Do you mean just because you are going to get a higher priced building on the land, that the preparation for the land is going to cost $2,000 extra?

Mr. REED. No, sir. It is to keep within balance the site development in which we have experienced some increase in cost, and let us build both the higher quality 5-foot line cost and then the site development. Senator STENNIS. Well, what is additional cost for outside the 5foot line?

Mr. REED. Well, sir, we feel that a proportionate increase is necessary to be able to develop the site if we are going to be permitted to go up to a total of $26,000 in the 5-foot line cost, then we need additional on top of that to cover the total unit cost.

Senator STENNIS. That may be true but I just don't see that. We could spend the morning here on that point. Senator, do you have any questions?

Senator SALTONSTALL. Yes. Mr. Reed, following what the chairman has just said, you propose in lieu of a project basis, a program basis. Aren't you going to get into an awful lot of trouble, as the chairman has brought out, on contractors' bidding, and all that goes with it? This thought occurred to me. Assume that whether it is on a project or a program basis, that where you had any costs over an amount, say, $25,000, you should come and get the approval of the legislative committees of the Congress or at least to notify them? Wouldn't that help you?

Mr. Reed. That would be a help, sir. I don't understand the $25,000, Senator.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Well, I just used that as a figure.

Mr. REED. You mean some amount above a project cost?
Senator SALTONSTALL. Yes.

In other words, you say let's limit it to $17,500 on a program rather than a project basis. That would mean that perhaps in one project you would run up to $22,000 or $25,000 and on another one you would have to knock it down to $10,000. I would think you would have a great deal of trouble with your contractors in such a case. Wouldn't it be better to make us an overseeing committee, if you want to call it that, as we do on reprograming where there is a certain figure, whether it be $22,000, $25,000 or $30,000, wouldn't it be helpful to you to have to come before us.

Mr. Reed. That would be helpful sir. I think the original proposal on our part might be simpler but it is that kind of help which would preclude us from either having to redesign and rebid the project which we had to do with a number of them in the past few years or take out items we know should be in the house to improve its maintainability.

Now, this procedure would be helpful, sir, and I might point out that the departments through their excellent administration in the past years have been able to save some $512 million which is reflected in this budget. What we would like to do is to be able to average out our costs on a total military department basis.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Yes, I understand. Mr. Nease, I think that suggestion is worthy of our careful consideration in the executive session. I would appreciate it if you would look into that, Mr. Reed, and see how practical that is.

Mr. REED. We will. That would provide relief.

Senator SALTONSTALL. It seems to me it would help you and it would also allow us to keep an eye on very high costs in any one section. Mr. REED. We will explore that, sir.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Now, to come back to these two $100,000 houses, I have been trying to get the figures on the proposal here by Admiral Radford a few years ago, but it seems to me that you handicap yourself trying to get us to OK a hundred thousand dollars for two houses when you are trying to put in a new program. If you are going to do that, you should come in with a special bill. Probably it would be turned down, but if we put it in here it is going to handicap your whole program, it seems to me.

Mr. REED. Sir, the intent here was to spell this out very carefully as a separate segment of the bill. We have a very severe problem with certain categories of these very senior people. We made a study jointly with the military departments of all the flag officer billets worldwide. Sixty-one of these billets were identified as what were termed "representational billets" where these gentlemen had the responsibilities of representing the United States. This includes a twostar rank like the superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy or a four-star rank such as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Of these 61 billets, sir, out of the several hundred flag billets in the military departments, most of them are quite adequately housed. There is no major problem. However, in two of the cases, at NORAD out in Colorado Springs where he is currently occupying a leased unit and at MacDill Air Force Base where there is just nothing adequate for the commanding general.

Senator SALTONSTALL. I don't question that at all, Mr. Reed. I just question the practicality of putting that in your housing bill.

Senator STENNIS. Well, he might not put it in there, Senator. He is looking ahead to the whole program here. I imagine he is much more interested in the other parts of the program.

