[MILITARY, NAVAL, AND AIR FORCE INSTALLATIONS]

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120003-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 22
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 23, 2004
• Sequence Number: 3
• Publication Date: June 27, 1955
• Content Type: OPEN

%1Ag -'1i IgC5
1955
STATEMENT
The managers on the part of the House
at the conference on the disagreeing votes
of the two Houses on the amendments of
the House to the bill (S. 727) to adjust the
salaries of the judges of the Municipal Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia,
the Municipal Court for the District of
Columbia, the Juvenile Court of the District
of Columbia, and the District of Columbia
Tax Court, submit the following statement
in explanation of the effect of the action
agreed upon by the conferees and recom-
mended in the accompanying conference
report:
The first section of the Senate bill in-
Section 5 provides that if/'the Com-
missioners obtain a bond f fr a notary
public whose notarial duties are confined
solely to District of Col bia business,
then the bond obtained b the Commis-
sioners shall be in lieu of that required
The bill was ordered be read a third
time, was read the third me, and passed,
and a motion to recon4der was laid on
COLUM
until 12 o'clock tonigh
ference report on the j
the request of the gentl
Carolina?
DISTRICT OF
. Speaker, I ask
to file the con-
dges' salary bill.
There was no objection.
The conference repor and statement
are as follows:
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. EPT. No. 920)
The committee of confe ce on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendment of the House to he bill (S.727)
to adjust the salaries of th judges of the
Municipal Court of Appeals. r the District
of Columbia, the Municipal ourt for the
District of Columbia, the Juv nile Court of
the District of Columbia,. an the District
of Columbia Tax Court, havi g met, after
full and free conference, have reed to rec-
ommend and do recommend to. heir respec-
That the Senate recede from i s disagree-
ment to the amendment of th House to
the text of the bill and agree tck the same
In lieu of the matter proposed 'o be in-
serted by the House amendment sert the
following: "That the fourth senten a of the
sixth paragraph of section 6 of the ct en-
titled 'An Act to consolidate the Poli Court
of the District of Columbia and the unici-
pal Court of the District of Columbia to be
known as "The Municipal Court for th Dis-
trict of Columbia", to create "The Municipal
Court of Appeals for. the District of Co um-
bia", and for other purposes', approved 4pril
1, 1942, as amended (D. C. Code, see. 11-7 1),
Is amended by striking out '$14,500' and as-
serting in lieu thereof '$19,000', and by str -
ing out '$14,000' and inserting in lieu ther f
'$18,500'.
"SEc.2. The fourth sentence of section
striking out '$13,500' and inserting in lieu
thereof '$18,000', and by striking out '$13,-
"SEc.3. The first sentence of the se d
paragraph of section 2 of title IX the
District of Columbia Revenue Act f 1937,
as amended (D. C. Code, sec. -2402), is
amended by striking out $13, 00' and in-
serting in lieu thereof '$17,500'.
"SEC.4. The last sentence of section 19 of
the Juvenile Court Act of the District of Co-
lumbia (D. C. Code, sec. 11-920) is amended
to read as follows: 'The salary of the judge
shall be $17,500 per annum.' "
And the House agree to the same.
That the Senate recede from its disagree-
ment to the amendment of the House to the
title of the bill and agree to the same.
JOHN L. MCMII.LAN,
OREN HARRIS,
Sm SIMPSON,
Jos. P. O'HARA,
Managers on the Part of the House.
WAYNE MORSE,
ALAN BIBLE,
ROMAN L. HRVss[A,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
Approved lease 200
NGRESSI
creased the salary of the chief judge of the
Municipal Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia from $14,500 to $20,000 per an-
num, and the salaries of the judges of such
court from $14,000 per annum to $19,500 per
annum. The corresponding section of the
House amendment provided an increase to
$17,500 for the chief judge and to $17,000
for the judges of such court. The confer-
ence agreement fixes the salary of the chief
judge to be $19,000 and the salaries of the
judges to be $18,500.
Section 2 of the Senate bill Increased the
salary of the chief judge of the Municipal
Court for the District of Columbia from
$13,500 per annum to $19,000 per annum, and
the salaries of the judges of the Municipal
Court from $13,000 per annum to $18,500 per
annum. The corresponding section of the
House amendment provided an increase to
$16,500 for the chief judge and to $16,000 for
the judges of such court. The conference
agreement fixes the salary of the chief judge
of such court to be $18,000 per annum and
the salaries of the judges to be $17,500.
Section 3 of the Senate bill (which corre-
sponds to section 4 of the House amendment
and the conference substitute) established
the salary of the judge of the Juvenile Court
of the District of Columbia at $18,500 per
annum. Under existing law the salary of
such judge is fixed under the Classification
Act of 1949, and is at present . $11,800 per
annum. The House amendment provided
that the salary of the judge of the Juvenile
Court should be $14,800. The conference
agreement fixes the salary of such judge to be
$17,500.
Section 4 of the Senate bill (which corre-
sponds to section 3 of the House amendment
and the conference substitute) increased the
salary of the judge of the District of Colum-
bia Tax Court from $13,000 per annum to
$18,500 per annum. The House amendment
increased the sal f such judge to $16,000.
The conferenc greement fixes the salary of
JOHN L. MCMrLLAN,
OREN HARRIS,
SID SIMPSON,
Jos. P. O'HARA,
MILITARY, NAVAL, AND AIR FORCE
INSTALLATIONS
Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, by direc-
tion of the Committee on Rules, I call up
the resolution (H. Res. 286) providing for
the consideration of H. R. 6829, a bill to
authorize certain construction at mili-
tary, naval, and Air Force installations,
and for other purposes, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-
lows: -
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the
Union for the consideration of the bill (H. R.
6829) to authorize certain construction at
military, naval, and Air Force installations,
and for other purposes. After general debate,
which shall be confined to the bill, and shall
continue not to exceed 3 hours, to be equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee
on Armed Services, the bill shall be read for
amendment under the 5-minute rule. At the
conclusion of the consideration of the bill
for amendment, the Committee shall rise and
report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted; and
the previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto
to final passage without intervening motion
except one motion to recommit.
Mr. COLMER. I yield 30 minutes to
the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. ALLEN]
and pending that I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule as
the reading would indicate providing for
3 hours of general debate and then the
reading. of the bill in Committee of the
Whole under the 5-minute rule for
amendment.
Mr. Speaker, this Is a very Important
piece of legislation. It is very extensive
in its scope. I wonder at times whether
we really appreciate the full significance
of these tremendous authorizations and
appropriations. This one bill authorizes
the expenditure of more money than pos-
sibly the cost of running this entire Gov-
ernment during the first 25 years of its
existence.
The bill is divided into five titles and
It proposes to provide construction and
other related authority for the military
departments within and outside the
United States and for the Central Intel-
li ,ence A en y.
r peaker, the total authorization in
this bill is for the sum of $2,368,998,900.
Breaking this figure down, Mr.
Speaker, the Army would be given a to-
tal authorization of $551,105,000. This
would be further broken down so that
$238,778,000 would be allotted for use
inside continental United States. The
sum of $78,334,000 would be authorized
for outside the United States, while
$223,993,000 would be authorized for
classified use by the Army and $10 mil-
lion would be authorized for emergencies.
The authorization for the Navy in this
bill would be $596,140,900, of which
$331,607,200 is proposed to be spent in
continental United States while $107,-
191,300 is to be spent outside the coun-
try. The classified allocation for the
Navy is $151,342,400 while the sum of
$6 million is proposed to be authorized
for emergency use by the Navy.
The Air Force has received the largest
authorization, for its total in H. R. 6829
is $1,165,453,000. Out of this sum it is
proposed that $709,480,000 be allocated
for expenditure within continental
United States while $450,973,000 would
be spent outside of continental United
States, and finally $5 million would be
set aside for emergency use.
Title IV of the bill would provide the
sum of $300,000 to be allocated, if au-
thorized, for the use of the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, while title V
proposes to authorize the sum of $56
million for the Central Intelligence
Agency. This all makes the grand total
of $2,368,998,900.
I think it is interesting to note, Mr.
Speaker, that the report indicates that
the Army authorization this year, if
Approved For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120003-4
()NAL RECORD - HOUSE
 Approved For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120003-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE June 27
passed, would be more than twice the
authorization of $236,060,000 which was
granted for fiscal year 1955.
There are several interesting points
which the membership of the House may
wish to be especially cognizant of in title
II; that is, the section dealing with the
Navy authorization. First of all the bill
proposes to authorize the development of
two new installations, which, according
to the report, are needed in order to pro-
vide advanced training for Naval and
Marine Corps aircraft pilots. One of the
new installations would be in southern
Louisiana and the other would be in
southern Texas.
H. R. 6829 proposes to authorize the
relocation of the aviation training facili-
ties at the Naval Academy to another
site near Annapolis since the present site
is considered inadequate.
Mr. Speaker, the report indicates that
a program of aviation flight clearance is
proposed in this bill, which is necessi-
tated by the development of heavier and
faster jet planes. These planes need an
extremely wide turning area In order to
simulate the conditions under which
they must land on carriers at sea.
The Air Force authorization would in-
clude moneys to be spent on the con-
structon of facilities of 255 important
bases, of which 151 would be in the area
of continental United States and 104
outside of continental United States.
According to the report on the bill. Mr.
Speaker, the authorization for the Air
Force is in line with the effort of the
Air Force to build a 137-wing Air Force.
The bill includes the authorization for
two new Air Defense Command bases,
one of which would be at Fort Myers,
Fla., and the other to be some place near
Milwaukee, Wis. The bill also proposes
facilities for five new locations in the
United States Air Force in Europe.
Mr. Speaker, H. R. 6829 proposes the
addition of a new installation for the
Army at the West Coast Ammunition
Terminal in California; the addition of
3 new installations for the Navy and 2
new installations for the Air-Force. The
two new installations for the Air Force
I have mentioned above, but the new
Navy installations would be at Port
Isabel, Tex., New Iberia, Ia., and at
Annapolis. Md.
The Committee on Armed Services
added three new authorizations which
were not included in the original pro-
posal from the Department of Defense
and these are first, $8 million for an
Army hospital at Camp Jackson, S. C.;
$16,900,000 for the Naval Air Facility
near Annapolis; and $7,500,000 for an
addition to Bancroft Hall at the Naval
Academy and for fill to provide land
area an authorization of $3,785,000 is
given.
Title IV, Mr. Speaker, specifically
would authorize the construction or re-
habilitation of five units of housing, a
communication facility, and some other
items for the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of
Staff, and certain commissioned officers
and enlisted personnel attached to his
staff.
The report points out that each of the
Chiefs of Staff is provided with appro-
priate quarters but that this has never
been done for the Chairman, Joint
Chiefs of Staff.
Mr. Speaker, authority is granted In
this bill for the acquisition of large areas
of lands which I think should be called
to the attention of the House member-
ship. Under the authorization contained
in this bill, if passed the Army could ac-
quire some 55,814 acres of land within
the United States at a cost of $7,773,000,
while In Okinawa some 52,088 acres may
be acquired at a cost of $30,500,000.
The Navy would be authorized to ac-
quire some 54,000 acres-fee-and some
138,000 acres-easement-at a total cost
of $33,444,000.
The Air Force under the provisions of
the bill, as reported from the Commit-
tee on Armed Services, would authorize
the acquisition of some 16.800 acres-
fee- and 23,000 acres-easement-at a
cost of $9,900,000 while mineral rights
would be acquired on 72,000 acres at
an estimated cost of $332,000, and finally
mineral rights will be extinguished on
about 23!z million acres in Alaska at a
cost of $50,000.
Mr. Speaker, the rescissions In this
bill amount to $1,300 million and if the
bill Is enacted into law some $2,368,998,-
900 of Federal money will be spent.
Mr. Speaker, this is a most Important
bill; we are talking here today about
vast sums of money, which, if authorized
and appropriated, must be raised some-
how, I am not in a position to say,
Mr. Speaker, that we do not need these
expenditures, and neither am I In a
position to say we do need to make these
expenditures. Therein Iles the whole
trouble, that we, the Members of the
Congress, the representatives of the tax-
payers, the people who must put up
the money In the final analysis, are de-
pendent upon our military authorities,
upon our Armed Services, and Appro-
priations Committees of the House and
Senate, and we are Incapable of going
Into these matters in detail, and deter-
mining whether they are justifiable or
not. Frankly. I think this is one of the
weaknesses of our system of operating
in the Congress. I wish there were some
way we could have a breakdown of these
things and a justification for them with-
out relying entirely upon the people who
propose them and who say they are
necessary.
In that connection-and I want to say
this is no reflection upon the distin-
guished gentleman from Georgia [Mr.
Vansox] the very able chairman of this
committee, or upon the individual mem-
bers of that committee. As a matter of
fact, I think they have done a splendid
job in housekeeping, in spelling out, so
that those who are sufficiently interested
can look at their hearings, their reports
and the bill and see just what is author-
ized. There should be some other ma-
chinery, not only in this type of legisla-
tion but In all legislation that is brought
to this floor whereby some agency of the
Congress, set up by the Congress and
responsible to the Congress alone, could
give us the justification for these tre-
mendous expenditures: could give us
both sides of the picture.
Such a bill has passed the Senate.
Such a bill Is pending in committee in
this House, a bill that would authorize
a joint committee on the budget, made
up of members of the Committee on Ap-
propriations of the House and the Sen-
ate, with provision for an adequate staff,
a staff that is responsible to that joint
committee and to the separate Commit-
tees on Appropriation in the two Houses,
and responsible to them alone. The
Senate has passed such a bill in the
last three Congresses, the McClellan bill.
We have tried to pass a similar bill in
the House, H. R. 34, a bill which I have
the honor of sponsoring. We failed to
consider that bill in a previous Congress
by 16 votes, because of the opposition
that was urged upon the floor of this
House. The chief opposition that was
made to that bill in the House was that
there was some apprehension that if we
passed that bill, then the other body
would control the appropriations. Un-
der the provisions of the House bill which
I am sponsoring, the House is given ad-
ditional proportionaterepresentation on
that committee. In fact, it is given 9
Members from the House compared with
7 from the other body.
Under the provisions of the House bill
the chairmanship of that joint commit-
tee rests solely and permanently in the
House and does not even alternate.
Therefore, as one Member of the House,
just a humble Member of the House,
I am not willing to concede such infe-
riority complex; with 7 Members of the
other body and 9 Members of this body
and the chairmanship in this body that
the other body would run away with
the committee. Some people say they
have such an apprehension. I cannot
see it.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not know
whether this is the answer, but I do know
that we need some independent agency
that is responsible to the Congress and
the Congress alone. What happens in
these matters? And again I disclaim
any idea of reflecting upon any agency,
group, or any Member of Congress, but
here is what happens. The so-called big
brass-and I merely refer to them that
way as a designation that is generally
accepted-figure these things out; they
send them to the President, and the
President's Budget Bureau goes over
them; then the President following the
recommendation of his Budget Bureau
sends them down to the Congress. Bear
you in mind that the Pentagon, the so-
called big brass, has millions and mil-
lions and millions of dollars, and hun-
dreds and hundreds of experts, with their
point of view, to justify their recom-
mendations. Their requests come up
here to the appropriate committee of the
Congress, and that committee is largely
at the mercy of the so-called big brass in
the final analysis; and then when the
matter gets on the floor we are all at
the mercy of these experts that have been
selected by the people who are inter-
ested-just as I am today.
I am going to vote for this bill, because
in the dark I know not what else to do.
But if this Congress were armed with a
groups of experts-and you can get
them-who-came in here and said to the
Congress as employees of the Congress:
"This Item should be approved;" or "This
Approved For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120003-4
 1955 Approved For 6pg J fy?ffliNAI C1P B3T0Pb 00100120003-4 7923
item should go out," I would feel a lot
better about it.
I come back to my oft repeated theory:
The Kremlin wants neither war nor
peace; it wants to call all the signals.
When Mr. Molotov smiles, the free world
smiles; when Mr. Molotov frowns, we get
scared. They call the signals; we run
the defensive plays. They want neither
war nor peace; but they want to require
us to spend ourselves into bankruptcy,
and we are doing a pretty good job. I
again call your attention to Lenin's for-
mula, "The way to defeat the United
States is to make it/ spend itself into
bankruptcy." We just got through a mo-
ment ago extending the debt limit, again
increasing the borrowing power, again
increasing the national debt that our
grandchildren and great-grandchildren
will be called upon to pay if this glorious
Republic of ours lasts that long.
I have no pride of authorship in H. R.
34. I just want to call it again to the
attention of the leadership of the House
on both sides of the aisle, I want to call it
to the attention of the Appropriations
Committee, so vitally concerned. I hope
that we can give further consideration to
at least attempting through this method
or some other method, if somebody will
come up with a better one, to give this
Congress the tools with which to work.
That House bill is nesting up there in
the Committee on Rules, my committee.
I have not made an attempt to have it
reported because I have not found any
evidence of a change of sentiment among
those who defeated it on the previous oc-
casion, but I give It to you at this time
for your careful consideration, for your
prayerful consideration, if you please,
because if this Republic is to survive it
is first going to have to have a stable
economy and a stable fiscal policy.
Mr. VURSELL. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. COLMER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Illinois.
Mr. VURSELL. I want to commend
and congratulate the gentleman for the
splendid remarks he has just made.
Like him, I believe we should have ex-
perts protecting the interests of the Gov-
ernment when the justifiers come before
the Appropriations Committee to testify.
I think it is high time that all of the
Members of this Congress realize that
we have been fed the doctrine of fear,
that we are being promoted into a bank-
rupt country by listening too much to
the Communist propaganda.
The important thing the gentleman
has said, in my judgment, is that we
ought to have experts to bring light to
the problems that confront us and we
ought to realize that we are loading the
coming generations with an insufferable
debt they will have to pay if, as the gen-
tleman wisely said, this glorious Republic
is not thrown into bankruptcy by the
executive departments of Government
and largely by the Congress itself.
Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I ap-
preciate the gentleman's remarks and
reserve the balance of my time.
(Mr. COLMER asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. ALLEN of Illinois. Mr. Speaker,
my good friend from Mississippi [Mr.
COLMERI has explained this rule thor-
oughly and also the bill it makes in order.
Therefore, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I move
the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
Mr. VINSON. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House resolve itself into the
Committee _of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the consideration
of the bill (H. R. 6829) to authorize cer-
tain construction at military, naval, and
Air Force installations, and for other
purposes.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman
from Georgia.
The motion was agreed. to.
Accordingly the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the con-
sideration of the bill, H. R. 6829, with
Mr. METCALF in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent, the first read-
ing of the bill was dispensed with.
Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. Mr.
Chairman, I make the point of order that
a quorum Is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Obviously a quo-
rum is not present.
The Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk called the roll, and the fol-
lowing Members failed to answer to
their names:
[Roll No. 961
Adair Gathings Mack, Ill.
Alexander Granahan Mailliard
Allen, Calif. Gray Mason
Barrett Green, Pa. Meader
Becker Gubser Merrow
Bentley Hagen Miller, N. Y.
Butch Hale Mollohan
Boland Halleck Morgan
Bolton, Harrison, Nebr. Morrison
Oliver P. Heselton Moulder
Bonner Hinshaw Mumma
Bosch Hoeben Nelson
Boykin Hoffman, 111. O'Brien, N. Y.
Buckley Holt O'Konski
Byrne, Pa. Holtzman Polk
Canfield Horan Powell
Celler Jackson Prouty
Chatham James Quigley
Cole Jensen Reece, Tenn.
Coudert Johnson, Wis. Reed, N. Y.
Davidson Jonas Riehlman
Davis, Tenn. Jones, Mo. Rivers
Denton Kean . Roosevelt
Diggs Kearney St. George
Dingell Kearns Scherer
Dodd Kee Sisk
Dollinger King, Pa. Taylor
Donovan Klein Teague, Tex.
Dowdy Knox - Thompson, La.
Doyle Knutson Thompson, Tex.
Eberharter Krueger Vanik
Edmondson Laird Van Pelt
Ellsworth Lesinski Velde
Fino Lovre Vursell
Frelinghuysen McConnell Wigglesworth
Fulton McGregor Williams, N. J.
Gamble McIntire Withrow
Garmatz Machrowlcz Zelenko
Accordingly the Committee rose; and
the Speaker, having resumed the chair,
Mr. BOLLING, Chairman of the Commit-
tee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union, reported that that Committee
having had under consideration the bill
(H. R. 6829) to authorize certain con-
struction at military, naval, and Air
Force installation, and for other pur-
poses, and finding itself- without a
quorum he caused the roll to be called
when 319 Members responded to, their
names, disclosing that a quorum was
present, and he handed in the names of
the absentees for printing in the
Journal.
The Committee resumed its sitting.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. VINSON],
is recognized for 1 hour and 30 minutes,
and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
SHORT) will be recognized for 1 hour
and 30 minutes.
The Chair now recognizes the gentle-
man from Georgia [Mr. VINSON].
(Mr. VINSON asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself 30 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this is what is termed
a public works bill. It provides in this
authorization $551 million for the Army,
$596 million for the Navy, $1,165,000,000
for the Air Force. That, along with
titles IV and V, makes a total of
$2,368,998,900.
This bill was considered for 6 con-
secutive weeks by the Committee on
Armed Services, sitting on an average of
from 4 to 5 hours a day constantly.
There are over 400 named military
Installations in the bill, and in addition
there are a- great number of classified
installations inside and outside the
United States. -
It is obvious from this that the presen-
tation of details with respect to the bill
could go on here on the floor of the
House for a long time; but in this mag-
nificent report that we have filed we
think you will find material to aid you
in seeing what the committee had in
mind and the scope- of their inquiries.
Now, let us take up the Army. In the
.Army title, 30 percent of the program
of $160 million is for antiaircraft facili-
ties. This includes what is known as
Nike sites. They, as you know, are
established all over the United States in
various places, and in the hearings a
,great many are identified and a great
many are being built all the time.
Some 12 percent, or $64 million is for
troop housing and troop support facil-
ties; 17 percent, or $88 million, is for
family housing, and this presents 5,765
badly needed family quarters.
- Thirty-eight million dollars, or 7 per-
cent of the program, is for land acqui-
sition. In this connection I wish to draw
your attention to page 22 of the report,
which sets out the land proposed for
acquisition by all of the military de-
partments. In the case of the Army,
most of the money and about 50 percent
of the acreage Is in Okinawa. - Most of
the land required in the United States
will be for 2 installations: The ex-
pansion of Fort Sill, Okla., which will
involve some 20,000 acres of privately
- owned land, and the West Coast Ammu-
nition Terminal, in -California, which
will involve some 22,000 acres. NIKE
installations will require some 2,500
acres.
Approved For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120003-4
 7924
Approved Fto I~I`i4AL8/~C8 :RDPfiffl?45R000100120003-4 June 27 '
Four percent of the program, or $26
million, is for further permanent con-
struction in Alaska and Okinawa-2 of
our most important strategic areas
today.
This is a total of $372 million, or 70
percent of the Army portion of the bill.
The remaining 30 percent will pro-
vide for additional construction in Ice-
land, construction for research and de-
velopment, here in this country.
Now, on page 3 the Army's program
is broken out in detailed categories. It
indicates whether the construction is
in the United States or overseas. Un-
derneath that table you will note that
each of the technical services and each
of the continental armies is dealt with
individually by the type of facility to
be constructed and the portion of the
program it represents. This descrip-
tion continues on page 4, where the
Military Academy, the special weapons
project, and some of the other items
are described, as are the overseas areas.
