ferred, they deferred it and my fear is that it will be deferred year after year and we will have no facility because we are not going to get the veterans' hospital. CRITICISM OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH Senator RUSSELL. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make this observation and give my opinion, speaking very bluntly, that the executive branch of the Government is being very derelict in not resolving this matter. It is one that the Congress has been sitting for 2 or 3 years waiting for a decision. We all recognize the importance of building a hospital for this base there for the Air Force. We must have some facilities. It is just a question of whether we shall wait further vacillation on the part of the executive branch or whether we take the bit in our teeth and appropriate some funds for the building of that hospital, because we are penalizing the serviceman in need of proper facilities there by permitting this matter to go along in the policy of drift. PROPOSED INVESTIGATION BY STAFF MEMBER Senator DwORSHAK. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that a member of the staff be instructed to call the Veterans' Administration office here to ascertain to what extent the hospital facilities at Lincoln, Omaha, and Grand Island are being currently utilized, and then we will have some accurate information before the committee. Chairman HAYDEN. That can be done. Mr. DOUGLAS. The Air Force would be entirely pleased to have it put back in the program, but we are also of the view that we could use this other hospital. Senator DwORSHAK. Apparently somebody is passing the buck. Mr. DOUGLAS. Sometimes there are pretty strong feelings built up. Senator RUSSELL. I know this is at least the second year that we have had this matter up before us and maybe three, and there ought to be some way sometime to get a decision in the executive branch of the Government that will enable the Congress to proceed with this program. Senator CHAVEZ. Senator Russell, I think the committees are well acquainted with the situation at Lincoln, probably as well as anyone from the Pentagon. Senator RUSSELL. It is not the Pentagon; they are ready to use the hospital if they can get it. It is a question of getting it loose from the Veterans' Administration. Chairman HAYDEN. Senator Smith? Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I have three questions that I would like to have answers to. FAMILY HOUSING UNITS In the public-works bill of last year, fiscal year 1956, would you state how many family housing units and the amount of money authorized for the Air Force? Do you want to answer that or would you rather supply it? General WASHBOURNE. There were 8,100 units authorized in fiscal year 1956, Senator Smith. Senator SMITH. Do you have the amount? General WASHBOURNE. Approximately $110 million. Mr. GARLOCK. Senator, that would not necessarily follow that that amount of money was appropriated for housing because the housing was like all the rest of the things. There was a list of approved items for funding which was greater than the amount of money available so at the time it was before the committee, and at the time the appropriation passed, it was not possible to say any one item was necessarily funded. Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, for the record, and I do not need it now but I would like some definite information on the housing, and what I would like is the number of units that were authorized, the amount of money that was authorized for the housing for the Air Force. It seems to me that those figures must be available somewhere. Mr. DOUGLAS. No, Senator; because the money was not appropriated that way. There was not an appropriation just for the housing that was authorized. There was an appropriation such as we are asking for here for a number of projects, including housing, that totaled a greater amount of dollars than the dollars appropriated. Senator SMITH. Some time ago I tried to get a definition of all these terms that we use around this table and I think it is published somewhere in some record. Now I do not know the terms I must use to find out how much money, what the authorization was, how many units were authorized, how much money was appropriated, how much money was obligated, how many houses do we actually have. Mr. DOUGLAS. We will give you a full statement that will answer that question. (The information will be submitted to the committee at an early date.) EXCERPT FROM COMMITTEE HEARINGS Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, in view of the discussion this morning (see pp. 684-688), I would like to read into the record from the Department of Defense appropriations for 1957 on page 865, if I may. Senator SMITH. You would say as emphatically as General Twining did that it was not the fault of Congress that you did not have money, but, instead, the transfer of some moneys and the lack of request? Mr. GARLOCK. Yes; I would say definitely it was not a failure on the part of the