance of their presenta- tion to the Congress and were not based on the sound and firmly established requirements which the witnesses would have the Congress believe. The Committee and the Congress not only expect but must insist. on thorough reviews of military construction programs by the agencies concerned prior to submission of authorization and appropriation Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved Fp1 Release 0.Q I kJ:I 7( Q0 ,W 4-7 requests. The Committee is of the firm belief that the present method of apportioning for military construction involving re-reviews of previously approved line items is unnecessarily cumbersome and serves to delay and confuse the effective implementation of the military construction program as approved by the Congress. Section 1211 of Public Law 759 of the 81st Congress states in part: All apportionments of funds not limited to a definite period of time, * * * shall be so apportioned as to achieve the most effective and economical use thereof. Certainly the method of apportionment of funds now employed by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Bureau of the Budget permits neither the most effective nor economical use of funds. The Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Bureau of the Budget annually request the Congress to approve construction pro- grams in excess of the funds requested. Yet, following Congressional approval, they insist that the military services tie down their specific request to them for funds to individual line items, the total costs of which are not in excess of the requested apportionment of funds. The Committee believes that a proper and sensible approach to this matter would be a lump-sum apportionment for each Service. Under this procedure, the individual Services would prepare a specific list of items of construction which would be limited to projects authorized by law, approved for funding by the Congress, and determined by that military service to be currently valid requirements. Such an apportionment procedure would permit the Department to make maximum utilization of available funds in accomplishing essential construction as well as serve to reduce the time-consuming and non- productive administrative work entailed by the present procedure. A provision effectuating; the procedure above outlined is included in the accompanying bill as section 309. The Committee, by its action, is by no means advocating a loose fiscal policy for a program involving billions of dollars, or for any other program. On the contrary, it is firmly convinced that the recommendations contained in both the bill and this report will result in substantial savings without in any way diminishing the needed administrative controls. The present practice relative to the control of funds reserved for government cost and construction contingencies also seems impracti- cal. Existing policy of the Executive Branch requires the military services to reserve funds for all government costs and construction contingencies anticipated during the construction period of the project, even though only a portion of these funds will be obligated during the operating fiscal year. The Committee believes that modification of the present -system, to provide for the reservation of only the government costs and construction contingencies antici- pated to be needed during the operating fiscal year would be a more fiscally sound procedure. This would reduce the amount of un- obligated balances carried forward each year and, in addition, free a substantial amount of money for application to actual construction of projects. The Committee desires that the Director of the Bureau of the Budget and the Office of the Secretary of Defense modify their present funding procedures by discontinuing the present practice of reserving funds for government cost and construction contingencies in excess of amounts required for obligation during the operating fiscal year. Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-01370R000500060004-7 Approved For Rel a ]AWA&AClA&EI&AiWr ORUQW8060004-7 13 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PROGRAM For its 1957 Military Construction Program the Department of the Army has requested approval of authorization totaling $350,758,560 composed of now authorization in the amount of $304,562,000, prior authorization not previously approved by the Committee totaling $42,163,000, an increase of $460,000 to meet a deficiency over the amount granted in fiscal years 1955 and 1956,_ $25,000 for a study to. determine. an. appropriate site for the relocation of the San Jacinto" Ordnance Depot, and $3,548,560 for access roads serving defense facilities, as set out in the general provisions of this chapter. Coupled. with this request for consideration of the fiscal year 1957 program is. prior authorization previously approved and funded by the Com- mittee, but not executed by the Department, in the amount of $338,000,000 which gives a total contemplated program for execution in the coming fiscal year of $688,758,560. The Committee recommends a decrease of $10,069,000 .in the new authorization requested thus allowing $340,689,560 and reducing the total program to $678,689,560. The specific reductions made are set forth in detail later in this report. The program as recommended will provide facilities in the following categories: Operational and training facilities, $161,035,000; mainte- nance and production facilities, $28,484,000; research, development and test facilities, $33,877,000; supply facilities, $18,940,000; hospital and medical facilities, $4,218,000; administrative facilities, $11341 ,000 housing and community facilities, $21,595,000; utilities and ground improvements, $22,738,000; real estate, $4,563,000; advance planning, $9,865,000; emergency construction, $5,000,000; Capehart housing utilities, $15,000,000; totaling $336,656,000 including both prior and new authorization, of which $237,869,000 is for work within Conti- nental United States and $98,787,000 for installations overseas in- cluding United States territories. Funds to be made available for implementation of the program total $497,000,000 of which $304,000,000 is carried over from fiscal year 1956, and $193,000,000 is to be derived from excess cash balances generated through the operation of the Army Stock Fund and trans- ferred to the appropriation "Military Construction, Army". The Committee recommends that the full amount requested by transfer be allowed and that the program be financed in the manner proposed. This provides an overprogramming of $181,689,560 or 27 percent. Obligations during fiscal year 1957 are estimated to be $400,000,000, approximately the same level as for the current fiscal year. Experi- ence of the Department has been that it is necessary to overprogram by approximately 25 percent to provide for the normal delays in exe- cution and to keep a program of this magnitude in operation. The Committee has noted the manner in' which the Army has re- duced the large unobligated balances which have been available during the past few years. It is estimated that by the end of the coming fiscal year only $97 million will remain and approximately two-thirds of that amount will be committed in government costs and contingen- Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved FIc- ReleaselD0d'-~I'49IJ70FM0W6060004-7 ties. The Committee recognizes the need for a minimum carryover of unobligated balances at the end of each year in order that the mo- mentum of the program is not lost during the period of processing new appropriations to the construction agencies in the field. It is noted that the program of advance design which the Committee has provided for the past few years has made possible more definite requirements and improved the accuracy of project estimates. The tabulation which follows sets forth the amounts programmed for the different projects as justified to the Committee and for which approval is recommended: DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md____________________________ $147,000 Black Hills Ordnance Depot S. Dak_______________________ 445, 000 Jet Propulsion Laboratory Calif _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 143, 000 Pueblo Ordnance Depot, Colo_____________________________ 2,142,000 Redstone Arsenal, Ala____________________________________ 5,259,000 Seneca Ordnance Depot, N. Y_________________________ 88,000 Umatilla Ordnance Depot, Oreg___________________________ 258, 000 White Sands Proving Ground, N. Mex_____________________ 693, 000 Quartermaster Corps: Atlanta General Depot, Ga_______________________________ 832, 000 Columbia QM Market Center, S. C________________________ - 98, 000 Fort Worth General Depot Tex___________________________ 1,285,000 New Cumberland General bepot, Pa__ 631, 000 Sharpe General Depot, Calif------------------------------ 655, 000 Total, Quartermaster Corps_____________________________ 3,501,000 Chemical Corps: Army Chemical Center, Md_______________________________ 368,000 Camp Detrick, Md______________________________________ 913, 000 Dugway Proving Ground, Utah --------------------------- 867,000 Total, Chemical Corps_________________________________ 2,148,000 Signal Corps: Fort Huachuca,Ariz ---------------------------- 6,856,000 Corps of Engineers: Fort Belvoir, Va__________________________ 492, 000 Transportation Corps: Fort Eustis, Va------------------------------------------ 1,231,000 Oakland Army Base, Calif-------------------------------- 371, 000 West Coast Ammo Terminal, Calif------------------------ 3, 209, 000 Total, Transportation Corps____________________________ 4,811,000 Medical Corps: Walter Reed Army Medical Center, D. C -------- 4,209,000 Total, Technical services facilities_______________________ 31, 192, 000 Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved For Rel lofALCI,pp $ %' 7QB0'C 10060004-7,?5 First Army Area: Fort Devens, Mass______________________________________ $302,000 Fort Dix, N.J ------------------------------------------ 54,000 Oswego, N. Y------------------------------------------- 583,000 Fort Totten, N. Y--------------------------------------- 1,212,000 Total, First Army Area________________________________ 2, 151, 000 Second Army Area: y__________________________________________ Fort Knox, K 1,698,000 ,, Fort George G. Meade, Md_______________________________ 5,885,000 South Park Military Reservation, Pa______________________ 190, 000 Third Army Area: Fort Benning, Ga_______________________________________ 718,000 Fort Bragg, N. C________________________________________ 645,000 Charlotte Induction Station, N. C_________________________ 302, 000 Fort McClellan, A]a_____________________________________ 397, 000 Fort Rucker, Ala________________________________________ 7,300,000 Fourth Army Area: Fort Bliss, Tex__________________________________________ 5,301,000 Fort Hood, Tex_________________________________________ - 2,457,000 Fort Sill, Okla__________________________________________ 4, 173, 000 Fifth Army Area: Fort Carson, Colo_______________________________________ 3,253,000 Fort Benj. Harrison, Ind_________________________________ 140, 000 Fort Leavenworth, Kans_________________________________ 6,325,000 Fort Riley Kans______--------- - 1,850,000 upport Center, Mo__ St. Louis Support 3,346,000 Sixth Army Area: United States Disciplinary Barracks, Calif ------------------ 197, 000 Fort Lewis Wash -------- 3,357,000 Fort Ord, 223,000 Armed Forces special weapons project: Bossier Base, La_________________________________________ 30,000 Sandia Base, N. Mex____________________________________ 448,000 Total, Armed Forces special weapons project -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 478, 000 Tactical sites, support facilities: Various locations --------------- 8,506,000 Total, field forces facilities______________________________ 59, 142, 000 Total, continental United States_________________________ 90, 334, 000 Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved Fo%elease 20.0OI8Bf1'.TDAAIRIPB8109[I9MFU005??0'50004-7 Alaska Area: Ladd Air Force Base------------------------------------- $1,688,000 Fort Richardson----------------------------------------- 2,333,000 Whittier------------------------------------------------ 2,849,000 Wildwood Station--------------------------------------- 352,000 Pacific Command Area: Alimanu Crater, T. H------------------------------------ 143,000 Helemano, T. H----------------------------------------- 136, 000 Schofield Barracks, T. H--------------------------------- 2,668,000 Total, Pacific Command Area--------------------------- 2,947,000 Caribbean Command Area: Panama Canal Zone---------------- 1,060,000 United States Army, Europe (various locations) ----------------- 17, 994, 000 Total, outside continental United States------------------ 29, 223, 000 CLASSIFIED INSTALLATIONS Various locations (including tactical) --------------------------- 187, 234, 000 GENERAL CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES AND OVERSEAS Advance planning------------------------------------------- 9,865,000 Emergency construction-------------------------------------- 5,000,000 Utilities, Capehart housing ------------------------------------ 15, 000, 000 Deficiency in prior authorization/appropriation: Fort Jay, N. Y------------------------------------------ 350,000 , Adak Station, Alaska ------------------------------------ 110 000 San Jacinto Ordnance Depot study---------------------------- 25,000 Access roads------------------------------------------------ 3,548,560 Grand total------------------------------------------- 340,689,560 Included in the program is $136,900,000 for tactical facilities, principally Nike, and $8,506,000 for tactical sites support facilities. The latter item consists of logistical support-type facilities for the Nike system within Continental United -States. The Committee recommends approval of these two items, however it is very concerned with the problems currently under discussion in the antiaircraft and missile fields and is expressing its position in regard to this matter in the preceding portion of this report. As indicated above, certain reductions in the program have been effected by the Committee, as follows: Army Chemical Center, Md., $521,000.