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

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80-01370R000500060004-7
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 75
• Document Creation Date: November 17, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 13, 1999
• Sequence Number: 4
• Content Type: REPORT

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

?c O 000 00
I 1 ~ I I
CD xO
C)
Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7
 Approved For RelerAaffixtaf464: 1P$
?o
C)
lc;
o
o
o
co
N
I
N
1O
T-i
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
10
C)
0
O
?
0 0
0
ID
v
on
N
C11
to
CC> f- N 1D 112
>o m q C) C)
MUCH 3110ROGQW060004-3
0 0 0
00 C) O
N Oo 00
LO 00
CO m
O O
4+ I 'di
-N
vi
CO
CO
O
CS
0
m
CO
CJ
o
'~
cd
~
Cd
o
C
m
F
d
n
O
CO
d
CO
O
CO
O
d+
tlr
Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7
 Approved For Release 2000/08/16: CIA-RDP80-0137OR0005000004-7
CHAPTER IX
SUBCOMMITTEE
JOHN J. ROONEY, New York, Chairman
PRINCE H. PRESTON, Georgia FREDERIC R. COUDERT, In., New York
ROBERT L. F. SIKES, Florida FRANK T. BOW, Ohio
DON MAGNUSON, Washington CLIFF CLEVENGER, Ohio
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Extension and remodeling, State Department building.-The sum of
$1,000,000 was provided in The Supplemental Appropriation Act,
1956, and $800,000 in The Second Supplemental Appropriation Act,
1956, 'for design and planning work for the extension and remodeling
of the existing State Department building here in the District of
Columbia. There is included in this bill the additional sum of
$44,920,000, a reduction of $10,680,000 in the amount of the budget
-estimates for this item. The Committee was advised by the Depart-
ment of State that the reduction should in no way delay or alter
plans for the construction of the building since the requested addi-
tional funds would not be obligated during fiscal year 1957. The
-estimated total cost of the project is $57,400,000. The Committee
directs that such amount be considered the ceiling on costs of this
project, and that every effort be made to reduce same in keeping
with the needs of the Department.
The new structure, together with the present building is designed to
accommodate all the Washington staff of the State Department,
including the International Cooperation Administration, in a single
building, rather than scattered, as at present, among 29 separate
buildings.
The Committee was advised that the estimated savings to the United
States Government by housing the Department of State in one building
instead in scattered buildings as at present would be $2,116,041 per
annum but was amazed to discover that no present estimate of future
savings as a result of the need for fewer employees had been computed
by the Department. It is expected that such an estimate will be
furnished the Committee in the near future.
International_Fish,eries Commissions.-The Committee recommends
the full amount of the budget estimates, $620,000, to continue and
expand, on a joint international basis with Canada, the sea lamprey
control and research activities conducted since 1947 by the Fish and
Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior.
The Committee was advised that over the past several years the
parasitic sea lamprey has spread through the Great Lakes and has
all but destroyed the trout population in Lakes Huron and Michigan.
In Lake Superior the trout population is fallin' off rapidly due-to the
spread of the sea lamprey. The loss to the United States and Canada
in trout and other valuable fish is presently estimated to be $5,000,000
annually.
Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7
 Approved For ReIGWwwa 6 ~ P O' $Rb W06000 -
Vatican City claims.-The Committee recommends the full amount
of the budget estimate ($964,200) for the payment of claims for dam-
ages to properties of the Vatican City during World War IT, as au-
thorized by Public Law 656, 84th Congress.
THE JUDICIARY
COURTS OF APPEALS, DISTRICT COURTS AND OTHER JUDICIAL SERVICES
Administrative Office of the United States Courts.-The request for
$113,500 to pay for the rental and alteration of commercial office and
warehouse space in the District of Columbia to accommodate the
larger part of the personnel and operations of the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts outside of the Supreme Court
Building, where the entire Office is presently located, is not approved
at this time.
