The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bryant, for your very comprehensive statement. Let it be printed in its entirety in the record. The tables set out will be of great aid and assistance to the committee. The section analysis will help the committee materially when we take them up section by section.

I want to compliment you on your very splendid statement. Any questions from any members of the committee to Mr. Bryant, the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Defense?

Mr. GAVIN. I have a question.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gavin

Mr. GAVIN. On page 18 you refer to the number of acres of land acquired and the number of acres of land disposed of. It would be interesting to know the cost of the land that was acquired and the amount that we obtained when it was sold

Secretary BRYANT. I am sorry, I do not have that information before me, Mr. Gavin, but may I secure it and provide it?

Mr. GAVIN. Yes; break it down, so we can see if you made a profit. (This information appears as an appendix.)

Secretary BRYANT. All right. Thank you very much.

Mr. GAVIN. On page 20 you refer to industrial plants, that is the disposition of industrial plants. Do you intend to consider the disposition of the aircraft industrial plants that we hold a great interest in, in many aircraft corporations?

Secretary BRYANT. No, sir. My thought would be that would be a carefully defined and well chosen area which would include plants which as I mentioned in my statement who have a very modest portion of their total requirements involved in national defense requirements and which because of their historical background and capacity we could feel assured can continue to provide the minimal requirements of output that the Defense Department required under conditions and undertakings to be established in the deed or instrument of transfer. But they would be not of the type that you mentioned, Mr. Gavin.

Mr. GAVIN. What?

Secretary BRYANT. They would not be of the type that you mentioned, Mr. Gavin. They would be a more modest contribution to the Department.

Mr. GAVIN. Well, we built a great many of these aircraft plants and they have had them now for many years. On some they pay rent and on some they don't pay any. I think it is about time that we look into this aircraft industry quite carefully, the investment we have in these various plants, in view of the fact they are now operating profitably, to determine whether or not they should acquire these plants themselves and pay back to the Government the investment that we have in these plants. I would like to have you investigate that and give us a report on that if you will.

Secretary BRYANT. I will be very happy to.

Mr. GAVIN. On the aircraft industry situation.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, may I say for the record that it is my recollection the Subcommittee on Special Investigations, Mr. Hébert's subcommittee, made some inquiry in regard to how much the Government had invested in the 19 aviation companies. I think the figures run around about $800 million, that has been put in the 19 plants by the Government, and the corporations have put approximately some

$200 million. And that is the total capital of the 19 aircraft plants. Now, of course, Mr. Bryant doesn't have any idea of trying to get in that field. But I do think, Mr. Bryant, that this is a field that is very explosive. It had considerable debate on the floor of the House. We must have a few pilot plants to determine what is the right price that the Government should pay for different articles.

For instance, machine tools and construction of ships. That is one of the reasons we have the navy yards. I do hope you will be very caution in exploring the disposition of these facilities because they all have a certain important relationship. Not a large number of personnel are involved. In some little places, there are probably 80 people. In other places, there are 1,000 people.

Of course, we want the Government out of business as much as possible. But, let's be a little cautious in going back in this hot subject matter. It was a matter of considerable debate on the floor of the House, and every little old community that has a little plant—why, you might get it out of business.

For instance, to digress a little bit, we are talking about the Capehart houses and getting private capital invested. Why, following the same line of logic, shouldn't barracks and warehouses and nearly every installation of the Department of Defense be built by private industry?

Mr. GAVIN. Well, the gentleman understands that I am not referring to the particular type of plant that you are talking about. The CHAIRMAN. No.

Mr. GAVIN. I am talking about these large aircraft industries. Because the Secretary states here:

Needless to say, the sale of such plants will make them available for civilian production and return them to the local tax rolls.

Well, eventually, these aircraft industries are going into civilian and commercial production. And I think it is a very important matter because of the tremendous investment that the Government has in the aircraft industry. And evidently they are working along on a profitable basis. I am wondering whether the time has come now to determine whether or not they should acquire these facilities and return to the Government the investment that we have made in them, or whether it is advisable to continue as we are now. And also determine what rent we are getting back from the investment that we have made, and whether or not some of them are stll operating without paying any rental on the plants that were created by the Government.

I think it is worth your looking into. I am not referring to minor plants. I am talking about the aircraft industry.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gavin. Mr. Hardy

Mr. GAVIN. I have another question.

On page 28, it says:

Under our arrangements with the United Kingdom these houses will remain available to us at a nominal rental, £1 per year per house, as long as our forces remain in the United Kingdom.

In the event our forces do not remain in the United Kingdom, what disposition will then be made of these houses and this investment that we have made in these houses?

