Mr. ANDREWS. Will that require 700 additional in the budget? General GEE. The ones that went from 1960 to 1962, approximately 700; yes, sir.

Mr. ANDREWS. That figure 700 was mentioned by the personnel people when they were in here.

General GEE. Yes, sir; however, this 700 rounded is the difference between 7,012 and 6,365.

Mr. ANDREWS. Gentlemen, we have a full committee meeting tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock so we cannot see you again until tomorrow afternoon at 2 o'clock.

FRIDAY, MARCH 3, 1961.

Mr. MAHON. We shall resume our hearing. I want to say that I am very grateful to the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Andrews, for running the committee for the past several days. I think he runs it very well. It has been helpful to me and to the committee to have him act as chairman.

COMMITTEE REPORT ON COSTS OF OPERATING FAMILY HOUSING

Yesterday, when the cost of operating family housing was being discussed, certain cost figures were read into the record from a report of our investigative staff. Without objection, the report will be inserted in the record at the point at which the interrogation began. (The information referred to appears on p. 136.)

Mr. MAHON. The report has been edited to some extent to comply with certain committee regulations.

General DUFF. Mr. Chairman, with regard to that particular item may I make a statement to clarify the record somewhat?

Mr. MAHON. Yes.

General DUFF. Sir, I think that the impression we left was that funds provided for the support of new public quarters is at the average of $761 per year. The $761 figure was derived from a Department of Defense study of a few installations. We are currently conducting extensive tests at four installations to determine what the specific costs are, sir, since our accounting system does not provide this information. This particular budget provides for support of the new family quarters on the basis, not of $761 per year but $600 per We consider that this provides maintenance below the desirable and economical level, sir, and commanders in many instances find it necessary to reprogram funds in order the provide an adequate amount. We are continuing to budget for the support of quarters at the average cost of $600 per year, which we believe is well below the weighted average of the cost by type of housing, as determined by the committee staff and to which you referred yesterday.

year.

I wanted to make this clarifying statement, sir, because I know the impression was given that we were budgeting in this particular appropriation request at the rate of $761 per year. This is not correct, sir, it is at $600 per year.

Mr. MAHON. Thank you, General.

U.S. ARMY SIGNAL AIR DEFENSE ENGINEERING AGENCY

What are the functions of the Signal Air Defense Engineering Agency shown at a cost of $1.1 million? I refer you to page 25. General DUFF. Sir, the commanding general of the Army Air Defense Command, which is located at Colorado Springs, is responsible for training and equipping combat ready Army Air Defense units and then providing them to the North American Air Defense commander under his operational control and for operational employment. These forces include certain Reserve components and are employed for the air defense of certain designated localities throughout the United States. By this I exclude the State of Alaska. There are such units employed in Hawaii but not in the State of Alaska.

However, there are units deployed in Alaska which are under the command of the North American Defense commander, but not under the Army Air Defense Command. In addition, the Army Air Defense Command functions by advising as to the optimum employment of U.S. Army Air Defense Command forces, keeping the commander in chief of the North American Air Defense Command informed of the tactical and logistical status of all Army Air Defense Command units, coordinating activities of the Department of the Army agencies in support of the Army Air Defense Command and implementing Army Air Defense Command responsibilities through regional and unit commanders. An agency of this command is the Army Signal Air Defense Engineering Agency. This Agency is responsible for the development, engineering, and maintenance of telecommunication and electronics communications and systems in support of the U.S. Army air defense system. This includes, sir, expenses that are primarily due to the installation of ground electronic equipment at 18 sites which will permit effective battle application of Army-provided missiles and local North American Air Defense direction and supervision of fire unit actions. This equipment is occasionally referred to as the battery integration and radar display equipment and it will be part of the semi-automatic ground environment system, the SAGE system, which is under the overall direction of the Air Defense commander, sir, and it will be deployed at sites at which you have more than one fire unit, at which there are at least two fire units in the larger of the air defenses. As you know, sir, for the 10 largest defenses, we have the Missile Master equipment, so this is for the larger defenses where we do not have the Missile Master equipment.