Section 102 of the bill contains an
authorization of $224 million for classi-
fied military construction, and section
103 is an authority granted in most
of the public works bills to cover emer-
gency construction, that is, where facil-
ities are destroyed by fire, hurricane,
or other catastrophes.
The remainder of the Army tile, that
is sections 104 and 105, merely author-
izes the transfer of authorizations pre-
viously granted at Fort Knox, Ky., and
Woodbridge, Va.
Now let us turn to the Navy.
The Navy title, which totals $596
million, is another Increment in the
program to keep the Navy's shore estab-
lishment up to the ships, aircraft, and
weapons which it must service.
The Navy would get authority under
this program to construct almost 3,100
units of family housing; bachelor of-
ficers' quarters for 5.600 officers; and
about 11,000 barracks spaces for en-
listed personnel.
One of the important new elements in
the Navy's program is a large-scale ac-
quisition of property for 40 of the naval
air stations throughout the United
States. Nineteen of these are used for
carrier landing practice, and appropriate
easements will be purchased from the
surrounding landowners to permit pilots
to develop the kind of technique that is
necessary for landing on carriers-and
to do this In a safe manner.
The effect on the surrounding land-
owners is not as great as might be ex-
pected, since in virtually every case
farming and other normal activities can
be carried on as before. The major re-
quirement at these bases is that there
be no structures or trees above 50 feet.
Here is the reason we are forced to do
this: These pilots who will learn to land
on an airplane carrier must first be
trained to land on what is called a
ground pattern. A ground pattern must
be such that they can go around this
field, and there will be no obstructions on
either side and land as they do on an
airplane carrier. It will be necessary to
purchase and acquire by easement the
rights of removal of any objects higher
than 50 feet off the ground.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. VINSON. I yield to the gentle-
man from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. Does the gentleman say
where this land Is being acquired?
Mr. VINSON. Oh, yes. It is being
acquired at these 19 stations that are
already established. All we are doing
is getting the easement rights to fly
closer to the ground as we circle these
19 bases so that these pilots will learn
how to land on a carrier deck.
Mr. GROSS. May I say to the gen-
tleman from Georgia that we have an in-
activated station at Ottumwa, Iowa,
where there is a considerable amount of
land already.
Mr. VINSON. We are not building a
single new station in this part of the
program. We are merely clearing out
the timber or trees that Interfere with
this type of training.
Mr. GROSS. You already have that
at Ottumwa.
Mr. VINSON. May I say to my very
able friend, I do not see why they have
not utilized that magnificent field out
there. I am satisfied that with his per-
sistent efforts and the cooperation of
the Armed Services Committee it will
probably be put in use.
This is a program which the commit-
tee viewed with greatfavor as one which
will not only provide proper and safe
training, but will prevent the expenditure
of great sums of money in the future.
At the bottom of page 5 of the report
you will note a table which breaks down
by category the Navy's program. The
table sets out everyday operational facili-
ties totaling 58 percent, or $345 million;
troop housing about 12 percent, or $71
million; and family housing about 9 per-
cent, or $56 million. Research and de-
velopment, training facilities, the avi-
gation-easement program that I just
mentioned, are also indicated in the
table, along with a small amount for
morale, welfare, and recreational facili-
ties, pollution-abatement programs, and
land acquisition.
The Navy's land acquisition, both fee
and easements, is spread over a large
number of installations. The only sub-
stantial acquisitions at particular areas
are those involving the training bases at
New Iberia, La.; Port Isabel, Tex.; and
the air facility for the Naval Academy.
Following the table. on pages 6 and 7,
the whole Navy program is broken down
into 11 classes. Shipyard facilities would
total $511'2 million, fleet base facilities
$44112 million, aviation facilities $314
million, and you will note that this last
category is again broken down Into 5 dif-
ferent kinds of air stations, each of which
is described in detail.
Page 7 sets out the amounts authorized
for supply facilities, $9,254,000; Marine
Corps facilities, $61.6 million; ordnance
facilities. $21 million: and service school
facilities for $30 million. The only two
other relatvely large amounts are $26
million for communications facilities and
$34 million for yards and docks.
AIR voacs
The Air Force again this year would
get an authorization about equal to the
other two services combined. This con-
struction would be spread over 255 prin-
cipal bases; 151 of which are in the
United States and 104 overseas.
All of this program for the Air Force is,
of course, aimed at 137 wings.
When the 137-wing Air Force is at-
tained, in 1957, there will be 346 princi-
pal Installations. One hundred and
eighty-six of these will be in the United
States, and 160 overseas. These, of
course, do not include some 2,000 minor
installations, such as communication
sites, radar stations, and so forth.
On pages 9 to 13, the Air Force pro-
gram is broken down in detail by the
various commands. As would be expect-
ed, the Strategic Air Command gets the
largest share of the authorization, with
about $224 V2 million in the United States.
The aircraft control and warning system
gets $100 million in the United States
and almost the same amount overseas. I
do not need to emphasize the importance
of this part of the program.
The Air Defense Command is next In
amount of authorization, with the other
commands getting varying amounts ac-
cording to the status of their programs
today.
The land acquisition program of the
Air Force is quite small compared with
the other two services, with a total of
less than 17.000 acres to be acquired in
fee and 23,000 in easements.
The only two large acquisitions are
those for the Buckingham Weapons Cen-
ter. in Florida., and the air defense base
in the Milwaukee, Wis., area. These ac-
quisitions are respectively 6,000 acres, of
which 4,000 will be donated to the Gov-
ernment, and 4,000 in the case of the
Milwaukee base.
As I mentioned before, in the case of
all of the three services an effort has
been made in the report to break down
the program in several different ways, in
order that whatever the particular inter-
est of the Member may be he can find
the information he wants easily and
without undue study.
You can find what each of the com-
mands is getting in authorization, while
on page 13 of the report the table there
shows the program broken down by cate-
gories. For example, airfield pavements
is the largest part of the program, with
operational facilities next, family hous-
ing, and so on down the line.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw
your attention, and the attention of the
Committee, to the new installations in
the program. These are always of par-
ticular interest, and they appear on page
15 of the report.
The Army had only one, the West
Coast Ammunition Terminal in Califor-
nia. The Navy has three, all of them air
facilities. The first one is at Port Isabel,
Tex.; the second at New Iberia, La.; and
the third, which was inserted by the
committee, is an air facility for the Naval
Academy.
The Air Force has two new installa-
tions: Buckingham Weapons Center,
Fort Myers, Fla., which will be the
East Coast facility for training our fight-
er pilots in gunnery-the West Coast one
being at Yuma, Ariz. The other new
Air Force base is also an Air Defense
Approved For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120003-4
 '1955
Approved For- , (WAt: 8R TW 00100120003-4
You will note at the bottom of page
15 and on page 16 of the report that
the committee gave special consideration
to several of the controversial items
which naturally arise in every public-
works bill. One of these is the land ac-
quisition in Okinawa, another was the
expansion of Fort Sill; two-of the Navy
proposals involving New Iberia and Port
Chicago were also in the same category.
A number of the members of the Mary-
land and Ohio delegations were heard
with respect to the proposed move of
the headquarters of the Research and
Development Command from Baltimore
to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,
Ohio.
A matter of particular interest, as evi-
denced by the mail which the commit-
tee has received, relates to the effect of
Command installation and it will be . In
the greater Milwaukee area, Wis.
Although the. Department of Defense
submitted a good program, the commit-
tee added certain items which are set
out on page 15. No new item was added.
for the Air Force, but a hospital at Camp
Jackson, S. C., was added for the Army,
and the Naval Air Facility at the Naval
Academy was added for the Navy. This
is the same facility I just mentioned.
This air facility was recommended by
the Board of Visitors at the Naval Acad-
emy, as were the other two items at Ann-
apolis-an addition to Bancroft Hall and
some of the fill necessary to provide ad-
ditional land area.
Another important construction item
added by the committee appears in title
IV of the bill. This would authorize the
construction or rehabilitation of five
units of housing, a communications fa-
cility and other related items for the
chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff and four
of his assistants. At the present time all
of the Chiefs of Staff are provided with
adequate housing. For example, the
Commandant of the Marine Corps has
some 15,000 square feet in his house,
while Admiral Radford's house is some-
thing a little over 3,000 square feet.
These buildings are to be erected on
land adjacent to the Naval Observatory.
m.&nded here that 556 million be macLe
ava.1rab ~ to the central
Agency to es a is neerrmanen build-
itLalj~. There are a
great number people employed by the
Central Intelligence Agency here In the
15iisislrTet of C`aTum ra. an they are ing_
oh usec-T in some 33 or more buildings.
Mr. u es, ea of -the (Central n-
el igenee Agency, feels that being -used
in many units, as they are, jeopardizes
e ow o
the security that is requi
r~
know whattral Intelligence
A ency is. So, we provide here an a -
thoriza ion o million land and
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
. Mr. VINSON. I yield to the gentle-
man from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. Are these buildings for
the Central Intelligence Agency, esti-
mated to cost $50 million, to be con-
structed within 30 or 35 miles of the
District of Columbia? Can the gentle-
man tell me?
Mr. VINSON. During the hearings
Mr. Dulles designated certain places.
Some were outside the District of Co-
lumbia. But, he did feel that it was
absolutely essential, in view of the char-
acter of the work he does, to be within
reasonable distance of the District of
Columbia. I would say 35 to 40 miles
from the District or probably more, but
that was they line testimony.
e were about 125 amen ments to
T e
r
the original bill, which totaled at the
time it was submitted, about $2,354,000,-
000. The bill that you have before you
totals almost $2,369,000,000. This is an
increase of about $141/2 million. In the
process of its consideration, the com-
mittee eliminated items in the amount
of over $33 million and added items in
the amount of about $48 million.
the Government's construction of family
housing on Wherry projects.
I want to draw your attention to the
table set out on page 21 of the report,
which contains every installation at
which there is a Wherry project and
at which housing would be constructed
under this bill. If you will look at the
last column you will see that in every
instance, even after taking into consid-
eration every conceivable kind of hous-
ing, there still is a large deficit at. those
installations.
Of course, the second last column in-
dicates only about 4,500 housing units
to be constructed at these bases. The
whole bill contains about 17,000 units,
but these other houses are to be con-
structed at bases where there is no
Wherry housing.
Last year Congress authorized 11,600
family housing units. This bill, as I say,
will authorize about 17,000 units. They
will vary in cost, with the overall aver-
age in the United States being $13,480.
Of these 17,000 houses, 3,500 represent
replacements of quarters that can no
longer be lived in. Five thousand two
hundred and seventy-one are for officers,
and 11,700 are for enlisted men.
All of this housing will be of perma-
nent construction and located for the
most part at permanent installations.
Section 609 of the bill, appearing on
page 70, would permit a military de-
partment to acquire, upon the applica-
tion of the project owner, any Wherry
housing project at an installation at
which housing would be constructed di-
rectly by the Government under this
bill. I want to draw your particular
attention to the fact that the project
owner has to want to get rid of his
project and make application that it be
purchased by a military department be-
fore this can be done.
To my mind a project owner would
probably want to have the department
acquire his project only if it has proved
to be an unprofitable business venture.
In any event, I want to stress that it
is entirely a voluntary act on the part
of the private owner.
Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a good
bill and that it represents a sound pro-
gram. It was unanimously reported by
the House Armed Services Committee.
I respectfully urge its passage.
Mr. Chairman, to show you how care-
fully we considered this bill, I should like
7925
to say this. I am proud of what the
committee did with this bill. We worked
6 long weeks and read every item, line
by line, .in order to approve this pro-
posed authorization of $2,369,000,000.
It takes a long time to find out how. to
spend that much money, and we took
the time.
We amended the bill in 1125 different
places and reduced the authorization re-
quested. But when we added these au-
thorizations in Maryland and South
Carolina, it increased the total. As I
say, there were about 125 amendments
to the original bill, the total of which
when it was submitted was $2,354,000,-
000. The bill before you now calls for
a total of $2,369,000,000, an increase of
about $14,500,000.
In the process of its consideration, the
committee eliminated items in the
amount of $33 million and added items
in the amount of $48 million.
Had it not been for the fact that we
felt the circumstances warranted it, such
as the hospital at Camp Jackson and
the activities at the Naval Academy, as
a result of our screening and careful
scrutiny of the bill, which we passed on
in a line by line consideration, there
would have been a reduction of $33
million.
I want to say this further. This is a
department measure.. It is recommend-
ed by the Director of the Budget. It is
recommended by Mr. Floete's office,
which. was created for the purpose of
scrutinizing and coordinating these pub-
lic works.
I ask that the bill be enacted because
the facts and circumstances warrant it.
It is absolutely essential to carry on this
public works construction to keep our
military forces in the shape in which
they should be kept.
Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VINSON. With pleasure.
Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. I notice on
page 17 of the report mention is made
of a suggestion of moving the Fifth
Army headquarters from Chicago to
Des Moines. Would the gentleman ex-
plain that?
Mr. VINSON. A great many sugges-
tions come before the Committee on
Armed Services. Oftentimes it seems
they are sowed in fertile soil and bear
fruit. Sometimes they fall among
thorns and thistles. I am afraid that
suggestion has fallen among thorns and
thistles. I do not think the gentleman
need disturb himself about it, because
Secretary Stevens said that he was go-
ing to examine it, he did examine it,
and concluded that the facts at this
time did not warrant that proposal.
Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. I thank the
gentleman. The gentleman will recall
that some weeks ago I telephoned him
when there was such a report in Chicago,
and asked him about it.
Mr. VINSON. I want to compliment
the gentleman who represents the city
of Chicago for being so alert. I have
always known that he was right here on
the job and his inquiry substantiates
my conclusion.
Approved For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120003-4
 7926
Approved For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120003-4
CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD -HOUSE Julie 27
Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. I thank the
gentleman.
Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, If there
are no further questions, I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. SHORT. Mr Chairman, r yield
myself such time as I may require.
Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the
committee, in his usual forceful and
comprehensive fashion, has covered
every major element of the bill and there
is little that I can add to his statement.
I would like to join him, however, in
directing the attention of every Member
of the House to the report on the bill,
for in it, as Chairman VINsox has said,
one can find about every important as-
pect of the bill dealt with in detail suf-
ficient for a quick understanding of the
program.
The Air Force portion of the bill Is just
about equal to the Army and Navy por-
tions combined. This is understandable
since it is a new service and one which is
in the process of building up. The other
services have had their bases of opera-
tion and their physical facilities for many
years.
I would like, therefore, to devote a little
time to a discussion of the Air Force por-
tion of the bill, and specifically to the
Air Defense Command mission of the
Air Force.
During the past 4 years the Com-
munists have built up a military strength
without parallel in history. They have
created a whole new air force in Red
China and have made it the fourth most
powerful in the world. They have made
achievements in nuclear development al-
most equal to our own. They have pa-
raded numbers of new medium jet bomb-
ers and a new long-range jet bomber
comparable to the best In our Air Force.
They have kept the world's largest stand-
ing army at peak strength, and never re-
laxed their vigilance In the training of
their units.
In Korea they showed us that their
pilots could fight, and that they had a
first-rate plane to fight with. There is
evidence that they are putting vast re-
sources into guided missile production
and into the development of an inter-
continental ballistic missile with suf-
ficient range to destroy targets in the
United States. In countless ways they
have indicated that they are preparing
for war, and are not adverse to engag-
ing in it. They constantly create Irri-
tants on the international political scene
that try our patience, and test our for-
bearance. They show no volition to live
at peace with the world, but consistently
follow a philosophy that recognizes war
as a natural state.
In a world now divided between those
nations who support us in our efforts for
peace, and those nations that look to the
Soviets for guidance in national as well
as international policy, we have no
alternative but to prepare against ag-
gression they may commit against us.
We know what happened in 1917, what
happened in 1941, and we know how
peace was violated in 1950. We know
also that at none of these times were we
truly prepared for the war we were
compelled to wage.
From our knowledge of the past, how-
ever, we have learned a lesson we must
henceforth remember. That lesson is
that the best way to avoid war Is to have
available those forces and weapons which
will insure complete and final defeat of
any aggressor who attacks us. By our
own preparedness we can make aggres-
sion an enterprise of disaster for any
potential enemy. The Air Force pro-
gram for the defense of the United States
is based solidly on that premise.
The missions of the Air Force com-
mands, established by Act of Congress,
are well known. The mission of the Air
Defense Command is to provide Air
Forces for the air defense of the United
States and to coordinate all operations
pertaining thereto. Such operations are
conducted by the Continental Air De-
fense Command, a joint command, In-
cluding elements of the Army, Navy, and
Air Force under single control; by the
Alaskan Air Command and the North-
east Alr Command in the Western Hem-
isphere, and by such theater commands
as the Far East Air Forces and the United
States Air Forces in Europe.
It is not surprising that in appropria-
tions for military construction, the
largest amount called for, next to the
request for the Strategic Air Command,
are for the Air Defense Command and its
related activities, the Aircraft Control
and Warning System, In the United
States, in Canada, and elsewhere,
The share for the Air Defense Com-
mand of the continental United States
program amounts to almost 17 percent,
The money appropriated will permit
initiation of construction on two new
bases-one in Florida and one in Wis-
consin-and provide a second increment
at the six new interceptor bases initially
authorized last year.
In addition to base construction, these
funds will permit the construction of
rocket assembly and storage buildings
for strange new types of weapons that
are rapidly becoming familiar in the
modern arsenal-rockets and guided
missiles. These weapons must be stored
on the flight line in order to be available
when needed. In addition, we must have
storage with certain temperature and
humidity controls and special facilities
for processing missiles from dead to live
storage. The development of new weap-
ons is an expensive thing. The providing
of facilities for their employment is also
expensive. But the national security
does not permit us to cavil at the ex-
pense. America must be defended.
As with the Strategic Air Command,
facilities for personnel are important to
the success of the mission of the com-
mand. Buildings for the readiness crews
are as important to the success of the
Air Defense Command's mission as are
the planes the crews must fly. Time re-
quired to place an interceptor mission
in the air must be held to a minimum.
Crews on ready status must remain In
the immediate vicinity of their aircraft
for extended periods of time. The build-
ings provided for them must have a diet
kitchen, and sleeping quarters, and re-
creational quarters of a modest sort.
These buildings are their homes, for a
good part of their service lives.
Family housing must also be provided.
In an emergency, immediate and maxi-
mum readiness is jeopardized by crews
having to travel long distances from
home to duty posts. The family housing
which the Air Defense Command seeks
funds to build is essential, not only from
the personnel or welfare point of view,
but also because it will allow crews to be
close to their planes and stations, even
when they are not on duty in the readi-
ness buildings. The modern airman
must live close to his plane.
Part of the authority requested is for
construction of taxiways and airfield
pavements necessary to Increase the op-
erational effectiveness of each base.
Part is for airfield lighting, to provide
the necessary illumination to accommo-
date sustained bad weather and night
operations at each fighter interceptor
base. Part is for additional maintenance
facilities. All funds are requested to
permit the Air Force to take full advan-
tage of the latest developments in all
the fields of research, and, as quickly as
new methods or procedures are perfected,
to integrate them into the overall defense
system.
But the first step in the air defense of
the United States is to provide the com-
bat elements with sufficient warning of
an impending attack to enable them to
intercept and destroy hostile forces be-
fore such forces reach the line for their
bomb release. To accomplish this, a se-
ries of radar warning systems are either
In being or under construction. The
most northern of those scheduled is com-
monly referred to as the DEW line-or
"Distant early warning line"-which
runs across the Arctic. There is also the
Mid-Canada System, operated to a large
extent by the Dominion of Canada.
Within the United States proper, an ex-
tensive radar system is being constructed.
Two other radar systems operated by the
Air Force further extend the zone of cov-
erage and provide additional protection.
The first of these is an airborne opera-
tion hundreds of miles off our ocean
coastlines; the second consists of fixed
radar stations on "Texas towers" being
constructed on shoals approximately 75
miles off the eastern coast of the United
States. But all these systems, though
separate in nature, are coordinated by
the Continental Air Defense Command
and are part of Air Defense Command
operations.
So in the request for funds for mili-
tary construction for this command there
are two sizable items-$100 million for
aircraft control and warning system in
the continental United States and $98
million for continental defense located
outside the continental United States.
With this money the Air Force can
complete facilities at 31 permanent sites.
It will be able to place equipment on 74
unattended sites in the United States
and additional ones in Canada. It will
be able to build a fifth "Texas tower" to
provide seaward extension of contiguous
coverage off the northeast Atlantic Coast,
and it will be able to do necessary con-
struction work on the DEW line to insure
implementation of this line to meet the
established operational date.
Approved For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120003-4
 Approved For ease 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245 0100120003-4
1955. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOLDS
The, ramparts we watch are no longer Terminal to the United States Government
within our sight, but they must be was authorized by the city of Kansas City
watched with a vigilance that keeps them at the November 1952 election.
under our, control and out of the hands Headquarters, Continental Air Command,
was never moved to Grandview because of
of the enemy. the Air Defense Com- a decision by the Air Force that Mitchel Air
mand defends our homes by not permit- Force Base was not economically expandible
ting the enemy to make our cities and for conversion to a modern tactical air base.
our. homes the targets for their bomb Consequently, to obtain maximum utiliza-
drops. There are no more important tion of our large pre-World War II invest-
items in the military-construction pro- ment at Mitchel, it. has been retained as an
gram than the items for construction of administrative base and utilized by the Con-
the required facilities of the Air Defense tinh Air Command.
Command. America must be defended, At t present time, Grandview Air Force
e Base i is s the headquarters of of the e Central l Air
but the defense, if it is not also to involve Defense Force. This defense force is respon-
destruction of our cities, must be kept sible for the air defense of that portion of
as remote as possible from the' bound- the United States located between the Mis-
aries of the United States. sissippi River and the Rocky Mountains. In
. Mr, GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the addition, a fighter-interceptor wing, large
gentleman yield? communications center, Air Reserve activity
Mr. SHORT. I yield gladly. and a segment of the A. C. and W. Radar
Mr. GROSS. The gentleman knows of Network are located on Grandview Air
Force Base.
my continuing interest in the Grandview . The total amount of construction author-
Airport near Kansas City, Mo. ized for this installation through fiscal year
Mr. SHORT. That is right. 1955 is $19.3 million. Total amount of funds
Mr. GROSS. I see there is an appro- applied to this authorization through fiscal
priation here for the Grandview Airbase. year 1965 is $15.6 million.
Can the gentleman tell me whether the The fiscal year 1956 military construction
program contains line items in the amount
Continental Air Command has ever been
moved to that base? of $3,402,000 for future construction.
Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, will the . Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, there
gentleman yield? are no further requests for time on this
Mr. SHORT. I yield. side.
Mr. VINSON. It has not been moved. Mr. SHORT. Mr. Chairman, I ask
Mr. GROSS. I hope the gentleman unanimous consent that the gentleman
will insist that it be done since that was from Michigan [Mr. KNOxl may insert
the basis of arguments in favor of spend- his own remarks at this point in the
ing millions for the construction of this RECORD.
base. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
Mr. VINSON. I doubt very seriously to the request of the gentleman from
if it will be done this session or next Missouri?
session. There was no objection.
