The projects proposed are necessary to support the assigned missions of the Army, particularly its worldwide tactical responsibilities, and are in accordance with directives from the Secretary of Defense.

In order that the program approach this objective, yet be confined to essentialities, all planning was subject to satisfying specific criteria established by the Secretary of Defense. These criteria are:

1. Operational requirements to support new or expanded missions for national defense.

2. Operational requirements for continuing missions, if existing facilities are inadequate.

3. Supporting facilities necessary to augment the aforementioned operational requirements, and

4. Critical mobilization requirements which by their nature, require a long construction lead time.

In satisfying the foregoing criteria, each project had to measure to limiting guidance. These guidelines are:

1. Approval of facilities to replace existing facilities was limited to replacement of items that cannot be used for mission requirements or which constitute hazards to health and safety. It was emphasized that maximum practicable utilization must be made of existing facilities, in order that their full usable life could be obtained without excessive maintenance.

2. All improvement type facilities would be deferred unless actually necessary to carry out assigned missions.

Planning for each project, except for certain developmental projects of highest priority, was initiated at installation level, carefully screened through the chain of command, and reviewed by the Office, Chief of Engineers for accuracy of cost estimates, compliance with space criteria established by Army regulations, and checked against installation master plans, which in effect are the controlling factor over orderly and efficient project location. Master planning envisions long-range construction requirements and precludes erratic or poorly planned siting of facilities.

The proposed program, having progressed to this stage, was then rescreened at the Army departmental level, to ascertain priority and proper relationship of each project to all the Army's programs, and the aforementioned guidelines were applied against each specific project to assure that the proposed construction fulfilled governing criteria.

The program was then subjected to a final review by representatives of the Department of Defense and the Bureau of the Budget under strict interpretation of the guideline criteria.

I would now like to touch briefly on the major categories of our $305,670,000 authorization request, and broadly outline the manner in which we propose to allocate this work.

Foremost of these categories and in consonance with the Army's role in guided missile, ballisic missile and rocket developments, is a total of $36,600,000, or 12 percent of our program, which includes $25 million for facilities urgently required for the development of the intermediate range ballistics missile program.

The balance of $11,600,000 of this category is for facilities in support of other missile activities including development at Redstone Arsenal, Ala., and training at Fort Bliss, Tex., and Fort Sill, Okla. I con

sider this work of utmost importance as a mandatory requirement essential to the Army's mission.

Secondly, but of parallel import, are tactical facilities for which we have proposed construction worldwide in the amount of $136,900,000. The items generally include expansion and improvement of the Nike defense facilities in the continental United States and overseas, a limited increment of gun site requirements for the Regular Army and National Guard, the initial phase of antiaircraft fire-control centers, and the first increment of dualing which will increase the density of the defense in continental United States.

In addition, it is proposed to construct field maintenance shops in logistic support of our continental United States Nike sites in the amount of $8,500,000. These tactical and support facilities aggregate 47.6 percent of our total authorization request and are of vital importance to the Army's responsibility in defense of our cities, industrial areas and air bases.

Next is the sum of $22,500,000, representing 7.4 percent of the total, for the provision of an increment of permanent troop housing to replace substandard structures or meet in part existing deficiencies.

Also included are community support items and other related construction essential to an installation for housing areas deficient in ancilliary type facilities. I wish to emphasize the paramount importance of this phase of our program in its direct connection with career incentive and retention of personnel.

Paralleling the troop housing aspect is that of family housing for which we have proposed, by comparison to the overall requirement, the minimum of $4,100,000 or 1.3 percent for 100 units at Fort Lewis, Wash., and 96 units at Schofield Barracks, T. H., in light of the possibility that family housing can be, to a major degree, successfully provided under the Capehart Act-Public Law 345, 84th Congress. In this connection, the Army is proceeding aggressively to meet its family housing requirements at locations where the Capehart Act appears feasible.