No indication could be given to the Committee as to where the space
might be obtained to relocate part of this Office. It was testified that
dividing up the Administrative Office would be an unwieldy operation
and that the Office would function. better if it were kept together
where it is now located. If more definite plans are formulated in
the coming fiscal year the Committee will be glad to reconsider the
proposal.
INDEPENDENT OFFICES
UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY
Acquisition and construction of radio facilities.-The request for an
additional $2,000,000 for the construction of a land-based broadcasting
facility in the Near East, to replace the vessel Courier as the medium-
wave transmitting base in that area is not approved. at this time.
An item such as this should be presented in the regular annual budget
request and not as a supplemental item. If and when this request is
again presented to the Committee for consideration the Agency should
be prepared to advise the Committee what it proposes to do with the
vessel Courier, now costing the taxpayer $608,000 annually, when the
land-based facility is completed.
FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT
President's special international program.-The bill includes
$4,687,400, a reduction of $4,312,600 in the amount of the budget
estimates, to continue the President's special international program of
artistic and athletic presentations abroad and participation in inter-
national trade fairs. The sum allowed is the same amount as ap-
propriated for fiscal year 1955 and also for fiscal year 1956 less the
amount requested for the United States Information Agency.
The Committee was told that from $1,240,000 to $1,700,000 of
previously appropriated funds for this program would be unexpended
as of June 30, 1956.
The sum of $312,600 was requested for the United States Informa-
tion Agency, principally for promoting and publicizing this program.
The Committee is of the opinion that this Agency should be able
to carry on this work within its regular annual appropriation which
is in the amount of $113,000,000 for the fiscal year 1957, and therefore,
Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7
 Approved For l26Iease 200-8 TVFIVALR4W801919AR0joII800 04-7
directs that no part of the funds recommended herein be allocated to
the United States Information Agency.
The testimony before the Committee reveals that of the $229,738
available to the United States Information Agency from this fund for
fiscal year 1956, the sum of $120,615, or over 52 percent was expended
for entertainment. Large amounts of the USIA funds were used for
the purchase of tickets which were given away to people to attend the
performances. If the performers or companies sent abroad were of
such consequence that free tickets had to be given away at government
expense for them to have an audience they should not have been sent
in the first place. For example, the Agency expended $3,000 of the
taxpayers' money to purchase tickets to present to people free of
charge to listen to the Los Angeles Symphony Orchestra in Tokyo.
It is inconceivable that a Government Agency would even consider
a payment of $23,000 for royalties in connection with a touring play,
in addition to all the other costs of an overseas tour. Nevertheless,
such is the case, as an examination of the hearings will disclose.
The Committee expects that all agencies in any way connected with
this program will correct the loose financial operations pointed out in
the report of the General Accounting Office and the investigative
report of this Committee, and take the necessary action to prevent
their reoccurrence in the future.
Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-01370R000500060004-7
 Approved For Relea? fiU46 :AVAcROPB1BMRdM 060004f
C
o
O
n
O
o
O
c
O
r
yy
00
O
00
cn
-
~
O
?o
i~-1
c+a
0
>-1
I
ci
tr
I
GCI
P
C
C
O
d
O
CO
GV
CV
co
L0
00
r1
C~
fem.
O
cgv~
?Y
a
CO
Co
GV
6.+
GV
rl
H
O
O
L-
CV
y
(O
U'D
GOD
N
N
C
0
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
W
E
I
I
11
I
I
,
ti
ti
,
U]
pl~
mac.
