What I am really concerned about is the 11 residences that were in excess of $20,000 for which an exception was not requested and yet they seemed to exceed the limitation.

I would like to submit this little record here on those costs, showing that they are in excess of that amount by approximately $31,000. (The document referred to, exhibit 24, follows:)

EXHIBIT 24-EXAMPLE OF CONSTRUCTION OF EMPLOYEES'

SINGLE-FAMILY

RESIDENCES IN WHICH COST MAY EXCEED THE CONSTRUCTION LIMITATION

The following is the estimated cost of construction for 20 houses at Yosemite National Park. Nine of the residences have been exempt from the $20,000 limitation.

Total cost limitation:

9 residences, at $21,910..

11 residences, at $20,000.

Total

Total cost of 20 residences chargeable to limitation:

Residences:

Cost, excluding P.S. & S., charged to limitation.
Applicable P.S. & S. charged...

Estimated amount of Government contributions not charged..

$197, 190

220, 000

417, 190

395, 364

9, 678

646

Roads (driveways):

Cost, excluding P.S. & S., charged..
Estimated P.S. & S., not charged...

Estimated cost of Government contributions not charged____

2, 897

87

7

2, 991

640

34, 000

4, 232

Estimated cost of Government contributions not charged____

317

Total.....

39, 189

Total estimated cost applicable to completion of 20 resi-
dences --

449, 169

Estimated cost in excess of limitation_____

31, 979

Mr BEASLEY. Mr. Chairman, Mr Stratton here, who is responsible for the construction program of the National Park Service has information which would help you on that.

Mr. STRATTON. Just as late as yesterday afternoon, we checked the figures on those 11 houses with our field finance office at Yosemite National Park and the figure that we were given as the cost of the 11 houses per unit was $19.968.

Mr. BROOKS. Does that include the landscaping?

Mr. STRATTON. This includes everything that is allowed under, the limitations placed by the committee.

Mr. BROOKS. Does that include landscaping?

Mr. STRATTON. I did not ask the field finance office that particular question. Our manual or regulations is very clear as to what will be charged under the limitations and what will not be charged. As I say, I did not go down each one of the limitations that could or could not be included, but there are limitations for the field finance office, as well as the Superintendent and the Western Office of Design and Construction.

Mr. BROOKS. I appreciate you are going to have it, but I believe there is a misunderstanding. It is my impression that this figure you just gave me does not reflect the cost of landscaping which is, roughly, $34,000, which brings it up slightly from under the minimum to a good bit over for the 11 houses.

I cite landscaping as a chargeable item from your own regulations which say on page 2:

The following items will be charged against the cost limitation and include the adaptation of special dwellings, plans, and specifications, site development plans, cost of construction of the dwelling, garage or carport, whether detached or attached, grading, landscaping, walks, driveways, retaining walls, fences, or subsurface drainage, and if this work is to serve more than one building, to prorate the cost accordingly.

I think that that is the difference in being under the limitation and being over the limitation according to the figures we have been able to get.

You might take a look at this and compare that with what you have. Mr. STRATTON. My figures are only totals, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. These are totals.

Mr. STRATTON. This is very clear in the departmental manual as well as the National Park Service.

Mr. BROOKS. They are pretty clear.

Mr. STRATTON. If they are not following these, they are definitely not following instructions.

Mr. BROOKS. That is right.

Mr. STRATTON. As I say, I did not go into the details of the individual breakdown to see what, or how, they arrived at this because we assumed they were following

Mr. BROOKS. This could be a question that they have not yet charged up, you understand, the landscaping. This would be the last thing they would do. There might be a reasonable error that an astute bookkeeper could make under these circumstances.

Mr. STRATTON. I would be very happy to check this and we will so advise your committee.

Mr. BROOKS. Check that out. Take a quick look at that one, if you will, and give us an idea on that.

In the last paragraph of those items of landscaping not charged, $34,000 of which

Mr. STRATTON. Actually, I believe this is $39,189.

Mr. BROOKS. That is the total.

Mr. STRATTON. For the landscaping.

Mr. BROOKS. The subtotal?

Mr. STRATTON. This is a detailed breakdown that we do not have. I assure you that we will check it and so advise you.