Mr. GROSS. Or the next session? Mr. KNOX. Mr. Chairman, I do not
Mr. VINSON. But with the learned speak in opposition to H. R. 6829, which
gentleman's constant observation and carries authorization for $12,148,000 for
persistence I am satisfied something will the proposed jet base set forth in the bill
be accomplished. Anticipating that the as Traverse City area. I do favor the
gentleman was going to inquire about selection by the Air Base Command of a
Grandview I have had a little brief pre- site in northern Michigan. The selec-
pared on Grandview, and I will be glad tion of this site has become a very con-
to read it or to insert it in the RECORD. troversial issue, as many of the Members
Mr. GROSS. I appreciate the gentle- of Congress are aware that the first site
man's personal comment but I am also selected by the Secretary of the Air
interested in the spending of the tax- Force, Mr. Talbott, was in Grand
payers' money. Traverse County. .
Mr. VINSON. I knew the gentleman There were objections raised by the
was going to bring up Grandview so I Interlochen Music Camp, operated
had this statement prepared. jointly by the University of Michigan
Mr. SHORT. Mr. Chairman, I ask and the State of Michigan, under the
unanimous consent that the gentleman directorship of Dr. Maddy. The second
from Georgia may be allowed to insert site was selected in Benzie County,
his statement at this point in the RECORD. which was objected to by the Committee
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection on Armed Services because of interfer-
to the request of the gentleman from ence with the Interlochen Music Camp.
Missouri? There were several other sites offered by
There was no objection. communities for the construction of the
The statement referred to follows: proposed jet base.
GRANDVLEW AIR FORCE BASE, Mo. Secretary Talbott then selected Cadil-
As you know, Grandview Municipal Air- lac as the location of the base. I believe
port, Kansas City, Mo., was selected because it be to a well-known fact that consid-
of. its central location in the United States erable opposition generated throughout
for the headquarters of the Central Air De- the Congress and in the communities be-
of Force, and because of the necessity
of establishing a base for fighter-interceptor cause of this selection.
squadrons for protection of the huge Wichi- '- The Committee on Appropriations
ta-Kansas industrial area. In addition, the then directed Secretary Talbott to sub-
Air, Force proposed to move the head- mit justifications for the selection of the
quarters of the Continental Air Command Cadillac site which resulted in a resur-
from Mitchel Air Force Base, N. Y., to Grand- Vey of the Cadillac site, and a site known
nicipal view. On Airport January was le1, 1952, Grandview ased d by y the the Air r Ma Force e as Kalkaska site, 14 miles from down-
for a period of 26 years for the sum of $1. town Traverse City, and any other sites
The donation in fee of the Grandview Air that the Secretary believed to be desira
7927
ble for the construction of the base. The
results of the resurvey were made known
to the House Military Appropriations
Subcommittee and a copy of the com-
munication was submitted to the Com-
mittee on: Armed Services. The com-
munication from Secretary Talbott to
the House Military Appropriations Sub-
committee stated that he had eliminated
the proposed Benzie site, known as the
Homestead site, because of its nearness
to the Interlochen Music Camp, and
further stated "the remaining two sites
are both satisfactory in operational as-
pects." Talbott reported that although
the initial construction cost at Kalkaska
site is estimated at about 9 percent less
than Cadillac, he felt that the location
of Cadillac City, only a few miles from
the base site, provided readily available
community support that would outweigh
this differential in original cost, basing
his opinion on the fact that the city of
Cadillac can take care of additional Air
Force dependents with existing schools
and recreational facilities. Talbott fur-
ther stated "This is not the case at Kal-
kaska."
I believe the Secretary was well aware
that there never was any intent that
the village of Kalkaska was able to ab-
sorb any great influx of children in their
public schools, but he has not given
credit to the availability of the fine
schools, churches, and recreational fa-
cilities offered at Traverse City. The
Secretary stated that it is approximately
18 miles from the Kalkaska site to Trav-
erse City. This, of course, is excessive,
and the actual mileage would be 14
miles.
Now, I call to the attention of the
Congress, using the Secretary's own
words in this statement to the congres-
sional committees, that he admits that
the Kalkaska site and Cadillac site are
both satisfactory in operational aspects.
The Secretary further points out, and he
has served notice on the Congress that
the site he has selected at Cadillac will
cost 9 percent more to build than at
Kalkaska.
Now let us take a look and see just
how much money is involved in this 9
percent which is the Secretary's own
percentage figure. With the approval
of the bill now pending before the House,
the amount of money involved would be
$12,148,000, so at 9 percent of this figure
the Congress could save the Government
$1,093,320, by constructing the base at
the Kalkaska site. I do not believe that
the Congress is ready to appropriate
$1,093,320 more to construct the base in
one locality than it would cost in another
locality as long as the Secretary is in
complete agreement that the base at the
lower figure is satisfactory for opera-
tions.
We are cognizant of the fact that the
Air Force has a base at Kinross, Mich.,
which is 18 miles south of Sault Ste. Ma-
rie, Mich.; Sault Ste. Marie being the
supporting town for educational, relig-
ious, and recreational, facilities. Last
summer, Maj. Gen. Joe W. Kelly re-
quested that I contact the people and the
organizations of the Sault Ste. Marie
area to determine their willingness to
cooperate. This I did and met with 100
Approved For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120003-4
 Approved For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120003-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE June 27
percent approval for establishing a per-
manent base at Kinross along with the
expansion program. If there is justifi-
cation for the Air Force to expand an
airbase 18 miles from the supporting
city, then I can see no justification for
the Air Force to object to constructing a
base 14 miles from the supporting city,
which in this case would be Traverse City
supporting the Kalkaska site with a di-
rect saving of $1,093,320 to the Govern-
ment.
In conclusion I repeat that the Air
Force Secretary, Mr. Talbott, has served
due and sufficient notice upon the Con-
gress that the site at Kalkaska is satis-
factory and comparable to Cadillac as
far as operations are concerned, and fur-
ther serves notice upon the Congress that
the project will cost $1,093,320 more to
build at Cadillac than it would at Kal-
kaska.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I am serving
notice on the Congress that I am opposed
to the reckless spending of public funds
when such spending in my opinion can-
not be justified or produce greater ac-
complishments in behalf of the Air Force.
but merely to satisfy the Secretary of the
Air Force who has produced no sane jus-
tification to make such a request of the
Congress.
Mr. SHORT. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Cali-
fornia [Mr. BALDWIN].
Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I just
wanted to take this opportunity to thank
the members of the committee, the chair-
man of the committee, and the ranking
minority member for the very kind and
sympathetic consideration they gave to
problems which came up in this bill
which affect the people of the district in
California which I represent.
There was one proposal which came
before the committee, which, had it been
approved by the committee, would have
surrounded and isolated a town of 3,000
people, the town of Port Chicago, Calif.
The committee was kind enough to give
consideration to many resolutions of the
county organizations and to the people
of the town involved and to strike the
particular proposal from the record. Let
me say I think it was a very considerate
position that the committee took to rec-
ognize the problems of local communi-
ties such as Port Chicago.
There is another proposal in the bill,
In county, also in my district, the West
Coast Ammunition Terminal. It is my
understanding after talking with the
chairman and the ranking minority
member that, although this proposal is
included in this bill, before final action
is taken to acquire the property involved
for the West Coast Ammunition Ter-
minal, a subcommittee of this commit-
tee will be going to California this fall
and the subcommittee will inspect this
property proposed to be acquired by the
West Coast Ammunition Terminal, the
Real Estate Subcommittee of the Armed
Services Committee. I think that is the
situation, and I ask the chairman if I
have made an accurate statement of my
understanding.
Mr. VINSON. The gentleman from
California has made an accurate state-
ment. I may say that in the matter of
acquisition of land, as no doubt the
Members well know, while It may be au-
thorized in this bill, and money may be
appropriated, yet before the Government
purchases the land It must again be
scrutinized by the Armed Services Com-
mittee of the House and the Armed Serv-
ices Committee of the Senate. So when
the subcommittee goes out to look at the
situation in regard both to Port Chicago
and the West Coast Ammunition Ter-
minal they will take those two subject
matters Into consideration and advise the
committee, before 1 foot of land is ac-
quired.
Mr. BALDWIN. I thank the gentle-
man for that statement and that under-
standing.
Mr. SHORT. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Michi-
gan [Mr. CEDERasa6I.
Mr. CEDERBERG. Mr. Chairman. I
have requested this time to make an ob-
servation regarding the family housing
situation at some of our military Instal-
lations in England and in the European
theater. I realize that the members of
this committee have gone into the situa-
tion very thoroughly, but, having been a
member of a subcommittee of the Com-
mittee on Appropriations handling mili-
tary construction features, we visited
some of these installations last year.
The housing situation at these bases,
for instance Dreux and Evreux in France.
were deplorable. While I realize we have
a guaranteed housing program in that
theater, especially in France, my observa-
tion was that it Is not working. It seems
impossible to get guaranties for housing
in any areas except such as Paris or
some of the large metropolitan areas.
When we go into some of these smaller
communities where we have these bases
nearby we find, as far as our airmen are
concerned, it is Impossible for them to
bring their families there and give them
the kind of housing they are entitled to.
As I said before, I realize this is a
problem that has complexities, not the
least of which are agreements between
the foreign countries in which they are
located and ourselves, but it seems to me
that we ought to give serious considera-
tion to the building of these family units
on the airbase at a given location. It
seems to me impossible for these people
to live under the conditions that we ex-
pect them to.
I wonder, Mr. Chairman, has the com.-
mittee given any consideration to the
locating of family housing at some of
these out-of-the-way airbases, for in-
stance, on the particular base itself?
Mr. VINSON. I may say to the dis-
tinguished gentleman that that has been
a subject matter that is constantly be-
fore the committee. We are constantly
giving close scrutiny to It. As a matter
of fact, subcommittees have been over
there at least once or twice during the
recess trying to ascertain what is the
proper thing to do. You must recognize
the fact that In dealing with that ques-
tion there is, for instance, one phase of
the Commodity Credit Corporation in-
volved and another phase the rental
guaranty program. The gentleman
may rest assured that the committee
Is conscious of It and is giving the mat-
ter all the consideration we possibly
can,
Mr. CEDERBERG. I thank the gen-
tleman.
Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CEDERBERG. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I am re-
minded of a question that might be
asked at this time of the chairman of
the committee. I overheard the gentle-
man from Missouri mention that in-
cluded in this bill is additional author-
ization for instruments on the six new
fighter interceptor bases that were au-
thorized originally last year. Of course,
included in the original six is a very
controversial one in the State of the
gentleman now adressing the House. I
wonder whether the committee did not
have some hesitancy about granting ad-
ditional authorization to the Michigan
base where this controversy is very warn
at the present time with reference to
whether or not a site has been agreed
upon where these additional authorized
structures are to be placed.
Mr. VINSON. I will say to the gen-
tleman that as far as the Armed Services
Committee is concerned, we have been
advised that the Secretary is definitely
reaffirming his views in selecting Cadil-
lac as an area referred to in connection
with the Traverse City area. I have my
personal views, but nevertheless those
are the facts of the case.
Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. The chair-
man then has more faith in the repeated
confirmation of this site than he had in
the repeated confirmation of the sites
that were given last year.
Mr. VINSON. All I can say Is that the
Secretary advised the committee in writ-
ing that he had reaffirmed after further
examination his previous choice, and
reached the conclusion that Cadillac was
the place where he was going to place
it. Of course, if I had been making the
selection, somebody might not agree with
it, but that is how it stands.
Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. It was on
that basis, then, that the further au-
thorization for this site was included in
this bill?
Mr. VINSON. That is with reference
to the Traverse City area arrangement.
They laid it out in broad language, and
then the Department goes before the
Committee on Appropriations and says
that he has selected Cadillac as the
place. We do not pinpoint it.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I will
reluctantly vote for this bill which calls
for the appropriation of nearly $21/12
billion.
I have the feeling that there Is alto-
gether too much fat in this military
construction bill but it is wellnigh im-
possible for a Member of Congress who
is not a member of the Armed Services
Committee, to know where reductions
can properly be made.
I cannot understand why, for instance,
funds should be authorized for the
building of a new Navy aviation train-
ing facility in Texas when the perma-
nently constructed facility for this pur-
pose stands unused near Ottumwa, Iowa.
Since becoming a Member of Con-
gress, I have voted for practically all
appropriations that have been requested
for the building of this Nation's defenses,
Approved For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120003-4
 Approved For lease 2004/08/31: CIA-RDP63T0 00100120003-4 7929
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - H
but I want it understood now that these
? costs have got to decrease in terms of
new installations. If there is the proper
construction and housekeeping, these
bills can be drastically reduced and that
is exactly what must occur if this Nation
is to remain solvent.
The CHAIRMAN. There being no
further requests for time, the Clerk will
read the bill for amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted, etc.-
TITLE I
SEC. 101." The Secretary of the Army is
authorized to establish or develop military
installations and facilities by the acquisi-
tion, construction, coversion, rehabilitation,
or installation of permanent or temporary.
public works in respect. of the following
projects, which include site preparation, ap-
purtenances, and related utilities and equip-
ment;
CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES
Technical services facilities
(Ordnance Corps)
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.: Troop
housing, community facilities, utilities, and
family housing, $1,736,000.
Black Hills Ordnance Depot, S. Dak.: Fam-
ily housing, $78,000.
Blue Grass Ordnance Depot, Ky.: Opera-
tional and maintenance facilities, $509,000.
Erie Ordnance Depot, Ohio: Operational
and maintenance facilities and utilities,
$1,933,000. .
Frankford Arsenal, Pa.: Utilities, $855,000.
Lordstown Ordnance Depot, Ohio: Opera-
tional and maintenance facilities, $875,000.
Pueblo Ordnance Depot, Colo,: Opera-
tional and maintenance facilities, $1,843,000.
Red River Arsenal, Tex.: Operational and
maintenance facilities, $140,000.
Redstone Arsenal, Ala.: Research and de-
velopment facilities and community facili-
tie, $2,865,000.
Rock Island Arsenal, Ill.: Operational and
mantenance facilities, $347,000.
Rossford Ordnance Depot, Ohio: Utilities,
$400,000.
Savanna Ordnance Depot, Ill.: Operational
and maintenance facilities, $342,000.
Seneca Ordnance Depot, N. Y.: Commun-
ity- facilities, $129,000.
Sierra Ordnance Depot, Calif.. Opera-
tional and maintenance facilities, $1,075,000.
White Sands Proving Ground, N. Mex.:
Troop supporting facility, and research and
development facilities, $1,247,000.
Wingate Ordnance Depot, N. Mex.: Opera-
tional and maintenance facilities, $832,000.
(Quartermaster Corps)
Atlanta General Depot, Ga.: Storage fa-
cilities, $84,000.
Belle Meade General Depot, N. J.: Opera-
tional and maintenance facilities, $174,000.
Fort Lee, Va.: Troop housing, community
facilities, medical facility, storage facilities,
training facilities, operational and mainte-
nance facilities, and family housing, $8,-
589,000.
Memphis General Depot, Tenn.: Family
housing, $99,000.
New Cumberland General Depot, Pa.:
Family housing. $568,000.
Sharpe General Depot, Calif.: Utilities and
family housing. $337,000.
(Chemical Corps)
Army Chemical Center, Md.: Troop hous-
ing, storage facilities, operational and main-
tenance facilities, and utilities, $1,248,000.
Deseret Chemical Depot; Utah: Mainte-
nance facilities, $92,000.
Camp Detrick, Md.: Utilities, $452,000.
Dugway Proving Ground, Utah: Troop
housing, hospital and medical facilities, op-
erational and maintenance facilities and
family housing, $1,129,000.
Pine Bluff Arsenal (including Midwest
Chemical Depot), Ark.: Land acquisition,
$3,000.
Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Colo.: Opera-
tional and maintenance facilities and utili-
ties, $773,000.
(Signal Corps)
Decatur Signal Depot, Ill.: Operational
and maintenance facilities, $303,000.
Fort Huachuca, Ariz.: Airfield pavements,
community facilities, storage facilities, op-
erational and maintenance facilities, utili-
ties, and family housing, $4,648,000.
Lexington Signal Depot, Ky.:. Maintenance
facility, and family housing, $538,000.
Fort Monmouth, N. J.: Community facili-
ties, $615,000.
Sacramento Signal Depot, Calif.: Troop
housing, maintenance facility, and family
housing, $715,000.
Tobyhanna Signal Depot, Pa.: Troop hous-
ing, $049,000.
Two Rock Ranch Station, Calif.: Com-
munity facilities, and family housing, $1,-
298,000.
Vint Hill Farms Station, Va.: Community
facilities, storage facility, and operational
and maintenance facility, $695,000.
(Corps of Engineers)
Army Map Service, Md.: Operational and
maintenance facility, $62,000.
Fort Belvoir, Va.: Troop housing, com-
munity facilities, research and development
facilities, operational and maintenance fa-
cilities, utilities, and family housing, $4,-
608,000.
Grants City Engineer Depot, Ill.: Opera-
tional and maintenance facilities, and
family housing, $1,822,000.
Marion Engineer Depot, Ohio: Storage
facilities and utilities, $1,146,000.
(Transportation Corps)
Brooklyn Army Base, N. Y.: Utilities, $1,-
055,000.
Charleston Transportation Depot, S. C.:
Storage facilities and utilities, $329,000.
Fort Eustis, Va.: Troop housing, commu-
nity facilities, training facilities, medical
facility, and operational and maintenance
facilities, $6,597,000.
New Orleans Army Base, La.: Storage fa-
cility, $117,000.
Oakland Army Base, Calif.: Community
facilities, storage facilities, and operational
and maintenance facilities, $1,923,000.
Fort Story, Va.: Utilities, $41,000.
West. Coast Ammunition Terminal, Calif.:
Dredging and land acquisition, $12,860,000,
(Medical Corps)
William Beaumont Army Hospital, Tex.:
Hospital and medical facilities, $586,000.
Brooke Army Medical Center, Tex.: Ho-
pital and medical facilities, $549,000.
Madigan Army Hospital, . Wash.: Hospital
and medical facilities, $333,000.
Walter Reed Army Medical Center, D. C.:
Hospital facilities, research and development
facilities, and training facilities, $7,632,000.
FIELD FORCES FACILITIES
(First Army Area)
Fort Devens, Mass.: Troop housing, ad-
ministrative facilities, and family housing,
$7,275,000.
Fort Dix, N. J.: Community facilities, med-
ical facilities, administrative facilities, and
family housing, $6,698,000.
Fort Jay, N. Y.: Waterfront facilities, $731,-
000.
Fort Niagara, N. Y.: Storage facilities,
$209,000.
Fort Totten, N. Y.: Utilities, $170,000.
(Second Army Area)
Fort Holabird, Md.: Troop housing, $612,-
000.
Fort Knox, Ky.: Troop housing, training
and administrative facilities, community fa-
cilities, medical facilities, operational and
maintenance facilities, and family housing,
$8,990,000.
Fort George G. Meade, Md. Community
facilities, training and medical facilities, and
operational and maintenance facilities, $923,-
000.
(Third Army Area)
Fort Benning, Ga.: Troop housing, com-
munity facilities, training and administrative
facilities, medical facilities, storage facilities,
operational and maintenance facilities, and
family housing, $10,392,000.
Fort Bragg, N. C.: Troop housing, com-
munity facilities, training and administrative
facilities, medical facilities, airfield pave-
ments, operational and maintenance facili-
ties, and family housing, $15,659,000.
Fort Campbell, Ky.: Troop housing, com-
munity facilities, training and administrative
facilities, medical facilities, operational and
maintenance facilities, and family housing,
$12,377,000.
Camp Gordon, Ga.: Community facilities,
$261,000.
Camp Jackson, S. C.: Medical facilities,
$8 million.
Fort McClellan, Ala.: Community facilities,
storage facilities, operational and mainte-
nance facilities, and family housing, $2,-
611,000.
Camp Rucker, Ala.: Airfield pavements,
and operational and maintenance facilities,
$2,070,000.
Camp Stewart, Ga.: Troop housing, storage
facilities, and operational and maintenance
facilities, $967,000.
(Fourth Army Area)
Fort Bliss, Tex.: Troop housing, commu-
nity facilities, training and administrative
facilities, and operational and maintenance
facilities, $4,845,000.
Fort Hood, Tex.: Troop housing, commu-
nity facilities, training and administrative
facilities, medical facilities, operational and
maintenance facilities, and family housing,
$12:922,000.
Fort Sam Houston, Tex.: Troop housing
and operational facilities, $805,000.
Fort Sill, Okla.: Community facilities,
medical facilities, operational and mainte-
nance facilities, and land acquisition, $3,-
053,000.
(Fifth Army Area)
Fort Carson, Colo.: Troop housing, com-
munity facilities, training and administra-
tive facilities, medical facilities, airfield
pavements, storage facilities, and operation-
al and maintenance facilities, $7,487,000.
Fort Leavenworth, Kans.: Hospital and
medical facilities, training facilities, and
operational facilities, $8,615,000.
Camp Lucas, Mich.: Community facili-
ties, $145,000.
Fort Riley, Kans.: Troop housing, com-
munity facilities, training and administra-
tive tive facilities, medical facilities, storage fa-
cilities, operational and maintenance facili-
ties, and family housing, $8,657,000.
Fort Sheridan, Ill.: Family housing,
$1,268,000.
(Sixth Army Area)
Camp Hanford, Wash.: Waterfront facili-
ties, $167,000.
Fort Lewis, Wash.: Troop housing com-
munity facilities, training facilities, medical
facilities, storage facilities, operational and
maintenance facilities, and family housing,
$15,275,000.
Presidio of Monterey, Calif.: Troop hous-
ing and training facilities, $1,878,000.
Fort Ord, Calif.: Community facilities,
medical facilities, and utilities, $1,407,000.
Presidio of San Francisco, Calif.: Liquid
fuel dispensing facilities, $144,000.
United States Disciplinary Barracks, Calif.:
Community facilities, $184,000.
Yuma Test Station, Ariz.: Family housing,
$709,000.
Approved For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120003-4
 Approved Ferffl
(08/31CIARDPS~245R000100120003-4 June 27
(Military Academy)
United States Military Academy. N. Y.:
Community facilities and utilities, $750,000.
(Armed Forces Special Weapons Project)
Sandia Base, N. Mex.: Family housing,
$1.231,000.
Various Installations: Maintenance facili-
ties. community facilities, and utilities, $3,-
014,000.
(Tactical Installations)
Various locations: Family housing. $8,135.-
000.
(Rehabilitation)
Various locations: Rehabilitation of fa-
cilities for family housing, $2,661,000.
Outside continental United States
(Alaskan Area)
Big Delta: Troop housing and community
facilities, and family housing, $3.638.000.
Elelson Air Force Base: Maintenance and
storage facility, $1,047,000.
Ladd Air Force Base: Storage facilities
and liquid fuel dispensing facilities. $268,-
000.
Fort Richardson: Troop housing, com-
munity facilities, storage facilities, opera-
tional and maintenance facilities, and utili-
tes, $9,079,000.
Whittier: Community facilities, and oper-
atonal and maintenance facilities. $1,183,-
000.
Wildwood Station (Kenai) : Troop hous-
ing and community facilities, $469,000.
Various locations: Rehabilitation of fa-
cilities for family housing, $1,650,000.
(Far East Command Area)
Okinawa: Community, troop supporting,
and medical facilities, operational, mainte-
nance, and administrative facilities, utili-
ties, family housing, and land acquisition
and resettlement, $43,983,000, of which sum
the total amount available for resettlement
may be paid in advance to the Government
of the Ryukyu Islands.
(Pacific Command Area)
Helemano, Hawaii: Family housing, $714,-
000.
Camp O'Donnel, Philippine Islands: Util-
ities, $832.000.