-The request of $280,000 to renovate two buildings for troop housing has been denied. The Committee doubts that the conversion of these old structures will meet the standards desired for permanent troop housing. The Department is directed to restudy this project to determine if it is economically wise and desirable to proceed with the renovations proposed. Funds for the marine dock in the amount of $241,000 have been denied. This request provided for the rehabilitation of the existing dock and construction of a new dock. A restudy of this item is also in order and it is feltthat the entire problem of transporting materials to the test area should be explored with a view toward developing alternate plans to accomplish the mission. Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved For Rel ~QQ Q J?v gJ4AW1? r9A3~fLPn90jf 0060004-T7 Yuma Test Station, Ariz., $1,5,20,000 -The facilities proposed for this installation were to be permanent type construction. Inasmuch as this station has not been designated a permanent base and testimony indicated that construction would not be started until such designa- tion, the Committee has denied the funds. The items eliminated were bachelor officers' quarters, $357,000; barracks for enlisted men, $1,016,000; engineering laboratory, $30,000; and a weapons storage and security building, $117,000. Temporary facilities are presently available and can continue to be utilized. Fort Lesley J.11'IcNair, D. C. (Academic Building, Industrial College), $3,861,000.-The Committee has deferred funding for the actual con- struction of this project due to the long lead time required for design of the structure and has allowed $250,000 for that purpose. It is felt that the program will not be delayed by this procedure and it will enable the Department to refine the estimates for presentation next year. Fort Buckner, Okinawa, $540,000.-The Committee recognizes the need for facilities at this important installation, but is not satisfied that the items requested are presently needed or located where they can be fully utilized in the future. These projects should be restudied and full consideration given to coordination with construction pro- grams of the other Services. The items eliminated are as follows: Dredging, White Beach pier, $100,000; POL storage facilities, ?.58,000; veterinary and preventive medicine building, $52,000; and a maintenance shop and motor pool facilities, $230,000. Nuclear Heating and Power Plant, $8,627,000.-This project is a con- tinuation of the Fort Belvoir development project carried on jointly by the Army and the Atomic Energy Commission. It is planned to build a test plant in Alaska to determine the feasibility of such plants in remote areas. It was testified that actual construction probably could not be started before fiscal year 1958 and the Committee believes that this is an optimistic estimate due to the long lead time necessary in the development of the equipment as well as the special design required for the structure to house it. For this reason the Committee has deferred funds for construction, but has allowed $500,000 for design purposes, feeling that estimated requirements will be on a much firmer basis when presented next year. The Committee has made provision for the rescission of $357,- 000,000 of excess cash available in the Army Stock Fund, such money to be returned to the Treasury. This amount is in addition to the transfer of $193,000,000 to the appropriation "Military Construction, Army." DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY APPROPRIATIONS AND ESTIMATES The budget estimates for the Department of the Navy, Military Construction, as contained in House Document 318 of the present Congress, total $400,000,000. The Committee has approved the estimate as submitted to the Congress, which provides $165,000,000 of new money and $200,000,000 to be derived by transfer from the Navy stock fund, and $35,000,000 from the Marine Corps stock fund. H. Rept. 2638,84-2----3 Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 PF"Ok Approved Folr8Release , r~~tl,N ?#Pri P~- 5 4-7 This is a decrease of $42,628,300 from the funds appropriated for similar activities in fiscal: year 1956. The need for a fully implemented military construction program to provide the proper facilities for the modern Navy cannot be over- emphasized. The fact that such a program does not exist today is obvious to the Committee. The reasons for this situation are legion, many of them beyond the control of the Department of the Navy. Others, however, are decidedly within their control, and must be eliminated. Chief among these is the apparent need for realization on the part of the top command and administrative echelons of the Navy, both military and civilian, that the military construction program is one of the chief factors in providing the proper facilities and skilled personnel which today's Navy demands. The constant emphasis and vigorous leadership required for a realistic program have been provided at best only spasmodically. They must be provided most diligently in the future. The lack of firm requirements, insufficient personnel, inadequate advance planning, are examples of the problems which have plagued this program in the past. The Navy has made progress in alleviating some of these difficulties, but it is insufficient progress and must be increased at a rapid rate. The time to eliminate the indecision and timidity which have characterized this program in the past is overdue. It must be pushed ahead with the vigorous leadership and boldness of action, which have become so characteristic of other Navy programs. There are several factors outside the control of the Department of the Navy which have contributed to unduly delaying the military public works program. Many of these factors are attributable to the Department of Defense and the Bureau of the Budget. The matter of apportionment procedures has been discussed in other sec- tions of this report. In addition to these restrictive procedures, in, the past, it has been the policy of the Department of Defense and the Bureau of the Budget to place apportionment and obligation ceilings and restrictions on construction funds available to the Navy. In fiscal year 1956, the President, on the recommendations of the De- partment of Defense and the Bureau of the Budget, requested ap- proval of a military construction funding program in excess of $646,000,000, and appropriations of $528,550,000. Congress approved a funding program of $609,158,000, and appropriations of $442,628,300. These funds, when coupled with available unobligated balances, made $601,509,110 available to the Navy for the military public works program in fiscal year 1956. Despite the apparent intent of the Executive Branch in requesting these funds and the obvious intent of the Legislative Branch in making them available, the Bureau of the Budget and the Department of Defense limited Navy requests for apportionment initially to $500,000,000 for the entire year. This program was later increased, at the insistence of the Navy, to $585,000,000. Obligations, however, were limited to $400,000,000 for the entire fiscal year. The Committee fails to see either the need or the desirability for imposing such restrictions on this program. Either the military construction program of the Department of the Navy is essential to our military posture, and must go forward as Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-01370R000500060004-7 Approved For Relyse Q , Alc1 1Q$ 7Q 060004-719 efficiently as possible, or it is not essential and then no request should be made of the Congress for funds. The Committee believes that the program is essential and must move forward. An equally serious problem relates to those projects which are essential to the Navy program, but upon which the Navy is dependent on other government agencies for such matters as base rights, land acquisition, approval of criteria, and other authority needed prior to construction. For example, in fiscal year 1051, the Department requested and Congress approved funds for a communication facility outside the continental limits of the United States. This project was justified to the Committee as being immediately essential. to the Navy program. As of the present date, the Department has not been able to obtain the necessary authority to proceed with this program from the Department of State, which is charged with securing the authority from the foreign government for such construction. Similarly, in the 1956 program, funds were requested for an overseas aviation facility, represented as being critical to the Navy program. As of the present date, the same Department has been unable to supply the Navy with the authority to proceed with the construction of this installation. In fiscal year 1952, Congress. approved funds for the construction of the Naval Hospital, Norfolk, Virginia. These funds were augmented by additional appropriations in fiscal year 1955, based upon the im- mediate need for such facilities. Due to delays imposed upon the Navy by other agencies of the Executive Branch, contracts have been awarded only for minor work such as site preparation and foundations. This has resulted in untoward delay of this project. These examples but point up the obvious fact that military construction programs submitted to the Congress for funding have either not been properly screened as to the ability of the Executive Branch to implement the programs or that there is a marked inability on the part of the agencies involved to properly carry out their duties in this program. Whatever might be the reason, the result has been the same, preclusion of the Department of the Navy from properly implementing its military public works program. In the military construction program for fiscal year 1956, $39,247,000 was approved for support of the Distant Early Warning line in the Pacific area at certain locations justified to the Committee. On April 14, 1956 the Committee was informed that since the approval of this project by the Congress, a reevaluation had. been made of the effective- ness of the concept as originally proposed. As a result of this re- evaluation, the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed that the line be changed and that the seaward extension of the early warning line be operated from installations other than those presented to the Congress. Mean- while, approxim.atel3t $1,285,000 had been used for preparation of plans and specifications for the original sites. Hearings on the matter dis- closed that on the 4th of January, 1956, the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations issued instructions putting into effect the afore- mentioned change in the early warning program. Final approval of the relocation was delayed by the Secretary of Defense until March 14, 1956. Despite the Chief of Naval Operation's instructions in January to proceed with the change in concept, the Bureau of Yards Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Aft Approved Fes- ReleaseBMMkl*,fI Q; I*7 0{ ;06 4-7 and Docks did not select an architect-engineer contractor to begin planning this project until. April 16, 1956, and invitations to bid were not sent to construction contractors until April 13. The contract negotiation board did not meet with these prospective construction contractors until the 24th of April, with the board reporting its final decision to the Chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks on April 27. It must be noted that despite the fact that this change was officially known to the Department of the Navy early in 1956 and was approved by the Secretary of Defense in March of 1956, that the Congress was not notified of the change until April 14, at which time request was made for the reprogramming of funds to implement the new concept. The Department of the Navy now feels that it must proceed with this work at the maximum rate, necessitating the use of a cost-plus-fixed- fee contract, if they are to meet the planned operational schedule. Congress and the Executive Branch have long decried the use of costly cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts in the military construction pro- gram. Last year the Committee was advised by the Chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks that the Navy desired to discontinue the use of contracts of this type in the Pacific area and were taking steps to implement this policy. Generally speaking, there is little or no justification for the use of such contracts except in highly tech- nical construction or in the construction of facilities in isolated and previously unknown areas. Certainly, with the information available to the Department of the Navy from previous construction activities at the new DEW line location, there would have been no need for the use of a cost-plus-fixed--fee contract had the Department acted promptly in implementing the relocation as soon as it was made known to them. This is it prime example of the lethargy that seems to creep into the military construction program whenever efficiency and celerity of action are required. The loss of time in construction of these needed facilities and the increased cost arising from the use of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract instead of the more conventional com- petitive bid method are directly attributable to those in the Depart- ment of Defense, and the Department of the Navy, especially in the Bureau of Yards and Docks, who used valuable time in procrastina- tion and indecision before implementing the afore-mentioned construc- tion. The Committee will hold these officials directly responsible for any untoward costs in this work and will expect the Navy to discon- tinue the use of this cost-plus-fixed-fee contract and revert to more acceptable means of contracting at the first opportunity. The De- partment of the Navy is directed to submit to the Committee in con- nection with the military construction program for fiscal year 1958 a full and complete report on activities carried on in the construction of these facilities, including cost data and the ability to meet the schedule of construction which it is claimed dictates the use of the cost-plux-fixed-fee contract, as well as information as to when the Department contemplates the discontinuance of the contract. COMMITTEE ACTION The military public works program presented to the Committee for funding approval totals $455,092,000. Projects which have been approved by the Committee in the past but which have not been funded by the Navy amount to $181,672,700. This provides an estimated military, construction program of $636,764,700. These Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved For ReI awe 20OO8V AGIAIR P b dO$60004-7 21 projects have all been justified to the Committee as being immediately essential to the Navy. To fund this. program, $400,000,000 was, requested, which would be coupled with estimated savings of approxi- mately $51,000,000 from prior year funds, or ,total funds of $451,000,000 available for application to the $636,764,700 program. The Committee realizes that duo to various administrative difficulties and other factors that the approved funding program must be larger ,than the funds available. The request for funding approval of proj- ects $185,764,700 in excess of the available funds is, however, far from satisfactory and is entirely too large a differential to provide for a definite and positive military construction program. At the request of the Committee the Department of the Navy analyzed its overall military construction program and submitted to the Committee a priority list containing all of the items in this program listed in order of their essentiality. Using this priority list as the basis for action, the Committee has approved a funding program of $541,318,700 and has allowed the full amount of the budget estimate of $400,000,000, which will make $451,000,000 available for implementation of this program in FY 1957. This represents approval of a funding program approximately 20 percent greater than the total available funds, a differential which the Committee deems to be more satisfactory than that proposed in the budget submissions. It will be expected that the military construction programs submitted in future years will be more realistic in this respect and the differential between the funds available and the total program will be even less than that approved by the Committee for the fiscal year 1957. The funding program approved by the Committee is in accordance with the priority list formulated by the Department of the Navy and submitted to the committee, with the exceptions of the deletion of the Naval Air Facility, Annapolis, Maryland, and increased funds for advanced planning. Explanation of these specific actions will be found in subsequent paragraphs. The program resulting from the Committee action is set forth in the following tabulation: Continental United States: Naval Shipyard, Boston, Mass____________________________ $6,260,000 Naval Shipyard, Charleston, S. C__________________________ 148, 000 Naval Minceraft Base, Charleston, S. C____________________ 7,902,000 Naval Shipyard, Long Beach, Calif ------------------------ 5,984,000 Navy Underwater Sound Laboratory, New London, Conn _ _ _ _ 304, 000 Naval Shipyard, Norfolk, Va------------------------------ 244, 000 Navy Mine Defense Laboratory, Panama City, Fla---------- 84, 000 Naval Shipyard, Philadelphia, Pa__________________________ 321, 300 Naval Industrial Reserve Shipyard, Tampa, Fla------------- 200,000 Classified locations: Oceanographic research facilities-----___ 11, 815, 000 Naval Electronics Laboratory, San Diego, Calif------------- 19, 000 Subtotal---------------------------------------------- 33,281,300 Overseas: Naval Base, Guam, M. I_________________________________ 1, 835, 000 Naval Ship Repair Facility, Subic Bay, P. I---------------- 1, 637, 000 Naval Base, Subic Bay, P. I______________________________ 9,378,000 Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved F ?& Release Aft 001N ~'ICIR PTO*11.l7@F~800B 06 004-7 Naval Station, Key West, Fla____________________________ $927, 000 Naval Station, Long Beach, Calif-------------------------- 2,256,000 Naval Station, New Orleans, La___________________________ 226, 000 Naval Station, Newport, R, I_____________________________ 11, 672, 000 Naval Station, Norfolk, Va_______________________________ 2,844,000 Naval Station Orange, Tex265,000 Naval Base, Newport, R..[________ 25, 000 -- ---------- Navy Department, Washington, D. C______________________ 33, 000 Subtotal---------------------------------------------- 18,248,000 Overseas: Naval Station, Adak, Alaska______________________________ 2,351,000 Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba -------------------- 680, 000 Subtotal---------------------------------------------- 3,031,000 Total, fleet base facilities_______________________________ 21, 279, 000 AVIATION FACILITIES Continental United States: Naval air training stations: Naval Auxiliary Landing Field, Alice-Orange Grove, Tex---------------------------------------------- 2,242,000 Naval Auxiliary Air Station, Chase Field, Tex---------- 2,247,000 Naval Air Station, Glynco, Ga------------------------ 4,247,000 Naval Auxiliary Air Station, Kingsville, Tex------------ 2,018,000 Naval Air Station, Memphis, Tenn-------------------- 341, 000 Naval Auxiliary Air Station, Meridian, Miss------------ 8,231,000 Naval Auxiliary Air Station, New Iberia, La------------ 21, 446, 000 Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Fla --------------------- 3,012,500 Naval Auxiliary Air Station, Whiting Field, Fla --------- 197, 000 Naval Air Missile Test Station, Point Mugu, Calif------- 684, 000 Naval Auxiliary Air Station, El Centro, Calif ----------- 84, 000 Subtotal ------------------------------------------- 44,749,500 Fleet support air stations: Naval Air Stations, Alameda Calif -------------------- 2,675,000 Naval Air Station, Atlantic Gity, N. J ----------------- 50, 000 Naval Auxiliary Air Station, Brown Field, Calif --------- 214, 600 Naval Air Station, Cecil Field, Fla_____________________ 4,290,000 Naval Air Station, Chincoteague, Va___________________ 170, 000 Naval Auxiliary Air Station, El Centro, Calif ----------- 84, 000 Naval Auxiliary Air Station, Fallon, Nev--------------- 8,304,000 Naval Air Facility, Harvey Point, N. C---------------- 4,233,000 Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Fla------------------- 3,189,000 Naval Air Station, Key West, Fla --------------------- 49, 000 Naval Air Station, Lemoore, Calif --------------------- 10, 089, 000 Naval Air Station, Miramar, Calif--------------------- 3,035,000 Naval Air Station, Moffett Field, Calif----------------- 89, 000 Naval Air Station, Norfolk, Va________________________ 3,626,000 Naval Air Station, North Island, San Diego, Calif------- 13, 259, 000 Naval Air Station, Oceana, Va________________________ 5,942,000 Naval Air Station, Quonset Point, R. I----------------- 3,970,000 Naval Auxiliary Air Station, Sanford, Fla -------------- 6,926,000 Outlying Field, Whitehouse Field, Fla------------------ 1,037,000 Various locations, land acquisition and obstruction re- moval --------------------------------------------- 22,945,000 Classified locations: Advanced underseas weapons shops---------------- 2,666,000 Special weapons storage facilities__________________ 1,235,000 Guided missile support facilities___________________ 806, 000 Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved For Relea 6' 6h T IAAW6 -figYO b 60004-7 23 AVAITION FACILITIES-continued Continental United States-Continued Marine Corps air stations: Marine Corps Auxiliary Air Station, Beaufort, S. C------ $14,872,000 Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, S. C----------- 650, 000 Marine Corps Air Station, El Toro, Calif --------------- 340, 000 Marine Corps Air Station, Miami, Fla----------------- 1,223,000 Marine Corps Auxiliary Air Station, Mojave, Calif ------ 10813000 Marine Corps Auxiliary Landing Field, New River, N. C__ 143, 000 Subtotal----------------------------------------- 28,041,000 Special service air stations: Naval Ordnance Test Station, China Lake, Calif -------- 2,615,000 Naval Air Development Center, Johnsville, Pa ---------- 693, 000 Naval Air Station, Lakehurst, N.J-------------------- 6,438,000 Naval Air Facility, Litchfield Park, Ariz________________ 239000 Naval Air Station, Patuxent River, Md---------------- 305, 000 Naval Air Missile Test Center, Point Mugu Calif _ _ - - 84, 000 Naval Air Turbine Test Station, Trenton, R. 6,764,600 Subtotal------------------------------------------ 17, 138,600 Subtotal, Aviation facilities, continental- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 188, 821, 700 Overseas: Naval Air Station, Agana, Guam, Marshall Islands ---------- 4,980,500 Naval Air Station, Atsugi, Japan-------------------------- 1,961,000 Naval Air Station, Cubi Point, P. I________________________ 1849000 Naval Air Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba----------------- 238, 000 Naval Air Station, Iwakuni, Japan------------------------ 1,704,000 Marine Corps Air Station, Kaneohe Bay, Oahu, T. H-------- 1,485,000 Naval Station, Kodiak, Alaska____________________________ 2,613,100 Naval Station, Kwajalein Marshall Islands--------------- _ _ 3,606,000 Naval Air Facility, Port Lyautey, French Morocca---------- 1,180,000 Naval Station, Roosevelt Roads, P. R---------------------- 4,470,000 Naval Station, Sangley Point, P. I------------------------- 2,512,900 Classified locations: Advanced underseas weapons shops____________________ 2,351,000 Special weapons storage building______________________ 3, 049,000 Classified location A-34 ---------------------------------- 934,000 Classified location A-35---------------------------------- 4,010,000 Classified location A-36---------------------------------- 2259000 Classified location, NAF No. 1---------------------------- 1,867,000 Classified location, AEW No. 2---------------------------- 19, 099, 200 'Classified location, AEW No. 3---------------------------- 8,275,000 Classified location, AEW No. 4---------------------------- 7,987,000 Classified location, NAS No. 3----------------------------- 