CONTRACTS WITH WESTERN ELECTRIC

Mr. FLOOD. To what extent, if any, and if so, how many hundreds of millions of dollars do we have with Western Electric contracts to do any part of this? I just cannot believe that Western Electric is going to let a round, fat, juicy plum like this long-haired hardware get away from its board of directors somehow.

General DUFF. Sir, I will ask Colonel Joslin from the Office of the Chief Signal Officer to respond to that question.

Colonel JOSLIN. I am not connected with the Army Signal Air Defense Engineering Agency you mentioned, but I will get that information for you.

(The information is as follows:)

CONTRACT FOR BATTERY INTEGRATION RADAR DISPLAY EQUIPMENT

Western Electric has no contracts for the production of the battery integration radar display equipment. Martin Co., Orlando, Fla., is the prime contractor. Mr. FLOOD. I thought you were going to say Western Electric. That is good. There is nobody here then who is going to try to answer that question. You see, what I am concerned about, I just heard about an IBM machine in another committee that I am on. These IBM machines are down in the Virgin Islands. We have just paid $150,000 rental for them. I find out that nobody in the Virgin Islands, of course, knows how to run an IBM machine. They do not know, yet. I wanted to know why they were paying $150,000 rental to IBM if nobody in the islands could run the silly hardware. I should not have asked that because they are not even out of the crates. Knowing Western Electric as we do on this subcommittee, from the North Pole down, and you know what I mean, I would like to know to what extent, if any, are they in this and if they are not in it, I am sorry I brought it up to their attention because they will be. General DUFF. I do not believe, sir, they are as far as the Army is concerned. I do know

Mr. MAHON. That is an adequate answer.

If you want to extend it for the record, you may do so.

How do these functions, that is, the functions of the Signal Air Defense Engineering Agency, relate to the air defense functions of the Air Force and to the Defense Communications Agency?

General DUFF. They are all tied in, sir, under the SAGE system and as far as the comparable Air Force air defense mission is concerned, it is performed by contract with the Western Electric Defense Engineering Service, a private company which performs the engineering function of the SAGE program and the Ground Equipment and Engineering Installation Agency, which is the procurement agency for the U.S. Air Force. These are the related Air Force supported activities, sir.

Mr. FLOOD. Are you going to put all of this stuff underground?

General DUFF. Sir, the hardened SAGE centers, if this is what you refer to, sir, those were disapproved as you know.

Mr. FLOOD. Haven't they been suddenly revived?
General DUFF. If they have, sir, I am not aware of it.
Mr. FLOOD. You are not aware of that?

General DUFF. I am not aware of that, sir.
Mr. FLOOD. What big ears you don't have.

FACILITIES MOBILIZATION PLANNING

Mr. MAHON. On page 207, under facilities mobilization planning, it is described as concerned with---

expansion plans for selected nonindustrial installations having a planned re quirement for new construction in the event of mobilization.

To what nonindustrial facilities does this refer, General?

General DUFF. Sir, this facilities mobilization planning includes preparation of site and topographic surveys and advance plans for the expansion of selected installations and the construction of new

installations necessary to support the requirements that are indicated in the stationing plan annex of the Department of the Army mobilization installation program. This activity is collateral to and it ties in very closely with the master planning function at the installation level. This planning does not include preparation of detailed plans or drawings but is an effort to complete the preliminary work such as topographic surveys, site location of the structures and utilities on master overlays, and the preparation of narrative descriptions of the new structures prior to mobilization.

Mr. FLOOD. I have before one of my Subcommittees on Commerce an agency in Commerce which is engaged in doing exactly this kind of thing, with existing industrial and commercial installations. this a duplication or what is it?

Is

General DuFF. No, sir. This is not duplication because this is for Army installations only, sir, and

Mr. FLOOD. Not the general industrial complex?

