these programs are of a classified nature. I have prepared such information and can supply it in executive session if the Committee so desires. I think it is an interesting story and one that I should have the opportunity of giving you. The CHAIRMAN. We will go into executive session and give you that privilege. Mr. FLOETE. All right, sir. The transition from propeller-driven to jet-propelled airplanes has created severe land problems. The high speed, the increased noise and the damage possibilities require additional acquisitions. Furthermore, the training of the jet pilots for gunnery practice has resulted in increased requirements. The details of these problems will be discussed by the service representatives as well as the various methods of acquisition such as fee purchases, easements and use of the public domain and ocean areas. We have been and are currently engaged in a systematic review of criteria and standards for facilities for the reserve components of the Armed Forces. Space criteria for single and multiple unit armories for the Army National Guard were established during the summer of 1955, geared to the functional requirements and personnel strengths of the units they are designed to serve. Current space criteria for Army Reserve training centers are being revised by the Army to reflect changes in the concept of warfare and technological advances in military materiel which affect training space requirements. Criteria for Naval and Marine Corps flying and nonflying Reserve facilities are based generally on requirements for comparable functions in the regular establishment. Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard facilities criteria are being revised to achieve optimum uniformity based on the essentially similar missions and operational concepts of these two components. With regard to the programing of facilities for the Reserve components, the National Defense Facilities Act of 1950-Public Law 783, 81st Congress-was amended by the First Session of the 84th Congress-Public Law 302-including an increase in the total authorization of such facilities to $500 million for the period to June 30, 1958. Amounts appropriated through fiscal year 1956 are summarized as follows: Army (including $32 million for fiscal year 1956) Million $136 74 128 338 Total appropriations (including $109 million for fiscal year 1956) Therefore, the remainder of the $500 million authorization is now $162 million. Within this residual authorization the following amounts are proposed for fiscal year 1957 for Reserve forces facilities: Army Air Force Reserve. Air National Guard.. Total Million $40 17 62 29 148 A summary of the Reserve forces facilities provided from construction funds since 1947 is as follows: Chart A shows the distribution by States. A detailed list containing exact locations is available to the committee. In addition to that we have prepared and would like to submit to Mr. Kelleher a detailed breakdown by location and by towns and what the location of the facility is. The CHAIRMAN. Put that in the record. (The documents referred to follow :) CHART A National Guard and reserve faciilties, by State, acquired or built since world The number of acres and cost authorized for land in military public works bills for fiscal years 1954, 1955, 1956, and requested for 1957 are as follows: 1 This acreage figure includes 543,752 acres of public domain and 285,599 acres of national park lands. 2 Includes cost of outstanding interests in 3,300,261 acres of public domain. The following table sets forth the acres and costs for lands actually acquired in fiscal years 1954, 1955, and the first quarter of 1956. Possession obtained has been considered as "acquired," since the final opinion of the Attorney General may not be issued until a later date. The CHAIRMAN. This bill authorized authorization to acquire more than twice as much land as was authorized in the bill last year. Last year, we authorized the acquisition of 331,000 acres at a cost of $80 million. This year, the land to be acquired totals 794,000 acres at a cost of $73 million. The Army is requesting authority to acquire approximately 28,000 acres at a cost of $1,200,000. The Air Force has plans for 53,000 acres at a cost of $24,600,000. The largest acquisition both from the standpoint of acreage and money is that proposed by the Navy. The Navy would acquire 713,000 acres at a cost of over $47 million. Most of the Navy's land program involves only five installations. For example, almost 300,000 acres of privately owned land are proposed for acquisition at the Naval Auxiliary Air Station, Fallon, Nev. At the Marine Corps training center, Twentynine Palms, Calif., almost 153,000 acres would be acquired. The third largest acquisition, some 130,000 acres, is in connection with a classified item which cannot be discussed in open session. At Jacksonville, Fla., about 32,000 acres is to be acquired and approximately the same acreage at Lemoore, Calif., this latter being a new installation. There are several other acquisitions ranging from 2,500 to almost 10,000 