Secretary BRYANT. Mr. Gavin, my answer to that is that it will be the best negotiated arrangement we can make, taking into considera

tion the amortized portion of time of the dwelling involved, its acceptability as a house which would fit the economy of the neighborhood perhaps. Some of these, of course, are built specifically with relationship to existing activities at an airbase and may not fit readily into the economy of the neighborhood. Those would all be factors in determining an adequate resale price.

Mr. GAVIN. But you do expect to negotiate with the British and try to secure a return on the investment we have made when the time comes for making disposition of these houses?

Secretary BRYANT. Absolutely, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Gavin.

Mr. GAVIN. I have one more question.

On page 30:

These include changes from the light airfield pavement previously authorized to the heavier type now required to support heavy bombers at our dispersal fields.

I can't understand why the Air Force can't anticipate their requirements over a long period of years when they are putting in these installations and put in the kind of an installation that is going to meet the requirements or at least anticipate the requirements, rather than have to rehabilitate and reconstruct all of these fields.

Secretary BRYANT. Well, Mr. Gavin, I think the answer really is that these fields that I refer to here are very largely, if not entirely, these dispersal fields.

At the time that the major fields were constructed I am sure that the Air Force anticipated the strength requirements of the runways. But under the concept of dispersal, they have been obliged to utilize fields which were not originally designed for that purpose.

Mr. GAVIN. Well, every 5 years they come up with something new. We have to extend the runway. Then we have to acquire all the property in the immediate area and remove obstacles. They know something of the development of the airplane. Why in their overall planning don't they view for the future rather than build for the present and then 5 or 10 years from now have to revamp the whole structure at a great cost to carry these improvements that should have been considered in the first place?

I have no further questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hardy, any questions?

Mr. HARDY. Yes. Mr. Secretary, maybe you covered it in your statement, but if you did I missed it. I would like to inquire as to what progress is being made with respect to the acquisition of Wherry projects where Capeharts are going to be constructed?

Secretary BRYANT. I did leave that out, Mr. Hardy, because I had some rather voluminous notes and I felt it might

Mr. HARDY. I didn't mean to suggest that we get into too much detail on it right at the moment. But I would like to know what that situation is in general. Are you making any better progress?

The CHAIRMAN. I think, Mr. Hardy, we can aid you, if Mr. Kelleher will just make the statement he made to me this morning. My recollection is that some 83,000 Capehart units have been authorized, and we are negotiating for Wherry houses at this time.

Mr. KELLEHER. About 846 hav been acquired, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. And there are some 80-

Mr. KELLEHER. There are about 83,000 in existence, and about 32,000 will have to be acquired.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

Mr. HARDY. All right, then. That is just the point I was trying to get at. Under the requirement that the Wherrys on installations where you are proposing to build Capeharts will have to be acquired, you have 32,000 that have to be acquired because of that policy; is that

correct?

Secretary BRYANT. Of the number

Mr. HARDY. You acquired only about 800? It sounds like you are a little slow.

Secretary BRYANT. Well, at the present time, Mr. Hardy, my figures indicate that we have under proceedings which are actively being followed by the Army; for example, with respect to the acquisition of Wherrys, at Fort Lee, Va., 300 units-these are all mandatory that I am speaking about.

Mr. HARDY. Can you just tell us approximately what total are currently under procedure?

Secretary BRYANT. Over 4,000.

Mr. HARDY. Over 4,000.

Secretary BRYANT. In the Army.

Mr. HARDY. Well, now

Secretary BRYANT. And in the case of the Air Force, there would be I am trying to get these figures fast-a similar amount, some four or five thousand.

Mr. HARDY. That means they are projects that are in stages from the initial talking about to the point of condemnation?

Secretary BRYANT. Yes, sir.

Mr. HARDY. So you got everything in there, and that figure really doesn't mean very much from the standpoint of indicating of when we are going to get this thing buttoned up?

Secretary BRYANT. Well, my own feeling, Mr. Hardy, is that we should and I feel obliged myself, to use every effort to negotiate settlements with these people before going to condemnation.

The services, that is the armed services, or the Departments, have been so instructed, and they are doing their best to push these projects. But the matter of negotiation, as you realize, is a somewhat tedious matter and time-consuming.

Mr. HARDY. As you know I have been pretty close to this subject. Secretary BRYANT. I realize that.

Mr. HARDY. And I am going to keep right on firing, because it hasn't gone so well. I hope you are making better progress than you have up to the present time.

Secretary BRYANT. I think the experience from the first few that we can get settled will aid in speeding up the balance. That experience is useful.

Mr. HARDY. One other question, if I might. Reference is made on page 31 of your statement to a suggested revision in the limit of price of real-estate acquisitions. Now, what percentage of your acquisition projects would be eliminated if that provision were accepted by the committee?

Secretary BRYANT. Well, a large number of those smaller-I know the $25,000 can't be said to be small perhaps in average language. But a great many of the incidental land requirements that we run into now,