Mr. REED. Sir, if I may point out, this is a problem area. We do not think that $100,000 is out of line. For example, we sent a photographer around to take pictures of some units around Washington which were over a hundred thousand dollars. These are not ostentatious. For example, our proposed unit will only have four bedrooms. We are currently building one which the Congress approved for the Commandant of the Coast Guard out at the Bethesda Hospital. The Navy is building that. We feel we have got to face facts and help the situation where we can. Other nations-for example, the Deputy of SacLant down in Norfolk who is a British officer; the British Government went out and purchased a house for him which was some $85,000 in price. It is this category

Senator STENNIS. Which government is that?

Mr. Reed. That was the Deputy/SacLant, sir, where the British Government purchased a house in the Norfolk area known as King Home. We feel that these houses are necessary on a very selective basis. They will be requested quite judiciously and each and every one will come before the committee for approval.

Senator SALTONSTALL. I am very sympathetic to your problem and I can understand it. I just question the advisability of putting it in your general housing bill.

Mr. REED. Yes, sir. We recognize that.

Senator YOUNG Of Ohio. Will the Senator yield to me?
Senator SALTONSTALL. Yes.

Senator YOUNG of Ohio. It happens that I have visited MacDill Air Force Base in Florida. The situation of the commandant may be pitiful, as you suggest, so that he should have a hundred thousand dollar home, but it happens I was a guest in a very lovely home there of either his deputy or one of his assistants, a very fine officer whose name slips me at the moment, and it seemed to me that his home was very ample and in fact luxurious. I am not impressed by your statement about what other people do in the Washington area and down in Norfolk. I am not impressed at all at what the English do. Some of these foreign nations with our money purchase very extravagant homes. However, regarding the commandant of MacDill Air Force Base or any Air Force base, probably the need is not as great for a four-bedroom home for a senior officer who doesn't have teenagers than it is for some field grade officers who need the additional bedrooms for the more children he has.

Now, I take a very dim view of—and if I am present on the floor of the Senate, I probably would offer an amendment myself I take a very dim view of setting an example of a hundred thousand dollars for a home of a commander at any of our bases. I don't see the need for it.

By the way, in this connection, you have what is called a political officer down there. He is very well housed. I recall distinctly I was shocked that we had at our certain bases political officers. I think it was a very stupid name to be given by some officer in the State Department. He could have been termed diplomatic consultant or foreign affairs officer or foreign affairs consultant but there is too much similarity between political commissar of the Soviet Army and political officer in our Army having ministerial rank. While I was much impressed by the MacDill base, I had a very poor first impression as I didn't realize that we had those political officers. I hope someone in the Defense Department will have sense enough to try to have that name changed to diplomatic consultant or something of that

sort.

Mr. REED. I will refer your query to the proper people. Senator YOUNG of Ohio. I want to emphasize the fact that I am not impressed by a hundred thousand dollar home for senior officers. The need is greater for housing for say, some field grade officers who may have a flock of children and have need for a four-bedroom home, more acute need than some senior officer whose youngsters come home from college or bring their grandchildren with them on holidays, and so forth. I think that is an extravagance that in this grim period we should not go for.

Mr. REED. Senator, I wonder if it would help, sir, if I made clear that the basic need for these is not to make sure that four-star generals are happier. The basic need is to provide them the entertaining areas, living room, pantry, kitchen, so that they can fulfill the responsibilities that are placed upon them.

For example, General Adams down at MacDill does have a comfortable home and I am sure that he and Mrs. Adams are most happy there but he is unable to entertain a whole variety of people who come before him. He must do any sort of large entertaining in the officers' club down there.

Now, often this is not desirable. Private entertaining is better than public on some occasions. All we are asking for in this proposal is a 3,500-square-foot unit. The dining room, for example, would only seat 20 people. The living room would be capable of holding a buffet luncheon for about 75 people.

Believe me, sir, these are not ostentatious and they are not for the advantage of the individual.

Senator YOUNG of Ohio. Don't you think, sir, that the factor of having large and expensive quarters for entertainment purposes should perhaps wait for a happier period of time than at the present time when our soldiers are being killed in Asia and in the Carribbean. It seems to me it is an inopportune time to come before the Congress and ask for a hundred thousand dollar home largely to give the commanding officers of these posts more space downstairs for entertainment purposes.

