list I have here that we will not start during this fiscal year, but not necessarily because they were of low priority. There are some for which we had engineering problems. I cite as an example the submarine pier at San Diego. We will not be able to start it by June 30 because of engineering problems. Mr. SIKES. Does it go over into the fiscal 1962 program? Commander BARTLETT. No, sir; it will not be funded in the fiscal year 1962 program. Mr. SIKES. Then there are more than engineering problems that caused you to decide to defer the project. Engineering problems would not be continuing problems, would they? Commander BARTLETT. In this particular case, the engineering problem has not been solved. Admiral PELTIER. We cannot get apportionment until we solve that. Mr. SIKES. I may not be making my questions clear. I am trying to determine how much money you asked for in fiscal 1961 against what authorization, what your list of projects was that you brought to us had you had the money and what the cost of your authorized program would have been? Commander BARTLETT. $163 million was the amount of the funded list for fiscal year 1961. Mr. SIKES. How many dollars did you have with which to build that list? Commander BARTLETT. Virtually $163 million. There was a few hundred thousand dollars Mr. LAIRD. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. SIKES. I would like to have a table prepared for the record which will show the origin of each project that is found in the $49 million of unfunded but authorized line items. Will you prepare such a table and submit it for the record, and in each instance will you explain the actual status of the project, when it was authorized and why it is in its present category. Commander BARTLETT. I have the list here and will put it in the form you desire, sir. (The information requested will be found on p. 17.) Mr. SIKES. For the present year, what do you anticipate will be the situation? What is your total fiscal year 1962 authorization? Admiral JOHNSON. For the new authorization, $126,867,000. Mr. SIKES. For fiscal 1962 authorization? Admiral JOHNSON. Yes, sir. Mr. SIKES. How much for prior year authorization? Mr. SIKES. This year you anticipate a carryover of approximately $71 million. You say that part of the carryover will be used to start certain fiscal year 1961 projects which have experienced delays that will prevent their being awarded before July 1, 1961. Does that have any relation to the $49 million in unfunded items which we discussed before? Admiral PELTIER. No, sir. They are different. These are funded, Mr. Sikes. Mr. SIKES. Do I understand, Mr. Chairman, we are going to discuss reprograming in detail later? Mr. SHEPPARD. Yes, sir; that comes in the closing part of the hear ing, as such. I much prefer it be confined to that period. USE OF PRIVATE SHIPYARDS FOR NAVAL SHIPBUILDING AND REPAIR PROGRAM Mr. SIKES. All right. In Admiral Johnson's statement you say that in this year's money request there are items for shipyard facilities totaling $24,830,000. We have received a great deal of information recently from private shipyard owners protesting work in the Government shipyards on the basis that private yards need the work and can do it cheaper. I am one of those who has favored the continuation of the Government's ability to do these essential operations, but here we have a request for $25 million of new construction. Is that a logical thing for us to do when there are private shipyards available that can do the work more cheaply than the Government? Is it logical for us to spend nearly $25 million in improving Government shipyard facilities? Admiral JOHNSON. Mr. Sikes, these are additions to a very expensive shipvard complex, as you know, for a special reason, primarily for the POLARIS submarine capability. Mr. SIKES. I realize the Navy considers it important, but is it essential that we do this in view of the fact the private yards say they need money and can do this work much cheaper than you? Admiral JOHNSON. We have Captain Carroll here from the Bureau of Ships. Mr. SHEPPARD. Captain, will vou respond to the question, please? Captain CARROLL. Yes, sir. The projects in this year's program, as Admiral Johnson started to explain, are largely for new requirements developing out of new type ships. Mr. SIKES. The point is this: Why is there a requirement that the Government make this expenditure if private yards can do the work and can do it at less cost? Admiral SYLVESTER. I will answer it for the record from the point of view of the Chief of Naval Operations. It is our belief that it is essential for the Navy to have facilities both within the Navy and within private industry to carry on our necessary building of ships, aircraft, and the repair of ships and aircraft. In the present case we are building up certain of our naval shipyards for the purpose of conducting the repairs of the POLARIS svstem SSBN's, at the same time recognizing that a certain amount of this work