Schofield Barracks, Hawaii: Storage and
community facilities, $3,162,000.
Waiawa (Waipio) Radio Transmitting Sta-
tion: Hawaii: Community facilities and fam-
ily housing, $363,000.
(Caribbean Command Area)
Fort Clayton, Canal Zone: Family housing,
$2,350,000.
(Icelandic Command Area)
Keflavik Airport: Operational and training
facilities, and family housing, $3,793,000.
Classified Installations: Family housing,
$5,799,000.
Sec. 102. The Secretary of the Army is au-
thorized to establish or develop classified
military installations and facilities by the
acquisition of land and the construction, re-
habilitation, or installation of permanent or
temporary public works, including site prep-
aration, appurtenances, and related utili-
ties and equipment, in a total amount of
$223,993,000.
Svc. 103. The Secretary of the Army is au-
thorized through the construction, rehabili-
tation, or installation of permanent or tem-
porary public works, including site prepara-
tion, appurtenances, and related utilities and
equipment, to restore or replace facilities
damaged or destroyed in a toal amount of
$10 million.
SEC. 104. Public Law 534, 82d Congress, is
hereby amended as follows:
(a) Strike so much thereof under the
heading "Continental United States" and
subheading "Field Forces Facilities" (Second
Army Area) In section 101 as follows;
"Fort Knox, Ky.: Training buildings and
facilities, research and development facilities,
maintenance facilities, land acquisition, and
utilities, $11.411,000."
and insert in lieu thereof the following:
"Fort Knox, Ky.: Training buildings and
facilities, maintenance facilities, land ac-
quisition, and utilities. $9,411,000."
(b) Strike so much thereof under the
heading "Continental United States" and
subheading "Technical Service Facilities"
(Army Medical Service) In section 101 as
follows:
"Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Wash-
ington, D. C.: Operational facilities and re-
search and development facilities, $731,000.
and Insert in lieu thereof the following:
"Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Wash-
ington, D. C., and Forest Glen, Md.: Opera-
tional facilities, and research and develop-
ment facilities, $2,731,000."
S. 105. Public Law 534, 83d Congress, is
hereby amended by striking so much there-
of under the heading "Continental United
States" and subheading "(Signal Corps)" in
section 101 as follows:
"Department of the Army transmitting
station, vicinity of Woodbridge. Va.:"
and Inserting in lieu thereof the following:
"Department of the Army transmitting
station, vicinity of Camp Detrick, Md.."
TrrLx II
Sec. 201. The Secretary of Navy is author-
ized to establish or develop naval installa-
tions and facilities by the acquisition, con-
struction, conversion, rehabilitation, or In-
stallation of permanent or temporary public
works in respect of the following projects,
which include site preparation, appurte-
nances, and related utilities and equipment:
CONTINENTAL UMreD STAT=
Shipyard facilities
Naval shipyard, Boston, Mass.: Utilities
and replacement of piers, $8,441,000.
Naval shipyard. Puget Sound, Bremerton,
Wash.: Drydock facilities, $200,000.
David Taylor Model Basin, Carderock. Md.:
Research and development facilities, $14,-
302.000.
Naval Industrial reserve shipyard, Charles-
ton, S. C.: Land acquisition, $427,000.
Naval minecraft base. Charleston, S. C.:
site preparation, waterfront facilities, ad-
ministrative facilities, training facilities,
utilities, and land acquisition, $5,800,000.
Naval shipyard, Mare Island, Vallejo. Calif.:
Waterfront facilities and sandblasting facil-
ities, $4,553,000.
Naval shipyard, Norfolk, Va.: Replacement
of wharf, $308,000.
Naval underwater sound laboratory, New
London. Conn.: Family housing. $66,600.
Naval mine countermeasures station, Pana-
ma City, Fla.: Administrative facilities, com-
munity facilities, training facilities, bell-
copter facilities, ammunition storage facili-
ties, waterfront facilities. research and de-
velopment facilities, and land acquisition,
$3.379,000.
Naval shipyard, Portsmouth, N. H.; Utili-
ties and drydock facilities. $946,000.
Naval electronics laboratory, San Diego,
Calif.: Land acquisition, $143,000..
Naval repair facility, San Diego, Calif.:
Utilities. $629.000.
Naval shipyard, San Francisco, Calif.: Wa-
terfront facilities, steam test facilities, and
land acquisition, $4,369.000.
Fleet base facilities
Navy Department, District of Columbia:
Family housing. $81,000.
Naval station, Green Cove Springs, Fla.:
Utilities, $72,000.
Naval station, Newport, R. I.: Personnel
facilities, 61.583.000.
Naval base. Norfolk. Va.: Waterfront facili-
ties, pavement, utilities, and land acquisi-
tion, $9,972,000.
Naval station. Orange, Tel.: Personnel fa-
cilities. $399,000.
Naval station, San Diego, Calif.: Utilities,
$57,000.
Naval station, Treasure Island, San Fran-
cisco, Calif.: Personnel facilities and utilities,
$3.147.000.
Naval station, Tacoma, Wash.: Waterfront
facilities, $3,024,000.
Naval station, Tongue Point, Astoria, Oreg.:
Personnel facilities, $92,000.
Aviation facilities
(Naval Air Training Station)
Naval auxiliary landing field, Alice-Orange
Grove area, Tex.: Airfield pavements and land
acquisition, $1,487,000.
Naval auxiliary air station, Barin Field,
Foley, Ala,: Airfield lighting facilities, $151;
000..
Naval auxiliary air station, Chase Field,
Tex.: Storage facilities, fuel dispensing fa-
cilities, operational facilities, personnel fa-
clltties, community facilities, land acquisi-
tion, and family housing, $1,953,500.
Naval air station, Corpus Christi, Tex.:
Navigational aids, training facilities, and
land acquisition, $664.000.
Naval air station, Glynco. Ga.: Aircraft,
station and equipment maintenance facili-
ties. administrative facilities, and utilities,
$1,888,000.
Naval air station, Hutchinson, Kans.: Utili-
ties. $81.000.
Naval auxiliary air station, Kingsville, Tex.:
Aircraft maintenance facilities, operational
facilities, navigational aids, storage facilities,
maintenance facilities, personnel facilities,
community facilities, and land acquisition,
$3,886,000.
Naval air station, Memphis, Tenn.: Utili-
ties, $759,000.
Naval air station, Pensacola, Fla.: Airfield
pavements, navigational aids, personnel fa-
cilities, fuel dispensing facilities, operational
facilities, research and development facilities,
ammunition storage facilities, land acquisi-
tion, and plans and specifications for air-
craft overhaul and repair facilities, $3,453,-
000.
Naval auxiliary air station: Port Isabel,
Tel.: Airfield pavements, aircraft mainte-
nance facilities, operational facilities, admin-
istrative facilities, community facilities,
fuel storage facilities, ammunition storage
and ordnance faciities, security facilities,
utilities, and land acquisition, $5,544,000.
Naval auxiliary air station, New Iberia,
La.: Aircraft maintenance facilities, airfield
pavements, operational facilities, naviga-
tional aids, maintenance facilities, communi-
cation facilities, training facilities, admin-
istrative facilities, fuel storage and dispens-
ing facilities, covered and cold storage facili-
ties. ammunition storage facilities, personnel
facilities, medical facilities, community fa-
cilities, utilities, and land acquisition, $24,-
361,000.
Naval auxiliary air station, Whiting Field,
Fla.: Family housing, $385.000.
(Fleet Support Air Stations)
Naval air station. Alameda, Calif.: Air-
craft maintenance facilities, seadrome light-
ing facilities, seawall, dredging, and land
acquisition, $3,729,000.
Naval air station, Atlantic City, N. J.: Stor-
age facilities, and utilities, $233,000.
Naval auxiliary air station, Brown Field,
Calif.: Family housing, $214,600.
Naval air station, Brunswick, Maine: Air-
field pavements, airfield lighting facilities,
communication facilities, storage facilities,
ammunition storage facilities, personnel fa-
cilities, community facilities, utilities, and
land acquisition, $3,200,000.
Naval air station. Cecil Field, Fla.: Aircraft
maintenance facilities, airfield pavements,
operational facilities, covered storage facili-
ties. ammunition storage and ordnance fa-
cilities, fuel dispensing facilities, security
Approved For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120003-4
 1955 Approved For1L: jjBR13T(figt60100120003-4 7931
facilities, personnel facilities, community
facilities, and utilities, $7,400,000.
Naval auxiliary air station, El Centro,
Calif.: Ordnance facilities, and land acqui-
sition, $366,000.
Naval auxiliary air station, Fallon, Nev.:
Operational facilities, community facilities,
family housing, and personnel facilities,
$1,172,700.
Naval- air station, Jacksonville, Fla.: Air-
field pavements, communication facilities,
operational facilities, and land acquisition,
$2,224,000.
Naval air station, Key West, Fla.: Fuel
storage facilities, and boathouse, $211,000.
Naval auxiliary landing field, Mayport,
Fla.: Waterfront facilities, communication
facilities, family housing, and security fa-
cilities, $812,000.
Naval air station, Miramar, Calif.: Storage
facilities, training facilities, personnel fa-
cilities, fuel dispensing facilities, community
facilities, and utilities, $4,370,000.
Naval ar station, Moffet Field, Calif.: Fuel
pipeline facilities, airfield pavements, and
operational facilities, $2,581,000.
Naval air station,. Norfolk, Va.: Aircraft
maintenance facilities,, training facilities,
communication facilities, operational facili-
ties and land acquisition, $5,260,000.
Naval air station, Oceana, Va.: Airfield
pavement, storage facilities, personnel facil-
ities, maintenance facilities, community fa-
cilities, and fuel dispensing facilities, $5,281,-
000.
Naval air station, Quonset Point, R. I.: Air-
field lighting facilities, operational facilities,
and utilities, $1,062,000.
Naval air station, San Diego, Calif.: Train-
ing facilities, operational facilities, aircraft
maintenance facilities, fuel dispensing fa-
cilities, and utilities, $2,748,000.
Naval auxiliary air station, Sanford, Fla.:
Family housing, $188,900.
Naval air facility, Weeksville, N. C.: Cold
storage facilities, and maintenance facilities,
$342,000.
Naval air station, Whidbey Island, Wash.:
Airfield pavements, airfield lighting facili.
ties, training facilities, and land acquisition;
$1,958,000.
Outlying field, Whitehouse Field, Duval
County, Fla.: Airfield pavements, and land
acquisition, $1,087,000.
(Marine Corps Air Stations)
Marine Corps auxiliary air station, Beau-
fort, S. C.: Airfield pavements, communica-
tions facilities, navigational aids, fuel dis-
pensing facilities, operational facilities, stor-
age facilities, personnel facilities, community
facilities, and land acquisition, $4,649,000.
Marine Corps air station, cherry Point,
N. C.: Airfield pavements, aircraft mainte-
nance facilities, waterfront facilities, navi-
gational aids, airfield lighting facilities, am-
munition storage and ordnance facilities,
operational facilities, and land acquisition,
$1,762,000.
Marine Corps air station, El Toro, Calif.:
Airfield pavements, training facilities, com-
munication facilities, storage facilities, per-
sonnel facilities, community facilities, and
land acquisition, $2,492,000.
Marine Corps auxiliary air station, Eden-
ton, N. C.: Family housing, $1,421,500.
Marine Corps air station, Miami, Fla.:
Land acquisition, $1,223,000.
Marine Corps auxiliary air station, Mojave,
Calif.: Maintenance facilities, land acquisi-
tion, and family housing, $2,305,400.
Marine Corps air facility, New River, N. C.:
Airfield pavements, medical facilities, ad-
ministrative facilities, storage facilities, per-
sonnel facilities, community facilites, opera-
tional facilities, training facilities, and
utilities, $2,762,000.
(Special purpose air stations)
Naval air facility, to be known as John H.
Towers Field, Annapolis area, Md.: Opera-
No. 108-10
tional facilities, administrative facilities,
personnel facilities, airfield lighting facili-
ties, airfield pavements, aircraft and station
maintenance facilities, communication fa-
cilities, cold storage facilities, training facili-
ties, storage facilities, utilities, medical facili-
ties, petroleum storage facilities, site prepa-
ration, and land acquisition, $16,900,000.
Naval auxiliary air station, Chincoteague,
Va.: Aircraft maintenance facilities, medical
facilities, and operational facilities, $2,858,-
000.
Naval ordnance test station, Inyokern,
Calif.: Research and development facilities,
$2,615,000.
Naval air station, Lakehurst, N. J.: Re-
search and development facilities, storage
facilities, navigational aids, and aircraft
maintenance facilities, $16,311,000.
Naval air test center, Patuxent River, Md.:
Airfield pavements, aircraft maintenance fa-
cilities, oil storage facilities, and utilities,
$8,677,000.
Naval air missile test center, Point Mugu,
Calif.: Aircraft maintenance facilities, com-
munication facilities, and research and de-
velopment facilities, $926,000.
Naval air station, South Weymouth, Mass.:
Testing facilities, $270,000.
Naval photographic Interpretation center;
Suitland, Md.: Operational and photographic
preservation facilities, $2,345,000.
Various locations: Land acquisition, and
obstruction removal, for flight clearance,
$23 million.
Supply facilities
Naval fuel depot, Jacksonville, Fla,: Family
housing, $15,200.
Naval supply depot, Newport, R. I.: Water-
front facilities, administrative facilities, and
utilities, $1,041,000.
Naval supply center, Norfolk, Va.: Cold-
storage facilities, warehouse freight elevators,
and (at Cheatham Annex) highway crossing
and land acquisition, $777,000.
Naval supply center, Oakland, Calif.: Utili-
ties, and easement, $62,000.
Marine Corps facilities
Marine Corps supply center, Albany, Ga.:
Storage facilities, community facilities, cold-
storage facilities, personnel facilities, and
utilities, $3,157,000.
Marine Corps supply center, Barstow,
Calif.: Storage facilities, community facili-
ties, cold-storage facilities, personnel facili-
ties, security facilities, and land acquisition,
$501,000.
Marine Corps base, Camp Lejeune, N. C.:
Personnel facilities, security facilities, and
utilities, $1,059,000.
Marine Corps recruit depot, Parris Island,
S. C.: Training facilities, maintenance facili-
ties, and utilities, $1,054,000.
Marine Corps. base, Camp Pendleton,
Calif.: Utilities, $648,000.
Marine Corps clothing "depot, Annex No. 3,
Philadelphia, Pa.: Utilities, $30,000.
Marine Corps schools, Quantico, Va.: Cov-
ered and ammunition-storage facilities, med-
ical facilities, training and personnel facili-
ties, utilities, and land acquisition;
$9,357,000.
Marine Corps recruit depot, San Diego,
Calif.: Pavements, and personnel facilities,
$120,000.
Marine Corps training center, Twenty-nine
Palms, Calif.: Family housing, $47,300.
Ordnance facilities
Naval ammunition depot, Charleston,
S. C.: Ordnance facilities, $193,000.
Naval aviation ordnance test station, Chin-
coteague, Va.: Research and development
facilities, $644,000.
Naval ordnance aerophysics laboratory,
Daingerfield, Tex.: Research and develop-
ment facilities, $1,111,000.
Naval ammunition depot, Earle, N. J.:
Refrigerated storage facilities, $59,000.
Naval ammunition depot, Fallbrook, Calif.:
Ordnance and ammunition storage facili.
ties, $514,000.
Naval ammunition depot, Hawthorne,
Nev.: Barricaded sidings, and utilities,
$1,424,000.
Naval powder factory, Indian Head, Md.:
Research and development facilities, and
utilities, $1,107,000.
Naval ordnance test station, Inyokern,
Calif.: Community facilities, $375,000.
Naval torpedo station, Keyport, Wash.:
Ordnance facilities, $376,000.
Naval ordnance plant, Louisville, Ky.:
Ordnance drawings storage facilities,
$927,000.
Naval ordnance plant, Macon, Ga.: Ord-
nance manufacturing facilities, $3,800,000.
Naval underwater ordnance station, New-
port, R. I.: Testing facilities, $370,000.
Naval magazine, Port Chicago, Calif.:
Ordnance facilities, $241,000.
Naval ammunition depot, St. Juliens Creek,
Va.: Utilities, $420,000.
Naval ammunition and net depot, Seal
Beach, Calif.: Waterfront facilities,
$1,029,000.
Naval ammunition depot, Shumaker,
Ark.: Barricaded transfer depot facilities,
$765,000.
Naval ordnance laboratory, White Oak,
Md.: Research and development facilities,
$1,976,000.
Naval mine depot, Yorktown, Va.: Ammu-
nition storage and testing facilities, $113,000.
Service school facilities
Naval Academy, Annapolis, Md.: Utilities,
cadet housing, and fill In Dewey and Santee
Basins In Severn River, $11,467,000.
Naval station, Annapolis, Md.: Personnel
facilities, $307,000.
Naval receiving station, Charleston, S. C.:
Community facilities, $553,000.
Naval amphibious base, Coronado, Calif.:
Personnel facilities, $1,402,000.
Fleet air defense training center, Dam
Neck, Va.: Training facilities, and personnel
facilities, $1,942,000.
Naval training center, Great Lakes, Ill.:.
Training facilities, family housing, and per-
sonnel facilities, $8,038,800.
Naval powder factory, Indian Head, Md.:
Personnel facilities, $780,000.
Naval postgraduate school, Monterey,
Calif.: Personnel facilities, $119,000.
Naval receiving station, Philadelphia, Pa.:
Personnel facilities, $1,428,000.
Naval retraining command, Portsmouth,
N. H.: Security facilities, $42,000.
Fleet sonar school, San Diego, Calif.:
Training facilities, $2,753,000.
Medical facilities
National naval medical center, Bethesda,
Md.: Plans and specifications for the Armed
Forces Medical Library, $350,000.
Naval hospital, Chelsea, Mass.: Family
housing, $192,806.
Naval hospital, Corona, Calif.: Family
housing, and conversion of existing struc-
tures to family housing, $256,800.
Naval hospital, Corpus Christi, Tex.: Fam-
ily housing, $162,100.
Naval hospital, Great Lakes, Ill.: Plans
and 'specifications for certain medical fa-
cilities, $750,000.
Naval hospital, Jacksonville, Fla.: Retain-
ing wall, $46,000.
Naval submarine base, New London, Conn.;
Medical research facilities, $755,000.
Naval hospital, Philadelphia, Pa.: Utilities,
$60,000.
Communications facilities
Naval radio station, Northwest, Va.: Com-
munication facilities, $436,000. -
Office of naval research facilities
Naval research laboratory, Washington, D.
C.: Research facilities, and utilities, $163,-
000.
Approved For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120003-4
 AVAR, Ask
A roved For Release 2004/08/31 ? CIA- DP 458000100120003-4
7932
I'll CONGRESSIONAL RECOR1 -- IroUSE June 27
Naval research laboratory, Chesapeake Bay Ordnance facilities
Annex, Randle Cliffs.Md.: Research facili- Naval ammunition depot, Oahu, T. H.:
ties, and land acquisition, $52,000. Testing facilities. and railroad facilities and
Yards and docks facilities barricades, $1,132,000.
Naval construction battalion center, Davis- Naval ordnance facility. Sasebo, Japan:
ville, It. I.: Waterfront facilities, and storage Personnel facilities. 168,000.
facilities, $5,397,000. Service school facilities
Public works center, Norfolk, Va,: Utilities. Fleet training center, Pearl Harbor, T. H.:
$2.510,000. Training facilities, 144.000.
Naval construction battalion center. Port Medical facilities
Hueneme, Calif.: Maintenance facilities, Naval hospital, Guam, Mariana Islands:
$1.225,000. Community facilities, $269,000.
Various locations: Facilities for abatement
of water pollution, Including the acquisition Communication facilities
of land, $15,149,000. Naval communication station, Adak,
OUTSIDE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES Alaska: Communication facilities. 1489.000.
Shipyard facilities Naval radio facility, Kam!-Set's. Japan;
Communication facilities, and family hous-
Fleet activities. Sasebo, Japan: Personnel ing. $2,564.700.
facilities, $57,000. Naval communication station, Kodiak,
Fleet base facilities Alaska: Site preparation, communication
Naval station, Adak, Alaska: Family bous- facilities, maintenance facilities, personnel
ing? $2,485,000. facilities, and utilities, $6,991,000.
Naval base. Guam, Mariana Islands: Ad- Naval communication facility, Philippine
ministrative facilities. $1,835,000. Islands: Communication facilities, com-
Naval here, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba: Utlli- munity facilities, utilities, and family hous-
tles, $56,000. ing. $8.001,500.
Naval base, Subic Bay. Philippine Islands: Naval communication facility, Port
Personnel facilities, medical facilities, util- Lyautey, French Morocco: Storage facilities,
ities, and family housing, $15,253,700. personnel facilities, community facilities,
Fleet activities: Yokosuka, Japan: Family utilities, and family housing, $2,848,600.
housing, $0,540,800. Yards and docks facilities
Aviation facilities Fifteenth Naval District, Canal Zone:
Naval air station. Agana, Guam. Mariana Utilities, and acquisition of family housing,
Islands: Airfield pavements, operational fa- 13.069.000~
cilittes, personnel facilities, aircraft main- Guam. Mariana Islands: Utilities, $940,000.
SEC.
tenance facilities, and utilities, $6,525,000. 202. The Secretary of the Navy is
Naval station, Argentia, Newfoundland : authorized to establish or develop classified
Operational facilities, and family housing, naval Installations and facilities by the ac-
&8,589.800. quisition of Iand, and the construction, con-
E18.5891800. rehabilitation, or Installation of
Naval air station, Atsugl, Japan: Personnel
permanent
facilities, and family housing, $1,978,800. or temporary public works. In-
facilities, British West In- eluding site preparation, appurtenances,
Naval station, Bermuda.
Aircraft maintenance facilities, 191,- utilities, equipment and family housing, in
the total amount of $151,342,400.
000. 6ec. 203. The Secretary of the Navy is
Naval air facility, Cub! Point. Philippine authorized through the construction, re-
Islands: Airfield pavements, aircraft main- habilitation or installation of permanent or
tenance facilities, earthwork, personnel fa- temporary public works, including site prep-
cilities, communication facilities, ordnance aration, appurtenances, and related utilities
facilities, fuel-dispensing facilities, and utili- and equipment, to restore or replace facili-
ties, $8,260,000. ties damaged or destroyed In a total amount
Naval air station, Guantanamo Bay. Cuba: of to million.
Fuel pipeline facilities, community facili- TrrLE III
ties, utilities, and family housing, 12,977,300, Sac 301. The Secretary of the Air Force is
sonnel Naval air facilities. $9 ,000. 1, Japan: Per- hereby authorized to establish or develop
Marine e Corps s. air it stabs, Air Force installations and facilities by the
Mar, Kaneohe Bay. acquisition, construction, conversion, re-
facilites, H.i Airfield pavemndments, fuel, 27,600. g habilitation, or Installation of permanent or
and family housing, Alas. Family public works In respect of the
Naval ion
Naval station. Kodiak, Alaska. Family following projects, which include site prep-
Naval l station. , Kwajalein, Marshall station, appurtenances urtenances and related utilities,
N
Islands: Communication facilities, am u- equipment and facilities:
nation storage facilities, and personnel fa- CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES
cilities, $4,411,000. Air refense Command
Naval station. Midway Island, T. H.: Com- Buckingham Weapons Center, Fort My-
munication facilities and operational fa- era. Fla.: Airfield pavements. fuel dispensing
cilities, $1,518,000. facilities, communications and navigational
Naples, Italy: Operational facilities and aide, operational facilities, aircraft main-
storage facilities, $155,000. tenance facilities, troop housing and messing
Naval air facility, Port Lyautey. French facilities, utilities, land acquisition, medical
Morocco: Cold-storage facilities, and family facilities, storage facilities, personnel facili-
housing, $1,958,500. ties, administrative facilities, shop facilities,
Naval station, Roosevelt Roads, Puerto and family housing, $11577.000.