That is all I have.

Senator STENNIS. Thank you very much. We will return now to Senator Saltonstall who had not finished his questions.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a number of questions, Mr. Reed, but I don't want to take too much time. Senator STENNIS. That is all right.

Senator SALTONSTALL. You mentioned at the bottom of page 5 of relocating 200 units of relocatable housing from Glasgow Air Base in Montana. Now, we know that there are going to be a number of closures and consolidations. I think Mr. McNamara said he had already made over 600 changes. Are there any other airfields that are going to be given up where you have housing that is available to be moved? Have you looked into that?

Mr. REED. We have looked into that, sir, and I do not believe that there are any bases under study where there is relocatable housing. Senator SALTONSTALL. In other words, as of today, the only place you know is in Glasgow, Mont.

Mr. REED. Yes, sir; its closure was announced in November 1964. Senator SALTONSTALL. Yes. How much is it going to cost? You estimate the cost of relocating at $1.5 million.

Mr. REED. Yes, sir; and the language is designed to have us come back to the committee to inform you before we execute on both locations and cost.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Well, that is splendid if you can do that. If you can relocate 200 houses for a million and a half, isn't that very good?

Mr. REED. We hope it is, yes, sir.
Senator STENNIS. How much is that.

Mr. REED. That would be about $7,500 a unit.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Now, on page 9 you mentioned that you seek authority to enter into 7,500 leases with the option of a multiple-unit basis or single basis rather than the $5,000 limitation on an individual basis which currently exists. Why isn't that an excellent thing to do? Why shouldn't we do that?

Mr. REED. We believe it is and it would be economically advantageous and would express that view to you.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Why was it limited to a single unit before, do you know?

Mr. Reed. I have never been able to find out. We requested that authority previously and it was denied to us.

Senator SALTONSTALL. And we have never given it to you.
Mr. REED. No, sir.

Senator SALTONSTALL. I am curious to know what the argument against it is. It would seem to me that would be an argument all in favor.

Mr. REED. We would think, sir, that it would be a natural, so to speak, because you can get better prices by that method.

Senator SALTONSTALL. And you need legislative authority to do that?

Mr. REED. Yes, sir; we do.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Is it in your present bill?

Mr. REED. Yes, sir; it is.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Now, Mr. Chairman, on improvements, what is your total inventory of adequate housing?

Mr. REED. Our total inventory at the moment is 338,000 adequate units.

Senator SALTONSTALL. 338,000?

Mr. REED. Yes, sir.

Senator SALTONSTALL. All right. Now, isn't the amount that you have mentioned on page 5-$18,200,000-isn't that a small amount for improvements?

Mr. REED. We think, sir, that it is adequate because of the way the inventory is distributed agewise. Its basic purpose, sir, is for modernization, perhaps add on an extra bath.

Senator SALTONSTALL. These are capital improvements rather than the maintenance.

Mr. Reed. That is right.

Senator SaltONSTALL. And to offset depreciation and obsolescence. Mr. Reed. That is correct, sir.

Senator Saltonstall. So that these are fundamental, to provide another bedroom or another bathroom or something of that character. Mr. REED. And to extend the useful life of a good many of the units within the inventory.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Does this include new roofs and new ceiling? Mr. REED. New roofs would be maintenance and that would be in the O. & M. segment but, for example, a lot of our houses are perhaps 40 years old and they have very low amperage coming in, and as you know, with modern applicances, most new houses need a heavier electrical system.

Senator SALTONSTALL. In your opinion is $18 million enough money for that?

Mr. REED. Yes, sir. We feel that it is.

Senator SALTONSTALL. My own feeling, Mr. Chairman, is that that could be studied to see whether it really is enough. Now, we had a long discussion last year and the year before about trailer court spaces.

On page 5 you mention authorization for 600 trailer court spaces, 200 for the Navy and 400 for the Air Force. Has that been a successful program?