General DUFF. No, sir; for Army-owned or Army-supervised installations.

Mr. FLOOD. Are any of them under contract?

General DUFF. I do not believe it is by management contract, sir. Mr. MAHON. I do not believe you have answered my question. To what nonindustrial facilities does this refer?

Colonel TOLLIVER. These are posts, camps, and stations which must be enlarged considerably in the event of mobilization.

Mr. MAHON. Could you give me a possible example?

Colonel TOLLIVER. I can give you a hypothetical example of a station which currently houses 10,000 troops, which under mobilization would have a mission to house 50,000 or 100,000 troops. This money plans where the tent camp would be laid out, how they would get water to it, that sort of general planning so that in the event of mobilization we could proceed to expand that camp with minimum delay. Mr. MAHON. What is the planned duration of the mobilization period?

General DUFF. Sir, I do not believe that this is related to a specific planned duration. It is related rather to a certain sized force. In other words, the expansion of the Army to a certain augmented strength over the normal strength that is available to the Army at the present time.

Mr. MAHON. The estimated duration would have a significant bearing upon the nature of the construction, would it not?

General DUFF. This is correct, sir, and while I am not familiar with the details of this specific plan, I believe that it would relate to planning for alternative conditions, sir. Therefore, as far as any particular facility is concerned, there would be a number of alternatives. One could be for a conflict of relatively short duration and others for conflicts of more extended duration.

Mr. MINSHALL. If the chairman will yield, for how many plants do you have this projection?

General DUFF. I believe, sir, that this would relate to all of the installations that are under the jurisdiction of the Army-those installations that are currently listed as either being used by the Active Forces or being held as an asset against our mobilization requirement.

67438-61-pt. 2-12

Mr. MINSHALL. Do I understand you correctly, these plans are for plants that are not even in being?

General DUFF. No, sir. As was stated to the chairman, this is not generally related to our industrial facilities but rather to our posts, camps, and stations.

Mr. MAHON. Is this planning consistent with the mobilization planning of the Navy and of the Air Force?

General DUFF. I believe it is consistent with such plans, sir, because it is the Army-derived portion of jointly approved mobilization plans.

SUPPLY CONTROL STUDIES

Mr. MAHON. It has been said that the increase in 1961 in supply control studies, as shown on page 212, is based on a fiscal year 1961-62 logistics guidance, which required computations under new concepts for both general war and limited war. Can you describe these new concepts and how you are changing or relating your program to these concepts?

General DUFF. Sir, the basic logistics guidance under which all of our logistic programs in support of the fiscal year 1962 budget are based is the fiscal year 1961-62 logistics guidance issued by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Under this guidance there are certain cyclical supply control studies which increased in fiscal year 1961 and required changes in acquisition and retention levels of stocks. These changes in acquisition and retention levels of our supplies greatly increased the complexity of our computation and they required certain studies to be updated as a result. These studies, sir, set certain acquisition levels based upon a certain force, and support of this force in combat. In addition, in order to provide assets for mobilization requirements, certain higher levels are prescribed in some cases for items that we have on hand that are in excess of the acquisition level but should be retained as an asset against mobilization requirements.

The number of special supply control studies has also been increased as a result of this fiscal year 1961-62 logistic guidance.

Special studies outnumber the cyclical studies on a 4 to 1 basis because there are additional functions necessary for the management of supplies other than the performance of the control studies and they are accounted for under these special studies. A few of these additional functions, sir, are studies triggered off out of cycle, studies for the Army programing and planning, studies for both peacetime and mobilization, provisioning actions, supply control reviews, supply control comparisons, budgetary studies, FIA quarterly balances, and MAP studies.

There is no relationship, sir, maintained between the cyclical studies and the special studies in terms of dollars and manpower. The time consumed for each of the actions taken or completed varies from a few minutes to several days.

What I am trying to point out, sir, is the relationship between the 1.5 million now estimated as the required number of these control studies as compared with the original estimate of 1.2 million studies.