3,296,000 Subtotal, overseas------------------------------------- 79,726,700 SUPPLY FACILITIES 'Continental United States: Naval Supply Depot, Clearfield, Utah---------------------- - 149, 000 Naval Supply Depot, Newport, It. I----------------------- 390, 000 Naval Supply Center, Oakland, Calif---------------------- 50, 000 Naval Supply Depot, Seattle, Wash------------------------ 199, 000 Subtotal---------------------------------------------- 788,000 Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 4ft Approved Ar Releasg 20/e-~Cfr-Pff3b06860060004-7 SUPPLY FACILITIES-Continued Overseas: Naval Station, Adak, Alaska------------------------------ $5,000,000 Naval Station, Argentia, Newfoundland -------------------- 1,599,000 Naval Supply Depot, Guam, Marshall Islands-------------- 400, 000 Naval Supply Center, Pearl Harbor, T. H------------------ 60, 000 Naval Supply Depot, Subic Bay, P. I---------------------- 11, 598, 000 Classified Locations: Family housing----------------------- 427, 100 Continental United States: Marine Corps Supply Center, Albany, Ga------------------- 1,471,000 Marine Corps Supply Center, Barstow, Calif---------------- 3,410,000 Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune N. C------------------- - 2,785,000 Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, S. C------------ 4,266,000 Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, Calif----------------- 3,429,000 Marine Corps Cold Weather Battalion, Bridgeport, Calif ----- 294, 000 Marine Corps Training Center, Twentynine Palms, Calif----- 1,165,000 Marine Corps Supply Forwarding Annex, Portsmouth, Va---- 91,000. Marine Corps Schools, Quantico, Va----------------------- 2,178,000 Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, Calif-------------- 1,679,000 Subtotal----------------------------------------------- 20,768,000 Overseas: Fleet Marine Force, Pacific-------------------------- 16, 000, 000 Continental United States: Naval Ammunition Depot, Bangor, Wash------------------ 1,100,000' Naval Ammunition Depot, Charleston, S. C---------------- Naval Ordnance Test Station, China Lake, Calif------------ 404,000 6, 028, 000 Naval Ammunition Depot, Earle, N. J--------------------- 673, 000 Naval Ammunition Depot, Fallbrook, Calif----------------- Naval Ammunition Depot Hingham, Mass----------------- 1,584,000 993, 000 Naval Underwater Ordnance Station Newport, R. I--------- 370, 000 Naval Ammunition and Net Depot, Seal Beach, Calif-------- 2, 176, 000 Naval Mine Depot, Yorktown, Va------------------------- 3, 480, 000, Classified locations: Guided missile facilities------------------------------ 25, 000, 000 Special weapons storage facility-------- -------------- 3,500,000 Naval Ammunition Depot Hawthorne, Nevada------------- 230, 000 Overseas: Naval Ammunition Depot, Oahu, T. H--------------------- 971, 000 Naval Ordnance Facility, Port Lyautey, French Morocco----- 245, 000 Naval Ordnance Facility, Yokosuka, Japan----------------- 241, 000 Classified locations: B-1------------------------------------------------ 1,306,300 S-2------------------------------------------------ 2,369,600 5-3------------------------------------------------ 1,609,000 Total, ordnance facilities--------------------------- 52, 279, 900 Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved For ReleaGpQ$rk1C1l7W0060004-7 25 SERVICE SCHOOL FACILITIES Continental United States: Naval Academy, Annapolis, Md--------------------------- $7,469,000 Naval Training Center, Bainbridge, Md-------------------- 4,000,000 Naval Receiving Station, Brooklyn, N. Y------------------- 97,000 Naval Amphibious Base, Coronado, Calif------------------- 5,660,000 Fleet Air Defense Training Center, am Neck, Va---------- 237, 000 Naval. Training Center, ,Great Lakes, Ill-------------------- 8,460,000 Naval Receiving Station, Philadelphia, Pa__________________ 1,428,000 Classified location: School facilities________________________ 853, 000 Total service school facilities___________________________ 28, 204, 000 MEDICAL FACILITIES Continental United States: Naval Hospital, Great Lakes, Ill__________________________ 12, 730, 000 Naval Hospital, Norfolk, Va------------------------------ 12, 582, 000 Naval Hospital, Portsmouth, N. H _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 57, 000 Subtotal---------------------------------------------- 25,369 000 Overseas: Naval Hospital, Guam, Marshall Islands-------------- , 269, 000 Total, medical facilities_________________________________ 25, 638, 000 COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES Continental United States: Naval Radio Station, Cheltenham, Md_____________________ N 2,498 000 aval Radio Station, Maine________________ N , 2,450 000 aval Communication Station, San Francisco, Calif --------- N , 2,029 000 aval Communication Station, Seattle, Wash_______________ N , 45 000 aval Radio Station, Winter Harbor, Maine---------------- , 83000 Subtotal -- - - - -- - - Overseas: Naval Communication Unit, Futema, Okinawa______________ N 75 000 aval Communication Station, Guam, Marshall Islands ------ N , 222 000 aval Communication Station, Kodiak, Alaska------------- N , 1,813 000 aval Communication Facility, Philippine Islands ----------- , 4320000 Naval Communication Facility, Port Lyautey, French Mo- rocco------------------------------------------------- 28 000 - Classified locations: Communication unit No. 1___________________________ , 771 000 Direction Finder No. 5_______________________________ , 520, 000 Subtotal------------------------------------------ 7,749,000 Total, communication facilities______________________ 14, 854, 000 OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH FACILITIES Continental United States: Naval Research Laboratory, Washing- ton, D. C------------------------------------------------- 1,300,000 YARDS AND DOCKS FACILITIES Continental United States: Public Works Center Norfolk, Va------------------------- N l B 443 000 ava Construction attalion Center, Port Hueneme, Calif-__ , 2, 581000 Subtotal---------------------------------------------- Overseas: 15th Naval District, Canal Zone___________________________ 3,024,000 2,210,000 H. Rept. 2638, 84-2--4 Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved Fig Release 1 ,,-iCl u1 8D~~,*MOF 005W 60004-7 YARDS AND DOCKS FACILITIES-Continued Various locations, United States and overseas: Advance planning------.--------------------------------- $11,000,000 Replacement of damaged facilities------------------------- 4, 000, 000 Pollution abatement program----------------------------- 6, 210, 000 Subtotal----------------------------------------------- 21,210,000 Total, yards and docks facilities------------------------- 26, 444, 000 Summary: Grand total, continental United States--------------------- 372, 447, 000 Grand total, overseas ----------------------------------- 147, 661, 700 Grand total, various locations, United States and overseas-- 21, 210, 000 Grand total, military construction program--------------- 541, 318, 700 The Committee has eliminated the request of the Department for $4,000,000 for the Naval Air Facility, Annapolis, Maryland. The site for this facility is in doubt at the present time and under the terms of the Military Construction authorization bill, as passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, is subject to detailed study and further legislative action. The Committee has deleted the project without prejudice and will expect the Navy to make further presenta- tions as to accurate costs and the need therefor after selection of the site and completion of the study contemplated by the authorizing legislation. Funding approval was requested for a support squadron operation compound, and a control squadron operation compound, at the Marine Corps Air Station, Beaufort, South Carolina, as well. as for tactical area development at the Marine Corps Air Station, El Toro, California. These projects are of relatively low priority and are not in the approved funding program. The Committee desires that the Navy thoroughly study this proposed construction with the idea of combining many of the facilities in these compounds and in. the so- called tactical area instead of constructing numerous separate build- ings as is presently contemplated. The Committee recommends $11,000,000 for advance planning. In the past, advance planning has been limited to preparation of mini- mum plans prior to authorization of projects. It is the desire of the Committee that this concept be expanded to include preparation of final plans and specifications for a limited number of essential projects for which construction funds have not been made available. If this concept is followed out, it will permit the earlier awarding of construc- tion contracts and will result in economy as well as in accelerating the public works program of the Navy. The Committee desires that future budget submissions for advance planning be based on this same concept and also include all funds requested for architect-engineer planning service, prior to requests of funds for actual construction. Funds were ,requested. by several of the bureaus of the Navy for the construction of family housing at certain classified overseas locations. At many of these locations, several of the bureaus are involved. Where this situation exists, the Committee will expect the Department to carefully coordinate the housing requirements, so that the needs of the bureaus are met in the most economical fashion and without duplication of facilities. The concentration of Naval facilities in specific locations is a matter of concern to the Committee. There are examples of areas on both Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved For Relea 11 TT4E#I P NBIQOROOQSQ4W0004-7 27 the east and west coast of this country where the Department has concentrated important naval facilities in limited geographical areas. While this policy is admittedly more convenient and has been con- curred:in by the Congress in the past, the Committee feels that con- tinuation' of it with the construction of new installations is question- able. It is desired that the Department make a thorough study of the overall problem of the concentration of facilities prior to requesting additional funds for the further augmentation of the military public ,works program in these presently highly concentrated areas. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE The Department of the Air Force initially presented to the Coin- mittee a military construction program totaling approximately $2,161,700,000. This program included thousands of individual projects at over 300 Air Force bases and installations throughout the world. To apply against the requested program, as partial financing, the Department was permitted by the President to request an appro- priation of $1,228,000,000, including the $128,000,000 submitted as a supplemental estimate in House Document 373. This would have left approximately $933,700,000, or over 43 percent of the total con- struction program presented to the Committee unfinanced at the end of fiscal year 1957. . Along the lines of the previous discussion pertaining to various reviews of military construction requests and the apportionment procedures as they are presently practiced in connection with these construction items the Committee determined that it was ridiculous to even consider a construction program so much in excess of the funds to be made available for application against that program. Accordingly, the Committee directed the Department to review the entire proposed program, including previously approved but un- funded projects, for the purpose of bringing the overall construction program more nearly into line with the request for funds to be applied. As a result of this review, the Air Force eliminated approximately $561,800,000 in projects from the original request. This reduced the anticipated unfunded portion of the total construction program to approximately $371,900,000 or 23% of the revised program. The Committee has made a further reduction in specific projects, amount- ing to $16,896,000. Therefore, with the cooperation of the Air Force, the total initial construction program request has been reduced by approximately $578,700,000. The total projects estimated as remain- ing unfunded as of June 30, 1957, have been reduced to $355,000,000 or slightly over 22% of the total approved construction program. The changes effected by these actions are shown in the following summary tabulation. Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved fpr Releasd 2!@DO8t't6>C1*_i@PB i7FI00D0060004-7 Air Force construction program, fiscal year 1957 [in millions of dollars] Original Air Force request Revised re- quest as in- structed by committee Final com- mittee recom- mendation w authorization (perulingbill H R. %Q3) ------------------ N $1, 223. 