Rico: Operational facilities and airfield pave- Duluth Municipal Airport, Duluth, Minn.:
ments, $3,721.000. Airfield pavements. aircraft maintenance fa-
Naval station, Sangdey Point, Philippine cilities, utilities, medical facilities, storage
Islands: Family housing. $522,900, facilities, personnel facilities, and shop fa-
cilities, $1.200,000,.
Glasgow site, Montana: Airfield pavements,
fuel dispensing facilities, navigational aids
and airfield lighting facilities, operational
facilities, aircraft maintenance facilities,
training facilities, utilities, medical facilities.
storage facilities, personnel facilities, admin-
istrative and community facilities, shop fa-
cilities, and family housing, $4,706,000.
Grand Forks site, North Dakota: Airfield
pavements, fuel dispensing facilities. com-
munications, navigational aids and airfield
lighting facilities, operational facilities, air-
craft maintenance facilities, training facili-
ties, troop housing, utilities, land acquisi-
tion, medical facilities, storage facilities, per-
sonnel facilities, administrative and com-
munity facilities, shop facilities, and family
housing. $5,822,060.
Grandview Air Force Base. Kansas City.
Mo.: Airfield pavements, fuel dispensing fa-
cilities, airfield lighting facilities, aircraft
maintenance facilities, training facilities,
utilities, land acquisition, storage facilities,
personnel facilities, and family housing,
$3,402,000.
Greater Milwaukee area, Wisconsin: Airfield
pavements, fuel dispensing facilities, com-
munications and navigational aide, opera-
tional facilities, aircraft maintenance facil-
ities, troop housing and messing facilities,
utilities, land acquisition, medical facilities,
storage facilities, personnel facilities, admin-
istrative and community facilities, shop fa-
cilities, and family housing, $16,608,000.
Greater Pittsburgh Airport, Coraopolis,
Pa.: Training facilities, utilities, medical fa-
cilities, and personnel facilities, $404,000.
Hamilton Air Force Base, San Rafael,
Calif.: Airfield pavements, operational factl-
ities, troop housing, land acquisition, and
personnel facilities, $1,501,000.
Kinross Air Force Base, Sault Sainte
Marie, Mich., Airfield pavements, fuel dis-
pensing facilities, airfield lighting facilities,'
aircraft maintenance facilities, training fa-
cilltles, utilities, storage facilities, personnel
facilities, and family housing, $2,029,000.
K. I. Sawyer Municipal Airport, Marquette,
Mich.: Airfield pavements, fuel dispensing
facilities, airfield lighting facilities, opera-
tional facilities, utilities, personnel facilities,
administrative facilities, relocation of facili-
ties, and family housing, $3,943.000.
Klamath Falls Municipal Airport, Kla-
math Falls, Oreg.: Airfield pavements, relo-
cation of facilities, utilities, land acquisition,
medical facilities, personnel facilities, ad-
ministrative facilities. and family housing,
$2,042.000.
McChord Air Force Base, Tacoma, Wash.:
Airfield pavements, training facilities, stor-
age facilities, personnel facilities, commun-
ity facilities, and family housing, $2,959,000.
McGhee-Tyson Airport, Knoxville, Tenn.:
Airfield pavements, utilities, storage facili-
ties, personnel facilities, and shop facili-
ties. $582,000.
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Air-
port. Minneapolis, Minn.: Airfield pave-
ments, aircraft maintenance facilities, troop
housing, storage facilities, personnel facili-
ties, and community facilities, $1,423,000.
Minot site, North Dakota: Airfield pave-
ments, fuel dispensing facilities, communi-
cations, navigational aids and airfield light-
ing facilities, operational facilities, aircraft
maintenance facilities, training facilities,
troop housing, utilities, medical facilities,
storage facilities, personnel facilities, admin-
istrative and community facilities, and shop
facilities, $5,339,000.
Supply facilities Ent Air Force Base. Colorado Springs, New Castle County Municipal Airport,
Naval supply depot Guam, Mariana Colo.: Utilities, personnel facilities, and lam- Wilmington, Del.: Airfield pavements, air-
Islands: Waterfront facilities and storage fly housing. 11,808,000, field lighting facilities, land acquisition, and
facilities, $5,427,000. Ethan Allan Air Force Base, Winooski. Vt.: storage facilities, $504,000.
Naval supply depot, Guantanamo Bay, Fuel dispensing facilities, airfield lighting, Niagara Falls Municipal Airport, Niagara
Cuba: Cold-storage facilities, 11,318,060. and utilities, $213,000. Falls, N. Y.: Airfield pavements, fuel dis-
Naval supply center, Pearl Harbor, T. H.: Geiger Field. Spokane, Wash.: Airfield pave- penning facilities, airfield lighting facilities,
Operational facilities, utilities, and land ac- ments, troop housing, storage facilities, and operational facilities, aircraft maintenance
quisition, $270,000. family housing, $1,716,000, facilities, utilities, land acquisition, medical
Approved For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120003-4
 -1955 Approved For @RAt:]k63T0100120003-4 7933
facilities, storage facilities, and personnel fa- McClellan Air Force Base, Sacramento, McConnell Air Force Base, Wichita, Kans.:
cilities, $1,748,000. Calif,: Airfield pavements, fuel dispensing Operational facilities, and land acquisition,
Otis Air Force Base, Falmouth, Mass.: Air- facilities, operational facilities, aircraft $104,000.
field pavements, airfield lighting facilities, maintenance facilities, training facilities, Moody Air Force Base, Valdosta, Ga.: Air-
operational facilities, training facilities, troop housing, utilities, land acquisition, and field pavements, aircraft maintenance facil-11 messing facilities; medical facilities, storage administrative facilities; $9,522,000, sties, troop housing and messing facilities,
facilities, personnel facilities, administrative Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, land. acquisition, and family housing, $4,-
facilities, shop facilities, and family housing, Calif.: Airfield 'pavements, airfield lighting 322,000.
$6,076,000. facilities, aircraft maintenance facilities, Nellis ,Air Force Base, Las Vegas, Nev.:
Oxnard Air Force Base, Oxnard, Calif.: troop housing and messing facilities, land Airfield pavements, aircraft maintenance fa-
Airfield pavements, fuel dispensing facili- acquisition, and storage facilities, $3,205,000. cilities, and troop housing and messing fa-
ties, airfield lighting facilities, aircraft main- Olmstead Air Force Base, Middletown, Pa.: cilities, $1,153,000.
tenance facilities, training facilities, troop Airfield pavements, fuel dispensing facilities, Perrin Air Force Base, Sherman, Tex.:
housing, utilities, storage facilities, person- aircraft maintenance facilities, utilities, land Troop housing and messing facilities, and
nel facilities, and administrative facilities, acquisition, and storage facilities, $21,264,000. land acquisition, $956,000.
$2,445,000. Robins Air Force Base, Macon, Ga.: Air- Randolph Air Force Base, San Antonio,
Paine Air Force Base, Everett, Wash.: Air- field pavements, communications and air- Tex.: Troop housing,
field pavements, fuel dispensing facilities, field lighting facilities, aircraft maintenance p g, $549,000.
airfield lighting facilities, aircraft mainte- facilities, troop housing, and land acquisi-' Reese Air Force Base, Lubbock, Tex.:
nance facilities, land acquisition, storage tion, $3,375,000. Troop housing and messing facilities, land
facilities, and personnel facilities, $1,039,000. Searsport Air Force Tank Farm, Searsport, acquisition, and personnel facilities, $1,076,-
Presque Isle Air Force Base, Presque Isle, Maine: Fuel storage facilities, $133,000. 000.
Maine: Airfield pavements, airfield lighting -Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma City, Scott Air Force Base, Belleville, Ill.: Troop
facilities, troop housing and messing facili- Okla.: Storage facilities, $205,000. housing and messing facilities, $1,247,000.
ties, land acquisition, storage facilities, and Wilkins Air Force Station, Shelby, Ohio: Sheppard Air Force Base, Wichita Falls,
family housing, $2,056,000. Utilities, $305,000. Tex.: Messing facilities, $80,000.
Selfridge Air Force Base, Mount Clemens, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Stead Air Force Base, Reno, Nev.: Aircraft
Mich.: Airfield pavements, communications Ohio: Airfield pavements, training facilities, maintenance facilities, training facilities,
and airfield lighting facilities, troop housing troop housing and messing facilities, util- troop housing, personnel facilities, and fam-
and messing facilities, utilities, land acquisi- ities, land acquisition, research and develop- ily housing,. $4,187,000.
tion, medical facilities, and personnel facili- ment facilities, and administrative facilities, Tyndall Air Force Base, Panama City, Fla.:
ties, $5,526,000. $38,001,000. Airfield lighting facilities, aircraft mainte-
Sioux City Municipal Airport, Sioux City, Various locations: Storage facilities, $170; nance facilities, and land acquisition, $478,-
Iowa: Airfield pavements, airfield lighting 000. 000.
facilities, and messing facilities, $343,000. Air Proving Ground Command Vance Air Force Base, Enid, Okla.: Troop
Stewart Air Force Base, Newburgh, N. Y.: Eglin Air Force Base, Valparaiso, Fla.: housing and messing facilities, and land
Navigational aids and airfield lighting fa- Airfield pavements, communications, and acquisition, $871,000,
cilities, storage facilities, and community fa- navigational aids, troop housing and messing Webb Air Force Base, Big Spring, Tex.:
cilities, $112,000. facilities, land acquisition, research, devel- Shop facilities, and family housing, $2,410;
Suffolk County Air Force Base, Westhamp- opment and test facilities, and storage facil- 000,
ton, N. Y.* Airfield pavements, fuel dispens- ities, $7,966,000, Williams Air Force Base, Chandler, Ariz.:
ing facilities, airfield lighting facilities, troop Air Training Command Operational facilities, and troop housing and
housing, utilities, land acquisition, storage Amarillo Air Force Base, Amarillo, Tex.: messing facilities, $1,045,000,
facilities, personnel facilities, and family Training facilities, $98,000. Air University
housing, $2,207,000. Bryan Air Force Base, Bryan, Tex.: Troop Gunter Air Force Base, Montgomery, Ala.:
Traverse City area, Michigan: Airfield housing and messing facilities, and util- Troop housing, $275,000,
pavements, fuel dispensing facilities, opera- ities, $914,000. Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, Ala.:
tional facilities, training facilities, storage Chanute Air Force Base, Rantoul, Ill.: Troop housing and messing facilities, util-
facilities, personnel facilities,, administra- Land acquisition, $3,000. ities, and medical facilities, $2,661,000.
tive and community facilities, and shop Craig Air Force Base, Selma, Ala.: Airfield Continental Air Command
facilities, $1,881,000. pavements, troop housing, and land acqui-
an.
Truax Field, Madison, Wis.: Airfield pave- sition, $1,650,000. Land a Air Force erso, sonn facilities, el acilit Calif.:
ments, fuel dispensing facilities, airfield Ellington Air Force Base, Houston, Tex.: Land cousin ceion, 12and
lighting facilities, troop housing, land acqui- Troop housing and messing facilities, land family s Air Force sition, storage facilities, personnel facilities, acquisition, and medical facilities, $2,816,000. Brooks Air g, Base, San Antonio; Tex.:
and shop facilities, $1,263,000. Francis E. Warren Air Force Base, Chey- Troop housing, $590,000.
Wurtsmith Air Force Base, Oscoda, Mich,: enne, Wyo.: Troop housing and messing Dobbins Air Force Base, Marietta, Ga.:
Airfield pavements, airfield lighting facili- facilities, $1,403,000. Airfield pavements, and personnel facilities,
ties, aircraft maintenance facilities, troop Goodfellow Air Force Base, San Angelo, $758,000.
housing, utilities, storage facilities, adminis- Tex.: Airfield pavements, fuel dispensing Mitchell Air Force Base; Hempstead, N. Y.:
,trative facilities, shop facilities, and family facilities, aircraft maintenance facilities, Airfield pavements, $1,891,000.
housing, $2,511,000. troop housing and messing facilities, and Wolters Air Force Base, Mineral Wells,
. Youngstown Municipal Airport, Youngs- land acquisition, $4,081,000. Tex.: Operational facilities, storage facil-
town, Ohio: Airfield pavements, airfield Greenville Air Force Base, Greenville, Miss.: ities, and personnel facilities, $331,000.
lighting facilities, utilities, storage facilities, Aircraft maintenance facilities, land acqui-
and personnel facilities, $742,000. sition, and personnel facilities, $349,000, Headquarters Command
Yuma County Airport, Yuma, Ariz..: Air- Headquarters technical training, Air Force, Bolling Air Force Base, Washington, D. C,:
field lighting facilities, aircraft maintenance Gulfport, Miss.: Acquisition of land and Personnel facilities, $520,000.
facilities, training facilities, troop housing, facilities, $313,000. Military Air Transport Service
personnel facilities, and administrative facil- Harlingen Air Force Base, Harlingen, Tex.: Andrews Air Force Base, Camp Springs,
sties, $2,107,000. Communications and navigational aids and
~" Ala Tex.: Troop housing and messing facilities, Charleston Air Force Base, Charleston,
Airfield pavements, fuel dispensing facilities,
aircraft $883,000. S. C.: Airfield pavements, operational ia-
maintenance facilities, troop hous- Laredo Air Force cilities, personnel facilities, administrative
ing and messing facilities, utilities, and stor- Base, Laredo, Tex.: Air- and community facilities, and land acquisi-
age facilities, $4,170,000. craft maintenance facilities, and family tion, $4,032,000.
GrifHss Air Force Base, Rome, N. Y.: Air- housing, $1,525,500.
field pss Air to, fuel e Rome, f Air- Laughlin Air Force Base, Del Rio, Tex.: Dover Air Force Base, Dover, Del.: Airfield
airfield lighting facilities, aircraft maiti e , Airfield pavements, operational facilities, pavements, fuel dispensing facilities, airfield
Hance facilities, troop housing, land acqui- A aihousin cilities, land acquisition; and fam- lighting facilities, aircraft maintenance fa-
sition, storage facilities, personnel facilities, y g $3,695,000. cilities, land acquisition, personnel facilities,
administrative facilities, and family housing, Lowry Air Force Base, Denver, Colo,: Troop administrative facilities, and family housing,
$15,803 istrA housing and messing facilities, $1,217,000. $7,073,000.
Hill AirForce Base, Ogden, Utah: Airfield Luke Air Force Base, Phoenix, Ariz.: McGuire Air Force Base, Wrightstown,
pavements, and Base, O le Utah:
facilities, Training facilities, troop housing and mess- . N. J.: Airfield pavements, airfield lighting
g g ing facilities, and land acquisition, $1,557,- facilities, operational facilities, utilities, stor-
000. age facilities, personnel facilities, and family
Kelly Air Force Base, San Antonio, Tex.: Mather Air Force Base, Sacramento, Calif.: housing, $5,564,000.
Airfield pavements, airfield lighting fail- Communications and navigational aids, Palm Beach Air Force Base, Palm Beach,
sties, aircaft maintenance facilities, and land troop housing and messing facilities, and Fla.: Operational facilities, aircraft main-
acquisition, $1,945,000. personnel facilities,. $1,516,000. tenance facilities, troop housing and messing
Approved For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120003-4
 Approved For~~~ CONGRESSIONAL CIAO-~RDP 6V 45R000100120003-4 June 27
793
facilities, utilities, and personnel facilities, Clinton-Sherman Air Force Base. Clinton, facilities, troop housing, utilities, land ac-
$818.000. Okla.: Airfield pavements, fuel dispensing qulattion, medical facilities, storage facilities,
St. Louis Aeronautical Chart Information facilities, operational facilities, aircraft personnel facilities, and shop facilities, $8:
Center, St. Louis. Mo.: Administrative faclli- utilities, aland 671.000.
ties. $861,000. acquisition, storage facilities, Loring Air Force Base, Limestone, Maine: Research and Development Command personnel faclittea, administrative and corn- Fuel dispensing facilities, aircraft mainte-
Carabelle Test Site, Carabelle, Fla.: Land munity facilities, shop facilities, and family nance e. troop lh usin , iidties. land
-
housing, $10,208,500. acquisition,
$1,000. Columbus Air Force Base. Columbus. Miss.: tive and community facilities, and shop fa-
Edwards Air Force Base, Muroc. Calif.: Airfield pavements, fuel dispensing facilities. cilities, $2,930,000.
Airfield lighting facilities, aircraft ma#nte- operational facilities, aircraft maintenance MacDill Air Force Base, Tampa. Fla.: Air-
nance facilities, utilities, personnel facilities, and messing facilities. utilities, land acqul- aircraft maintenance facilities, troop hous-
and community facilities, $12,420,000. aitlon. medical facilities, storage facilities, ing, land acquisition, and personnel facilities,
Hartford Research Facility, Hartford. administrative facilities, shop facilities, and $5,251,000.
Conn.: Research and development facilities, family housing, $6,629.000. March Air Force Base, Riverside, Calif.:
$22,375,000. Davis-MOnthan Air Force Base, Tucson, Airfield pavements, fuel dispensing facilities.
Holloman Air Force Base. Alamogordo, N. Aria : Airfield pavements, training facilities, airfield lighting facilities, aircraft matnte-
M?x.: Airfield pavements, airfield lighting troop housing, medical facilities, storage fa- nance facilities, troop housing, land acquist-
facilities, utilities, research and development cilities, and personnel facilities, $7,803,000. tlon, and personnel facilities, $3,741,000.
facilities, medical facilities, storage facilities, Dow Air Force Base. Bangor. Maine: Air- Mountain Home Air Force Base. Mountain
l ersonnef facilities, and community faclli- field pavements, fuel dispensing facilities, Home, Idaho: Airfield pavements, opera-
ties, $4,965,000. operational facilities, aircraft maintenance tional facilities, aircraft maintenance fa-
Indian Springs Air Force Base (Kirtland facilities, training facilities, troop housing, cilities, utilities, land acquisition, medical
Auxiliary No. 1), Clark, Nev.: Operational rehabilitation, land acqusitlon, personnel. fa- facilities, storage facilities, personnel facil-
facilities, shop facilities, and family housing. cilities, community facilities, and shop fa- sties, community facilities, and family hous-
$555,500. a#tities, $11,155,000. ing, $5,961,000.
Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque. N. Ellsworth Air Force Base. Rapid City, Offutt Air Force Base, Omaha. Nebr.: Utili-
Mex.: Aircraft maintenance facilities, utlll- S. Dak.: Airfield pavements, aircraft mainte- ties, and land acquisition, $128,000.
ties, and shop facilities. $905.000. nance facilities, troop housing, land acqut- Pinecastle Air Force Base, Orlando, Fla.:
Laurence 0. Hanscom Field, Bedford, sition, storage facilities, personnel facilities, Airfield pavements, communications and air-
Mass.: Airfield pavements, communications and shop facilities, $11,168,000. field lighting facilities, operational facilities,
and airfield lighting facilities, aircraft main- Fairchild Air Force Base, Spokane. Wash.: aircraft maintenance facilities, utilities, land
tenance facilities, troop housing. utilities, Airfield pavements, fuel-dispensing facilities, acquisition, storage facilties, personnel facil-
land acquisition, research and development aircraft maintenance facilities, training fa- sties, and community facilities, $4,118,000,
facilities, storage facilities, personnel fa- cillties, land acquisition, storage facilities, Piattsburg Air Force Base, Plattsburg,
cilities, shop facilities, and family housing, and personnel facilities, $1,707,000. N. Y.: Airfield pavements, fuel dispensing
$3,705,000. Forbes Air Force Base. Topeka. Kans.: Air- facilities, airfield lighting facilities, opera-
Mount Washington Climatic Projects field pavements, fuel-dispensing facilities, tional facilities, aircraft maintenance facil-
Laboratory, Mount Washington, N. H.: Re- operational facilities, aircraft maintenance ities, training facilities, utilities, land ac-
search and development facilities, $588,000. facilities, utilities, land acquisition, medical quisition, medical facilities, storage facilities,
Patrick Air Force Base, Cocoa. Fla.: Air- facilities, storage facilities, personnel fact- personnel facilities, administrative and com-
field pavements, aircraft maintenance fa- tiles, and shop facilities, $4.753.000, munity facilities, and family housing, $21,-
cilittes. utilities, land acquisition, research Cray Air Force Base, Killeen, Tex.: Troop 888,040
and development facilities, and shop fscill- housing, medical facilities, storage facilities, Portsmouth Air Force Base, Portsmouth,
ties. $7,600,000. personnel facilities, and community facilities, N. H.: Airfield pavements, fuel dispensing
Various locations: Research, development, $482,000. facilities, aircraft maintenance facilities,
and operational facilities, $20 million. Great Falls Air Force Base, Great Falls, training facilities, utilities, land acquisition,
Strategic Air Command Mont.: Airfield pavements. communications, storage facilities, personnel facilities, ad-
operational facilities, aircraft maintenance ministrative and community facilities, and
Airfield pavements, fuel-dispensing facilities. personnel facilities, administrative and corn- Sedalia Air Force Base, Knobnoster, Mo.-
training facilities, troop housing, uworage munity facilities, and shop facilities, Airfield pavements, airfield lighting facii-
land acquisition, medical facilities, storage $5,435,000. sties, aircraft maintenance facilities, utilities,
facilities, personnel facilities, and adminis- Homestead Air Force Base, Homestead, land acquisition, storage facilities, personnel
trative and community facilities. $4,214,000. Fla.: Airfield pavements, fuel-dispensing fa- facilities, community facilities, shop facil-
Altus Air Force Base, Altus, Okla.: Fuel cillties, airfield lighting facilities, operational sties. and family housing, $9,646,000.
dispensing facilities, airfield lighting faclli- facilities, aircraft maintenance facilities, Smoky Hill Air Force Base, Salina, Kans.:
ties, operational facilities, training facilities, training facilities, utilities, medical facilities, Airfield pavements, operational facilities, air-
utlities. storage facilities, personnel facilities, storage facillttes, personnel facilities, and craft maintenance facilities, troop housing,
administrative facilities, and family housing, family housing. $4.428.000. utilities, land acquisition, medical facilities,
$2,920,000. Hunter Air Force Base Savannah, Ga.: Air- storage facilities, personnel facilities, ad-
Barksdale Air Force Base. Shreveport, field pavements, airfield lighting facilities, ministrative facilities, shop facilities, and
cili Alrfl pavements, fuel-dispensing
lighting operational facilities, aircraft maintenance family housing, $8,773.500.
communicgtioac and
, medical c fa- facilities, training facilities, utilities, medl- Travis Air Force Base, Fairfield, Calif.:
facilities , ora facilities, l l cal facilities, and personnel facilities, $4,- Airfield pavements, fuel dispensing facilities,
ctiitles, storage e facilities. mes, and personnneel 115.000. troop housing, utilities, land acquisition,
facilities, $7,379,000, Lake Charles Air Force Base, Lake Charles, storage facilities, personnel facilities, ad-
Bergstrom Air Force Base, Austin, Tex.: La.: Airfield pavements, fuel-dispensing fa- ministrative and community facilities, and
Airfield pavements, operational acillttes, cilities, airfield lighting facilities, aircraft 000.
utilities, land acquisition, personnel faclli maintenance facilities, training facilities, shop Air facilities, F $$22,,1125,Base, Albany, Ga.: Air-
ties, administrative facilities, and shop fa- troop housing, utilities, and personnel facil- Turner
Reid pavements, e B e, Albany, fa .: Air
cilities, $1,770,000. foes, $2,396,000. airfield lighting facilities, operational facil-
Biggs Air Force Base, El Paso, Tex.: Fuel Lincoln Air Force Base, Lincoln, Nebr.: Air- ides, aircraft maintenance facilities, troop
dispensing facilities, operational facilities, field pavements, fuel-dispensing facilities, housing, utlltles, and land acquisition,
troop housing, storage facilities, and per- aircraft maintenance facilities, training fa- h $3.744.000,
sonnet facilities, $2,427,000. cillties, land acquisition, medical faculties, Walker Air Force Base, Roswell, N. Mex.:
Campbell Air Force Base, Hopkinsvllle, Ky.: storage facilities, personnel facilities, and ad-
Airfield pavements, troop housing, utilities,
Airfield pavements, communications, troop ministrative facilities, $6,595,000. land acquisition, medical facilities, storage
housing and messing facilities, utilities, Little Rock Air Force Base, Little Rock, facilities, and personnel facilities, $5,259,000.
land acquisition, and shop facilities, $1,- Ark.: Airfield pavements, fuel dispensing fa- Westover Atr Force Base, Chicopee Falls.
