Summary of program objectives contained in title II (Navy)-Continued $43,740,000 for new and improved waterfront facilities necessary to support the Forrestal-type carriers, modified cruisers, Nautilus, and other new type submarines at continental and overseas bases, including $25.4 million for new drydock at Naval Shipyard, Puget Sound, Wash.; $7.8 million for a carrier pier at naval base, Norfolk, Va.; $3 million for pier and dredging at submarine base, New London, Conn.; and $7.5 million for pierside utilities and wharfage at naval shipyards, Brooklyn and Pearl Harbor---- $28,595,000 for classified weapons research and development programs $24,810,000 for additional facilities necessary in the development of 2 $16,202,000 for 7,494 barracks spaces for enlisted men at 7 continental and 6 overseas installations____ Percent 10. 0 6.5 5.7 3.6 3.8 $15,113,000 for additional facilities at 7 existing continental and 5 $98,116,000 for facilities supporting other essential programs for various Total, $435,099,000‒‒‒‒ 3.5 3.2 1. 4 22.5 100. 0 Analysis of title II (Navy) by category type of facilities to be provided [Dollar amounts in millions] Summary of program objectives contained in title III (Air Force) $140,087,000 for facilities at bases in the United States required for the $70,000,000 for the further extension of the DEW line.... $22,259,000 for research and development facilities at various bases world- $65,244,000 for construction of technical, operational, personnel and training facilities in support of new weapons systems, including ballistics missiles. $59,166,000 for additional housing and messing facilities, including new dormitories for 12,483 airmen and new BOQ's for 2,379 officers, $19,110,000 of which constitutes replacement of substandard World War II housing and messing facilities. Percent 17.5 8.7 8.4 2.8 7.4 6.0 Summary of program objectives contained in title III (Air Force)-Continued $21,341,000 for continuance of operations in connection with the construc- $6,412,000 for the construction of hospital and medical facilities (in addi- $10,937,000 for the construction of necessary facilities in support of the $10,088,000 for the modernization of facilities at AMC depots___ $4,701,000 for the continued construction of Clobecom facilities in support $152,594,000 for facilities supporting other essential programs at ZI and overseas bases, including utilities items, administrative facilities, community facilties, land items and classified projects-- Total, $802,914,000‒‒‒‒ 4.4 3. 3 2.7 2.6 0.8 2.0 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.1 0.6 0.6 18.8 100.0 Analysis of title III (Air Force) by category type of facilities to be provided Now as to the matter, specific matter, of real estate. The real property under military control-may I interject here at this point, Mr. Chairman, that I share with your expressed concern over the necessity of limiting very strictly and to the minimum our acquisition of real property. Not only from the public domain, but, of course, also from the standpoint of its removal from the tax rolls fee property which is purchased. And I believe that you will note at the conclusion of our statement here that we have been circumspect in that regard, and I will explain these apparently large amounts to which you refer. The real property under military control includes property owned, leased, used by permit, easement, and various occupancy rights (foreign-base agreements). As of June 30, 1956, the military departments controlled approximately 33.6 million acres of land throughout the world. This land, together with the improvements, had an original cost to the United States of $22.9 billion. The real estate under military control may be grouped as follows: 27.1 million acres in the United States, together with improvements thereon, having an original cost of $18.2 billion; 3.9 million acres in the Territories and possessions, together with the improvements thereon, having an original cost of $2.5 billion; and 2.6 million acres in foreign countries together with the improvements thereon having an original cost of $2.2 billion. The real property under military control in the United States consists of the following: Fee owned__ Public domain__ Temporary use. Leased__ Easements-- Total_. Acres 7,415, 936 14,978, 035 2,758, 146 1,866, 496 62, 836 27, 081, 449 Attention is invited to the fact that over half of the land under military control is public-domain land that has never been on the tax rolls. Only 7,415,936 acres of land under military control have been removed from the tax rolls in the United States. The 27.1 million acres under military control in the United States is approximately 1.4 percent of the total land area in the United States. As a matter of comparison, the United States Government owns 409.5 million acres of land in the United States or 21.5 percent of the total land area in the United States. Now I have a summary following showing the land acquired and disposed of by each military department during the past 10 fiscal years. Without going into detail, I wish you would note that the total shows that during that period fee and lessor interests acquired by the 3 military departments amounted to 1,154,369 acres. During that same period, we disposed of 2,278,440. And similarly, with respect to public lands, we acquired 3,785,342 acres and disposed during that same period of 6,221,497 acres. Now this indicates that large areas of land formerly under military control have been disposed of, and I wish to assure your committee that the Department of Defense is increasing its efforts to dispose of the maximum practicable amount of property. The real property management directorate of my office has established a program which should result in substantial savings through reduction in direct defense expenditures for management and upkeep of real property not needed, not used, and not presently subject