Mr. BROOKS. Let me ask this in that connection: Does the CAA frown on your even going that far?

I have had come across my desk, too-a letter from CAA, which would seem to indicate that they reject you before the application is formally filed.

General RODENHAUSER. That seems to be the tenor of it; yes, sir. Mr. BROOKS. Now isn't your problem, then, going to be one of getting cooperation from Civil Aeronautics, or losing a large part of your program for the use of municipally owned flying fields?

General RODENHAUSER. That is largely correct, sir, and of course I want to make this point clear to the committee: that the Air Force has no intention of forcing itself on any community.

We would like to consider, as I believe you gentlemen know from our regular public works testimony, the safety features, these noise factors that were discussed a little earlier.

We try to do everything we can to come to a mutually amicable solution so far as is possible before we even talk about a definite location.

Certainly we do not want to go in some place where we are not wanted. The relationships with the community, not only in the Regular Air Force establishments, but particularly in the Reserve establishments, the National Guard establishments, is very important. We must have community support and be welcome in the community if we are going to build the kind of organization we want. Mr. JOHNSON. Is this all you are doing, just trying to get an inventory of what might be available and keep it up to date? Isn't that all you are doing?

General RODENHAUSER. Mr. Johnson, that is exactly it, in very few words.

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not see why you can't do that without going up to the CAA.

General RODENHAUSER. We cannot understand it either. Mr. JOHNSON. If you treated the people courteously, and all you want is information to put in your files so when the need for expansion comes, you can say, "Here is a good place, here is a bad one," and

so on.

General RODENHAUSER. That is right, sir, and in my particular job I would be highly negligent in the performance of my duties and responsibilities if I did not have in my files information on practically every airport that we have in the United States, because I never know what tomorrow will bring in the form of a requirement to locate a unit, or many units.

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, have you received cooperation from the local airport managers? Have they been responsive to your requests for information?

General RODENHAUSER. They certainly have, sir; they certainly have.

Mr. JOHNSON. Are they under pressure by the CAA? General RODENHAUSER. That, sir, I cannot answer. I do not know. Mr. BROOKS. I want to say this: Are you not going a little further than what you indicate to Mr. Johnson?

Here in your statement, in the statement that I have before me, you say that you require 60 locations for flying and 125 air reserve centers for nonflying activity, 93 flying fields and 169 nonflying installations.

Now, aren't you investigating and being turned down in localities throughout the United States for use of local facilities at the present time?

General RODENHAUSER. Mr. Brooks the reports of our surveying parties have not come in to my desk yet. Those surveys are run by the Continental Air Command with headquarters at Mitchel Air Force Base.

I am expecting those reports in, but I have nothing at hand at present that I could directly answer your question with.

Mr. BROOKS. Well, I have personal knowledge of some municipally owned flying fields where you have been turned down. Whether you made a formal application or not, and it occurs to me that it is perhaps due to Civil Aeronautics.

Certainly I do not think Civil Aeronautics cooperated in some of the instances that I have in mind.

General RODENHAUSER. That could be, sir, but until I have the facts from these survey teams I could not give you a direct, straightforward answer.

Mr. LEROM. This is a paradoxical situation, in that we have some communities urgently requesting Reserve and National Guard flying activities, and we have others who object to it.

You never know which way the ball will bounce.

Mr. BROOKS. I have before me a survey of certain areas being used-where the municipal facilities were being used and it is satisfactory.

On the other hand, I have another survey to show that it was not satisfactory.

It was for the United States.

It was made by private sources, however.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Do you have an estimated of dollar costs for these facilities for the next 4 or 5 years?

Mr. LEROM. Between 1956 and 1960, $255 million for the construction of the additionally required facilities for both the flying and the nonflying programs of the Reserve, and guard.

Mr. WINSTEAD. How is that broken down for years?

Colonel RAMBEAU. In 1956, $49.3 million; 1957, $130 million; 1958, $57.8 million; 1959, $11 million; and for 1960, $7.3 million.

Mr. BROOKS. Are there any further questions?

If not, I want to thank you gentlemen very much.

The next witness is Col. William R. Shuler, Chief of the Construction Division, Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Department of the Army.

STATEMENT OF COL. WILLIAM R. SHULER, CHIEF, CONSTRUCTION DIVISION, OFFICE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR LOGISTICS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, ACCOMPANIED BY LIEUTENANTCOLONEL DYER

Mr. BROOKS. Colonel, you may proceed.

Colonel SHULER. I would like to go through my whole statement, sir, because I think it answers a number of questions that the committee has raised.

First, I will review what the Army has accomplished with the $104 million appropriated for Army Reserve Forces during fiscal years

'51-'55.

The first chart (chart No. 1) attached to the back of the statement that has been placed before you, shows:

(The chart is as follows:)

1. $500 MILLION STATE CAPITAL INVESTMENT PRIOR TO PL 783/8IST.

2. STATE MATCHING FUNDS FOR $297 MILLION NATIONAL GUARD FACILITY
REQUIREMENT.

3. 45 ARMY RESERVE TRAINING CENTERS CONSTRUCTED WITH $13.5 MILLION
APPROPRIATED IN FY 1950.

(1) The funds appropriated during fiscal years '51-'55, $10 million, and

(2) Requirement for additional authorization and appropriation in fiscal year 1956 and future years to complete the Army's Reserve Forces construction program, $597 million.

The shaded areas on this chart represent funds appropriated during fiscal years '51-'55, $104 million, Army total; $71 million, National Guard; and $33 million, Army Reserve.

The solid portions of the right-hand columns represent our required future authorization. This is the $597 million requirement referred to by Secretary Milton in his presentation. The $104 million already appropriated includes $18.6 million authorized and appropriated by Public Law 759, 81st Congress prior to enactment of Public Law 783, 81st Congress.

The data on the chart do not include the following funds which are not chargeable against Public Law 783, 81st Congress.

(1) $500 million capital investment by the various States prior to Public Law 783, 81st Congress.

(2) State matching funds for $297 million National Guard total facility requirement.

(3) Forty-five Army Reserve training centers constructed with $13.5 million appropriated in fiscal year 1950.

The first funds authorized for acquisition of Army Reserve training centers were the $13.5 million authorized and appropriated by Public Law 218, 81st Congress, in fiscal year 1950.

The first Federal funds authorized for National Guard armory construction were the $16 million appropriated under Public Law 783 authorization in fiscal year 1952. The Army has historically provided Federal funds for National Guard nonarmory facilities for outdoor training and facilities for storage and maintenance of United States. Government material and equipment in the hands of National Guard units.

(A chart entitled "Reserve Forces Construction Program" follows:)