I might say in connection with Fort Lewis, Wash.-I have just returned from there. I was there last Sunday. There is a provision at Fort Lewis. The land there was transferred to the United States Government as a gift from the county in which the fort is located and there is a restrictive covenant in the deed which transferred the property that can be used only for military purposes, or reverts then to the county, so there is a question there as to whether Capehart housing could be erected, and for that reason, this is a suggestion that we have regular appropriation housing rather than Capehart.

At Schofield Barracks, because of the high cost of construction, it was felt that it should be by direct appropriation.

The CHAIRMAN. In your statement you say $20,500,000 represents 4 percent of the total appropriation, which is for troop houses. Is this Capehart 1.3 percent in addition to the 7.4 percent?

Mr. DAVIS. It is.

The CHAIRMAN. Then for accounting purposes, it would make 8 percent, then, of the total.

Mr. KELLEHER. The first part are barracks, Mr. Chairman, you understand, and the other is family housing.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right. Permanent troop housing. This balance is 7 percent and for Capehart houses, 1.3 percent.

Mr. KELLEHER. Actually, the 1.3 percent is direct appropriation housing.

The CHAIRMAN. 1.3 percent is direct appropriations?

Mr. KELLEHER. Yes, sir, at two installations. Fort Lewis, and Schofield Barracks, Hawaii.

Mr. JOHNSON. I was at Hawaii last fall. My wife and I were out there. It looked to me like there were a lot of nice houses at Schofield Barracks. Why do they need more? Is the personnel load climbing? Mr. DAVIS. I will ask General Barney to give you the exact information, if you have it.

General BARNEY. We have a requirement for that housing, Congressman. I don't recall what the load was a year ago but it is a large one now. It is a division less one RCT.

Mr. JOHNSON. The division is still there?

General BARNEY. That is right, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. They came in while we were there.

General BARNEY. Yes, sir.

We are able to demonstrate mathematically the genuine need for this housing, sir.

Mr. DAVIS. We will get into that later.

General BARNEY. We can give it to you now if you wish.

Mr. DEVEREUX. Mr. Secretary, will you explain your reasoning, why you think we should build houses at Fort Lewis, Wash., under appropriated funds rather than the Capehart? I am not getting into the merits of Capehart, or appropriated funds.

Mr. DAVIS. It is the opinion of the Judge Advocate, to date, that we cannot build under the Capehart Act, on the Fort Lewis reservation because of the restrictions and the covenant in the deed by which the land was transferred to the Government and that it was to be used only for military purposes.

I was out there on Sunday. I have asked them to review that both as far as the Judge Advocate is concerned and the Attorney General, as well as the local people there.

Their proposal at Sixth Army last fall was that they present it for a vote of the county and have the county, if it were carried successfully, remove that restriction from the deed. However, the people out there felt it was inadvisable to do it in that manner and that the local government didn't want to put it up that way.

There is a restrictive covenant which, at first blush, makes it look like it would not be proper to build Capehart housing and mortgage any of the improvements on the land because of the restrictive covenants in the deed.

Mr. DEVEREUX. It still gets back to the fact that that will be for military use.

Mr. DAVIS. That is what we are asking them to review. Whether or not the mortgage people will guarantee over that restrictive covenant is a matter that hasn't been decided.

The CHAIRMAN. It reverts back and is not a clear title and therefore the company would not accept the mortgage with that covenant in the deed. It is the limitation of the deed which restricts you, from using the Capehart house.

Mr. DAVIS. That is right. It is not in fee simple.

Mr. BATES. There was a tremendous housing development at Fort Lewis last fall when we were there.

Now, are you going to put these new houses in an area contiguous with those that are standing?

Mr. DAVIS. We will give that to you in detail later. If you want it now we will give it to you.

The CHAIRMAN. I suggest we get that later when you finish your general statement.

You are on page 5, second paragraph.

Mr. DAVIS. I will continue.

The program also includes a requirement of $14,400,000 or 4.7 percent for Army aviation training and support facilities. Of this amount, $6,700,000 is for the Army Aviation Center at Fort Rucker, Ala. Prior to March 1955, Army aviation training was conducted at Fort Sill, Okla. Expansion at Fort Sill of artillery and guided missile training as well as aviation training, necesitated the establishment of a separate Army aviation center.

