schedule which is formally known as the National Guard Bureau Bulletin, No. 2.

That bulletin, in tabular form, specified the allowable areas for various functional spaces within an armory, for 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, 5- and 10-unit sizes of armories.

It was developed by the National Guard Bureau-I am told-I must accept that because I was not present when it was originally set up in 1952.

Those areas specified on the National Guard Bureau Bulletin No. 2 represented the maximum areas for the purpose of calculating the Federal contribution to the States the 75 percent which is specified in Public Law 783.

The criteria in National Guard Bureau Bulletin 2 has been accepted in the Department of Defense, in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and by the Bureau of the Budget, for purposes of programing funds for National Guard armory construction.

Actually, the areas on that bulletin were never formally approved as criteria but, as I said, were accepted for the purposes of determining the programing and construction of the armories.

Last fall-I can't give you the exact date from my memory—recommendations came to the Secretary of Defense from the Department of Army, which we understood had originated with a committee of the National Guard Association, as to the expanded type of one-unit armory which they desired be built.

In November or December-my memory does not tell me which month it was the Office of the Secretary of Defense approved that criteria, which provided for this one-unit armory an increase of approximately one-third over the area which was permitted under the old National Guard Bureau Bulletin No. 2.

At the time that was approved, the Army was requested to submit their recommendations as to the criteria which should then be approved for the larger size armories-2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-unit sizes, plus certain special allowances for special types of units-headquarters units, et cetera.

The Army's recommendations on that were received, I believe, in January of this year and were approved, and the approval, with certain limitations, certain checkreins maintained on the application of of that criteria to particular situations, as to numbers of men and sizes of units.

That was approved by the Office of the Secretary of Defense on either the 30th or 31st of March, back to the Department of Army.

In setting up the letter of approval and the schedule of armory square-foot areas that would be allowed, we attempted to make it a complete document, which would concentrate in one spot, all of the various factors that enter into the determination of the allowable sizes of an armory, for the purposes of determining the Federal contribution.

I might digress at this point to say this, so that the committee may understand this, now: The States, of course, if they are able to finance additional areas, if they want a larger armory or a more pretentious one in quality, they, of course, can supplement the Federal funds and the normal 25 percent State contribution to build whatever the States desire.

But for the purposes of Federal contribution, we have this tabulation of areas which are allowable.

Getting back to my statement as to the makeup of this piece of paper, as I say, we tried to get on to that one sheet all of the factors that enter into it.

We did include in there a certain note concerning a checkrein on the size of multiunit armories which was lifted practically verbatim off the National Guard Bureau Bulletin No. 2.

After this approval from the Office of the Secretary of Defense had gone back to the armory, we were advised informally that that particular footnote had not been applied-even though it was on the National Guard Bureau Bulletin since 1952-had not been applied within the Department of Army, in determining the sizes of armories. Upon receiving that informal advice and I want to be perfectly open and frank with the committee as to the internal operationsupon receiving that informal advice, my office offered to set down and try to work out some possible compromise language which could be substituted for that, but with the distinct reservations that we felt that to protect the interests of the Government in this matter, we had to have some kind of a checkrein as to the sizes of armories, becacuse of the great variation in the number of men in these so-called units of the National Guard, which range-I can be corrected on this but I believe from 50-some men up to probably 280, or 300 men in some of the units.

Mr. BROOKS. Now just briefly, what is the status of the negotiations, now?

Have you reached an impasse?

Mr. DEININGER. There has been no negotiation, sir.

We have heard nothing from the Department of the Army. We understood they were going ahead with promulgating the piece of paper as it stands.

Mr. BROOKS. It is bogged down in the Department of Army.

Mr. DEININGER. I would not use the term "bogged down", but they have not come back to us to discuss that particular point.

Mr. BROOKS. That leaves you $39 million out of $51 million which has been obligated and is being spent, and it leaves $12 million still in suspense because of this impasse?

Mr. DEININGER. I could not anser that, sir, on that entire $12 million-I believe it was $12 and $7.

Colonel SHULER. The $7 million will be obligated by June 30 of this year, sir?

The $12 million will not, but is programed.

Mr. BROOKS. It leaves $12 million out of $51 million that will not be obligated by the end of this year.

Colonel SHULER. That is right, sir.

Mr. DEININGER. Whether that is due to this impasse on the criteria, I could not say.

Mr. BROOKS. Why couldn't you obligate that to other areas that do not have that impasse?

Colonel SHULER. We will have to have General Abendroth's answer that because they are running that program, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. I am not trying to run the program, but I am just wondering whether you could obligate everything and satisfy the Guard.

Colonel SHULER. The Department of Defense can't answer that but the General can.

General ABENDROTH. When we say obligate, we mean the construction contract has been approved.

Now in the case of this money we are talking about, the request is somewhere in the pipeline within the State, but no money has been

committed.

Mr. BROOKS. The $12 million?

General ABENDROTH, Yes.

Mr. BROOKS. You say the $12 million has been committed?
General ABENDROTH. Yes.

Mr. KELLEHER. It is not the $12 million is it?

General McGOWAN. Could I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BROOKS. You have $51 million and you have obligated or will obligate by the 1st of July, out of the $51 million, $39 million, which leaves you $12 million that we are discussing.

That $12 million, as I understand it, has not been obligated because of the differences with the State over the criteria.

Now what about that?

Why couldn't that be obligated?

General ABENDROTH. Colonel McCormick has the figures.

Colonel MCCORMICK. We have been able to obligate or to approve construction contracts for all armories that the States have submitted. That $12 million has not been obligated and has not been requested by the States as of this date.