975,000. cilities, navigational aids and airfield light- M : Westover pavements, Base Chicopee
dispensing
Carswell Air Force Base, Fort Worth, Tex.- leg facilities, operational facilities, aircraft ais. A communications and navigational
Airfield lighting facilities, troop housing, maintenance facilities, training facilities, fa,
utilities, medical facilities, and personnel fa- utilities, land acquisition, medical facilities, aiancds, fa aiircrrcraf,aft t maaintentenanance ce land facilitiesties, , train-
cilities, cilities, $2,322,000. storage facilities, personnel facilities, admire- storage facilities, rohousing, acquisition,
Castle Air Force Base, Merced, Calif.: Air- istrative and community facilities, and cam- stor storage a fapersonnel facilities, fa
field pavements, operational facilities. air- uy housing. $5,317,000. Taacili t Air Command
craft maintenance facilities, utilities, land Lockbourne Air Force Base. Columbus,
fo storage $ facilities, and adminis-
trade
Riles 'aircAirfield raft maintenance facilities, training Airfield pavements, fuel dispensing facilit es,
trative facilities, , 64,453,000.
Approved For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120003-4
 Approved Fowf$eIease 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T0024SM00100120003-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 7935
operational facilities, aircraft maintenance
facilities, training facilities, utilities, and
personnel facilities, $2,684,000.
Ardmore Air Force Base, Ardmore, Okla.:
Airfield pavements, fuel dispensing facilities,
operational facilities, aircraft maintenance
facilities, personnel facilities, and family
housing; $6,800,000.
Blytheville Air Force Base, Blytheville,
Ark.: Airfield lighting facilities, training
facilities, utilities, storage facilities, and com-
munity facilities, $208,000.
Bunker Hill Air Force Base, Peru, Ind.:
Airfield lighting facilities, operational fa-
cilities, training facilities, and administra-
tive facilities, $559,000.
Clovis Air Force Base, Clovis, N. Mex.:
Training facilities, and family housing,
$2,570,500.
. Donaldson Air Force Base, Greenville, S. C.:
Airfield pavements, aircraft maintenance
facilities, troop housing and messing facili-
ties, and medical facilities, $2,403,000.
Foster Air Force Base, Victoria, Tex.: Air-
field pavements, training facilities, troop
housing, and family housing, $4,624,000.
George Air Force Base, Victorville, Calif.:
Airfield pavements, navigational aids and
airfield lighting facilities, training facilities,
troop housing and messing facilities, land
acquisition, and storage facilities, $1,698,000.
Langley Air Force Base, Hampton, Va.:
Airfield pavements, training facilities, util-
ities, storage facilities, personnel facilities,
and administrative facilities, $3,384,000.
Larson Air Force Base, Moses Lake, Wash.:
Airfield pavements, utilities, medical facili-
ties, and personnel facilities, $3,574,000.
Myrtle Beach Municipal Airport, Myrtle
Beach, S. C.: Airfield pavements, fuel dis-
pensing facilities, communications and navi-
gational aids, aircraft maintenance facilities,
training facilities, messing facilities, utilities,
land acquisition, medical facilities, storage
facilities, personnel facilities, administrative
and community facilities, and shop facilities,
$6,303,000.
Pope Air Force Base, Fort Bragg, N. C.:
Airfield pavements, communications and
navigational aids, troop housing and messing
facilities, land acquisition, medical facilities,
and storage facilities, $2,548,000.
Stewart Air Force Base, Smyrna, Tenn.:
Airfield pavements, communications and
navigational aids, operational facilities, air-
craftmaintenance facilities, troop housing
.and messing facilities, land acquisition, per-
sonnel facilities, and administrative facil-
ities, $3,589,000.
Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, Golds-
boro, N. C.: Airfield pavements, fuel dispen-
sing facilities, communications and naviga-
tional aids, operational facilities, aircraft
maintenance facilities, training facilities,
troop housing utilities, land acquisition,
medical facilities, storage facilities, person-
nel facilities, administrative and community
facilities, and shop facilities, $7,429,000.
Shaw Air Force Base, Sumter, S. C.: Airfield
pavements, operational facilities, aircraft
maintenance facilities, troop housing and
messing facilities, utilities, storage facilities,
personnel facilities, and family housing,
$7,035,000.
Special facilities
Various locations: Operational facilities,
and utilities, $387,000.
Aircraft control and warning system
Various locations: Fuel dispensing facili
ties, communications and navigational aids,
operational facilities, training facilities,
troop housing and - messing facilities, utili-
ties, land acquisition, medical facilities, stor-
age facilities, personnel facilities, - adminis-
trative and community facilities, and shop
facilities, $100,382,000.
OUTSIDE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES
Alaskan Air Command
Eielson Air Force Base: Medical facilities,
storage facilities, and community facilities,
$1,367,000.
Elmendorf Air Force Base: Airfield pave- aration; apppurtenances, and related utili-
ments, fuel dispensing facilities, airfield ties and equipment, to restore or replace
lighting facilities, aircraft maintenance fa facilities damaged- or destroyed in a total
cilities, troop housing and messing facilities, amount of $5 million.
utilities, land acquisition, medical facilities, SEC. 303. Public Law 534, Eighty-third
storage facilities, personnel facilities, and Congress, Is hereby amended as follows:
shop facilities, $23,275,000. (a) With respect to Carswell Air Force
Galena Airfield: -Airfield lighting facilities, Base, Fort Worth, Tex., under the heading
and storage facilities, $518,000. - "Continental United States" and subheading
Kenai Airfield: Airfield pavements, $356,- "Strategic Air Command" in section 301
000.- strike "$2,248,000" and insert in lieu thereof
Ladd Air Force Base: Training facilities, "$2,750,000."
land acquisition, and storage facilities, - (b) With respect to Matagorda Island Air
$1,510,000. - Force Range, Tex., under the heading "Con-
Naknek Airfield: Airfield pavements, air- tinental United States" and subheading
field lighting facilities, operational facilities, "Strategic Air Command" in section 301
utilities, and storage facilities, $1,863,000. strike "$607,000" and insert in lieu thereof
Caribbean Air -Command - "$847,000."
(c) With respect to Bismarck-Minot area,
Albrook Air Force Base, Canal Zone: Com- North Dakota, under the heading "Continen-
munication facilities, $163,000. tal United States" and subheading "Air De-
Far East Air Forces - fense- Command" in section 301 strike "Bis-
Various locations: Airfield pavements, fuel marck-Minot area, North Dakota" and "$6,-
dispensing facilities, navigational aids and 494,000" and insert in lieu thereof "Minot
airfield lighting facilities, operational facil- Site, North Dakota" and "$12,124,000", re-
ities, aircraft maintenance facilities, utili- spectively.
ties, storage facilities, personnel facilities, (d) With respect to Fargo area, North
and community facilities, $42,017,000. Dakota, under the heading "Continental
Military Air Transport Service United States" and subheading "Air Defense
Command" in section 301 strike "Fargo area,
Hickam Air Force Base, Honolulu, Hawaii: North- Dakota" and "$7,055,00011 and insert
Airfield pavements, airfield lighting facili- in lieu - thereof "Grand Forks Site, North
ties, land acquisition, storage facilities, and Dakota" and "$10,'903,000"; respectively.
harbor facilities, $4,978,000. (e) With respect to Glasgow-Miles City
Johnston Island Air Force Base: Johnston area, Mont., under the heading "Continental
Island: Communication facilities, $182,000. United States" and subheading "Air De-
Midway Island: Airfield pavements, fuel fense Command" in section 301 strike "Glas-
dispensing facilities, and airfield lighting fa- gow-Miles City, area, Montana" and "$8,-
cilities, $303,000. 391,000" and- insert in lieu thereof "Olas-
Wake Island: Airfield pavements, fuel dis- gow Site, Montana" and "$10,660,000", re-
pensing facilities, and navigational aids, spectively.
$2,991,000. - - - (f) With respect to K. I. Sawyer Airport,
Various locations: Airfield pavements, fuel Marquette, Mich., under the heading
dispensing facilities, navigational aids and "Continental United States" and subhead-
airfield lighting facilities, aircraft main- Ing "Air Defense Command" in section 301
tenance facilities, troop housing, utilities, strike "$8,556,000" and insert in lieu thereof
personnel facilities, and family housing, "$9,949,000".
$11,393,000. (g) With respect to Traverse City area,
Northeast Air Command Michigan, under the heading "Continental
United States" and subheading "Air Defense
Various locations: Airfield pavements, fuel Command" in section 301 strike "$8,835,000"
dispensing facilities, operational facilities, and insert in lieu thereof "$10,267,000."
aircraft maintenance facilities, training fa- (h) With 'respect to Ellington Air Force
cilities, troop housing, utilities, storage facil- Base, Houston, Tex., under the heading
sties, and shop facilities, $23,601,000. "Continental United States" and subhead-
Strategic Air Command ing "Air Training Command" in section 301
Ramey Air Force Base, Puerto Rico: Fuel strike "$1,073,000" and insert in -lieu thereof
dispensing facilities, operational facilities, "$2,478,000."
utilities, storage facilities, personnel facil- (i) With respect to Webb Air Force Base,
ities, and harbor facilities, $2,149,000. Big Springs, Tex., under the heading "Con-
United States Air Forces in Europe tinental United States" and subheading "Air
Training Command" in section 301 strike
Various locations: Airfield pavements, fuel ,$100,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$135,-
dispensing facilities, communications, navi- 000."
gational aids and airfield lighting facilities, (j) With respect to Norton Air Force Base,
operational facilities, aircraft maintenance San Bernardino, Calif., under the heading
facilities, training facilities, troop housing "Continental United States" and subheading -
and messing facilities, utilities, medical fa "Air Materiel Command" in section 301
cilities, storage facilities, personnel facilities, strike "$4,303,000" and "$2,183,000 and in-
administrative and community facilities, and sert in lieu thereof "$4,735,000" and "$2,-
shop facilities, $234,996,000. 615,000", respectively. -
Area control navigational aids (k) With respect to Wright-Patterson Air
Various locations: Communications and Force Base, Dayton, Ohio, under the heading
navigational aids, $526,000. "Continental United States" and subheading
Special facilities "Air Materiel Command" in section 301
strike "$5,847,000" and insert in lieu thereof
Various locations: Operational facilities, $6,849,000."
and utilities, $293,000. (1) With respect to Atlantic City Consolan
Aircraft control and warning system Station, Atlantic City. N. J., under the head-
Various locations: Airfield pavements, fuel ing "Continental United States" and sub-
dispensing facilities, communications, nav- heading "Air Defense Command" in section
igational aids and airfield lighting facili- 301 strike "$72,000" and insert in lieu thereof
ties, operational facilities, troop housing and "$285,000."
messing facilities, utilities, medical facili- (m) With respect to Nantucket Consolan
ties, storage facilities, personnel facilities, Station, Nantucket, Mass., under the head-
administrative and community facilities, ing "Continental United States" and sub-
shop facilities, aircraft maintenance facili- heading "Air Defense Command" in section
ties, harbor facilities, and land acquisition, 301 strike "$107,000" and insert in lieu there.
$98,552,000. of "$224,000."
SEC. 302. The Secretary of the Air Force Is (n) With respect to Pescadero Consolan
authorized through the construction, reha- Station, Pescadero, Calif., under the head-
bilitation, or installation of - permanent or ing "Continental United States" and sub-
temporary-public works, including site prep- heading "Air Defense Command" In section
Approved For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120003-4
 Approved For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120003-4
7936 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE June 27
301 strike '1107,000" and insert in lieuthere- 334.000: section 102, $223.993.000; section cost, number, and localon of housing units
of "$224,000." 103, $10 million; or a total of $551.105,000; constructed or acquired pursuant to the au-
( 0 ) With respect to Point Conception Con- (2) for public works authorized by title thority contained in this section during the
solan Station, Point Conception, Calif., 11: Inside continental United States, $331,- 3-month period preceding the date of such
under the heading "Continental United 607.200; outside continental United States, report, and setting forth the cost, number,
States" and subheading "Air Defense Com- $107,101,300; section 202. $151.342,400; sec- and location of the housing units Intended
mand" in section 301 strike "$72,000" and tion 203, $8 million: or a total of $596,140.- to be constructed or acquired pursuant to
insert in lieu thereof "$232,000" 900; such authority during the next succeeding
(p) In clause (3) of section 502 thereof (3) for public works authorized by title quarter."
delete the amounts "$389,125.000" and Iii: Inside continental United States, $709,- SEC. 608. All housing units constructed
"$398,954,000" and insert In lieu thereof the 480,000; outside continental United States, under the authority of this act shall be
amounts "$405,176,000" and "$415,005,000," $450,973,000; section 302, $5 million; or a subject to the net floor area permanent lim-
respectively. total of $1,185,453,000; and stations prescribed In the second, third, and
SEC. 304. Classified location: The authority (4) for public works authorized by title fourth provisos of section 3 of the act of
granted by section 302. of the act of July IV: $300,000. June 12. 1948 (62 Stat. 375), or In section 3
14, 1952, may be utilized to the extent of (5) for public works authorized by title of the act of June 18, 1948 (62 Stat. 459),
$8,127,400 for the direct construction of V: $56 million. other than the first, second, and third pro-
family housing. Six. 603. Any of the approximate costs visor thereof: Provided, That such limita-
TrrLE IV enumerated In titles I. II, and III of this act tions shall not apply to the unit of family
SEc. 401. The Secretary of Defense, act- may. In the discretion of the Secretary con- housing authorized by title IV of this act for
Ing through the Secretary of a military de- cerned. be varied upward by 5 percent In the use of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
partment, is authorized to provide family the case of projects within the continental of Staff, nor shall the limitations on the cost
housing for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs United States, and 10 percent In the case of of family housing that are prescribed by
of Staff and certain commissioned officers projects outside the continental United section 608 of the Department of Defense
and enlisted personnel attached to his staff States, but the total cost of all projects so Appropriation Act, 1956 (H. It. 8042) apply
by the construction or rehabilitation of 5 enumerated under each of such titles shall with respect to such units of family housing,
units of family housing, and protected com- not exceed the total of all amounts specified SEC. 609. When housing units are con-
munication facilities. Including site prepare- In respect of projects In such title. structed under the authority of this act at
tion, appurtenances, utilities, equipment, Sec. 604. Appropriations made to carry out Installations at which housing units shall
administration, overhead, planning, and the purposes of this act shall be available have been constructed and a mortgage there-
supervision. for expenses incident to construction, in- on insured by the Federal Housing Com-
SEc. 402. Appropriations available to the eluding surveys, administration, overhead, missioner pursuant to title VIII of the Na-
military departments are hereby made avail- planning, and supervision. tionai Housing Act, as amended, the See-
able for the purposes of this title in an Svc. 605. Whenever- retaries of the Army. Navy, and Air Force,
amount not to exceed $300,000. (a) the President determines that compli- respectively, may, upon application by the
TITLE V ance with the requirements of Public Law mortgagor, accept on behalf of the Govern-
SEC. 501. The Director of Central Intelli- 845, 82d Congress, In the case of contracts meat the mortgagor's title to or leasehold
gents is authorized to provide for ahead- made pursuant to this act with respect to Interest in the housing units and underlying
the establishment or development of mlil- land, subject to the outstanding mortgage
quarters Installation for the Central Intel- tarp Installations and facilities In foreign thereon, and assume the payments there-
ligence Agency by the acquisition of land at countries after becoming
a cost of not to exceed $6 million, and con- would Interfere with the arrping due under any such out-
a
of buildings, facilities, asapuric- out of the provisions of of this act: and standing mortgage and the cost of mainte-
tru ti fties, and s, fac roads s cost (b) the Secretary of Defense and the nance and operation thereafter accruing
Comptroller General have agreed upon al- with respect to such housing units. Such
of not to exceed $50 million. ternative methods for conducting an ade- housing units shall thereafter be under the
TITLE VI quate audit of such contracts, the President jurisdiction of the military department con-
GENERAL PROVISIONS Is authorized to exempt such contracts from cerned. The Secretary of the military de-
SEC. 601. The Secretaries of the Army, the requirements of Public law 245, 82d partment concerned may utilize appropria-
Navy, and Air Force are respectively author- Congress. tions otherwise available for construction of
lzed to proceed with the establishment or Svc. 600. All contracts entered into by the military public works for the liquidation of
development of military and naval installa- United States pursuant to the authorization any outstanding mortgage assumed by the
tions and facilities as authorized by titles contained In this act shall be awarded, so Government,
I, II, III, and IV of this act, and the Director far as practicable, if the interest of the na- SEC. 610. As of July 1, 1956, all authorl-
of Central Intelligence is authorized to pro- tibnal security shall not be Impaired thereby nations for military public works projects to
ceed with the establishment of a Central and If such award Is consistent with the be accomplished by the Secretary of a mill-
Intelligence Agency Headquarters Installs- provision of the Armed Services Procurement tary department in connection with the
lion as authorized by title V of this act, Act of 1947, on a competitive basis to the establishment or development of military,
without regard to the lowest responsible bidder. naval, or Air Force installations and facili-
1136, 3648, and 3734, as provisions of sections Svc 607. Section 407 of the Public Law ties, and all authorizations for appropria-
of the Revised respectively amended, 785, 83d Congress, 1s amended to read as tions therefor. that are contained in acts
Statutes, and prior to ap-
proval of title to follows: approved prior to October 1, 1951, and not
underlying land, as pro-
"SEc. 407. The Secretary of Defense su rseded or otherwise modified b a later
vided by section 355, as amended, of the Re- rued. s is au- y
thorized subject to the approval of the Di- authorization are repealed, except (1) au-
vlsed Statutes. The authority under this thorizations for
act of the Secretary of a military depart- rector of the Bureau of the Budget, to con- public works and for ap-
ment to provide family housing Includes au- struct, or acquire by lease of otherwise, propriations therefor that are set forth in
thority to acquire such land as the Secretary family housing, in addition to family hour- such acts in the titles that contain the gen-
concerned determines, with the approval of log otherwise authorized to be constructed eral provisions, (2) authorizations for mili-
the Secretary of Defense, to be necessary in or acquired by the Department of Defense Lary public works projects as to which
connection therewith. The authority to es- in foreign countries, by the expenditure of appropriated funds shall have been obli-
tablish or develop such installations and the $100 million through the use of foreign gated in whole or in part prior to July 1,
facilities shall include, In respect of those currencies In accordance with the provisions 1958. and authorizations for appropriations
installations and facilities of the Agricultural Trade Development and therefor, and (3) the authorizations with
as to which family housing or the acquisition of land Assistance Act of 1954 (Public Law 480. 83d respect to military public works and the ap-
fltied In titles I, If, II1I, . IV, and V V of this s a acctt - Cong.) or through other commodity trans. propriation of funds that are contained in
authority ed In
to make surveys and to acqui,re actions of the Commodity Credit Corporation, the National Defense Facilities Act of 1950
lands and rights and interests thereto acquire 'The Department of Defense shall reim- (64 Stat. 829).
lands a including porary use there- such Tamil housing in a dollar amount 82d Congress, Is amended to read as follows;
of, by donation, purchase, exchange of Gov- y g "SEC. 504. There are hereby authorized to
ernment-owned lands, or otherwise, and to equivalent to the value to the foreign cur- lace permanent rencies used pursuant to the authority con- be appropriated, without fiscal year limita-
p or temporary improve- tained in this section. For the purpose of tion, funds for advance planning, construc-
ments thereon whether such lands are held such reimbursement, the Department of De- tion design, and architectural services in
In fee fee or under lease or under other tern- connection with ublic work
porary tenure. fense may utilize appropriations otherwise p projects which
available for the construction of military are not otherwise authorized by law."
SEC. 602. There are hereby authorized to public works.
be appropriated such sums of money as may "Tne Secretary of Defense shall furnish Mo VINSON (interrupting the Ieask
be necessary to accomplish the purposes of to the Committees on Armed Services of the ing of the bill). Mr. Chairman, I ask
this act, but not to exceed- Senate and the House of Representatives unanimous consent that the bill be con-
(1) for public works authorized by title I: quarterly reports, the first of which shall be sidered as read and open to amendment,
Inside continental United States, $238,778; submitted 3 months subsequent to the data and that the bill be printed in the Rnc-
000; outside continental United States, $78,- of enactment of this act, setting forth the ORD in its entirety at this point.
Approved For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120003-4
 :1955
Approved For Rvtbase 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245IW0100120003-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 7937
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. McCORMACK. ? Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I was very much in-
terested in the statistics which have re-
cently been published by the Pentagon
concerning contract awards to the 100
largest prime contractors. You will re-
member than on January 11, 1954, the
Department of Defense issued- a report,
cumulative in nature, showing data on
contracts made during the period July
1950 through June 1953.
The report showed that a total of $98,-
723,000,000 had been awarded in prime
contracts during the period. It showed
that 64 percent or $63,165,000,000 had
been awarded to 100 companies and cor-
porate groups.
It showed that the General Motors
Corp., through 32 of Its divisions, had
contracts amounting to $7,095,800,000,
or 7.2 percent of the $98.7 billion total.
The next nine, in order of rank, were:
Millions
of
dollars
Portent
of
total
Boeing Airplane Cc .................
$4, 402.9
General Electric Co-----------------
3,459.2
Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc...........
2, 867.8
United Aircraft Corp----------------
2, 816.4
Chrysler Corp______________________
2, 199.9
Lockheed Aircraft Corp_____________
2,152.1
Consolidated Vultee Aircraft -------_
2, 072.1
North American Aviation, Inc......
1, 931.6
Republic Aviation Corp............
1:877.7
Significantly, this report carried a
blocked-in space which reads:
This is the final issue in this series of re-
ports, which has covered 3 fiscal years of
expanded procurement activity following the
start of the Korean conflict. The report Is
being discontinued for economy reasons.