Mr. BROOKS. We would appreciate that. I think that is where the difference is, and I think it should be checked.

If it is true, it should be corrected.

The request should be made to the Appropriations Committees and we should abide by the law and not by what the individual people out there might think they ought to have and build and have the authority to do, with or without the approval of Congress.

Mr. STRATTON. I might also say, sir, we have an internal audit staff that checks this very thing.

Mr. BROOKS. This would be a good one for them to check out.

Mr. STRATTON. I checked with them again no later than yesterday afternoon and they assured me that they do check the costs on housing and they had not found an instance where we were running over the $20,000 unless we had approval.

Mr. BROOKS. I understand.

Mr. STRATTON. I might also say that within the last year the House Appropriations Committee has had a team in the parks checking into the building facilities, including employee housing. They did not come up with a case, that we know of, or at least it has not been brought to our attention if they did.

Mr. BROOKS. This may be one in point.

(Subsequently, the Department furnished the following statement, exhibit 25:)

EXHIBIT 25-PERTINENT INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF 20 EMPLOYEE RESIDENCES, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK

The 1961 fiscal year appropriation for the National Park Service included funds for the construction of twenty 3-bedroom employee residences at El Portal, Yosemite National Park. Bids were received, and 11 of the houses were constructed under the congressional limitation of $20,000. An exception to the limitation was granted by prior approval of the respective congressional Appropriations Committees for the remaining nine. Actual costs applicable and charged per house in each limitation category as indicated in the Service's accounting records were as follows: 11 houses under $20,000 limitation, at $19,968; 8 houses exempt from limitation, at $21,898; 1 house exempt from limitation, at $21,880. The committee had in its possession on August 15 a statement indicating that the limitation may have been exceeded to the extent of the cost of landscaping the houses. Following the hearing, a special report on the matter was requested from the Service's western region office in San Francisco. The following is quoted from that report.

This

There has been no landscaping work and no expenditures incurred by the National Park Service for landscaping work as such in the El Portal residential area. Such landscaping work as has been accomplished has been done entirely by the resident employees on their own time and at their own expense. work consists mostly of planting a few small trees, shrubs, some flowers, lawn patches, walks adjacent to the house, and minor details. The area in general still presents a rough appearance.

Since construction and occupancy of the houses the Service has done only minimum maintenance work as has been necessary. This includes some erosion and drainage control in the area. Also each house has been partially insulated at a cost of $59 per residence, and this was accomplished a year after the houses were constructed.

CONSTRUCTION OF UNNECESSARY HOUSING ALONG BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY

Mr. BROOKS. I would also like to say that we noted that the Park Service has constructed a considerable number of housing units for employees in park areas and, according to the projected plans, a great many more are to be constructed.

As you know, the Government's policies on the construction of family housing are set forth in the Bureau of the Budget Circular No. A-18. In general these policies provide that employee housing will not be provided by the Government, except where it can be clearly shown that employees are required to live at the station to render the necessary services or protection, or that adequate housing is not available in the area.

We are informed that the National Park Service has constructed five houses for employees along the Blue Ridge Parkway which ar only 7 miles from downtown Roanoke, Va.

The subcommittee wants to know whether the construction of those houses complied with the Budget Bureau's requirements.

I also understand that there are no installations in the immediate area as yet. We would be interested in knowing whether the construction of these houses meets the Budget Bureau's requirements and recommendations.

It is our understanding that this construction was completed in December of 1958 and that the construction program shows that the parkway in the Roanoke area is not scheduled to be completed until 1965 or 1966.

It seems apparent that they built the houses, whether in accordance with the regulations or not, some 6 or 8 years prior to their ultimate use, if they are ever going to be actually needed.

The maintenance building to be constructed near the Benton housing is on the tentative program for fiscal year 1964. This is 6 or 7 years ahead.

Mr. STRATTON. I think that program has been advanced due to the lack of acquisition progress on the other parkway program.

This is on a section of the Blue Ridge Parkway known as the Roanoke bypass. Some of this work

Mr. BROOKS. I see it on my way home. I do not object to it being completed promptly. I do not know whether we need those fancy houses out there, 5, 6, or 7 miles from Roanoke.