8 $936 8ti $1, 114.3 e ---------------------------- s authorization P i 269.7 1934. --------- or year r ----------------------------------- i Pl 35.5 35. 35.5 20 0 ng ------------------ ann ------------------------------------------- minor construction 20.0 20.0 . - Funding of deficiency authorization -__----_____________________ 59. 7 ---- --------- Total, new program request ------------------------------ 1,608.7 Less: -3 5 -3. 5 -3. 5 Anticipated reimbursements________.-_____________________ Application of Spanish Pesetas ______--_____________________ . -8.5 -8.5 -8. 5 Net total, new progiam request ---------------- -.__------ 1,506.7 1,174.0 1,157.8 Projects previously approved for funding by Appropriations Committee for which funds were not irumediate]y provided- 565. 0 425.9 425.2 struction program applicable to 1957 funds- _ _ _ l T t 2,161.7 1,599.9 1,583.0 con a o New appropriation request----------------------------------- 1, 228.0 1,228.0 1,228.0 Projects remaining unfunded it end fiscal year 1957_____ It will be noted from the preceding tabulation that the Committee is not proposing-to reduce the $1,228,000,000 requested for appropria- tion. The projects to be constructed with these funds and many additional projects to be financed in subsequent years, will be needed if facilities necessary for the planned 137 wing Air Force are to be provided and kept up-to-date. It is realized that perhaps even more money than the requested amount could be spent during fiscal year 1957 toward building for the targeted force goals. However, since the Administration seems to think that the amount requested is the proper amount for use in fiscal year 1957, the Committee has provided only the budget request. The proposed transfer of $357,000,000 from surplus funds in the Army Stock Fund to this appropriation was not approved. Rather than do this, the Committee has provided the full amount by direct appropriation. The Committee is pleased with the way the Air Force has responded through its budget office in bringing the proposed construction pro- gram more nearly into line with requested appropriation dollars and also in providing the Committee with necessary information in support of the estimates. Reviewing such a massive construction program is a laborious process at best, and requires cooperation all around. The Committee is appreciative of the efforts of all concerned in attempting to improve the military construction budget presentation. result of those efforts, the Committee has only a few suggestions to make at the present time. It is understood, of course, that future military construction pro- grams presented to the Appropriations Committee will be more nearly in line with the requested dollar appropriations to be made available for financing those construction programs. The Committee feels that for the Air Force, its action this year in insisting that not more than 20 to 25 percent of the total program remain unfunded is'. about right. It is expected that future requests received from the Air Force, including the carryover of unfunded projects from prior years' budget submissions, will be kept within this percentage range. Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved For Releaa24)0tfwTAl AiROI.$t,~M3n70MOQ 60004-7 29 The Committee was not satisfied with the, information available during the hearings for explaining substantial variations in the esti- mated unit cost for a number of proposed projects. For example, the estimated cost for constructing dormitories for airmen varied from $1,100 per man at one base to approximately $4,400 per man at another location, and at the first base, where two separate dormitories were proposed for construction, the unit cost varied from $1,100 to $1,600 per, man for these two units. It is realized that the Department of the Air Force is not responsible for the individual project cost estimates contained in the annual military construction request. However, the Air Force is responsible for providing an adequate justification in support of such requests. To conserve the time of the Committee, it is expected that in the future whenever unit costs are not in line with the general average for such facilities, the reasons therefore will be given in the narrative statements accompanying the projects in the budget justifications. It would be helpful to Members of Congress and others interested, if these brief narrative statements could be prepared in such a way so that they also give the essential fiscal elements of the projects being supported. The information given should be limited to unclassified statements and properly edited for possible insertion in the record. Listed in the following tabulation are the amounts approved by the Committee, for Air Force construction programed at installations within continental United States and the several Area Commands overseas: MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMED FOR AIR FORCE INSTALLATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 1957 Buckingham Air Force Base, Fort Myers, Fla_____________ $100, 000 Duluth Municipal Airport, Duluth, 1Mlinn----------------- 925, 000 Ent Air Force Base, Colorado Springs, Colo--------------- - 661, 000 Ethan Allen Air Force Base, Burlington, Vt_______________ 4, 003, 000, , Geiger Field, Spokane, Wash____________________________ 3, 966 000 Glasgow Air Force Base, Glasgow, Mont_________________ 3,677,000 Grand Forks Air Force Base, Grand Forks, N. D ak-------- 19,752,000 Grandview Air Force Base, Belton, Mo------------------- 1433000 Greater Pittsburgh Airport, Coraopolis, Pa --------------- 84`x, 000 Greater Portland Area, St: Paul, Oreg --------- _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2,400,000 Hamilton Air Force Base, Ignacio, Calif------------------- K. I. Sawyer Municipal Airport, Marquette, Mich--------- 3,611,000 5, 648, 000 Kinross Air Force Base, Kinross, Mich------------------- 1,791,000- Klamath Falls Municipal Airport, Klamath Falls, Oreg_____ 1,025,000 McChord Air Force Base, Tacoma, Wash_________________ 762, 000 McGhee/Tyson Airport, Maryville, Tenn----------------- 2, 110, 000 Majors Field, Greenville, Tex --------------------------- 440,000- Minot Air Force Base, Minot, N. Dak___________________ 20,181,000 New Castle County Airport, Wilmington, Del--------------- 6377000 .Niagara Falls Municipal Airport, Niagara Falls, N. Y_____, 4,720,000 Otis Air Force Base, Falmouth, Mass- _ _ ------------------ 12, 551, 000 Oxnard Air Force Base, Camarillo, Calif------------------- 4,333,000 Paine Air Force Base, Everett, Wash -------------------- 4, 37, 000 Presque Isle Air Force Base, Presque Isle, Maine---------- 8,737,000- Richard Bong Air Force Base, Kansasville, Wis ----------- 2,050,000 Selfridee Air Force Base, Mount Clemens, Mich----------- 6,474,000 Sioux City Municipal Airport, Sioux City, Iowa ----------- 2,110,000, Stewart Air Force Base, Newburnrh, N. Y_________________ 1,179,000- Suffolk County Air Force Base, Westhampton Beach, N. Y_ 5,690,000 Truax Field, Madison, Wis_____________________________ 5,298,000- Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved Bpr Release 20WfAxC. PRb kO7 ,00500060004-7 CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES-continued Air Defense Command-Continued Wurtsmith Air Force Base, Oscoda, Mich----------------- $3,744,000 Youngstown Municipal Airport, Yiena, Ohio--------------- 2,189,000 Yuma County Airport, Yuma, Ariz_____________________ 3,878,000 Various locations --------------------------------------- 28, 721, 000 Various locations --------------------------------------- 16, 120,000 Air Materiel Command: Brookley Air Force Base, Mobile, Ala____________________ 3,454,000 Caribou Air Force Base, Limestone, Maine _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - 64, 000 Deep Creek Air Force Station Spokane, Wash ------------ 99,000 Fairfield Air Force Station, Vest Fairfield, Calif----------- 56, 000 Griffiss Air Force Base, Rome, N. Y_____________________ 32, 326, 000 Hill Air Force Base, Ogden, Utah________________________ 1,339,000 Kelly Air Force Base, San- Antonio, Tex------------------ 1,256,000 McClellan Air Force Base, Sacramento, Calif------------- 4,696,000 Mukilteo Fuel Storage Station, Mukilteo, W ash_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4, 000 Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, Calif------------- 1,786,000 Olmstead Air Force Base, Middletown, Pa---------------- 27, 038, 000 Robins Air Force Base, Macon, Ga______________________ 3,515, 000 Searsport Air Force Tank Farm, Searsport, Maine--------- .732, 000 Stony Brook Air Force Station, Holyoke Mass_ 56, 000 Tacoma Fuel Storage Station, Tacoma, 129, 000 Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma City, Okla _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3,498,000 Topeka Air Force Station, Topeka, Kans----------------- 6, 000 Wilkins Air Force Station, Shelby, Ohio------------------ -89, 000 Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio----------- 21, 936, 000 Total, Air Materiel Command --------------------------- 102, 079, 000 Air Proving Ground Command: Eglin Air Force Base, Valparaiso, Florida----------------- 15, 523, 000 Eglin Air Force Base, Auxiliary No. 6, Valparaiso, Fla----- 742, 000 Eglin Air Force Base, Auxiliary No. 9, Fort Walton, Fla_ _ _ _ 3,141,000 Total, Air Proving Ground Command------------------ 19, 406, 000 Air Research and Development Command: Arnold Engineering Development Center, Tullahoma, Tenn_ 22, 050, 000 CANEL Air Force Plant No. 62, Middletown, Connecticut__ 30, 139, 000 Cape Canaveral, Pat. No. 1, Cocoa, Florida--------------- 7,820,000 Edwards Air Force Base, Lancaster, California------------ 3,420,000 Eleuthera, Pat. No. 4, Governors Harbor, British West Indies----------------.------------------------------ 75,000 Grand Bahama, Pat. No.. 3, W. End Settlement, British West Indies----------------------------------------- 543,000 Holleman Air Force Base, Alamogordo, N. Mex ----------- 7,071,000 Indian Springs Air Force Base, Las Vegas, Nev----------- 1,377,000 Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, N. Mex ----------- 7,922,000 Laredo Test Site, Laredo, Tex___________________________ 1,219,000 Laurence G. Hanscom, Boston, Mass -------------------- 7,560,000 National Reactor Test Station, Idaho Falls, Idaho--------- 11, 415, 000 Mount Washington Climatic Laboratory, Mount Washing- ton, N. H------------------------------------------ 588,000 Patrick Air Force Base, Melbourne, Fla ------------------ 2, 148, 000 Sacramento Peak, Alamogordo, N. Mex__________________ 153, 000 Various locations -------------------------------------- . _ 64, 000, 000 Headquarters Building, Andrews Air Force Base, Washing- ton, D. C------------------------------------------- 6,000,000 Total, Air Research and Development Command ------ 173, 500, 000 Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved For Relea 99 1&L 01A 10 3!F 0bW060004-f 1 CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES-Continued Air Training Command: Amarillo Air Force Base, Amarillo, Tex -------------- $17,121,000 Bryan Air Force Base, Bryan, Tex_______________________ 1, 288, 000 Craig Air Force Base Selma, Ala________________________ 595, 000 Ellington Air Force Base Genoa,Tex____________________ -4, 673, 000 F. E. Warren Air Force i ase Cheyenne, Wyo ------------ i 1, 654, 000 an Angelo, Tex-------------- Goodfellow Air Force Base, S 12, 103, 000 Harlingen Air Force Base, Harlingen, Tex________________ 452, 000 James Connally Air Force Base, Lacy Lakeview, Tex------ 805, 000 Lackland Air Force Base, San Antonio, Tex--------------- 3,350,000 Laredo Air Force Base, Laredo, Tex_____________________ 149, 000 Laughlin Air Force Base, Del Rio, Tex-------------------- 157, 000 Lowry Air Force Base, Denver, Colo_____________________ 410, 000 Luke Air Force Base, Litchfield Park, Ariz_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4, 066,000 Mather Air Force Base, Sacramento, Calif---------------- 21, 650, 000 McConnell Air Force Base, Wichita, Kans---------------- 396, 000 Moody Air Force Base, Valdosta, Ga--------------------- 1, 579, 000 Nellis Air Force Base, Las Vegas, Nev _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3, 536, 000 Perrin Air Force Base, Sherman, Tex -------------------- 440, 000 Randolph Air Force Base, Universal City, Tex ------------ 709, 000 Reese Air Force Base, Lubbock, Tex_____________________ 4,063,000 Scott Air Force Base, Shiloh, Ill________ _______________ 4,847,000 Sheppard Air Force Base, Wichita Falls, Tex --------------- 17, 861, 000 Stead Air Force Base, Reno, Nov------------------------ 2,350,000 Tyndall Air Force Base, Springfield, Fla------------------ 71 6, 000 Vance Air Force Base, Enid, Okla_______________________ 1,226,000 Williams Air Force Base, Chandler, Ariz ------------------ 7,468,000 