A
}~
O
O
Fi
~y
O
TD
,
O
M
~
Hl
~J
A
I--
Fi
H
IT,
w
o
FI
W
O
o
O
O
y
bb
z
Ili
d+
W
~M
di
~M
0
Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-01370R000500060004-7
 Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060'004-7
CHAPTER X
SUBCOMMITTEE
J. VAUGHAN GARY, Virginia, Chairman
OTTO E. PASSMAN, Louisiana GORDON CANFIELD, New Jersey
ALFRED D. SIEMINSKI, New Jersey EARL WILSON, Indiana
JAMES C. MURRAY, Illinois BENJAMIN F. JAMES, Pennsylvania
TREASURY DEPARTMENT
BUREAU OF ACCOUNTS
Salaries and expenses.-The Committee recommends the amount
of the budget estimate, $82,000, for the processing of an increasing
workload of depositary receipts. Originally estimated at 7,800,000
for fiscal year 1957, the number of receipts actually processed in this
fiscal year, through March 1956 was in excess of 6,100,000, and is
now expected to reach 8,500,000 in fiscal year 1957. The increase
stems in part from increasing compliance with the deposit require-
ments (in turn because of the penalty provisions in the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954), and in part front revised reguhitions, effective
January 1, 1956, governing farmer-employer deposits.
DIVISION OF DISBURSEMENT
Salaries and expenses.-The Committee recommends an appropria-
tion of $175,000, a reduction of $100,000 in the estimate. This item
is to cover the cost of processing gasoline tax refund checks. The
reduction is discussed below in connection with the item for the
Internal Revenue Service.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
Salaries and expenses.-An appropriation of $750,000 is recom-
mended for this item, a reduction of $380,000 in the estimate.
The estimate was submitted covering the costs of servicing an antici-
pated number of five million claims for refunds of gasoline taxes to
farmers under the terms of Public Law 466 of this Congress. This is
a completely new program, and the Committee is of the opinion that
the estimated number of claims will not materialize, having deter-
mined that there were but 5,100,000 farms in the United States in
1954, and that the number of farms has been diminishing yearly.
The Committee suggests that, as experience is gained under the
tax refund law, the Service continue to study its methods and proce-
dures to assure that economy and simplification in operations are
achieved.
Several of the States have gasoline tax refund laws, and the Com-
mittee wholeheartedly adopts the language of the Senate Finance
Committee report (S. Rept. 1609, 84th Cong.) urging the coordination
Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7
 Approved For Rel ,Q?IQ$M' ,:,C Raeeei13;7 OOQW060004V
of the Federal refund program with the administration of refund pro-
grams of the various States.
There has recently been enacted legislation which would placethe?
receipts from gasoline and other taxes associated with highway use
in a special trust fund.. It is the opinion of the Committee' that the
administrative expense incurred in making refunds of this nature
ought to be a proper charge against the trust fund rather than against.
the general revenues of the Treasury.
COAST GUARD
Retired pay.-The Committee recommends $425,000 for this; item;,
the amount of the budget estimate. This amount is found necessary
after a recomputation of costs following action on the regular annual
appropriation for 1957. The total includes funds for the increased
pay of certain retired officers as authorized by Public Law. 489, ap-
proved April 23, 1956; for the increased costs for certain personnel as
reviewed under authority of Public Law 220, approved October 25,
1951; and for the continuation of the program of voluntary retire,
menu of personnel with over 20 but under 30 years service.
Approved For Release 2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-0137OR000500060004-7
 Approved FoP%elease 200(d# Pf6N FA4UNb%v4'F' mFwnb(lN60004-7
o?
o
I
o
00
00
I
o
00
~
I
~
3
,
a
o?
o
?o
?o
o?
es
ti
c~v
00
00
?
N
CO
N
ti
1
W U
1
I
, ,
,
,
f., r~ ~,'
02
~
~
W
1
~W.i
I-~
,
I
z
D
y
W
E,,
~
lv
F-i
y
-
I
iC
c,
I
1
I
1
i
I.
I
1
I=
O
O
o
O
2
C) Op
O
O
O
Cl
0000
cc
C
C.
i
I
O
cI
IC O
O
o
O
C)
N
v d
O
CC
?
O
O
N
D
W
IN
w C)
Cry
CC
O
C3)
i
M
I
I
0 0
O O
1-
o
O
-0
0
O
C)
0
O
O
0
O
O
0 l
O
Z)
CO
N
~
O
: cl+
C)
CA
O
o
O
O
a
CC
co
eD O
C)
O
C
`V
C)
C))
N
v
00
O
OCi