Congress to provide reasonable amounts based on the request. Senator SMITH. From General Twining's speech in an issue of the magazine Air Force, it was generally thought over the country that Congress was at fault. I asked General Twining specifically and he said it was not the fault of Congress. I wanted to be sure to clear up in your testimony that you are not blaming Congress for not giving the money to you, the money that you did not ask for. Mr. GARLOCK. Not only that, Senator, but I would say that the reductions, for example, that were made in the public works bill last year, while I certainly was not enthusiastic about them, I did not think at that time they were going to cause us anywhere near the difficulty that they finally have caused. Because if we had known about the additional cost on the DEW line and ICBM and presented that justification both in the executive and legislative branches, I have every reason to believe it would have been taken care of. It is these unknown things that come up afterward that have very high priority that caused the problem. That is one of the reasons that I do not like to earmark pockets of money within an appropriation. Then from page 190 of the same hearings, Mr. Chairman, under the heading "Funds for bases," we find the following: Senator SMITH. General Twining, following up what Senator Stennis just said, you and I had a little correspondence about a statement you made that you did not have sufficient money for bases. Would you tell this committee who is responsible for that? Is it Congress, the Defense Department, or the Bureau of the Budget? General TWINING. I do not think the Congress has taken much of the money out that I know of in public works recently. I think the funds we came over for last year the Congress passed, very largely. Senator SMITH. Would you care to state whether you feel that it is the Defense Department or the Bureau of the Budget? General TWINING. I think it is a question of them both, the question of judgment; how fast should we go? Senator SMITH. On the part of whom? General TWINING. On the part of the Defense Department and the Bureau of the Budget. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Chairman HAYDEN. Are there any further questions? Senator THYE. Mr. Chairman, I have one question. It may possibly have been touched on but it is to be found on page 7 of Secretary Douglas' statement. SURPLUS COMMODITY Under construction, you list appropriated funds to Wherry rental guaranty and surplus commodity. That is the question that arises in my mind. What is meant by surplus commodity? It appears twice. It appears under construction and it also appears "and planned." Mr. DOUGLAS. That is right. This is a procedure to utilize foreign currencies built up in certain countries from the transfer of surplus commodities to those countries. Senator THYE. That is what is meant by that? Mr. DOUGLAS. That is correct. Senator THYE. It is not surplus in the sense of housing? Mr. DOUGLAS. Not at all. Senator THYE. It is commodities that had been given in exchange for and you have earned foreign currency and that is what is involved in that item? Mr. DOUGLAS. That is correct. Senator THYE. Thank you, sir. Chairman HAYDEN. Senator Stennis? NAVY CUT-OFF LIST Senator STENNIS. I think the so-called cut-off list on the Navy appropriation list here should be included in the record. It begins with item 469 in the column of what we call tentative priority. I think the record ought to contain that because we will have to pass on it. Chairman HAYDEN. Yes. (The information referred to follows:) DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY Fiscal year 1957 military construction funding program, tentative priority list (revised) Various locations: Replacement of family housing (1955). $425.8 197.0 NAF, Harvey Point, N. C.: Fuel storage (1957) 400.0 133.0 240.0 150.0 150.0 478 Aviation (Marine Corps).. 479 Aviation (training). MCAS, El Toro, Calif.: Water-system modifications NAS, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba: Barracks (1957). NAS, Barber's Point, T. H.: Barracks (1957) NAS, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba: Radio facilities (1957). 180.0 NAS, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba: Telephone system 335.0 723.0 2,085.0 1, 821.0 598.0 241.0 80.0 13.0 592.0 843.0 NAAS, Edenton, N. C.: Utility improvements (1957).. NAS, Brunswick, Maine: Aircraft parking area (1957). 1,500.0 300.0 84.0 450.0 106.0 280.0 628.0 385.0 113.0 300.0 462.0 2,478.0 1,037.0 Fiscal year 1957 military construction funding program, tentative priority list (revised)-Continued 528 Shipyard, reconstruct.. 529 Aviation (feet).......... 530 531 532 NSY, Boston, Mass.: Drydock (architectural and NAS, Miramar, Calif.: Land acquisition and avigation NAS, Atlantic City, N. J.: Radar air traffic control Aviation (Marine Corps).. MCAS, El Toro, Calif.: Barracks (2d increase) (1957)....... Training building (1957). 1, 072. 0 5, 000, 0 371.0 1, 601.0 1, 186.0 MCAAS, Beaufort, S. C.: 592.0 |