Mr. STRATTON. It has been advanced. We do have criteria for the building of houses for the personnel transferable, for isolation. factors, and for the protection of certain park facilities.

Mr. BROOKS. One of the justifications in their memo said that it was for fire protection of the right-of-way.

Mr. STRATTON. It would not all be for that purpose.

Mr. BROOKS. That was one of the justifications which I thought was interesting.

Mr. STRATTON. As a matter of fact, other than the Roanoke bypass, the people who live in these houses work both ways, to the north and to the south of Roanoke on the parkway. I would be most happy to furnish a complete report on that to the committee.

Mr. BROOKS. All right. It looks pretty bad on the record in this instance. I wish you would check it out and give us the details on it as you interpret them.

Mr. STRATTON. Yes, sir.

(The requested information, exhibit 26, follows:)

EXHIBIT 26-EMPLOYEE HOUSING, BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY

The National Park Service awarded a contract on June 26, 1958, for the construction of five employee residences in the vicinity of Roanoke, Va., on the Blue Ridge Parkway. The original plans called for constructing three houses for protection personnel near Vinton, Va., about 7 miles from Roanoke and two houses for protection personnel near Starkey, Va., about 6 miles from Roanoke. Immediately after award of the contract of June 26, 1958, it was learned that a residential development, which had been approved for development adjacent to the Starkey site, was to become a drag racing strip. On August 29, 1958, a change order was issued directing the contractor to construct all five of the residences at the site near Vinton.

Three primary factors were involved in arriving at the decision to build all five of the residences at the Vinton site. They are: (1) the original Starkey site is no longer suitable for residential purposes because of the existing drag racing strip development; (2) the long range development plans for the Blue Ridge Parkway contemplated five residences at the Vinton site, and (3) the Vinton site was considered to be the most economical construction site because utility systems (sewage, water, and power) could be advantageously and economically combined for the houses. Also, by reassignment of parkway protection areas, no additional mileage would be required by the occupants of the houses to cover their protection assignments.

Houses for the chief ranger and the assistant chief ranger and three houses for rangers have been scheduled for many years at the Vinton and Starkey locations. The chief ranger and his assistant are assigned to the Roanoke headquarters but are responsible for protection activities north and south of the residence sites and are subject to 24-hour emergency calls. The three rangers assigned to field protection activities cover the area north and south of the residences. These rangers are district personnel as distinguished from headquarters personnel. They operate between the James River and Rocky Knob which places their assigned residences logically approximately midway of this protection area. This involves a parkway strip of approximately 104 miles.

The 15-mile Roanoke section of the parkway on which the Vinton houses are located is now under construction. The right-of-way for this section was purchased several years ago and the lands have required extensive protection patrol because of the numerous adjacent developments. Trash dumping, tree cutting, incendiary fires, vandalism, unauthorized residential and farm use are among the many problems of protection over an area that largely has to be covered on foot. The quartering of rangers in the center of this 15-mile strip of land has been a great deterrent to these types of abuses as well as a great timesaver.

The National Park Service has a policy to rotate personnel, both laterally and for promotion purposes, on a servicewide basis. In recruiting personnel to fill vacancies on the Blue Ridge Parkway, it has been the experience of the National Park Service that 90 percent of the eligible employees are living in Governmentowned quarters elsewhere and that they expect to find quarters available on the parkway. By the end of August 1962, 12 employee families, in the low and medium salary ranges, will have occupied the five houses in question. Considerable difficulty is experienced in recruiting where adequate housing is not available. In 1958, when these houses were being built, rental housing was practically nonexistent in Roanoke and Vinton. Employees subject to rotation on the scale indicated could not have been recruited if they had been required to buy homes with the prospect of having to sell them again within 2 or 3 years.

Mr. BROOKS. Are there any questions?

(No response.)

Mr. BROOKS. We have enjoyed visiting with you, gentlemen.

EXCESSIVE AND UNNECESSARY CHANGES IN DESIGN IN NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

In fiscal year 1960, it is our understanding that a special departmental committee reported on the design and construction activities throughout the Department of the Interior. The committee reported that a great many design and review changes in the Park Service were not justified.