it is going to do everything in its power to accomplish the dispersal program for B-52 squadrons and also for medium bomb wing squadrons without establishing new bases. Whether or not we can accomplish that purpose or not is not certain. I am satisfied that no decision will be taken in connection with a new base with regard to dispersal until after the year. It is my personal expectation that we can probably accomplish the dispersal without bases not previously authorized. Now, it may be a useful thing to have these bases included in the program without additional funds being provided, because if we find we have to go to some new bases, and if examination justifies the use of these particular locations, then we would be in a position to proceed with some action, particularly planning and so forth, in the middle of the year, without coming back to the Appropriations Committees. Senator RUSSELL. If I read rightly your statement, I will not call it a justification because I understand you are not asking for appropriations for Mitchell. You indicate it may be necessary for you to move the base to an entirely new site and start from scratch? Secretary DOUGLAS. I am sorry, Senator, I do not understand that. Senator STENNIS. General Washbourne, I think, understands it. General WASHBOURNE. Yes; I did, Senator. When the headquarters transmitted this survey report to your committee, we had a comment that, in view of the short time we had to look at Mitchell, S. Dak., Municipal Airport, we could not definitely say that it was or was not a final selection because of the proximity to the town. Senator RUSSELL. You say in here, if I have the authentic one, and it seems to be signed by Col. G. D. Fremouw and other commissioned personnel of the Air Force that I assume comprised the survey team: It may be deemed advisable to find a location further removed from the city and appropriately located so as to permit nonconflicting aircraft observation from both the municipal airport and a new site. General WASHBOURNE. That would be a suitable statement. Secretary DOUGLAS. At present there is no Air Force proposal as an Air Force proposal to construct a new base at or near Mitchell. Senator RUSSELL. There is? Secretary DOUGLAS. There is no proposal. Senator RUSSELL. That is what I am trying to get at here now because I want to see what action can properly be taken with respect to these items that were not recommended by the Department but were inserted by the Congress. Now you are talking about costs. It costs you about as much to make a field like the Richard Bong Field as it does to start from scratch? Secretary DOUGLAS. No, sir. Senator RUSSELL. This $21 million is a pretty substantial sum? Secretary DOUGLAS. That base has been programed, justified, and authorized on the basis of a very real need for a two squadron interceptor air defense base. If the runway in the first instance was built as heavy-duty pavement with length and width suitable for SAC operations, it would be a very substantial saving as against building another base for SAC. Senator RUSSELL. All of these other suggested locations have some facilities, do they not, some runways and things of that kind? Secretary DOUGLAS. Very, very little. The Richard Bong Base is a base that has been a front part of the Air Force program in connection with a suitable location of fighter interceptor wings. Senator RUSSELL. I am not advocating here spending any money that is not completely justified. These questions were asked to lead up to this question: AUTHORIZATIONS SUBJECT TO SURVEY AND APPROVAL What would be the position of the Department of the Air Force to an item in this bill which would include authorizations for expenditures or appropriations for Bong, Mitchell, Dublin, and Hobbs, subject to a survey and approval by the Department of the Air Force on the construction there?" Secretary DOUGLAS. We have no objection to their all being included. It is my opinion that Bong would have the high priority. Senator RUSSELL. You have made that perfectly clear. Even a layman that had little understanding would know that you had approved Bong and were asking for appropriations. Secretary DOUGLAS. And it is authorized. Senator RUSSELL. These others are authorized, for that matter. Senator RUSSELL. They are as legally authorized as Bong is. Secretary DOUGLAS. That is right. Senator RUSSELL. Then, if we lumped them together and made appropriations for them and made them contingent on the survey by the Department of the Air Force, would that be a way out? Secretary DOUGLAS. Sir, to avoid any misunderstanding, the authorizations, as I understand it, on Dublin, Hobbs, and Mitchell are only a very small token authorization in relation to what would be the cost of those bases. COST OF DISPERSAL BASE Senator RUSSELL. What is the cost of a dispersal base? Secretary DOUGLAS. Twenty to twenty-five million dollars. Senator RUSSELL. Twenty to twenty-five million dollars. So if you are asking for $21 million for Bong, it goes back to my original statement that it will cost about as much if you started from scratch. Secretary DOUGLAS. We expect to spend $21 million for Bong without any SAC dispersal. We expect for a very limited additional cost to accomplish part of our dispersal program on that bare Defense Command base. REASON FOR INCREASE IN REQUEST Senator RUSSELL. Why did you ask only $2 million of the House and then step it up here to 22 or 23 million dollars? Secretary DOUGLAS. Because we had a very difficult problem in meeting the House suggestion of reducing our submitted program from $2.100 million to $1,600 million, and what we did was to include the land only. Senator RUSSELL. Do you take into consideration when you locate a base the cost of land when you are deciding on the desirability of a location or do you just locate Secretary DOUGLAS. The cost of land is considered when we run into. the problem of acquiring very valuable land; you cannot avoid doing that. Generally, the land does not represent a substantial portion of the total base cost. COST OF REAL ESTATE Senator RUSSELL. I do not recall the exact site, but there was one up near Pennsylvania, I believe, near Lancaster, somewhere in that area, where you built an Air Materiel Command depot and it required tremendous quantities of land and it cost some 6 or 7 hundred dollars an acre. I came to the conclusion then that the Air Force, if they made up their mind on an air base, did not reckon with the cost of real estate. Secretary DOUGLAS. If I am right, in my thinking, that is a depot near Harrisburg. There we had a very, very large investment and had the problem of acquiring real estate to provide a modern runway and certain other facilities. Senator RUSSELL. You may be correct, but I think I can go back and check and find that you located this from scratch in some of the most expensive land in the country. Mr. GARLOCK. I think you are correct in the final analysis and the Air Force did not build the depot at all. Senator RUSSELL. They did not? Mr. GARLOCK. No. Senator RUSSELL. I am glad to hear that you do take that into consideration. Secretary DOUGLAS. I think, Senator, it is entirely appropriate that the suggested base locations be included in our overall program, and the fact that they are included may prove to be helpful in accomplishing the Air Force program. Senator RUSSELL. That is what I want to do. I do not think you should spend money if it cannot be justified, but I think the Air Force can enter into a discussion of these items. COMMUNICATION FROM SENATOR CASE Senator STENNIS. Mr. Chairman, Senator Case's letter, with reference to this matter, has been placed in the record. (See p. 690.) LIST OF AIR FORCE REDUCTIONS Senator STENNIS. If I may mention these additional items, there is one other, but, by the way, we now have an itemized list of all the reductions made by the Air Force that I think has a place in the record, too. Chairman HAYDEN. We will place that in the record. |