Senator SALTONSTALL. You are planning to reclama all of it? Mr. MORRIS. Yes, sir. About two-thirds of it I believe, sir, is the overseas housing. CIVIL DEFENSE REDUCTION Senator SALTONSTALL. Now of the other Defense agencies, the cut from $46 million to $33 million, I read it very hastily, most of that cut comes in civil defense, does it not? Mr. MORRIS. About half of the cut I believe, sir, $5 million, was in the civil defense portion. Senator SALTONSTALL. Is it not more than that? Five million dolJars but I thought the figures concerned civil defense. Mr. MORRIS. There is a $5 million item for civil defense. Senator SALTONSTALL. There is $4 million for planning and design. Mr. MORRIS. Yes, sir. Senator SALTONSTALL. Is that civil defense? Mr. MORRIS. No, sir. That is for the defense agencies themselves. Senator SALTONSTALL. And minor construction, $2,153,000? Mr. MORRIS. Yes, sir. Senator SALTONSTALL. And fallout shelters, $5 million. So you are reclamaing all of that too? Mr. MORRIS. No, sir. In respect to the civil defense portion we understand that Chairman Vinson would like to hold hearings on the entire shelter program early next session. In the light of this, and since there is not authorization in the bill, we do not plan to reclama the $5 million. Senator SALTONSTALL. So you are reclamaing then $6,153,000? Mr. MORRIS. This is still under review, sir, and we hope to have our final conclusion before you very shortly. Senator STENNIS. Mr. Reed, excuse me just a minute. Mr. Sheridan, we are delighted to have you here this morning, sir. I personally know of your long tenure and your fine work in connection with the construction program. Do you have a statement, do you have anything to say? Mr. SHERIDAN. No, sir; I have no statement. I am available to answer any questions you might have. Senator STENNIS. We are glad to have you here. We may ask you some questions in the course of this hearing. Mr. SHERIDAN. Thank you, sir. FAMILY HOUSING Senator STENNIS. Mr. Reed, you may proceed. Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, we have a statement. Senator STENNIS. You are here on family housing in particular? Mr. REED. Yes, sir. Senator STENNIS. If you are ready to proceed on that, you may, Mr. REED. If you would like to have this submitted for the record and have it highlighted, we will proceed that way. Senator STENNIS. I think that would be the best way. Put your statement in the record and then summarize it. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT BY JOHN J. REED, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (FAMILY HOUSING) Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is a distinct pleasure to appear before you to explain the total military family housing program for the Department of Defense. My comments are directed toward the organizational concepts for housing, the associated policy, and the financial magnitude of the program. Military family housing has always been a subject of special interest to the Congress and the executive branch. It is, of course, a matter of extraordinary interest to military personnel. Housing is important because people are important and, as Secretary McNamara has stated, the people are considered the key element of our new multibillion dollar weapons systems. Housing, we have found, is a significant factor in the morale of the military people and their families. It is one of the chief incentives to career motivation and as such can play a big part in retaining qualified personnel in the military services. A high retention rate reduces personnel turnover which causes both costly retraining as well as an erosion of personnel efficiency. The Department of Defense considers itself in the business of housing people, not the business of building houses. We believe the distinction is significant. Our responsibility is to assure that career military people have adequate, economic housing in which to raise their families. Our general policy is that we prefer that the community be the major source of housing for our people. However, this policy is subject to several necessary exceptions (chart A). There are certain personnel who for reasons of military necessity must live on the base. Also, a sizable community, of course, does not exist in many isolated locations, and, therefore, little or no support is available. Further, there are situations where either the quality of the community support, its location, or its cost creates a distinct hardship for military personnel, and it be comes necessary to help alleviate these hardships. Therefore, these situations require us to build houses to fulfill these requirements and cause us to have annual construction programs of some magnitude. Again, though we do not consider the construction of housing an end to itself, it is oftentimes the only practical means to provide adequate housing for military families. MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING OBJECTIVE OUR OBJECTIVE IS THE HOUSING OF POLICY THE CIVILIAN COMMUNITY WILL BE THE EXCEPTIONS MILITARY NECESSITY TOO COSTLY INADEQUATE QUALITY TOO DISTANT CHART A Before World War II the military services were small, and the marriage rate was low. Most enlisted men and junior officers were bachelors. During that period military housing consisted of a few units at continental installations, and these were generally reserved for the commander and his key assistants. However, in the last 20 years, the sociological changes which have influenced the civilian population have also had their effect on military people. More personnel are getting married, getting married sooner, and having larger families. The impact of these changes has been evident in the past, and has led to the tremendous increase in the number of Government-owned quarters which have been constructed and made available to military families (chart B). This trend continues, and we do not as yet see a significant leveling off. Thus, while force levels remain relatively static, housing requirements continue to grow as a result of these factors. |