vision is adequately safeguarded by the stringent conditions imposed by the language of the provision, including the requirement for notification of the Armed Services Committees as to any such project to be undertaken.

Section 4 of the proposed legislation is the one which provides for the carryover of project authorizations previously effected under the consultation procedure, one of the premises mentioned earlier which

was

Projects with respect to which consultation with the Armed Sevrices Committees has been effected prior to the end of the present fiscal year, and which can be constructed within the amount of funds heretofore appropriated for the purpose, constitute valid authorizations provided they are placed under construction contract within the next 2 fiscal years, that is, by June 30, 1960.

The provisions of section 4 are most essential to the continuity of the prior-year programs during this transition to line-item authorization, since substantial portions of the consolidated prior-year programs for which appropriations previously have been made will not have reached the stage of actual contract award by June 30 of this year. This applies to all Reserve components except the Air National Guard, whose unobligated appropriations expire with the end of each fiscal year.

We propose to furnish your committee, prior to June 30 this year, a list of such projects for each Reserve component. The lists will be oriented to the beginning of the present fiscal year, and those projects on which contracts have been awarded, or are definitely scheduled for award in June, will be marked accordingly.

The so-called carryover authority would then be indentifiable as the unmarked projects, but limited to the extent of the unobligated balances of the funds heretofore appropriated. Any listed project which subsequently is dropped from the construction program for any reason can only be "replaced," in effect, by a line-item project in a law subsequently enacted by the Congress.

This procedure has been evolved, after long and careful consideration, as providing the simplest and most positive control during the transition, and one which would provide your committee with the most factual report possible and we believe it to be wholly in consonance with the indicated intent of the committee's desire to change to line-item type authorization effective with the fiscal year 1959 programs.

Section 5 of the bill contains a number of miscellaneous provisions which are substantially identical with general provisions contained in the military public-works bills over a number of years, and which are considered essential to more effective administration of the Reserve Forces facilities programs.

Section 6 contains the customary language required to authorize the appropriation of funds for the projects enumerated in the lineitem section, the totals of which were given earlier in my statement.

Section 7 provides a reasonable degree of fiexibility in the estimated costs indicated for the individual line-items but, as has been the practice in the military public-works legislation, the aggregate costs of the line-items constructed cannot exceed the totals authorized in section 6. The 15 percent maximum increase permitted in any line-item cost is considered highly essential for the reason that most

of the line-items consist of only one work item and, consequently, there is not way to absorb an unexpected higher bid on a work item within the station or location line-item cost specified in section 3. The adequacy of this 15 percent allowance will depend largely on future cost trends in the construction industry and, of course, on the quality of our cost estimates.

The committee has undoubtedly noticed that no additional authorization is requested in the bill for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve. This is due to the expected carryover into fiscal year 1959 of upwards of $45 million of prior year program items for the two Reserve components, which is estimated at this time to be adequate for the approved obligation program of construction for the next 12-month period. Due to the approved but prospective reorganization of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve, under the new force structure and pentomic concept, a substantial amount of definitive determinations remain to be made with respect to the geographical distribution and positioning of the individual troop units throughout the country, which will have important bearing upon the precise location and size of future armory and training center projects. Department of Army representatives are here today to furnish the committee any desired information with respect to the programs of its two Reserve components.

At this time, unless the committee has any questions of me regarding the foregoing, I should like to call upon, first, Navy representatives and, second, Air Force representatives to present to the committee information regarding their respective programs and interests in the proposed legislation. Following their testimony, representatives of the Department of the Army will be available to furnish any desired information on the Army Reserve components programs.

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

Now, I wanted-before you do that, I would like to ask a few questions and perhaps other questions might be elicited, too, from some of your remarks.

I think, generally speaking, the chart shows that you are making very good progress with the Reserve facilities program to date.

We have in the past been disappointed and we are disappointed to some extent, too, in your statement, in showing these carryovers.