During the remainder of 1954, despite
many requests for current information
on the large prime contractors, the Pen-
tagon failed to make this information
available to the public.
On May 16, 1955, the Office of the As-
sistant Secretary of Defense-Supply
and Logistics-issued an "Analysis of
large military prime contractors in the
period from July 1, 1953 to December 31,
1954." The transmittal letter explained
that this report is for the 18-month pe-
riod only and is not cumulative as the
former reports had been. About $16
billion in contracts had been awarded
and the 10 largest contractors with their
percentages of the total, $16 billion,
follow:
Millions
of
dollars
Percent
of
total
United Aircraft Corp________________
$1,061.4
6.5
Douglas Aircraft Co:, Inc___________
1,041.8
6.4
North American Aviation, Inc__.___
910. 2
5.6
Boeing Airplane Co_________________
764.9
.4.7
Lockheed Aircraft Corp_____________
740.8
4. 5
General Dynamics Corp_______
597.9
3.7
Grmnman Aircraft Engineering-----
377.1
2.3
Curtiss-Wright Corp________________
340.1
2.1
Republic Aviation Corp_______,____
829:5
2.0
Hughes Tool Co____________________
313.3
1.9
Now, I do not know why the format
of the report was changed. General
Motors, for example, lost Its preeminence
and was dropped from the No. 1 rank-
ing on the January 11, 1954 report to
almost obscurity on the May 16, 1955
report. Actually, I would think that the
former chairman of the General Motors
Corp. would have been hurt at this drop
In rank and prestige with his well-known
economic-political philosophy on "what
is good for what." When I read that
report my heart really went out in sym-
pathy for General Motors. I could not
understand why Charles Wilson as Sec-
retary Wilson should discriminate
against this company. But as we, view
the real statistics the picture is different.
So that the statistics might be consist-
ent, I have added the last report to the
former and have again made the rank-
ings on a cumulative basis. For the
period from July 1, 1950 through Decem-
ber 31, 1954, the total awards were
$115,060,200,000. The order of ranking
of the 10 largest is as follows:
Millions
of dollars
General Motors Corp ...............
7,036.9
6.8
Boeing Airplane Cc -----------------
5, 187.8
4.49
Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc...........
3,909.6
3.4
United Aircraft Corp----------------
3, 877.8
3.3
General Electric Cc-----------------
3,672.5
3.19
Lockheed Aircraft Corp________
2,892.9
2.5
North American Aviation, Inc ------
2,841.8
2.4
Curtiss-Wright Corp................
2, 086.3
1.8.
American Telephone & Telegraph
Co--------------------------------
1,756.3
1.5
Ford Motor. Cc---------------------
1, 663.2
1.4
Mr. BASS of Tennessee. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCORMACK. I yield. -
-Mr. BASS of Tennessee. It is my un-
derstanding, and it was brought out in
general debate during the $311/2 billion
appropriation bill for the Department of
Defense, that. 85 percent of these con-
tracts are let by negotiation and not by
competitive bids; is that right?
Mr. McCORMACK. That is my un-
derstanding.
Mr. MASON. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last two words. I do
this simply to ask the majority leader-
so what? General Motors today has
more than 10 percent of all the machin-
ery of these industries producing war
goods. If we want to get our war goods
produced and produced on time, shall we
ignore the largest, most efficient indus-
trial producing company in the world
and say, "Because you are so large we
cannot give you anything at all; we will
go out and organize new companies to
produce these goods with consequent de-
lay, and so forth?"
In my opinion that is all nonsense. I
am sure you will find that the contracts
let for war production will be let in pro-
portion to the size of these industries
that will be named. This one, being the
largest, we will say will have 7 percent;
this one, being the next largest, we will
say will have 5 percent; and so on down
the line.
What is wrong with that? That is the
reason this administration has men who
know how to get things done when we
need them done.
Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MASON. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. First of all,
I want to raise the question as to the
appropriateness of the remarks made by
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
McCoRMACK] during this military con-
struction bill. I am sure those com-
panies he mentioned are not involved,
and are not going to be involved in the
construction that this bill contemplates.
Secondly, I want to correct the state-
ment of the gentleman from Tennessee
[Mr. BASS] which statement he has made
on this floor a number of times and com-
pounded. his error by the repetition, that
85 percent of the defense contracts are
let on a basis of negotiation.
One particular phase of the aircraft
program was mentioned on this floor as
being done upon that basis. If the gen-
tleman from Tennessee wants to take
the responsibility of opening up the
many complicated phases of aircraft re-
search and development and materiel
development in the field of aircraft pro-
curement to anyone who desires to bid,
whether they be foreign, whether they be
American, whether they be responsible
or otherwise, that will be his responsi-
bility.
I have not heard anything on the floor
to indicate that he is so much interested
in competitive free enterprise in this
country to be sure he would want to do
that. In fact, some of the things he had
to say in connection with the appropria-
tion bill affecting the Tennessee Valley
Authority and the contracts relating to
it here a couple of weeks ago led me to
question seriously whether he really is
interested In free competitive enterprise
in this country.
Mr. MASON. I thank the gentleman
for his remarks, and I end up by saying,
So what?
Mr. BASS of Tennessee. Mr. Chair-
man, I rise in opposition to the pro forma
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I had no intention of
drawing this Into a personal debate.
However, since the gentleman has seen
fit to question my authority and my mo-
tives regarding certain statements I have
made on the floor I feel that I should
rise to defend myself.
It always seems to be a point of per-
sonal defense against any subject being
discussed to attack anyone who seems.to
be interested In TVA. I am. proud to be
recognized among the TVA adherents. I
would like to invite the gentleman from
Wisconsin to come down and inspect
that great development sometime, and
perhaps he would learn a few things that
he does not know about this great coun-
try of ours.
As far as the 85-percent figure is con-
cerned that I gave on the floor here
under direct questioning of the gentle-
man from Texas [Mr. MAHON], the
chairman of the Subcommittee on De-
fense Appropriations, he made the state-
ment that 85 percent of the money spent
under that bill for material procure-
ment was through negotiation. As far
as competitive bidding is concerned to
the aircraft companies, and so forth re-
Approved For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120003-4
 7938
Ask Aft-k
Approved For Release 2004/08/31 :' CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120003-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE June 2 .
lacing to security I picked up a news-
paper the other day and saw where the
Russians already had all of the engineer-
Ing plans and the scale drawing of an
airplane that was classified as absolutely
secret by our Defense Department, and
they had had It for some 4 months and
it had been published in a newspaper in
Russia.
I believe we have but a very small
percentage of our defense appropriation
spent on secret materiel. Under those
conditions, I believe It should be nego-
tiated. I agree with the majority leader.
I do not know particularly that Gen-
eral Motors should be awarded 7 per-
cent of our defense contracts simply be-
cause, as I have heard said, they have
a negotiator on each side of the table.
At any rate, I firmly believe we could
save at least 10 to 15 percent of the
money we spend on defense every year
if our contracts were awarded on a com-
petitive basis.
Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BASS of Tennessee. I yield to
the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. McCORMACK. It amuses me to
see how sensitive some Members are
when you mention the name of General
Motors, when you simply state the facts
to show that they still are the largest
prime contractor on defense contracts
by far, by at least 331/3 percent above
the next company.
Mr. BASS of Tennessee. Dealing In
the same type of enterprise.
Mr. McCORMACK. They ask, "So
what?" What about the small inde-
pendent businessmen of this country?
What about them? How much are they
being awarded? What consideration are
they receiving as a result of these large
contracts? How much are they cut down
In their contracts?
What about the mergers going on,
more mergers by 300 percent during any
one of the last 3 years than took place
in the largest year during the two de-
cades prior to that? Those are some
of the questions the gentleman from
Illinois, my friend Mr. MAsoN, should
also consider. So when we take the
floor to tell the facts in cumulative form
showing that General Motors has not
been discriminated against, my good
friend gets very sensitive: and the more
he gets sensitive the better I like it.
Mr. BASS of Tennessee. We do not
want General Motors to be discrim-
inated against, certainly not, but at the
same time we do not want other com-
panies to be discriminated against.
Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair-
man, I move to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I am not at all sensi-
tive about the remarks that have been
made. I am sure the gentleman was not
referring to me when he used those
terms. But I do not like to see errors
compounded on the floor of this House
by people who are not acquainted with
the facts. I am just as sure, as I am of
the fact that I am standing here, and I
happen to serve on the same subcommit-
tee and heard the same information
which the gentleman from Texas did,
and the statement made by the gentle-
man from Texas was entirely correct
about the 85 percent because it related
to the aircraft procurement of the De-
partment of Defense. Shortly there-
after, under circumstances that did not
permit correction at that particular mo-
ment. the gentleman from Tennessee who
just addressed the House referred to
five-sixths of the entire $3212 billion ap-
propriation in the Defense Department
appropriation bill, something that was
ridiculous on its face. There is too much
in that amount which is not contracted
for at all, which cannot be a matter of
negotiation.
Mr. BASS of Tennessee. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I am happy
to yield to the gentleman so that the gen-
tleman can correct himself.
Mr. BASS of Tennessee. I referred to
that part of it which Is used for mate-
rial and procurement.
Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Then, If
you had not made a statement about the
five-sixths of $311/2 billion, you would
have been correct. I am glad to see that
you are correcting the impression that
you created in the statement made on
the floor of the House in relation to it.
Mr. BASS of Tennessee. If the gen-
tleman will permit me to say, of course,
we realize that part of the $311,-2 billion
is for salaries of personnel and many
other things. I am talking about that
part of the $311/2 billion which is spent
for material and procurement.
Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I am glad
to give the gentleman an opportunity to
correct himself.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair-
man, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
On page 34, line 1s. strike out the colon
and insert in lieu thereof a comma and the
following: "Air base to be known as `Richard
Bong Air Force Base'."
Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. I yield.
Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, we have
accepted that amendment, and I would
suggest to the distinguished gentleman
from Wisconsin that at this point he
Insert a statement in regard to the out-
standing achievements of this great
aviator.
Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. I thank the
gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, it is a real privilege
and an honor for me to suggest that the
Greater Milwaukee area air base pro-
posed for Kansasville. Wis., which is In
my congressional district, should be des-
ignated as the Richard Bong Air Force
Base in honor of this Wisconsin boy who
was an ace of aces in World War II. He
achieved the greatest combat record for
destroying enemy air planes during the
war In the Pacific of any other American.
It is fitting and proper, therefore, that
I propose an amendment to H. R. $829,
which would authorize the establishment
of this base. and which when completed
will bear the name of this outstanding
Wisconsin hero.
I am Indebted to the distinguished
Chairman of the House Armed Services
Committee, Mr. VINSON, for his approval
of my amendment and to the distin-
guished minority leader on the Republi-
can side [Mr. SHORT) for a similar cour-
tesy which he has extended.
Mr. Chairman, under leave to extend
my remarks I am setting down for pos-
terity a statement of the military service
of Richard Ira Bong, who was born on
the 24th day of September 1920, at Super-
ior, Wis., and whose mother and father
still reside at Poplar, Wis.
Aviation cadet, May 29, 1941: second lieu-
tenant, AC, Reserve, January 9, 1942; first
lieutenant, Army of the United States, AC,
April 6. 1943; first lieutenant, Army of the
United States, August P. 1943; captain, Army
of the United States, AC, August 24, 1943;
captain, Army of the United States, February
24, 1944; major, Army of the United States,
AC. April 12 1944; major, Army of the United
States. August 1, 1944; first lieutenant, AC,
Reserve, January 9, 1945.
Rating: Pilot.
SERVICE
Richard Ira Bong enlisted in the Regular
Army at Wausau, Wis., on May 29, 1941, In
the grade of flying cadet. He was assigned
service number 16022192 and transferred to
Tulare. Calif., where he completed his pri-
mary pilot training on August 16, 1941.
From August 19, 1941, until October 31, 1941,
he was assigned to Gardner Field, Calif.,
receiving his basic pilot training. He re-
ceived his advance pilot training at Luke
Field, Ariz., from November 4, 1941, to
January 9, 1942, on which date he was com-
missioned a second lieutenant In the Air
Corps Reserves, and rated pilot.
After receiving his commission he was im-
mediately called to extended active duty with
the Air Corps and given an assignment as
flying instructor at Luke Field, Ariz. On
May 2, 1942, he was transferred to Hamilton
Field, Calif.. for combat training in P-38
type aircraft. Successfully completing this
transition training early In September 1942
he was alerted for foreign service and de-
parted the United States via air for duty In
the Pacific area. Upon arrival In Australia
he was assigned to the 9th Fighter Squad-
ron. 49th Fighter Group, as combat fighter
pilot. On November 14. 1942, he was re-
assigned to the 39th Fighter Squadron, 35th
Fighter Group and destroyed 5 enemy air-
craft before being returned to the 9th Fighter
Squadron on January 11, 1943. He con-
tinued as fighter pilot with this organiza-
tion flying P-38 type aircraft until November
11, 1943, when be was given 60 days leave
and reassigned to Headquarters. 5th Fighter
Command In New Guinea as Assistant A-3
In charge of replacement airplanes. While
holding this assignment Major Bong con-
tinued flying combat missions and increased
his Individual total enemy aircraft destroyed
to 28.
In April 1944, he was returned to the
United States and assigned to the Matagorda
Peninsula Bombing Range, Foster Field,
Tex., for the purpose of receiving and
checking on the latest gunnery methods and
Instructions. In September 1944, Major
Bong returned to his assignment with the
5th Fighter Command in the Pacific Area
and was placed in charge of gunnery train-
ing with that organization. In addition to
his duties as gunnery Instructor, though not
required or expected to perform combat duty,
he voluntarily flew 30 more combat missions
over Borneo and the Philippine Islands, de-
stroying 12 more enemy aircraft, bringing his
total to 40 enemy aircraft destroyed. For his
achievements during this second tour of
overseas duty, Major Bong was awarded the
Nation's highest decoration, the Medal of
Honor. After completing over 200 combat
missions for a total of over 500 combat hours.
be was released from his assignment with
Approved For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120003-4
 Approved For lirlease 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245MOO100120003-4
1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 7939
the 5th righter 'Command In December Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair- W. BASS of Tennessee. I did not
1944 and returned to the United States. man, I simply want to add my own words mention the name of the Defense Secre-
Upon his return to the United States, of appreciation both to the gentleman tary. You are the one who mentioned
Major Bong was assigned as test pilot with from Wisconsin, my colleague, in whose his name; nor did I intend to attack his
the 4020th Army Air Force Base Unit at
Wright Field, Ohio, making functional tests district this base is to be located for his honesty or integrity to any degree.
and ferrying missions in single and twin amendment which would name this in- Mr. DONDERO. But no one on this
engine fighter-type aircraft. On June 23, stallation after this greatest of all Wis- floor who knows anything about the fine
1945, he was transferred. to Burbank, Calif., consin military heroes in modern times. man who is at the head of our Defense
and given an assignment as Chief of Flight I want to express my appreciation to the Department could possibly get any other
Operations, Office of the Army Air Force chairman of the committee and the impression except that you were pointing
Plant representative, in the Lockheed Air- ranking minority member for their the finger of scorn and dishonesty at Mr.
craft Plant. Since this company was en-
gaged in the development and manufac= agreement on this highly appropriate Wilson of the Defense Department. I
ture of the new P-80 jet-type aircraft, amendment at this time. hope the gentleman will clear that up.
Major Bong received a full training course Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. I thank Mr. BASS of Tennessee. I would also
prescribed for this type airplane at Muroc the gentleman. like to remind the gentleman there are
Lake Flight Test Base, Calif. (Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin asked and several former General Motors' em-
Major Bong was killed on August 6, 1945, was given permission to revise and ex- ployees in the Department of Defense, so
v. hen the P-80 aircraft he was flying crashed tend his remarks.) I am told.
near Burbank, Calif., due to power failure, Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Chairman, I Mr. DONDERO. That may be, but
reasons unknown.
He is survived by his wife, Mrs. Marjorie move to strike out the last four words, they do not control the making of con-
Ann Bong, whose last known address is 5640. Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Chairman, I tracts. I have never heard anything or
Franklin Avenue, Hollywood, Calif. He is move to strike out the last word. seen anything in the public press that
adeo survived by his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished ma- the contracts which General Motors gets
Carl T. Bong, Poplar, Wis. jority leader, my friend the gentleman from the Federal Government were un-
AWARDS from Massachusetts [Mr. McCORMACKI, fairly obtained. I am amazed how low
Medal of Honor, War Department General said something that rather touched me the percentage is,. and what it means to
Orders 90, December 8, 1944. personally where it is tender, when he the economy of this country. Let us
Distinguished Service Cross, General Or- said that we on the Republican side get a keep this thing above the belt and be fair
ders 62, Headquarters, USAFFE, October 20, little sensitive whenever the name of to a great company that has made its
1943. General Motors is mentioned. vast contribution to the welfare of our
Silver star with one oak Leaf Cluster:
Silver Star, General Orders 2, Headquarters It so happens that I have four or five country, and especially in time of need,
,
5th Fighter Command, January 24, 1943; General Motors factories in my district. when we needed the materials of war to
first Oak Leaf Cluster, General Orders 287, My memory Is not so short but what I defend ourselves. War material con-
Headquarters 5th Air Force, November 19, remember well that during the last war tracts are generally urgent and must be
1943. Detroit, Mich., and that area was known made to secure prompt delivery. They
Distinguished Flying Cross with six Oak as the arsenal of democracy. We made must also be adequately contracted.
Leaf Clusters: Distinguished Flying Cross, the things, the sinews of war, that were Surely you would not spend the people's
General Orders 110, Headquarters, 5th Air needed to defend ourselves and the free- money inefficiently or improperly.
Force, June 14, 1 first Oak Leaf 6th Air hsir, dom of this world. General Motors did Mr. CEDERBERG. Mr. Chairman,
General l Orders 135, , Headquarters, 6t
Force, June 28, 1943; second Oak Leaf Clus- its full share, a major share in that pro- will the gentleman yield?
ter, General Orders 104, Headquarters, 5th gram of production and the people of Mr. DONDERO. I yield.
Air Force, February 22, 1944; third Oak Leaf Michigan which I represent were proud Mr. CEDERBERG. I think the, gen-,
Cluster, General Orders 116, Headquarters, of that record. tleman from Tennessee [Mr. BASS],
5th Air Force, March 1, 1944; fourth. Oak Leaf The statement has been made which, ought to dog some explaining. He says
Cluster, General Orders 139, Headquarters, In my judgment, brings into disrepute he did not mean the Secretary of De-
sth Air Force, March 15, 1944; fifth and sixth and gives the impression that there is fense but some other employees of Gen-
Oak quarters, Leaf FEAF, Cluster, December General 28, Orders 1944: 345, Head- something dishonest about the contracts eral Motors. I think we ought to get
qua
Air Medal with 14 Oak Leaf Clusters: Air which are made with General Motors. that clear, because if there are any.em-
Medal, General Orders 22, Headquarters, 5th The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr, ployees of General Motors who are acting
Air"Force, April 23, 1943; 1st Oak Leaf Cluster, BAss], said something about General Mo- as negotiators for General Motors and
General Orders 186, Headquarters, 5th Air tors having negotiators on both sides of not the United States Government, and
Force, August 26, 1943; 2d through 9th Oak the table. It so happens that I know there is collusion involved, we ought to
Leaf Cluster, General Orders 287, Headquar-
ters, Mr. Charles E. Wilson, and I defy any- know about it. If the gentleman has
Oak Leaf Sa Air Cluster, Force, General November 19 Orders , 117, 73; 1 Head- 10th body on either. side of the aisle to point to any information, he ought to name those
117,
5th Air Force, March 2, 1944; 11th one dishonest, one unmanly thing that people. I come from Michigan, and I
Oak Leaf Cluster, General Orders 131, Head- he has ever committed in public or pri- am proud of General Motors. And.I am
quarters, 5th Air Force, March 11, 1944; 12th vate life. He is a man of integrity, high- proud of the employees who work for
Oak Leaf Cluster, General Orders 282, Head- est character, great ability and is making them.
quarters, 5th Air Force, April 28, 1944; 13th a terrific sacrifice to serve our country. Mr. BASS of Tennessee. If you will
Oak Leaf Cluster and 14th Oak Leaf Cluster, If we are to attract men and women of let me correct you, I said "former" em-
General 28, 345, Headquarters, FEAF, De- public spirit and ability we must treat ployees of General Motors.
cember er 28, 194 44.
Australian Distinguished Flying Cross. them fairly. It so happens that General Mr. CEDERBERG. How are they on
American Defense Service Medal. Motors has factories all over this coun- both sides of the table?
World War II Victory Medal, try, and naturally the contracts are given Mr. BASS of Tennessee. I-do not have
American Campaign Medal. to them. I am surprised that the num- to explain that to the gentleman.
Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal with one ber and percentage is as low as it is, when Mr. CEDERBERG. Well, you ought
Silver Service Star for participation in the you consider. that General Motors has not to make statements if you cannot
Leyte, Luzon, New Guinea, northern Solo- factories which can do the job all over back them up.
mons, and Papua campaigns.
Distinguished Unit Citation Emblem with this country. And it must also be re- Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Chairman, I
one Oak Leaf Cluster. membered that hundreds of small, rode- hope the gentlemen who are involved in
Philippine Liberation Ribbon with one pendent companies contribute to the this controversy will answer in their own
Bronze Service Star. . . work through subcontracts. What is time.
Philippine Republic Presidential Unit Ci- wrong about that? . The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
tation Emblem. Mr. BASS of Tennessee. Mr. Chair- gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Doar-
Philippine Independence Ribbon. Man, will the gentleman yield? DERO] has expired.
Aviation Badge "Pilot." ' Mr. DONDERO. I will let you explain ' Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask
Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair- to the House in your own time about for a vote on the amendment offered by
man, will the gentleman yield? having negotiators on both sides of the the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. I yield. table, SMITH].
No. 108-11
Approved For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120003-4
 7940
AA-
Approved For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120003-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE June 27.
The CHAIRMAN. The question Is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Wisconsin [Mr. Slmrill.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment which is at the Clerk's
desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. ViNsoN: Re-
number section 809 as section 809 (a) and
after the end thereof add the following new
section 809 (b) :
"(b) The Secretaries of the Army. Navy,
and Air Force are respectively authorized to
acquire by purchase housing units which are
located near military Installations, which are
adequate and suitable for housing military
personnel and their dependents, and as to
which a mortgage is insured by the Federal
Housing Commissioner pursuant to title VI
or title IX of the National Housing Act, sub-
ject to the outstanding mortgage thereon,
and to assume the payments thereafter be-
coming due on such mortgage. The Secre-
tary of the military department concerned
may utilize appropriations available for the
construction of military public works for the
liquidation of any outstanding mortgage
assumed by the Government."
Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, the pur-
pose of this amendment Is to lodge dis-
cretionary authority in the three Secre-
taries so that, if in their judgment the
facts and circumstances warrant it, they
may acquire houses that have been built
under title VI and title IX of the FHA
Act. It is not mandatory; it just gives
the Secretary of Defense an opportunity
to look over the field in the location
where he needs housing and see what he
may be able to buy instead of build.
Mr. SEELY-BROWN. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VINSON. I yield.
Mr. SEELY-BROWN. Does this lan-
guage include the possibility of the De-
fense Department taking over Lanham
Act houses that are being closed out?
Mr. VINSON. No, it does not permit
that. This is a business proposition
which permits the Secretary, where the
facts and circumstances warrant it, to
negotiate for the purchase of these FHA-
insured houses that meet the require-
ments standards of the armed services.