acres at various other existing and new stations. Mr. RIVERS. I notice in 1954 you had for the Army 715,000. Was that primarily that land we approved for Alamogordo, N. Mex., for the Nike training crew. Mr. FLOETE. I could not answer. I can find out. I do not know. The CHAIRMAN. We can get that. Now, pick up at your next heading, "Sales." Mr. FLOETE. Before you leave that subject, Mr. Chairman, a large part of the Navy requirement is for public domain. That is what runs it up so high. It is largely at Twentynine Palms, Calif. There is one other item at Lemoore, which is also in California, which is a new master jet station that the Navy proposes to build, and we have been trying to find some existing closed Army installations that could be used in lieu of that. Mr. Ewing, my deputy, went out there last week and spent 3 days there, and we are particularly looking at Camp Cook, which is just north of Santa Barbara and is a fine camp, but it is purely a mobilization camp. There are four closed camps between Santa Barabara and Monterey, and it does seem to me there is some way we ought to be able to utilize one of those, and Camp Cook seems to fill the bill. We are trying to work it out with the Army and the Navy right now. The CHAIRMAN. We are trying to develop that same line of thought and when we get to that item, we will try to see if we cannot use some existing facility to take the place of establishing this new base at Lemoore, Calif. Mr. DURHAM. What is the total acreage, Mr. Secretary, in those four closed installations? Mr. FLOETE. There is 85,000 acres in Camp Cook. There is about 50,000 acres at Camp Roberts-I was there at Christmastime. There is about 150,000 in Hunter Liggett, that is owned in fee, and about another 100,000 acres that we occupy under permit from--I think it is the Forestry Service, but it might be Interior. The CHAIRMAN. I think, members of the committee, we will be able to make a case to justify the use of some Mr. DURHAM. Let him give the total acreage. He has not finished, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FLOETE. Well, that covers it, and then there is a smaller one of about 25,000 acres. Mr. DURHAM. You have over 300,000 acres in those closed camps? The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Floete, go ahead now with "Sales." In August 1955, Department of Defense directive was issued establishing policy as to the retention of real property by the military departments; establishing guidelines under which such property will be retained or reported excess; and initiating a review of all real property holdings within the military departments. Reports concerning inactive nonindustrial installations are due on February 27, 1956; reports on all industrial, all active nonindustrial, and all foreign installations are to be submitted by August 27, 1956. Thereafter similar reports are required each 2 years. The following excess declarations have been made to the General Services Administration: The guidelines which were incorporated in this directive, we worked on a long time. We worked in conjunction with the three military departments, and we believe they are sound and sensible directives. that will set good standards as to retention. Mr. DURHAM. Are those reports required by law, presently? Mr. FLOETE. No, sir. Mr. DURHAM. It is just by Executive order? Mr. FLOETE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Now, take up "Housing." Mr. FLOETE. Family Housing. Attached chart B is a set of tables showing the present family housing situation based on worldwide military strengths of 2,859,000. (The chart referred to follows:) CHART B ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, PROPERTIES AND INSTALLATIONS Family housing requirements, assets, and deficit for personnel in the armed ! Includes military personnel who receive quarters allowances under permanent legislation (officers and enlisted men in grades E-7, E-6, E-5, and E-4 with 7 or more years of service) and key civilians. Gross requirements are detailed in supplement A, attached. Includes all adequate housing (existing and under contract) under military ownership, under military sponsorship but privately owned (Wherry and rental guaranty), and privately or publicly owned in communities within reasonable commuting distance (usually 15 miles or 30 minutes). Detailed in supplement B, attached. 3 Includes all currently programed (not under contract) military-owned and military-sponsored housing, but excludes privately owned offbase housing scheduled for future development. Detailed in supplement C, attached. Includes enlisted men in grades E-1, E-2, E-3, and E-4, with less than 7 years of service who receive quarters allowances under temporary legislation. Detailed in supplement A, attached. For initial programing purposes for this category of personnel, estimate is based on 25 percent of gross requirements in continental United States only. This red iction allows for adequate private housing, as well as substantial safety factors to offset ineffective demand and lack of precise information. |