Now, for instance, you have carryovers for the National Guard. As I recall, we reduced the request of the Department last year by-was it $15 million? What was it we reduced the request, Mr. Ducander? Mr. DUCANDER. I don't remember the exact figure, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BROOKS. We reduced the request of the Department substantially so we would keep up and the building would keep up with the authorizations. And yet you come along with carryover.

Now, during the course of the year we also had some rather strong complaints about failing to expend funds badly needed.

For instance, we had the conference of governors headed by the distinguished Governor from Illinois, who complained bitterly that the funds were not available for National Guard and Air National Guard construction. And yet in your statement here you show a

carryover.

Why is that? I know the committee would like to know why those things occur and why that is the situation.

Secretary BRYANT. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that my answer will be specific on this subect or satisfactory. But recalling last year's problem, the availability of money was at the root of thoseof these problems, particularly with respect to the debt limit, overall debt limit, of our National Government, and the necessity, as seen at that time, of limiting the availability to the services of financial authorization.

I, myself, feel positive at this time that that situation has now corrected itself and that we can proceed with these programs as indicated in my statement and which will be given in more detail as the commitee reviews the specific programs of the military departments.

I am not sure, as I said, that this will completely satisfy the chairman or the committee, but I believe that it is fundamentally the reason for last year's problem.

Mr. BROOKS. We are down to a proposition of approving line-byline items, which, of course, is a distinct improvement over approving them in bulk as we have done before.

However, you wish to extend the authority so that this authorization may be used within a 2-year period, rather than a 1-year period, which was the rule last year.

Secretary BRYANT. Yes, sir, that is right. We chose that because I think it is more workable, more practical.

I am afraid that we might find ourselves in some considerable difficulty in trying to accomplish this objective within a 1-year period. I would hope that 2 years was not a severe variation and it might be acceptable to the chairman and the committee. That is why we proposed it.

I would appreciate it if you would give it your very careful consideration, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. Then the 15 percent maximum-that is an item might be increased by 15 percent. I can understand the substantial reason for giving that latitude in the estimate of any item in a line item bill. But you also ask for about 25 percent. I don't see that now in your statement. But you do

Secretary BRYANT. That is in the program phase, sir. We ask for 125 percent, which is 25 percent extra, of course, as you said. Mr. BROOKS. For a total overall authorization?

Secretary BRYANT. Yes. That is in the programing sphere as distinguished from the 15 percent override authority with respect to

costs.

Mr. BROOKS. I notice, going back on page 4, in reference to the requirements of the Air Force, that has been reduced by $5 million. Now, is that money that we authorized, the $5 million?

Secretary BRYANT. Well, that is withdrawal of specific items which were originally submitted by the Air Force and on review reduced by that amount, for this particular program.

Mr. BROOKS. So that the prior authorizations to the extent of $5 million would be canceled for the Air Force?

Secretary BRYANT. I would like Mr. Deininger of my staff, with your permission, who is familiar with the details, to answer, if it suits the pleasure of the Chair.

Mr. BROOKS. All right, Mr. Bryant, if you wish.

Mr. DEININGER. Mr. Chairman, the $5 million to which Mr. Bryant referred and to which I believe you are referring now, is with respect

to the amount of authorization indicated in section 6 of the proposed bill. The proposed bill shows it as $6,272,000 for the Air Force Re

serve.

Subsequent to the time the bill was transmitted to the Congress, the Air Force has withdrawn several items, which will reduce that $6,272,000 to approximately $5 million. It is not a withdrawal of $5 million. It is reducing the $6,272,000 shown in the bill to approximately $5 million.

Mr. BROOKS. That will be $12 million, is what it will be.
Secretary BRYANT. Yes.

Mr. DEININGER. One million and a quarter dollars. But they were voluntarily withdrawals by the Air Force.

Mr. BROOKS. Mrs. St. George

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Secretary, first of all I would like to say I like the way this statement has been presented, it being related to each section of the bill. I would hope that we could continue that practice in the future.