Also included is $3,400,000 for facilities in support of the depot maintenance program for Army aviation. These facilities are generally maintenance hangars, runways, taxiways and hardstands at Fort Worth, New Cumberland, Atlanta, and Sharpe General Depots. The requirements result from the transfer of the depot support mission from the Air Force to the Army as recently approved by the Secretary of Defense.

The maintenance and supply support comprises receipt, stockage and issue of aircraft repair parts, and maintenance of aircraft through fourth echelon level only.

For Army overseas construction, exclusive of overseas tactical facilities, we are proposing a total of $48,300,000 or 15.9 percent. Of this amount, $8,700,000 is proposed for Okinawa, which includes the development of complete weapons and munitions storage facilities for theater backup. A total of $11,600,000 is proposed for continuing construction in Germany.

This construction is primarily of an operational nature and supports strategic missions assigned to our forces in this area. Construction requirements in Germany, through fiscal year 1956, were met through the deutsche mark program. The restoration of sovereignty to Germany eliminated further deutchemark construction, other than that already obligated on May 5, 1955.

The deutschemark contribution, continuing through May of 1956, provides only sufficient funds for essential operations. Continued construction in the United Kingdom is also proposed, in the amount of $3,800,000. This construction, like that in Germany, is primarily of an operational nature in support of our strategic mission.

The redeployment of our forces from Austria to Italy has generated a requirement of $4,700,000 for additional construction in this area. Urgent initial construction requirements are being achieved by reprograming fiscal year 1952 MCA authorization from Austria.

The request of $1,700,000 new authorization will complete the present known requirement for this force, except for family housing which will be met under the provisions of the Surplus Commodity Act, Public Law 480, 83d Congress, as amended by section 507, Public Law 161, 84th Congress.

The balance of the overseas request is for continuing construction in Alaska in the amount of $7,200,000; in the Pacific, $2,900,000; and in the Caribbean, $1 million, together with $8,300,000 for communi

cations facilities, and communications support facilities, at various overseas locations.

The remaining $34,900,000, or 11.1 percent of the total program, includes $4,200,000 for a nuclear powerplant planned in an area to permit studies of nuclear power at a cold region site, together with $30,700,000 which will provide for other essential construction of facilities in the fields of research and development, training, medical, and communications required to fulfill the Army's missions.

Members of the Army staff who appear before the committee are prepared to furnish all the detailed information you desire with respect to title I of this bill. We appreciate the opportunity to present our program and assure you of fullest cooperation in answering your questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

You are asking for $305,670,000 authorization.

Now, as I figured it out, you break it down to 47 percent which will be applicable to guided missiles.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Seven percent of the money is for troop housing, is that correct?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. 1.3 percent is for direct appropriation for houses for families of personnel.

Four percent on aviation training. Fifteen percent for overseas construction of various kinds.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That makes around seventy-some-odd percent. Your statement deals specifically with that percentage which I have put in the record.

Thank you very much. Are there any questions?

Mr. SHORT. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a great deal of criticism lately about our failure to promote the guided missile program. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, from the breakdown given us by the Secretary this morning, that almost half of the total sum they are asking for is going to be devoted to the improvement, research and production of guided missiles and it would appear some of the criticism in the press is unjustified. I think you are to be congratulated in giving 47 percent to the development of this very important aspect of the Army program.

I know there is nothing in here for Fort Leonard Wood out in Missouri. Now, that is a large camp with vast acreage and with tremendous Government investment.

As I understand, under the new reserve bill, the men we take in for 6 months' training are to be trained at Fort Leonard Wood.

Mr. DAVIS. I think that is right, Congressman Short. I flew over Fort Leonard Wood day before yesterday. I have been stationed there and I have three tours of duty there. I am quite familiar with it. We are making a survey of Leonard Wood, in addition to other specific installations, and that report should be ready, I think, about the middle of April. That is a staff study that is being made.

Mr. SHORT. That is very fine. I want to congratulate you on your interest in Fort Leonard Wood. I think every commander down there General Sturgis, the Chief of Engineers and the present commandant. Major General Bowman, know it is an ideal place for train