to local taxation or available to meet expansion requirements brought on by reason of growth of the community in which located. A sound base has been established for evaluating the merits of military departments' requests for additional acquisitions; and criteria has been developed for the purpose of assuring joint utilization of the real property under military control whenever such use is feasible from an economic and military approach. At the same time, I am sure your committee is aware of the fact that new weapons systems and the new concepts for their use have made it necessary to acquire additional acreage. For example, 50,000 acres would have provided an adequate artillery range 15 years ago; however, the present range requirements for rockets, guided missiles, and similar weapons are now measured in millions of acres. Similarly, the old 5,000-foot runways for propeller-type aircraft have now been extended to 12,000 feet in order to accommodate new jet aircraft. From the foregoing, it is obvious that the military departments will continue in the future to have some additional requirements for land acquisition. Meanwhile, however, continued efforts will be made to dispose of all property for which a need is not fore seen. The original submission from the military departments requested $92 million for land acquisition. This was reduced to $22.3 million, the amount requested in the present bill, as a result of the reviews conducted by the Department of Defense and the Bureau of the Budget. A summary of the real-estate acquisitions proposed in titles I, II. and III of the bill is shown in the following tabulation: I will not trouble to read that. But in consonance with the chairman's remarks, I would like to state that the fee acquisition requested by the Navy Department is substantially in connection with a realinement of the runways at Mojave. It takes up 16,000 of the 25,000 plus acres referred to in here. The balance of the acreage is very largely land acquired in order to protect and extend runways because of the requirements of the jet craft. That also applies very largely-that latter reason applies very largely to the requirements for additional lands in the case of the Air Force and the Army. We have in those instances, Mr. Chairman, little option. Where we can, by the acquisition of land, maintain an existing base, where the runways must be extended, it is cheaper to acquire additional land there than to try to build a new base. One of the deterrents in our efforts on disposition of real property is the lack of assurance that the necessary replacement property will be obtained. To correct this situation, the Department of Defense is considering a plan for authorizing disposition of high-priced real property and use of part of the proceeds of sale for less expensive replacement property. There are many military installations, originally sited in suburban areas, that are now partially or completely surrounded by urban development. The dollar value of these Government holdings has multiplied; but, simultaneously, the potential use by the military department concerned has been lessened and necessary expansion almost completely prohibited. Acquisition of substitute property in such cases would permit: (1) more advantageous siting on low-cost lands, (2) substantial benefits to both civil and military interests, and (3) reasonable assurance of room for expansion in event of mobilization. If and when such authorization is obtained, it will permit concurrent arrangements to be made for acquisition and disposal. These plans are not yet formalized, Mr. Chairman, but I hope to have them available for discussion of the committee as soon as possible. A plan is also being considered which will permit the sale of nonexcess industrial plants in cases where the production of such plants can be assured by inclusion of the necessary conditions in the instrument of conveyance. This will permit sale of many plants that are now producing end items for the defense program. The production in many of the plants is a small percentage of the total production capacity of such plants. Needless to say, the sale of such plants will make them available for civilian production and return them to the local tax rolls. New bases: The utilization of new weapons and the assignment of new missions requires that certain new bases be provided, and a list of those in continental United States is shown below. In addition to this, other new bases which are necessary to support certain classified activities are also included in this bill. Details on this latter type of new bases can be given during subsequent closed sessions. Now, you will note in the list of new bases the Army Cold Regions Laboratory at Hanover, N. H., research and development which, if you wish, I will give you more information about. But as to the Air Force so-called new bases at Molette Auxiliary Field at Orville, Ala., and at Meadow, Tex., I would say these are not, strictly speaking, bases. They are auxiliary fields and are not equipped by personnel. The runway and the taxiway are the only construction requirements. NOTE. The two Air Force auxiliary fields in this tabulation are for flight training purposes only. Strictly speaking, they are not "bases" as they are not occupied by personnel. A runway and a taxiway are the only construction which they require. Now, the very difficult and pressing problem of family housing. Continued progress has been made during the past year in reducing the military family housing shortage, both in the United States and overseas. Based on the present authorized military strength, the current requirements, assets, and deficits are shown in the tables included in the attached chart No. 1, page 1456. For military personnel entitled to receive quarters allowances under permanent legislation, these data are summarized as follows; that is, as indicated on page 21 before you: |