can be done and undoubtedly will be done by the private shipyards which have been involved in the construction of these ships. However, it is our belief that for many years to come there will not be general knowledge throughout the shipbuilding industry of these complicated and highly technical ships so that we can have the work done at any shipvard. The Bureau of Ships-I am certain this can be substantiated by Admiral James-says that we do plan to have this work done both within the Navy and outside the Navy. But the greater part of the highly complicated systems in warships we consider should properly and necessarily be done in naval shipyards. Mr. SIKES Is this a capability that does not exist in private shipyards? Admiral SYLVESTER. It exists only in a very few private shipyards, sir, the shipyards which have built the SSBN's for the POLARIS program. Mr. SIKES. Have the private shipyards indicated a willingness to spend this same money to place their own facilities in readiness to do the work required? Admiral SYLVESTER. I am unable to answer that. I will endeavor to supply it for the record, sir. (The information follows:) In those private shipyards having new construction work, there have been facilities provided both by the Government and industry. It is reasonable to expect that industry would again desire Government backing to some degree. The Government, as the customer, will pay the cost in one form or another anyway. Mr. SIKES Then in substance, regardless of whether or not the private shipyards have the capability or are willing to provide the capability, it is your belief as a matter of policy that the Navy should retain this capability and that this situation justifies the expenditure requested. Admiral SYLVESTER. Yes sir; I firmly believe the situation does justify the expenditure of these funds. Mr. SIKES. Is this a one-shot expenditure? Does the $25 million put the Navy in position to do all of the work you anticipate you will be called upon to do in these new categories? Admiral SYLVESTER. It is an incremental program, sir. I believe that this year will carry the bulk of the facilities required for theMr. SIKES. Is this already in progress or is it a new start? Admiral SYLVESTER. Part of this work is in progress, sir. I think as we take up the individual items, we will see that certain parts have been started. Mr. SIKES. Does this give the Government the capability to handle all repair work on POLARIS and other special-type submarines or ships? Admiral SYLVESTER. Yes, sir. Part of this work, for example, is for nuclear ship overhaul facilities at Norfolk, which would be used for the nuclear ship, the Enterprise. Mr. SIKES. Is there an existing capability in private yards for that work? Admiral SYLVESTER. Only at Newport News where the ships are being built, sir. Mr. SIKES. Will there be other work required of that facility at Newport News? Admiral SYLVESTER. Very likely, sir. I would personally consider it rather dangerous to rely on only one facility within the United States for the overhaul of such a ship. REVIEW OF MILITARY CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS Mr. SIKES. Have you screened the remaining $181 million or so in requirements in order to determine whether there are existing facilities where the same need can be met without this expenditure? Admiral SYLVESTER. Mr. Sikes, we consider that we have screened these quite carefully throughout the successive reviews. I believe in justifying each of the projects we have endeavored to the best of our ability to find out if there were any other facilities within the United States that could do the work economically. Mr. SIKES. Have any appropriation requests been eliminated because you did in fact find you could do the work elsewhere at an existing facility in a satisfatcory way? Admiral SYLVESTER. I can recall offhand, sir, of one facility which was at least delayed for that reason within the Department of Defense review. Mr. SIKES. Delay does not mean very much. It may be presented next month. Admiral SYLVESTER. No, sir; it would be at least until another year to determine if the Air Force had comparable facilities. Mr. SIKES. I would like for you to research your answer and advise us if you can come up with any examples where there was an outright cancellation as the result of decision to use existing facilities. Admiral SYLVESTER. Yes, sir. (The information follows:) It is the policy of the Chief of Naval Operations to screen new requirements for facilities against facilities already existing with the aim of fulfilling specific requirements through the use of new construction as a last resort only. This policy is implemented in the Navy's shore facilities planning system. Some examples of fulfilling new requirements by modification of existing facilities rather than starting from the ground up are as follows: 1. The plan for establishing a west coast guided missile and tactical data system school in the existing buildings of the ex-Naval Hospital, Mare Island. 