On page 5 you say this applies to all Reserve components except the National Guard whose unobligated appropriations expire at the end of each fiscal year. What is the reason for making that dif ference?

Secretary BRYANT. I can't tell you the reason. I have always been confused myself.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. It seems to me rather strange.

Secretary BRYANT. It is, however, a congressional historical precedent, the origin of which I am really not familiar with.

It is peculiar that it is distinguished from other components.
Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Yes.

Secretary BRYANT. For the departments, but it happens to be true. Perhaps Mr. Deininger-you know the background of that?

Mr. DEININGER. I don't know the background, but maybe this will explain the situation. For all of the other components construction money is in appropriation titles which are just for construction.

In the case of the Air National Guard the construction money is in the total Air National Guard appropriation, which covers all expenses of the Air National Guard, and historically those funds have been 1-year funds, rather than no-year funds, which is normal for construction money.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Isn't that rather awkward, if you have construction in there? I should think it would be just as awkward for the Air Force to have these funds cut down at the end of each fiscal year as it would be for anybody else, on the matter of construction.

Mr. DEININGER. There has been consideration given to the possibility of requesting the appropriation on a no-year basis.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. I think that should be considered, Mr. Chairman. I can't see any reason for making that difference. I should think in construction it would be extremely helpful.

Mr. BROOKS. More so, I will say to the gentlewoman from New York. It would seem with the National Guard, whether it be ground or air National Guard, the States have to supplement or match a part of the funds. Now, the legislatures may not be in session immediately in some of these States to provide the matching funds. And yet we require a greater degree of stringency in going ahead with

them than we do with our own entirely Federal people. We give them 2 years, but the guard, which has to, as I say, supplement and consult with its own legislature they have to have legislative action-we cut them down to 1 year. It is difficult to understand. I agree with Mrs. St. George.

Secretary BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, this is only the Air National Guard. It doesn't apply to Army National Guard.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Yes.

Mr. BROOKS. The same thing

Mr. DEININGER. The Air National Guard facilities are financed 100 percent by the Federal Government.

Mr. BROOKS. That is right.

Mr. DEININGER. So we don't have State matching funds involved in that particular program.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. I think that is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BROOKS. All right.

Mr. Secretary, then, you suggested we proceed with the other witnesses. Would you call them

Mr. DUCANDER. Mr. Chairman, could we get a couple of things straight for the record, please, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. Yes, Mr. Ducander

Mr. DUCANDER. Mr. Secretary, in order that the record will be clear about the 25 percent overprograming-I won't say overprograming, but programing

Secretary BRYANT. Flexibility.

Mr. DUCANDER. Yes, flexibility. Is that included so that it will allow flexibility for the Department to change certain projects if it becomes necessary after the bill is passed?

Secretary BRYANT. No, it couldn't. If I understand the question, and I think I do-you will correct me if I am mistaken-this is not designed to provide a medium of evolving a new project.

Mr. DUCANDER. No, not a new one. You will have, as I understand it, only 75 percent appropriations for 100 percent authorization. Therefore, if you wanted to change a project which is listed in the bill, you could do so without having to come back to Congress, is that right, Mr. Deininger?

Mr. DEININGER. That is correct, as long as the substituted project is also authorized in the bill. Since we will not have sufficient appropriations to cover 100 percent of the projects listed-some of those projects will be constructed out of this year's money and some of them can't be, obviously. The 25 percent overprograming of authorization would be carried over into the next year and the next year's appropriations could apply to the accomplishment of those projects. Mr. DUCANDER. Now

Mr. DEININGER. It allows a flexibility-suppose we only had project authorization to the extent of 100 percent of our funds. If something happened that one of those projects couldn't go ahead, we would be blocked from doing anything with that money. The money would have to just lay there.

Mr. DUCANDER. That is exactly what I mean. In other words, if you have 2 projects, 1 at New Orleans and 1 at Atlanta and for some reason-now, this is under the provisions of the bill.

Mr. DEININGER. Yes.