Total, Air Training Command________________________ 113, 664, 000 Air Academy, Colorado Springs, Colo_,_______________________ 77, 401, 000 Total, Air Academy__________________________________ 77, 401, 000 Air University: Gunter Air Force Base, Montgomery, Ala---------------- 272, 000 Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, Ala --------------- 1,698,000 Total, Air University________________________________ 1,970,000 Continental Air Command: Beale Air Force Base, Marysville, Calif------------------- 9,760,000 Brooks Air Force Base, San Antonio Tex_________________ 9,037,000 Dobbins Air Force Base, Marietta, 6a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 489, 000 Mitchel Air Force Base, Hempstead, N. Y________________ 205, 000 Total, Continental Air Command______________________ 19, 491, 000 Continental Air Command-Reserve: Akron-Canton Airport, Canton, Ohio -------------------- 2,472,000 Andrews Air Force Base, Camp Springs, Md-------------- 89, 000 Bakalar Air Force Base, Columbus, Ind------ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4,858,000 Barksdale Air Force Base, Bossier City, La_______________ 1,821,000 Bates Field, Mobile, Ala________________________________ 6,214,000 Bradley Field, Windsor Locks, Conn_____________________ 2,394,000 Chico Municipal Airport, Chico, Calif-------------------- 1, 176, 000 Clinton County Air Force Base, Wilmington, Ohio_________ 4,783,000 Davis Field, Muskogee, Okla ---------------------------- 2,217,000 Donaldson Air Force Base, Greenville, S. C --------------- 2,200,000 Elvin Calendar Naval Air Station, New Orleans, La_ _ _ _ _ _ _ 852, 000 General Mitchell Field, Milwaukee, Wis------------------ 749, 000 Grandview Air Force Base, Grandview, Mo--------------- 211, 000 Hill Air Force Base, Ogden, Utah________________________ 1,493,000 McConnell Air Force Base, Wichita, Kans---------------- 2,015,000 Niagara Falls Municipal Airport, Niagara Falls, N. Y______ 307, 000 Paine Air Force Base, Mukilteo, Wash___________________ 90, 000 Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved FcRelease 2000/ 6 '~ 1A`- gt'0P$d05bft60004-7 CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES-Continued Continental Air Command-Reserve-Continued Toledo Express Airport, Toledo, Ohio____________________ $2, 113, 00a Willow Grove Naval Air Station, Willow Grove, Pa-------- 4,165,000 Total, Continental Air Command-Reserve ------------- 40, 219, 000 Headquarters Command: Bolling Air Force Base, Washington, D. C---------------------------------------------------- 279,000, Total, Headquarters Command________________________ 279,009 Military Air Transport Service: Andrews Air Force Base, Camp Springs, Md-------------- 7, 272, 00a Charleston Air Force Base, Charleston, S. C -------------- 5, 090, 000 Dover Air Force Base, Dover, Del_______________________ 3, 334, 000 McGuire Air Force Base, Wrightstown, N. J-------------- - 2,349,000- Palm Beach Air Force Base, Palm Beach, Fla__ 2, 036, 000, St. Louis Aeronautical Chart and Information Center, St. Louis, Mo -----------.------------------------------494,000 Vint Hill Farms Station, Warrenton, Va------------------ - 768, 000? Total, Military Air Transport Service------------------ 21, 343, 000 Strategic Air Command: Abilene Air Force Base, Abilene, Tex ---------------------- 1, 658, 000 Altus Air Force Base, Altus, Okla ------------------------ 6, 887, 000, Barksdale Air Force Base, Bossier City, La --------------- 1, 615,000- Bergstrom Air Force Base, Austin, Tex___________________ 16, 618, 000" Biggs Air Force Base, El Paso, Tex---------------------- 1,982,000 Carswell Air Force Base, Ft. Worth., Tex ----------------- 3,093,000 Castle Air Force Base, Atwater, Calif -------------------- 2,043,000 ? Clinton-Sherman Air Force Base, Burns Flat, Okla-------- 9, 006, 000 Columbus Air Force Base, Columbus, Miss -------------- 15, 917, 000 Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Tucson, Ariz --------- :---- . 3,610,000 Dow Air Force Base, Bangor, Maine________________ ___ 8,523,000 Ellsworth Air Force Base, Box Elder, S. Dak_____________ 1,347,000 Fairchild Air Force Base, Medical Lake, Wash ------------ 4,909,000 Forbes Air Force Base, Pauline, Kans-------------------- 1,146,0001 Cray Air Force Base, Killeen, Tex______________________ 23,000 Greenville Air Force Base, Greenville, Miss_______________ 1,807,000 Homestead Air Force Base, Homestead, Fla -------------- 1, 913, 000, Hunter Air Force Base, Savannah, Ga------------------- 1,131 , 000 lake Charles Air Force Base, Lake Charles, La ----------- 1, 266, 000 Lincoln Air Force Base, Lincoln, Nebr___________________ 2,229,000 little Rock Air Force Base, Jacksonville, Ark_____________ 807, 000 Lockbeurne Air Force Base, Lockbourne, Ohio ------------ 7 436,000 Loring Air Force Base, Limestone, Maine_________________ 2, 916000 MacDill Air Force Base, Tampa, Fla_____________________ 3,626,000 Malmstrom Air Force Base, Great Falls, Mont____________ 706000 March Air Force Base, Riverside, Calif------------------- 4,724,000- Mountain Home Air Force Base, Mountain Home, Idaho___ 1162000 Offutt Air Force Base, Bellevue, Nebr____________________ 3, 698, 000 Pine astle-Air Forte Base, Taft, Fla_____________________ 4, 726, 000 Plattsburgh Air Force Base, Plattsburgh, N. Y------------ 4,035,000 Portsmouth Air Force Base, Portsmouth, N. H------------ 4, 155, 000 Smoky Hill Air Force Base, Salina, Kans_________________ 2,932,000 Travis Air Force Base, Fairfield, Calif-------------------- 8,558,000 Turner Air Force Base, Albany, Ga______________________ 729, 000 Walker Air Force Base, Roswell, N. Mex----------------- 3,854,000 Westover Air Force Base, Chicopee Falls, Mass ----------- 9,474,000 Whiteman Air Force Base, Knob Noster, Mo_____________ 470, 000 SAC Special Storage (Hunter Air Force Base)_____________ 1, 652000 Total, Strategic Air Command_______________________ 152, 383, 000 Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved For Rel P2WM6TA*: 'MW3*-~,}bh06aW0060004V CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES-continued Tactical Air Command: Ardmore Air Force Base, Ardmore, Okla----------------- $254000 : Blytheville Air Force Base, Blytheville, Ark-------------- 000 2,085 Bunker Hill Air Force Base, Peru, Ind------------------- 1,681,000 Clovis Air Force Base, Clovis, N. Mex------------------- 4505000 Donaldson Air Force Base, Greenville S. C--------------- 3,532,000 England Air Force Base, Alexandria, La------------------ 3,435,000 Foster Air Force Base, Victoria, Tex--------------------- 478, 000 George Air Force Base, Adelanto, Calif------------------- 2,398,000 Langley Air Force Base, Hampton, Va------------------- 4,813,000 Larson Air Force Base, Moses Lake, Wash---------------- 2,863,000 Myrtle Beach Municipal Airport, Myrtle Beach, S. C------ 3,793,000 Pope Air Force Base, Fayetteville, N. C------------------ 1,021,000 Sewart Air Force Base, Smyrna, Tenn---------- -------- 2, 079000 : Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, Goldsboro, N. C-------- 000 5,391 Shaw Air Force Base, Sumter, S. C---------------------- 4,647 , 000 Wendover Air Force Base, Utah, Utah------------------- 67, 000 Total, Tactical Air Command------------------------- 43, 942, 000 Various TACAN------------------------------------------ 1,160,000 Various locations, special----------------------------------- 1,240,000 Aircraft control and warning-------------------------------- 148, 458, 000 Access roads---------------------------------------------- 7,142,000 Title VIII housing----------------------------------------- 18,738,000 Land acquisition, urgent requirements------------------------ 200, 000 Construction program planning------------------------------ 35,503,000 Minor construction---------------------------------------- 20, 000, 000 continental United States and miscellaneous------ 1, Total 191, 405, 000 , Less anticipated reimbursements---------------------------- -3,500,000 Total----------------------------------------------$1,187,905,000 OUTSIDE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES Alaskan Air Command------------------------------------- 32, 202, 000 Caribbean Air Command ----------------------------------- 163,000 Far East Air Forces---------------------------------------- 26,716,000 Military Air Transport Service------------------------------ 21, 738, 000 Northeast Air Command----------------------------------- 70, 792, 000 Strategic Air Command ------------------------------------- 25, 958, 000 USAFE, Atlantic Area------------------------------------- 4,015,000 USAFE, Middle East-------------------------------------- 30, 165, 000 USAFE, Spain-------------------------------------------- 37,185,000 USAFE, United Kingdom---------------------------------- 25, 751, 000 Various sites---------------------------------------------- 26, 366, 000 Various TACAN------------------------------------------ 526,000 Aircraft control and warning-------------------------------- 102, 000, 000 Total, outside continental United States---------------- 403, 577, 000 Less application of Spanish pesetas ---------------- ?--------- -8,500,000 Total---------------------------------------------- 395,077,000 Total, Air Force-------------------------------------$1,582,982,000 As stated previously, the Committee has made only a small reduc- tion of $16,896,000 affecting projects in addition to the $561,800,000 in specific projects eliminated by the Air Force from the initial overall construction program in accordance with Committee instructions. Comments regarding specific changes made by the Committee and instructions or suggestions for further action by the Department of the Air Force and others are contained in the following paragraphs. Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 34 PLEMErTTAL AP Approved For Release 2000/08/16: CIA-R60bYi%R&'650W64-7 The Committee considered eliminating projects for construction at Talos guided missile launching sites, pending a decision by the Secre- tary of Defense regarding the apparent interservice conflict over this phase of the air defense program, in conformity with the recent action of the Senate Armed Services Committee on the authorizing legisla- tion. However, in order to expedite the settlement of this complex problem and avoid any undue delay in the air defense build-up the projects have been left in the approved program for possible funding pending a final decision regarding authorization. Nevertheless, and irrespective of the authorizing legislation, it is expected that a deci- sion will be made as soon as possible, regarding the indicated inter- service conflict, along the lines discussed in a preceding statement on the ground-to-air guided missile program. The request for the Air Academy at Colorado Springs has been reduced by $5,433,000, since specific items in this project for that amount were approved for earlier action by letter. This earlier action was taken for the purpose of avoiding unnecessary delays in utility installation and site preparation work. The Air Force construction program, as originally presented to the Committee, included $6,000,000 for a proposed Air Research and Development Command Headquarters building to be constructed at a location to be determined. During the course of the hearings, the Secretary of the Air Force notified the Committee that in accordance with the terms of Public Law 161, 84th Congress, 1st Session, he had decided that the headquarters building should be constructed at the Andrews Air Force Base near Washington, D. C. While pursuasive arguments were presented in support of this decision, the Committee still has some doubt that the immediate vicinity of the Nation's Capital is the best location for command headquarters of this type. The Committee would have preferred that another location have been selected. However, since the decision was obviously made after considerable study had been given to the problem, the project has been approved somewhat reluctantly. For over a year a decision has been pending in the Bureau of the Budget regarding the construction of a hospital at the Lincoln Air Force Base or as an alternative the conversion of an existing Veterans' Hospital in the Lincoln, Nebraska, area for joint use by the Air Force and Veterans. Hospital facilities are badly needed for Air Force personnel at this base. Yet the matter has been waiting a firm decision for over a year. Last year, and again this year, the Committee was requested to approve the construction of a hospital at this site on a tentative basis, pending a final determination as to whether or not the Veterans' facility would be converted to joint use. Last year, the Committee eliminated this item with the following statement: Funds for hospital facilities at the Lincoln Air Force Base have been deleted pending a decision regarding use of the existing Veterans' Hospital near this base. Again this year, the Committee is eliminating the hospital project from the program with reluctance but in the hope that such action will focus attention on the need for an early decision in this matter. If officials in the respective agencies working on this problem cannot reach a decision, then higher authority, probably the White House, should immediately step in and resolve the question. Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved For Relgau2OOO O8 T6T! OFA1RD"O1Wf3?U*Od0 060004-~5 In the overseas portion of the program, the Committee has elimi- nated $9,236,000 from projects proposed for construction in the United Kingdom. This action will postpone on a priority basis construction of a number of central heating plants at various locations. In the Far East area, the Committee notes that some fairly expen- sive individual family housing units are planned for construction at the Naha Air Force Base. It is suggested that the possibility of convert- ing this housing to multiple family units be fully explored before the work is undertaken. The Committee understands that a much needed recreational facility for Wheelus Air Force Base may be added to the pending Military Construction Authoiization Bill, H. R. 9893. If this is done, the Committee expects that the project will be undertaken within the total program approved for that area. In a number of areas throughout the world, treaties affecting existing base rights are under consideration or will soon be subject to review with the nations involved. The Committee feels that additional funds should not be firmly committed for further construction in these areas until the base rights are reasonably secure. It is certainly not unreasonable to expect the United States to protect its rights in con- nection with these bases to the fullest extent possible, compatible, of course, with the sovereign rights of each of the nations involved. Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved Fo elease 20 $ FdI'A'-KMBD bIM1 050?O60004-7 ' I I I I 1 Q Q "' ~a -Q Q ~ Q Q c ~0 I I QQ ~~yy q m -1 I t- t~ Is Irj m CC I I I 00 11 o I. ~ T~..i ~-' C7 C5 Q O 0 0 Q O Q O uS " b ~ 00 ~ W m If; L6Itj 06 00 tz 8 ~ N N ti F4 ; C' O 00 00 C' C7 QQ QQ Y; ~I O 00 00 Q QQ QQ Ir.) m 6+ LCJ Ir,1 to cc H t-Irj v L l 00v I I I b I I I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I I b w U C 1 1 y ~ 1 O 1 1 I y F-1 - F4 I w 1 F{ w 4 C E w Cam.) E z o 0 ~+ z O W O O r A - U W U E-1 _ A F Cd m O O O E-q U U U vy O m Q m r?1 ti CO 00 r-1 00 co rI ,C O qZ co m m m p C ~ cd ~I V y t-. ) w .C Q D. .0 O p.2 OQy Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved For Rel~ea ,e 2000/08/16: CIA-RDP80-01370ROO 600060004-7 CHAPTER IV SUBCOMMITTEE OTTO E. PASSMAN, Louisiana, Chairman J. VAUGHAN GARY, Virginia JOHN TABER, Now York JOHN J. ROONEY, New York RICHARD B. WIGGLESWORTH, Massachusetts OLARANCE CANNON, Missouri IVOR D. FENTON, Pennsylvania ANTONIO M. FERNANDEZ, New Mexico GERALD R. FORD, JR., Michigan HENDERSON LANHAM, Georgia T. MILLET HAND, Now Jersey WILLIAM H. NATCHER, Kentucky WINFIELD K. DENTON, Indiana FOREIGN OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, CIVIL FUNCTIONS Government and relief in occupied areas.-There is included in the bill $2,350,000 for this item. The Ryukyu Islands are the remaining responsibility under this appropriation. Under the treaty of peace with Japan, the United States is empowered to continue to exercise all powers of administration, legislation, and jurisdiction over the territory of the Ryukyu Islands. A system of military bases and other installations pertinent to the defense of the Pacific area has been developed in the islands. Since these are of critical strategic im- portance to the security of the free world, the above amount is recom- mended by the Committee. EXPORT-IMPORT BANK Administrative expense limitation.-The Committee has approved the budget request that not to exceed $1,670,000 of the funds of the Export-Import Bank of Washington shall be available for all admini- strative expenses of the bank for the coming year. The amount allowed is $170,000 over the funds authorized for the current fiscal year. The Committee was advised that the Bank's operations are expanding because the foreign market is changing from a seller's to a buyer's market, resulting in more sales on credit and because of the increase in investment for economic development in many countries. Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved Forrelease 2000/O$ -Vit4A-1 3OR 000 4-7 O w Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved For Reley 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-01370R000W060004-7 CHAPTER V SUBCOMMITTEE GEORGE W. ANDREWS, Alabama, Chairman GEORGE H. MAHON, Texas IVOR D. FENTON, Pennsylvania HARRY R. SHEPPARD, California FREDERIC R. COUDERT, Sit., New York J. VAUGHAN GARY, Virginia EARL WILSON, Indiana LOUIS C. RABAUT, Michigan BENJAMIN F. JAMES, Pennsylvania JOHN F. SHELLEY, California GENERAL GOVERNMENT MATTERS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT BUREAU OF THE BUDGET Salaries and expenses.-The Committee considered a supplemental estimate of $4(i5,000 for fiscal year 1957, .and recommends the ap- propriation of $375,000, a reduction of $30,000. The communication from the President (H. Doc. No. 400), stated: As explained in my message to the Congress of May 10, 1956, [H. Doc. No. 401] the proposed appropriation represents a necessary step in carrying out the recommendations for further improvement in executive branch budgeting, accounting, and management generally which were made by the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government [Italic supplied.] In the hearing on the request before the Committee, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget submitted a thorough analysis of the recommendations of the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government (see page 855 of the Hearings). The position of the Administration was stated, and the analysis indicated that only relatively minor recommendations of the Commission were subject to either further study or objection by the Bureau. COST-TYPE BUDGET The recommendations acceptable to the Administration, which form the basis for the pending estimate, embrace the entire field of the Federal fiscal structure, from preliminary estimating through account- ing and final reporting. Included in these recommendations are those which call for extension of the use of cost-type budgets based upon accrued expenditure accounting. There has been a gradual increase, over the past five years, in the number of activities of the Government whose accounts and/or budgets are on a cost basis. It was testified that the current recommendation does not require implementing legis- lation, and can be accomplished without any basic change in the present method of appropriating funds. Continuation of this evolu- Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved Epp Release 04-7 tion, as to significant appropriation items, is recommended and approved by the Committee. In conjunction with the increase in Bureau staff in the accounting field, the Committee wishes to suggest that the Joint Accounting Improvement Program might well be re-examined with a view to establishing (either by mutual agreement, or through appropriate legislation) a single director for the program, with a degree of authority sufficient to insure that the Program be revitalized and pursued ag- gressively. Other recommendations endorsed by the Administration which can be accomplished without legislation, or which are not within the purview of the Committee, or which otherwise do not significantly affect the present appropriating process include: 1. Expand the management and budgetary functions of the Bureau of the Budget. 2. Simplify and improve budget classifications. 3. Synchronize organization structures, budget classifications, and accounting systems. 4. Establish staff Office of Accounting in Bureau of the Budget. 5. Use of the comptroller organization within principal Federal agencies and major subdivisions. 6. Simplify the allotment system. 7. Simplify methods of handling claims (H. R. 9593, establishing simplified system, now in conference). 8. Authorize relief for accountable officers under certain conditions. (Legislation approved Aug. 9 and 11, 1955, Public Laws 334 and 365). 9. Simplify summary central accounts and reports for the Govern- ment as a whole. The principal remaining recommendation of the Commission is adoption of a system of appropriating on an annual accrued expendi- ture basis. This is a significant departure from present procedures for the bulk of Governmental activities. As a corollary to the system of accrued expenditure appropriation, the Administration proffers the admittedly debatable concept of contract authority for programs which extend beyond one fiscal year. The Committee has repeatedly rejected such proposals and elects to express again its emphatic objection to the use of contract authority, a device tending to lull the Congress and the public into accepting as mere "authority" a program which, if presented as an appropriation in full, might be summarily dismissed. Like installment buying, it would become easier to acquire programs of impressive appearance but, when payment became due, the unfortunate taxpayer very likely would fare even more poorly. The Committee has had unhappy experience with a type of authority implicit in appropriations for Civil Functions-Department of the Army, and for the Bureau of Reclamation, illustrated on one occasion this year by the ease of adoption of an appropriation item in the order of $1,000,000 for a project the ultimate cost of which will be in excess of $1,000,000,000. Appropriations, under the accrued expenditure system, would be in -effect limitations on annual expenditures. The contention that money Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-01370R000500060004-7 Approved For Reler s> 98 41 YC RU 7'UF 10 0060004-741 can be saved by a combination of such appropriations and contract authority .is a snare and a delusion. If, for example, an aircraft carrier is approved for construction under a contract authorization of $200,000,000 (and assuming it is constructed with the $200,000,000), total appropriations must and will be $200,000,000. The fact that, under contract authority, the appropriation may be only $5,000,000 in the first year in no way alters the inevitable. Under the present one-time total appropriations system, the Congress makes available the total funds required, enabling the Executive Branch to plan its operations more systematically and in a proper businesslike manner. The Congress, however, reserves to itself its privilege of review with the attendant right and ability to rescind appropriations for those projects or programs no longer desirable or necessary. ESTIMATED SAVINGS The Committee wishes to point out, in passing, the dangers of arbitrary and unfounded assumptions as to the value of revisions in financial management and accounting systems per se. The Com- mission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government quoted its Task Force claiming savings "from improved financial management-to amount to 4 billions of dollars". Many well intentioned persons, corporations and associations have spent much time and money bombarding the Congress and the public to effect these savings. No witness appeared before the Committee' during consideration of the 1957 Budget request to point out, nor could the Director of the Bureau of the Budget at the present hearing identify, any part of these "savings". It is preposterous to assert that a mere change in recordkeeping, unaccompanied by specific reductions in appropriations, can result in any appreciable savings, let alone such a vast sum as $4,000,000,000. The Committee is fearful that forcing the entire Federal fiscal structure to the accrued expenditure concept of appropriating is a professional accountant's dream that may well become the taxpayer's nightmare. In approving $375,000 of the pending estimate for the Bureau, the Committee is therefore approving the strengthening of the staff of the Bureau of the Budget, but without subscribing to the recommendations of the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government in their entirety, COMMISSION ON GOVERNMENT SECURITY Salaries and expenses.-The Committee recommends appropriation of $600,000, a reduction of $65,000 in the budget request, for the Com- mission. This amount supplements the amount of $250,000 contained in the Legislative Appropriation Act, 1956, and the Second Supple- mental Appropriation Act, 1956, and is made available for the fiscal year 1957. The Act of August 9, 1955 (Public Law 304, 84th Con- gress) requires the Commission to render a final report by December 31, 1956, on all matters pertaining to legislative and executive actions in the field of Government employee and government-contractor em- ployee security including law, order, regulation, operations thereunder, and recommendation for legislation designed to bring all such matter into agreement with the Congressional policy established by Section 1 of the said Act. Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved FdVRelease 1000 T I*-Y3 ffOPM 09060004-7 s o 0 0 0 0 m v> a~ G CD O 0 O Ell, I y G O O E ~6 cOO CT O ro 4L ~, xl hl - H c; ~ I ~ EI z ~: ! W x W P4 p a. O F ~ C o I I ~ G yI r ~ O O ~ d O o c ?c O 000 00 I 1 ~ I I CD xO C) Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved For RelerAaffixtaf464: 1P$ ?o C) lc; o o o co N I N 1O T-i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 C) 0 O ? 0 0 0 ID v on N C11 to CC> f- N 1D 112 >o m q C) C) MUCH 3110ROGQW060004-3 0 0 0 00 C) O N Oo 00 LO 00 CO m O O 4+ I 'di -N vi CO CO O CS 0 m CO CJ o '~ cd ~ Cd o C m F d n O CO d CO O CO O d+ tlr Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved For Release 2000/08/16: CIA-RDP80-0137OR0005000004-7 CHAPTER IX SUBCOMMITTEE JOHN J. ROONEY, New York, Chairman PRINCE H. PRESTON, Georgia FREDERIC R. COUDERT, In., New York ROBERT L. F. SIKES, Florida FRANK T. BOW, Ohio DON MAGNUSON, Washington CLIFF CLEVENGER, Ohio DEPARTMENT OF STATE Extension and remodeling, State Department building.-The sum of $1,000,000 was provided in The Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1956, and $800,000 in The Second Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1956, 'for design and planning work for the extension and remodeling of the existing State Department building here in the District of Columbia. There is included in this bill the additional sum of $44,920,000, a reduction of $10,680,000 in the amount of the budget -estimates for this item. The Committee was advised by the Depart- ment of State that the reduction should in no way delay or alter plans for the construction of the building since the requested addi- tional funds would not be obligated during fiscal year 1957. The -estimated total cost of the project is $57,400,000. The Committee directs that such amount be considered the ceiling on costs of this project, and that every effort be made to reduce same in keeping with the needs of the Department. The new structure, together with the present building is designed to accommodate all the Washington staff of the State Department, including the International Cooperation Administration, in a single building, rather than scattered, as at present, among 29 separate buildings. The Committee was advised that the estimated savings to the United States Government by housing the Department of State in one building instead in scattered buildings as at present would be $2,116,041 per annum but was amazed to discover that no present estimate of future savings as a result of the need for fewer employees had been computed by the Department. It is expected that such an estimate will be furnished the Committee in the near future. International_Fish,eries Commissions.-The Committee recommends the full amount of the budget estimates, $620,000, to continue and expand, on a joint international basis with Canada, the sea lamprey control and research activities conducted since 1947 by the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior. The Committee was advised that over the past several years the parasitic sea lamprey has spread through the Great Lakes and has all but destroyed the trout population in Lakes Huron and Michigan. In Lake Superior the trout population is fallin' off rapidly due-to the spread of the sea lamprey. The loss to the United States and Canada in trout and other valuable fish is presently estimated to be $5,000,000 annually. Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved For ReIGWwwa 6 ~ P O' $Rb W06000 - Vatican City claims.-The Committee recommends the full amount of the budget estimate ($964,200) for the payment of claims for dam- ages to properties of the Vatican City during World War IT, as au- thorized by Public Law 656, 84th Congress. THE JUDICIARY COURTS OF APPEALS, DISTRICT COURTS AND OTHER JUDICIAL SERVICES Administrative Office of the United States Courts.-The request for $113,500 to pay for the rental and alteration of commercial office and warehouse space in the District of Columbia to accommodate the larger part of the personnel and operations of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts outside of the Supreme Court Building, where the entire Office is presently located, is not approved at this time. No indication could be given to the Committee as to where the space might be obtained to relocate part of this Office. It was testified that dividing up the Administrative Office would be an unwieldy operation and that the Office would function. better if it were kept together where it is now located. If more definite plans are formulated in the coming fiscal year the Committee will be glad to reconsider the proposal. INDEPENDENT OFFICES UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY Acquisition and construction of radio facilities.-The request for an additional $2,000,000 for the construction of a land-based broadcasting facility in the Near East, to replace the vessel Courier as the medium- wave transmitting base in that area is not approved. at this time. An item such as this should be presented in the regular annual budget request and not as a supplemental item. If and when this request is again presented to the Committee for consideration the Agency should be prepared to advise the Committee what it proposes to do with the vessel Courier, now costing the taxpayer $608,000 annually, when the land-based facility is completed. FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT President's special international program.-The bill includes $4,687,400, a reduction of $4,312,600 in the amount of the budget estimates, to continue the President's special international program of artistic and athletic presentations abroad and participation in inter- national trade fairs. The sum allowed is the same amount as ap- propriated for fiscal year 1955 and also for fiscal year 1956 less the amount requested for the United States Information Agency. The Committee was told that from $1,240,000 to $1,700,000 of previously appropriated funds for this program would be unexpended as of June 30, 1956. The sum of $312,600 was requested for the United States Informa- tion Agency, principally for promoting and publicizing this program. The Committee is of the opinion that this Agency should be able to carry on this work within its regular annual appropriation which is in the amount of $113,000,000 for the fiscal year 1957, and therefore, Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved For l26Iease 200-8 TVFIVALR4W801919AR0joII800 04-7 directs that no part of the funds recommended herein be allocated to the United States Information Agency. The testimony before the Committee reveals that of the $229,738 available to the United States Information Agency from this fund for fiscal year 1956, the sum of $120,615, or over 52 percent was expended for entertainment. Large amounts of the USIA funds were used for the purchase of tickets which were given away to people to attend the performances. If the performers or companies sent abroad were of such consequence that free tickets had to be given away at government expense for them to have an audience they should not have been sent in the first place. For example, the Agency expended $3,000 of the taxpayers' money to purchase tickets to present to people free of charge to listen to the Los Angeles Symphony Orchestra in Tokyo. It is inconceivable that a Government Agency would even consider a payment of $23,000 for royalties in connection with a touring play, in addition to all the other costs of an overseas tour. Nevertheless, such is the case, as an examination of the hearings will disclose. The Committee expects that all agencies in any way connected with this program will correct the loose financial operations pointed out in the report of the General Accounting Office and the investigative report of this Committee, and take the necessary action to prevent their reoccurrence in the future. Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-01370R000500060004-7 Approved For Relea? fiU46 :AVAcROPB1BMRdM 060004f C o O n O o O c O r yy 00 O 00 cn - ~ O ?o i~-1 c+a 0 >-1 I ci tr I GCI P C C O d O CO GV CV co L0 00 r1 C~ fem. O cgv~ ?Y a CO Co GV 6.+ GV rl H O O L- CV y (O U'D GOD N N C 0 , I I I I I I I I W E I I 11 I I , ti ti , U] pl~ mac. A }~ O O Fi ~y O TD , O M ~ Hl ~J A I-- Fi H IT, w o FI W O o O O y bb z Ili d+ W ~M di ~M 0 Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-01370R000500060004-7 Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060'004-7 CHAPTER X SUBCOMMITTEE J. VAUGHAN GARY, Virginia, Chairman OTTO E. PASSMAN, Louisiana GORDON CANFIELD, New Jersey ALFRED D. SIEMINSKI, New Jersey EARL WILSON, Indiana JAMES C. MURRAY, Illinois BENJAMIN F. JAMES, Pennsylvania TREASURY DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF ACCOUNTS Salaries and expenses.-The Committee recommends the amount of the budget estimate, $82,000, for the processing of an increasing workload of depositary receipts. Originally estimated at 7,800,000 for fiscal year 1957, the number of receipts actually processed in this fiscal year, through March 1956 was in excess of 6,100,000, and is now expected to reach 8,500,000 in fiscal year 1957. The increase stems in part from increasing compliance with the deposit require- ments (in turn because of the penalty provisions in the Internal Revenue Code of 1954), and in part front revised reguhitions, effective January 1, 1956, governing farmer-employer deposits. DIVISION OF DISBURSEMENT Salaries and expenses.-The Committee recommends an appropria- tion of $175,000, a reduction of $100,000 in the estimate. This item is to cover the cost of processing gasoline tax refund checks. The reduction is discussed below in connection with the item for the Internal Revenue Service. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE Salaries and expenses.-An appropriation of $750,000 is recom- mended for this item, a reduction of $380,000 in the estimate. The estimate was submitted covering the costs of servicing an antici- pated number of five million claims for refunds of gasoline taxes to farmers under the terms of Public Law 466 of this Congress. This is a completely new program, and the Committee is of the opinion that the estimated number of claims will not materialize, having deter- mined that there were but 5,100,000 farms in the United States in 1954, and that the number of farms has been diminishing yearly. The Committee suggests that, as experience is gained under the tax refund law, the Service continue to study its methods and proce- dures to assure that economy and simplification in operations are achieved. Several of the States have gasoline tax refund laws, and the Com- mittee wholeheartedly adopts the language of the Senate Finance Committee report (S. Rept. 1609, 84th Cong.) urging the coordination Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved For Rel ,Q?IQ$M' ,:,C Raeeei13;7 OOQW060004V of the Federal refund program with the administration of refund pro- grams of the various States. There has recently been enacted legislation which would placethe? receipts from gasoline and other taxes associated with highway use in a special trust fund.. It is the opinion of the Committee' that the administrative expense incurred in making refunds of this nature ought to be a proper charge against the trust fund rather than against. the general revenues of the Treasury. COAST GUARD Retired pay.-The Committee recommends $425,000 for this; item;, the amount of the budget estimate. This amount is found necessary after a recomputation of costs following action on the regular annual appropriation for 1957. The total includes funds for the increased pay of certain retired officers as authorized by Public Law. 489, ap- proved April 23, 1956; for the increased costs for certain personnel as reviewed under authority of Public Law 220, approved October 25, 1951; and for the continuation of the program of voluntary retire, menu of personnel with over 20 but under 30 years service. Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7 Approved FoP%elease 200(d# Pf6N FA4UNb%v4'F' mFwnb(lN60004-7 o? o I o 00 00 I o 00 ~ I ~ 3 , a o? o ?o ?o o? es ti c~v 00 00 ? N CO N ti 1 W U 1 I , , , , f., r~ ~,' 02 ~ ~ W 1 ~W.i I-~ , I z D y W E,, ~ lv F-i y - I iC c, I 1 I 1 i I. I 1 I= O O o O 2 C) Op O O O Cl 0000 cc C C. i I O cI IC O O o O C) N v d O CC ? O O N D W IN w C) Cry CC O C3) i M I I 0 0 O O 1- o O -0 0 O C) 0 O O 0 O O 0 l O Z) CO N ~ O : cl+ C) CA O o O O a CC co eD O C) O C `V C) C)) N v 00 O OCi