2. Construction of the POLARIS missile support facility in Charleston, S.C., using existing magazines of the old Army ordnance facility. 3. Modifying existing facilities of the former Naval Auxiliary Air Station. Corry Field, Fla., for the siting of a communications training center at a cost of $1 million rather than fulfilling this requirement at Imperial Beach, Calif., at an estimated cost of $14 million. 4. Utilization of the former Air Force base at Yuma, Ariz., and disestablishing the former Marine Corps Auxiliary Air Station, Mojave, Calif. A requirement for $55 million in development costs at Mojave was eliminated as opposed to a $11 million development program at Yuma. 5. By taking over the former Air Force base at Futema, Okinawa, the Navy was able to develop a Marine Corps air facility at a savings of approximately $12 million as opposed to new construction or development of other sites. 6. New construction requirements for the Naval Station, Washington, were reduced from $25.7 million to $12.6 million by making maximum use of existing facilities. For example, the School of Music will be relocated to Little Creek, Va., where existing barracks space will obviate the requirement for constructing new barracks. The Naval Aviation Engineering Services Unit will be relocated to existing facilities at Naval Air Material Center, Philadelphia, as will several additional Bureau of Naval Weapons units. The naval intelligence school will be located in an existing building at the naval weapons plant in lieu of constructing a new school building. 7. The Navy requirement for acquiring land and constructing a target at Baywood, Fla., at a cost of $400,000 was eliminated by acquiring the excess Townsend target in Georgia from the Air Force. Preparation costs are reduced to $100,000. Acquisition of the Baywood target was in the 1961 program. but was not resubmitted in 1962 pending settlement of airspace difficulties. The Townsend target now removes the requirement for Baywood. Mr. SIKES. DO I understand we are going into that field much more thoroughly? Mr. SHEPPARD. Secretary Morris is being called for policy discussion of subject matter of that type. Mr. SIKES. May I ask whether this list has been screened against the master list which I understand is being developed for cancellation within the next year or two? It would be somewhat awkward for you and for us if we financed these projects to find them on the list of those that are to be canceled when I understand there will be additional closures of bases within the next year or two. Admiral SYLVESTER. That is correct, sir. We have screened it against such information as we now have available. Mr. SIKES. The list has not been prepared, has it? Admiral SYLVESTER. It has not been completely prepared. Mr. SIKES. How can you screen this requirement against a list which does not exist? Admiral SYLVESTER. We know the items which the task force considers somewhat soft or at least have been reportedly considered by some activity within the Government as being soft. Mr. SIKES. You are not proposing to add to soft installations? Admiral SYLVESTER. We are not proposing to add to soft installations. Mr. SHEPPARD. Will the gentleman yield at that point? Mr. SIKES. Yes, sir. Mr. SHEPPARD. Is it not a fact that when these lists are eventually determined by DOD that in the transition within the Navy itself you do your screening out? Admiral SYLVESTER. Yes, sir. Mr. SHEPPARD. And then, of course, it is subject to revision by DOD, but you do have the first cutout, in other words? Admiral SYLVESTER. Yes, sir. Mr. SHEPPARD. So you should be in a position, based upon that premise of function, to have in your mind at the present time the hazardous expenditure of money that you are requesting; is that right? Admiral SYLVESTER. Yes, sir. Mr. REED. May I volunteer something that might help along that line? Mr. SHEPPARD. Yes, sir. Mr. REED. We are talking about project 71, of course. In the procedures we are supplying basic information to the Secretary of Defense. He will then come back to each Department Secretary with recommendations, so they will be working hand in glove with the military departments. As Admiral Sylvester pointed out, our efforts here are hard core. Of course, we feel that project 71 results will be marginal as against hard core activities, but each Department Secretary will have a very dominant role in the final compilation of the list. Mr. SHEPPARD. Then as an ultimate response to my colleague from Florida, these have been through that process and there are no marginal requests involved in this year's budget, is that correct? Mr. REED. That is correct. Mr. JONAS. Will you yield there? Mr. SHEPPARD. The gentleman now has the witness. Mr. JONAS. That is all well and good, and is helpful to the subcommittee, but before we fund substantial construction at any naval base, I think we ought to have assurances from somebody in the Office of |