It is purely discretionary authority, that
is all.
Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. Mr.
Chairman, I move to strike out the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is an ex-
cellent amendment. I offered substan-
tially this same amendment in the Com-
mittee on the Armed Services and there
was considerable debate in reference to
this and an-other amendment offered by
one of my colleagues. In the end we
did not vote on the amendment; but
this, I think, is an excellent amendment,
and it does permit the defense depart-
ments to utilize housing which might be
available to the United States Govern-
ment if it meets all of the requirements.
I think we ought to give the Defense
Department this opportunity to take
advantage of what is available to us,
some of which might otherwise be han-
dled at a direct loss to our taxpayers.
I am therefore very much in favor of
the amendment and see no objection to
it. I hope the other Members agree with
me in this respect.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Georgia [Mr. VINSON ].
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, there
are no further amendments from the
committee.
(Mr.DONDERO asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks just made.)
Mr. BRAY. Mr. Chairman, this mili-
tary construction bill before us at this
time is on the whole a good bill. The
committee has worked long and arduous
hours in going into detail on this meas-
ure.
I want to congratulate the chairman,
the Honorable CARL VINSON, for the
specialeffort that hehas placed on this
bill. I doubt if there is a person in the
United States, in the service or out, that
has a better understanding of the various
military installations of our country
than does the gentleman from Georgia.
This bill calls for a great deal of money,
perhaps too much. We have in the past
spent enormous sums of money on our
various military installations, and at
times in the past I fear this money has
been spent in a haphazard manner-
without the proper planning and end in
view. This condition is excusable dur-
ing a war. We are now attempting to
work toward a definite goal, a goal that
will provide proper installations for our
Armed Services at home and abroad, and
in a sufficient capacity for our perma-
nent defense forces.
I hope and believe that now we have
arrived at a construction program where
we can see diminishing expenditures
within a few years. Much of the money
in this bill is for family and troop hous-
ing. Proper living quarters and condi-
tions should go a long way toward mak-
ing the Armed Services more attractive
as a career and encourage reenlistments.
We hope that the services can be so at-
tractive that in the foreseeable future
we can do away with the draft and de-
pend upon purely voluntary Armed
Forces,
Many people believe that we are spend-
ing too much money for the construction
and Improvement of our air, Army and
naval bases. If we are going to have
peace which will last for many years,
we are spending too much money, but if
we are faced with war in the foreseeable
future, and I am one who believes that
we are not, then the money which we
have spent on military construction is
well worthwhile. It is something on
which none of us want to gamble.
It is only human that we should make
errors on this program, but on the whole
I want to assure you that we are work-
ing toward a definite and foreseeable
goal. I want to be fair with you, how-
ever, and state that there are items in
this bill which I believe are unnecessary,
items to which I and some other Mem-
bers of the committee are opposed. One
special Item which I want to mention is
the authorization for Camp Carson, Colo.
This camp has at the present time all the
facilities necessary to-take care of all of
the troops there. Yet, the Army has
now launched a program with plans to
spend over $200 million on this post,
The plan is to keep all of the present
buildings on the post in a state of readi-
ness and repair and, in addition, to ulti-
mately spend over $200 million on new
construction. This planned program, if
finally carried out, will result in twice
the number of buildings at Camp Carson
than is necessary.
The principal excuse the Army gave
for this great expansion and expendi-
ture for Camp Carson is that it is used
as a support base for Camp Hale, some
80 miles away in the mountains. Camp
Hale is used for the winter training of
Army units, There are but few perma-
nent buildings there, and few are con-
templated. Camp Hale could be sup-
ported from many other locations. It is
not necessary to expend $200 million on
a permanent fort to support a mountain
camp that is only used a few months a
year. In addition, there is a shortage
of water at Colorado Springs, where
Camp Carson is located. Also, the Air
Force is constructing its new Air Acad-
emy in the same location. This will
further tax the already low water sup-
ply. There are many reasons why a
military camp the size of Camp Carson
should not be located and expanded in
the immediate vicinity of the Air Force
Academy, reasons which are apparent to
anyone acquainted with the situation.
The chairman of the committee, Hon.
CARL VINSON, pointed out many objec-
tionable features to expanding this
camp. On page, 3742 of the hearings he
said of this authorization for Camp
Carson:
And we are going to spend $140 million to
$175 million to build up an Air Acad-
emy. ? ? ?
We are building it. And here comes along
Camp Carson, right in that neighborhood.
And now you want to expand It. ? ' * So
I don't think we should expand Carson one
iota.
I have spoken In committee, as well as
on the floor against the authorizations
for Camp Carson. However, I realize
it is unfair to vote against this entire bill
just because of improper items contained
therein. This is merely an authoriza-
tion bill, and I trust in the future this
expansion of Camp Carson can be
stopped either by the Department of De-
fense, the Army, or the Appropriations
Committee.
Some of the members of the commit-
tee also unsuccessfully opposed the ex-
pansion of Fort Sill. In this bill Fort
Sill is authorized to take approximately
30,000 acres from the Wichita Mountains
wildlife and game refuge and neighbor-
ing communities. This wildlife refuge is
one of the finest in the country and is
visited by many thousands daily. The
local communities were bitter against this
annexation. Fort Sill already has 74,000
acres. I, for one, believe this expan-
sion was unnecessary. However, the
majority of the committee thought
otherwise. It is only natural that there
will be differences of opinion on a bill of
this magnitude.
I want to point out again that while
there are parts of this bill that I cannot
agree with, on the whole bill is good, and
I believe it is planned and coordinated
toward a sane and well-balanced defense.
Approved For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120003-4
 Approved For`Rrlease 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245FW00100120003-4
1955 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE
Mr. BROWNSON. Mr. Chairman, I guidance to CIA modeled on that which
am voting "present" on the rollcail on the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy
H. R. 6829, authorizing construction for has developed in its field. Certainly We Abbitt
the military departments and the Cen- exercise no controls over this super se- Abernethy
tral Intelligence Agency. cret agency through a check on the purse Addonizio
To me, this is the only sound position Alger
strings. Allen, Ill.
open because I have not been able to The Committee on Armed Services de- Andersen,
find in the extensive hearings and the
report the facts I feel I need in order
to pass on this $2.36 billion authoriza-
tion for the purchase of more real estate
by the Department of Defense, which al-
ready holds properties costing more than
$24.8 billion with some of it being carried
at ridiculously low acquisition costs.
This holding comprises 61 percent of the
acquired real property of the United
States Government. In addition, the
Department of Defense leases 190 loca-
tions including 1,983,686 acres for which
It pays an annual rental of $19,697,000.
I cannot say that the armed services
do not need every facility provided
in the bill before us today-but, after
reading the hearings, I do have some rea-
sonable doubts. Neither can I say that
the armed services do need these facili-
ties and this land in every case.
In the brief of authorizations, under
title I, the Army lists $223,993,000, or 40
percent, of its construction authoriza-
tions as "classified." The Navy, under
title II, lists $151,342,400, or about 25
percent of its construction funds as
"classified." I am pleased that the Air
Force seems more detailed and forth-
right in its justifications throughout and
does not hide behind the term "classi-
fied" for projects most of which are being
built right here in the United States,
where all our citizens can observe daily
the steam shovels, bulldozers, and steel-
workers working on the projects so care-
fully "classified" from Congress.
I have been unable to discover just
what is the construction included in title
IV for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff. Evidently this $300,000 did not
appear in the original H. R. 5700 as in-
troduced by the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. VINSONI, at least not in
title IV where it is now. Is this a house
for Admiral Radford? Is it an elite
housing project to provide for his. per-
sonal staff, too? How many facilities
can you provide for an admiral for $300,-
000. I am not saying that this is neces-
sarily either an unwise or an unjustified
expenditure; I would just like to know
what it is for and what we get for the
money. Such items as "Chairman, JCS,
$300,000," do not explain to me what use
is to be made of the taxpayers' money
any more than I can be completely satis-
fied with general phrases such as "Op-
erational and maintenance facilities,"
"Community' facilities," and "Storage
facilities," as justifications for the ex-
penditure of billions of dollars.
I do not know whether the CIA needs a
$6 million building site and a $50 million
building, or not. I do not know or have
any idea of how many employees CIA
now has. I do not know what they do
or to whom they are really accountable.
Perhaps if I knew these things I would
want to increase the CIA construction
authorization, but I guess I will never
know. Perhaps those of us in Congress
will, someday, create a Joint Committee
on Intelligence to provide congressional
and diligent work on this piece of legis- Andresen,
August H.
lation. The hearings total 4,091 pages, Andrews
accumulated in approximately 50 hours Arends
Ashey
and 25 minutes of on-the-record hear- Ash
more
ings spread over 21 days. Rapidly cal- Aspinall
I estimate that the committee Auchincloss
culating
,
considered this authorization at about Avery
Ayres
the rate of $789,666 per minute of open Baker
,7941
[Roll No. 971
-
YEAS-316
Fernandez Multer
Fine Murray, In.
Fisher
Flare
Flood
Flynt
Fogarty
Forand
Ford
Forrester
Fountain
Frazier
Friedel
Gary -
Gavin
Gentry
George
Gordon
Murray, Tenn.
Natcher
Nicholson
Norblad
Norrell
O'Brien, Ill.
O'Hara, 111.
O'Hara, Minn.
O'Neill
Osmers
Ostertag
Passman
Patman
Patterson
Pelly
Perkins
hearing time, an evidence of unusual Baldwin Grant Pfost
efficiency especially when you consider Bass, N. H. Green, Oreg. Philbin
Bass, Tenn. Gregory Phillips
that their considerations ranged from Bates Griffiths -Pitcher
Alaska to the Midway Islands including Baumhart Gross Pillion
the British West Indies, the Canal Zone, Beamer Gwinn Poage
Belcher Haley Poff
Cuba, French Morocco, Hawaii, Iceland, Bell Hand Preston
Italy, Japan, Johnson Island, Mariana Bennett, Fla. Harden Price
Islands, and the Marshall Islands in be- Bennett, Mich. Hardy Prouty
tween. Without being able to tell what Berry Harrison, Va. Rabaut
went on in the off-the-record hearings, Betts Hays, Ark. Radwan
one can wish the Army and Navy had Blatnik Hays, Ohio
Boggs Hayworth
justified their requests as forthrightly as Bolling Hilbert
the Air Force. Bolton, Henderson
The Army will be authorized $551;- Frances P. Herlong
105,000 in this bill as contrasted with Boow Hess
wler - Hiestand
$236 million granted in fiscal 1955-an Boyle Hill
Reed, 111.
Rees, Kans.
Reuss
Rhodes, Ariz.
Rhodes, Pa.
Richards
increase of over 100 percent. The Navy Brooks, La. HHillings Riley
inshaw Roberts
will be authorized $596,140,900 in this bill Brown, Ga. Hoffman, Mich. Robeson, Va.
to accomplish public works as compared Brown, Ohio Holifleld Rodino
with about $202 million for fiscal 1955, Broyhill Holmes Rogers, Colo.
an increase of well over 100 percent. Bu Hope Rogers, a.
Budge Roamer Rogers, Mass.
The Air Force will be authorized $1,165,- Burleson Huddleston Rogers, Tex.
456,000 in this bill, an increase of more Burnside Hull -Rooney
than 300 percent over last year's author- B Hyde Rutherford
Byyrd rd Jarman Sadlack
ization of $398,954,000. - Byrnes, Wis. Jenkins Saylor
Is this too much, or is it too little? Cannon Jennings Schenck
Can we use this real estate instead of Carlyle Jensen Scott
Carnahan Johansen - Scudder
weapons against an enemy? I just do Carrigg Johnson, Calif. Seely-Brown
not know. On the basis of the informa- Cederberg Jones, Ala. Selden
tion furnished me I have no way of Caller Jones, N. C. Sheehan
Chelf Judd Shelley
reaching a sensible conclusion. So, I Chenoweth Karsten Short
voted "Present." Chiperfield Keating Shuford
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule the Christopher Kelley, Pa. Sieminskl -
Chudoil' Kelly, N. Y. Sikes
Committee rises. Church Keogh Siler
and Clark Kilburn Simpson, Ill. -
the Committee rose
,
Accordingl
y
the Speaker having resumed the chair,
Mr. METCALF, Chairman of the Commit-
tee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union, reported that that Committee
having had under consideration the bill
(H. R. 6829) to authorize certain con-
struction at military, naval, and Air
Force installations, and for other pur-
poses, pursuant to House Resolution 283,
he reported the same back to the House
with sundry amendments adopted in
the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule the
previous question is ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any
amendment? If not the Chair will put
them en grosse.
The amendments were agreed to.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, and was read the
third time.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the passageof the bill.
Mr. VINSON. Mr. Speaker, on final
passage I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there
were-yeas 316, nays 2, answering "pres-
ent" 2, not voting 114, as follows:
Clevenger
Kilday
Sisk
Cole
Kilgore
Smith, Miss.
Colmer
King, Calif.
Smith, Va.
Cooley
Kirwan
ki
Smith, Wis.
cooper
Krueger s
Spri ger?
Corbett
Landrum
Staggers
Coudert
Lane
Steed
Cramer
Lanham
Sullivan
Crumpa Cr acker
Latham Lankford La
m
Taber .
Talle
Cunningham
LeCompte
Teague, Calif.
Curtis, Mass.
Lipscomb
Thomas
Dar Mo.
s,
Long
Thompson
Dagt
e
McCarthy c
Mich.
Davis, Ga.
McCormack
Thompson, N. J.
Davis, Wis.
McCulloch
-Thomson, Wyo.
Dawson, Ill.
McDonough
Thornberry
Dawson, Utah
McDowell
Tollefson
Deane
McMillan
Trimble
Dempsey
MMcVey
acdonald
Tuck
Tumulty
Derounian
Machrowicz
Udall
Devereux
Mack, Wash.
Van Zandt
Dies
Madden
h
M
Vinson
V
r
Dolliver
olliver
a
on
Marshall
o
Vurse
sell
Dondero
Martin
Wainwright
Donohue
Mason
Walter
Dorn, N. Y.
Matthews
Watts
Dorn, S. C.
Metcalf
Weaver
Durham
Miller, Calif.
Westland
Edmondson
Miller,
Md.
Wharton
Elliott
Miller, Ne Nebr.
Whitten
Evins
Mills
Wickersham
Fallon
l
M
Wi
Fascell
olboh
M
Wier
er
eigha
Fighan
rano
Morano
Wigglesworth
Fenton
Moss
Williams, Miss.
Approved For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120003-4
 ,7942
wj 1
Approved For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120003-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE June 27,
Williams, N. Y. Wolcott Young
Willis Wolverton Younger
Wilson, Ind. Wright Zablocki
Winstead Yates
NAYS-2
Bailey Harvey
ANSWERING 'PRESENT"-2
Brownson Scrivner
Adair
Oarmats
Meader
Albert
Gathinga
Merrow
Alexander
Granahan
Miller. N. Y.
Allen, Calif.
Gray
Morgan
Anfuso
Green. Pa.
Morrison
Barden
Gubser
Moulder
Barrett
Hagen
Mumma
Becker
Hale
Nelson
Blitch
Halleck
O'Brien, N. Y.
Boland
Harrison. Nebr.
O'Konskl
Bolton,
Heselton
Polk
Oliver P.
Hoeven
Powell
Bonner
Hoffman. 111.
Quigley
Bosch
Holt
Reece, Tenn,
Boykin
Holtzman
Reed, N. Y.
Brooks, Tex.
Horan
Rlehlman
Buckley
Ikard
Rivers
Burdick
Jackson
Robsion. Ky.
Byrne, Pa.
James
Roosevelt
Canfield
Johnson, Wis.
St. George
ChRSe
Jonas
Scherer
Chatham
Jones, Mo.
Sehwengel
Davidson
Kean
Sheppard
Davis, Tenn.
Kearney
Slmpaon. Pa.
Denton
Kearns
Smith, Kans.
Diggs
Kee
Taylor
Dingell
King. Pa.
Teague, Tex.
Dodd
Klein
Thompson. La.
Dollinger
Knox
Thompson, Tex.
Donovan
Knutson
utt
Dowdy
Laird
Vanik
Doyle
Lesinski
Van Pelt
Eberharter
Lovre
Velde
Ellsworth
McConnell
Williams, N. J.
Engle
McGregor
Wilson. Calif.
Fino
McIntire
Withrow
Frelinghuysen
Mack. Ill.
Zelenko
Fulton
Magnuson
Gamble
Mailliard
So the bill was passed.
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
Mr. Mack of Illinois with Mr. Halleck.
Mrs. Butch with Mr. Fino.
Mr. Klein with Simpson of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Morrison with Reece of Tennessee.
Mr. Alexander with Mr. Nelson.
Mr. Zelenko with Mr. Kean.
Mr. O'Brien of New York with Mr. James.
Mr. Dollinger with Mr. Wilson of Califor-
nia.
Mr. Donovan with Mr. Harrison of Ne-
braska.
Mr. Buckley with Mr. Heseiton.
Mr. Powell with Mr. Canfield.
Mr. Sheppard with Mr. McConnell.
Mr. Holtzman with Mr. Miller of New York.
Mr. Green of Pennsylvania with Mr. Fre-
linghuysen.
Mr. Barrett with Mr. Gubser.
Mr. Granahan with Mr. Holt.
Mr. Byrne of Pennsylvania with Mr. Horan.
Mr. Morgan with Mr. Becker.
Mr. Eberharter with Mr. King of Pennsyl-
vania.
Mr. Polk with Mr. Withrow.
Mr. Denton with Mr. Van Pelt.
Mr. Doyle with Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Chatham with Mr. Scherer.
Mr. Anfuso with Mrs. St. George.
Mr. Albert with Mr. Rlehlman.
Mr. Lesinski with Mr. Fulton.
Mr. Roosevelt with Mr. Ellsworth.
Mr. Dingell with Mr. Robsion of Kentucky.
Mr. Garmatz with Mr. Schwengel.
Mr. Bonner with Mr. Smith of Kansas.
Mr. Williams of New Jersey with Mr.
Hoeven.
Mr. Vanik with Mr. Hoffman of 1711nois.
Mr. Quigley with Mr. Jackson.
Mr. Engel with Mr. Velde.
Mr. Davidson with Mr. Utt.
Mrs. Knutson with Mr. Gamble.
Mrs. Kee with Mr. Adair.
Mr. Thompson of Louisiana with Mr. Jonas.
Mr. Thompson of Texas with Mr. Kearns.
Mr. Teague of Texas with Mr. Allen of
California.
Mr. Ikard with Mr. McGregor.
Mr. Davis of Tennessee with Mr. Mailliard.
Mr. Dowdy with Mr. McIntire.
Mr. Moulder with Mr. Lovre.
Mr. Magnuson with Mr. Bosch.
Mr. Boykin with Mr. Chase.
Mr, Brooks of Texas with Mr. Knox.
Mr. Boland with Mr. Laird.
Mr. Jones of Missouri with Mr. Reed of
New York.
Mr. Hagen with Mr. O'Konaki.
Mr. Gray with Mr. Mender.
Mr. Rivers with Mr. Merrow.
Mr. Gathings with Mr. Mumma.
Mr. Barden with Mr. Hale.
Mr. Diggs with Mr. Burdick.
Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin with Mr. Kear-
ney.
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND
Mr. VINSON. Mr. Speaker. I ask
unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to extend
their remarks in the RECORD on the bill
just passed.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Geor-
gia?
There was no objection.
PERSONAL ANNOUNCEMENT
Mr. WAINWRIGHT, Mr. Speaker,
during rollcall No. 95 1 was necessarily
absent at the Pentagon. Had I been
present, I would have voted "yea."
CORRECTION OF ROLLCALL
Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, on roll-
call No. 91 my colleague, Mr. JAMES, is
recorded as having voted. On that day,
he was In the hospital in Bethesda, and
I ask unanimous consent, therefore, that
the RECORD and Journal be corrected ac-
cordingly to show that he was not pres-
ent and did not vote.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Penn-
sylvania?
There was no objection.
CORRECTION OF ROLLCALL
Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Speaker, I un-
derstand that I was not recorded as vot-
ing on rollcall No. 95. I voted "yea"
and ask unanimous consent that I be so
recorded.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Vir-
ginia?
There was no objection.
ELIZABETH KEE-WEST VIRGINIA'S
DAUGHTER OF THE YEAR
(Mr. BURNSIDE asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point.)
Mr. BURNSIDE. Mr. Speaker, in the
June 17 issue of the White Sulphur Sen-
tinel, White Sulphur Springs, W. Va.,
Miss Pat Sullivan in her column "Saun-
terings" congratulates the State of West
Virginia for having such in illustrious
daughter as our colleague, the Honora-
ble ELIZABETH KEE, Fifth District, West
Virginia. I have known ELIZABETH as the
wife of my good friend and former col-
league, the late John Kee. I have
known her as a vivacious woman and an
active, sincere representative for her dis-
trict.
Under unanimous consent to extend
my remarks I include this article in the
RECORD.
I plume myself I'm getting up in the
world-on my acquaintance list are not only
West Virginia's queenly royalty of festival
days and the hermit of the Alleghenies, but
I also claim acquaintance with the former
West Virginia mother of the year, the be-
loved Mrs. Alex Thompson of Alderson. I
count as my close friends a few people rich
enough to be retired. But this "bla bla bla
fanfare" is to tell you I also know West Vir-
ginia's daughter of the year. My gracious
friend, the Honorable ELIZABETH KEE, of
Bluefield, W. Va.. and of the House of Rep-
resentatives In Washington. D. C., received
this distinct honor last May 7 when the West
Virginia Society of the District of Columbia
held its annual son-and-daughter banquet
honoring West Virginia's outstanding son
and daughter of the year 1955. Mrs. KEE
was selected as our State's most distinguished
daughter and she was presented with a beau-
tiful plaque by a former Member of the
House of Representatives, the Honorable
Jennings Randolph. Just naturally letters
and telegrams of applause poured into her
mailbox from friends and acquaintances ex-
pressing their confidence and appreciation
of her integrity and eminent service to her
people. The Honorable ROBERT C. BYRD, of
West Virginia, paid tribute to ELIZABETH KEE
in appreciative poetic phrases that were writ-
ten into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of May
10, 1955. plus letters like orchids from such
biggies as Speaker SAM RAYBURN, Senator
H. M. KmeoaE, and GRACIE PFOST, of Idaho,
and a half dozen others were applause in
the CONGRESSIONAL REcoRD for West Vir-
ginia's favorite daughter. Humbly I add
my soprano cheers for my favorite politi-
cian. Once a year at least we meet at the
State fairgrounds at Fairlea. W. Va. But
where In heck were you last summer, ELIZA-
BErH KEE? I missed you. I want to com-
plain also about your pictures on the road-
side billboards, because the pictures were
not nearly so pretty as you are. Congratu-
lations. Daughter of 1955, room 1016, New
House Office Building, Washington, D. C.
CORRECTION OF RECORD
Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to make certain cor-
rection in the RECORD at page A4001.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Flor-
ida?
There was no objection.
AMENDING THE TRAVEL EXPENSE
ACT OF 1949
Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H. R. 6295) to
amend section 3 of the Travel Expense
Act of 1949, as amended, to provide an
increased maximum per diem allow-
ance for subsistence and travel expenses,
and for other purposes, with Senate
amendments thereto, disagree to the
Senate amendments, and agree to the
conference asked by the Senate.
Approved For Release 2004/08/31 : CIA-RDP63T00245R000100120003-4