Mr. BROOKS. It has not been requested by any State?

Colonel MCCORMICK. No, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. I thought you had more proposals than you had

money.

Colonel MCCORMICK. They have asked for approval of projects but have not come in with contract requests to construct armories at specific locations.

Mr. BROOKS. Then we are short of specific requests from the States. Colonel McCORMICK. Yes, sir.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Do I understand then that any State who needs an armory could come in and request and participate in this $12 million? Colonel MCCORMICK. If the project is approved, they could.

Mr. BROOKS. It is going to be up to the several States to come in with projects before July 1 if you use this money?

Colonel McCORMICK. Yes, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. General McGowan, why can't the States get in their projects?

General MCGOWAN. Sir, until the question of the criteria is adjusted to the satisfaction of the States, they do not wish to spend and can't afford to spend the money provided by their respective legislatures, on buildings that they concede from the beginning are inadequate.

I would like to cite one specific project to illustrate what I mean. Mr. BROOKS. That $39 million, though, is already approved that way?

General MCGOWAN. Yes, sir. A lot of that was for rehabilitation and expansion of existing armories, as well as the construction of smaller armories.

Mr. BROOKS. I thought the State and county paid it all?

General McGoWAN. I will cite an armory built in Rhode Island. They built it on the old criteria because they desperately needed an armory. They had more matching State money but they built it precisely on the criteria.

And immediately upon occupying the building, the rifle range had to be used for the supply room, because the supply room and the longer room combined were just adequate in size to provide enough lockers for that unit.

That is what we mean by inadequate criteria, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BROOKS. I see what you mean.

Colonel SHULER. General McGowan, I do believe that the criteria which General Abendroth's office now has, has pretty much gone along with what the States want.

I think the increase from my memory is about a third across the board.

I feel that the States can move forward, now, and I also feel that just as we have to control the criteria on our military construction, a certain amount of austerity, a certain amount of space control, we do it with the Organized Reserve armories, I feel that the 75 percent Federal contribution has to have some control, sir, in order that we keep it reasonable.

Mr. BROOKS. General McGowan, you feel a little better about your program now, do you not?

General McGOWAN. No, sir. I have no quarrel with what the colonel says, sir, but I would like to say this approved, improved, and presently approved one-company armory criteria, which is satisfactory to us, applies only to those units which have an authorized strength in excess of 120, and if they do not have an authorized strength of greater than 120, then they must build these 1-company armories on the old criteria, which has been rejected.

Mr. BROOKS. Didn't you tell the committee that 50 percent of the funds had not been obligated?

These figures would indicate that it is 39 out of 51.

General McGoWAN. We feel and I think we are in agreement with the Bureau, that there are two totals that are significant with respect to armory construction money.

One, the completed armories, and those which have been published under approved contract.

Any other figures are speculative.

Mr. KELLEHER. With respect to these armories of authorized strength of less than 120, Mr. Deininger, what is being done about that criteria?

That seems now to be the only area of disagreement.

Mr. DEININGER. At the risk of being a little verbose, again, may I try to give you a complete rundown on that.

At the time the revised one-unit armory criteria came into our office, the proposal was that all armories-all 1-unit armories be constructed after this expanded criteria of some 16,000 square feet, as against the old 12,000 square feet.

In analyzing the square-foot areas for the various functional spaces within that armory, we found that most of the justification for the increases in specific functional areas were in the armory were based upon, or justified in terms of it being necessary for a typical infantry company, which has an authorized strength of 172 officers and men.

We felt that to build all 1-unit armories, on the basis that they could take care of the larger units of 170 and upward of men, might be regarded as a little extravagant use of this 75 percent Federal contribution.

We felt that some attempt should be made to scale the size of the armory to the numbers of people who were going to be in it, so that in approving that 1-unit armory criteria, our office specified that rather than for all 1-unit armories, we would continue to use the old 1-unit armory criteria of some 12,000 square feet, for the units below 120 authorized strength.

Mr. KELLEHER. That is where you and General McGowan differ. General McGoWAN. The Army differs on that point, also with the Department of Defense.

Mr. DEININGER. When the original request went to the Department of the Army for other recommendations we recognized there were these smaller units of 50, 60, 70 men.

We asked the Army to do something about it and come up with some recommendations as to what we should do about constructing for these smaller units.

Now we know a lot of them are in leased or donated space which the States are able to obtain for those small units. We thought there might be need for construction for these smaller units.

We had in mind at that time the possible development of flexible plans for a smaller armory that could be built with a lesser square footage, more consistent with the numbers of people who were going to be in them.

That has not been worked out as yet. The Army recommended that the old 1-unit armory criteria of some 12,000 square feet be applied to all of those units regardless of size, from 50 or 55, up to 100.

We felt that that left something to be desired in the way of controlling expenditures of Federal funds, and we wanted to study it further, so we did not approve the use of that armory for those small units. However, we have by no means given up the idea that there is not some solution on this smaller armory.

Mr. BROOKS. That is a battle that you and the Army are going to have to get together on.

We are up against a proposition of trying to make this by Monday, because of the Appropriations Committee.

We want to get in ahead of them.

We will just have to go into executive session at this time to discuss it.

Do I hear any suggestions from anyone?

Are there any further questions or is there any further information anyone wants?

Mr. BRAY. I move we go into executive session.

Mr. BROOKS. If there is no objection, we will go into executive session.

(Whereupon, at 4:20 p. m., the committee proceeded in executive session.)