Page images

Mr. DucANDER. For some reason you can't go ahead with Atlanta, then you could go ahead with New Orleans, even though you might not have a plan to do so originally. - * Mr. DEININGER. That is right. But it will be a valid authorization as a line item, yes, sir. Mr. DUCANDER. Just one other thing. - Mr. Secretary, what assurance can the committee have that the items in the bill if authorized and appropriated for—what assurance can the commitee have that the projects will be completed? - Secretary BRYANT. Well— Mr. DUCANDER. I mean—here is what I am trying to get to. Secretary BRYANT. Yes. Mr. DUCANDER. Perhaps I put that wrong. If a project has been authorized and you have appropriations and the individual departments requests an opportionment of funds, what assurance can the committee have that the Department of Defense will allow them to have the funds? Secretary BRYANT. I can only speak for myself, sir. I think perhaps the comptroller would be better able to give you more positive assurances. But I have been advised that the apportionment procedure will follow the appropriation and authorization. I am as of this time more confident that in this year we will not have the difficulty that we had before, as I tried to explain to the chairman earlier. So far as it may be useful to the record and to your answer, this is the assurance as given me. Perhaps the Chair or the committee would like to have some further explanation of this problem or assurances from the comptroller's office, which I am sure they would be happy to offer. Mr. DUCANDER. You may not be aware of it, Mr. Secretary, or you may. But it was necessary for the chairman to take up with the Secretary of Defense the necessity for allowing the Air Guard to use money which had been authorized and appropriated and which the Secretary of Defense would not allow the Air Guard to spend. Fortunately, because he took it up with the Secretary of Defense on two different occasions, we have been advised that the Secretary will now allow the Air Guard to have the money. But, it shouldn’t be necessary for the chairman of the subcommittee to have to do that, once it has been authorized and appropriated. Secretary BRYANT. I agree with you thoroughly. Under the circumstances, I feel obliged to discuss this personally with the Secretary on my return. And I will do so. Mr. DUCANDER. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Brooks. May I say that that is the general feeling of the members of the committee, that when the authorization is granted and the funds appropriated, we have difficulty in having them spent. And you come up year by year with a surplus, when our testimony and what we learn individually is that these facilities are needed. Now, at the very moment we were having the conference of governors, representing practically every governor in the country, and they were pleading for funds for the purpose of building National Guard armories, we were showing up with surpluses. And it didn’t make sense to the members of the committee—it doesn’t make sense to me now. If I could amplify for the record something I could tell the Members on

the floor of the House about that, I would like to have your explanation.

Secretary BRYANT. I would be happy, sir, with your permission, to so amplify the record, and I will discuss this and get an answer the best I can for you within the next day or two.

Mr. BROOKS. For instance, just the other day the chairman of one of the committees in Congress mentioned the fact to me that he gained very little by having an authorization for an armory and then getting funds; because, although they needed it badly, there was no way to obtain the release of funds for the actual construction.

I know in my congressional district personally there is a demand for an armory which has been approved by the State and yet the funds are not available for that purpose.

It was scheduled to be in the program. But it hasn't shown up. And yet we show up with apparently a surplus of funds.

Secretary BRYANT. May I, then, try to secure some amplification for the record on this issue and submit it to the committee? (The information is as follows:)



Washington, D.C., June 16, 1958. Hon. OVERTON BROOKS,

Chairman, Subcommittee No. 1, Armed Services Committee, House of

Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. BROOKS: During the hearings on H. R. 12369 before your Subcommittee No. 1 an amplification of a reply to the following question asked of me by the committee counsel was requested to be submitted for the record :

"If a project has been authorized and you have appropriations and the individual department requests an apportionment of funds, what assurance can the committee have that the Department of Defense will allow them to have the funds?"

I believe it would be helpful to an understanding of this problem if the procedures utilized in the administration of this program were more fully explained.

Projects submitted to the Congress, either under the consultation procedure heretofore in effect or for authorization on a line item basis as in the proposed legislation under consideration, have been carefully reviewed as to the validity of the requirement and for conformance with established policies and criteria of the Department. When necessary congressional authorization has been granted and funds appropriated, funds are normally apportioned promptly to execute the projects involved. However, when changes in requirements occur before the funds for the project have been apportioned, or when reservist strength at a location for some reason is not sustained or does not attain anticipated levels, to the extent that expenditure of appropriated funds would not then be prudent, it has been our position that a project should be deferred until the situation has been corrected or clarified. Changes by a number of the States in their project locations and priorities have added to these difficulties in the Army National Guard program. For both the Army Reserve and Army National Guard, the revised drill pay strengths and the revision of the organizational structure under the pentomic division structure may continue to be a source of delay for some projects until the Department of the Army and the State National Guard officials complete the detailed troop basis and unit distribution plans reflecting those changes.

As has been more fully explained in the hearings before Subcommittee No. 5, the basic statute under which appropriated funds are administered requires apportionment of funds by responsible officials in the executive branch so as “to achieve the most effective and economical use thereof." The statute further provides :

"In apportioning any appropriation, reserves may be established to provide for contingencies, or to effect savings whenever savings are made possible by or through changes in requirements, greater efficiency of operations, or other developments subsequent to the date on which such appropriation was made available." [Emphasis supplied.]

Therefore, in the review of these programs it becomes the responsibility of the program managers to bring any changes in requirements to the attention of the Secretary of Defense prior to the submission of apportionment requests to the Bureau of the Budget, in order that he may adequately discharge his responsibilities under this statute. Since this matter was covered comprehensively in the statement of Assistant Secretary McNeil before Subcommittee No. 5, I am forwarding herewith a copy of that statement to complete this picture.

The above statement has covered the program aspects relating to the apportionment of funds for individual construction projects. So far as the overall fiscal situation for fiscal year 1959 is concerned, Department of Defense policies were clearly outlined in a recent letter from the Secretary of Defense to the chairman of the Department of Defense Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations, a copy of which is attached. Sincerely yours,

FLOYD S. BRYANT. Mr. BROOKS. I want to generally compliment the Secretary for doing a good job on the overall program. But we do have that feeling that when you come here with a program and we approve it and then try to help get the funds for the program we have no assurance that the money is going to be spent on that particular program, but the tendency is to show a surplus so that I don't know the purpose, but the result is it is more difficult the next year to get funds for a new program because there has been a surplus in prior years.

Secretary BRYANT. I understand that, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. I think, unless Mr. Bray-Mr. Bray, do you have any questions?

Mr. BRAY. No.

Mr. BROOKS. Unless there are further questions. Now, we don't have time to take up the Army case this morning, because the full commitee meets at 10 o'clock.

I would think this: Unless there is a contrary idea, the best thing to do would be to adjourn now until 9 in the morning, and at that time take up the Naval and Marine Corps Reserve case. Perhaps, too, we will have an opportunity to meet tomorrow afternoon, if the House will let us, so we can clean up a large part of this bill tomorrow. Is that satisfactory?

Mrs. Sr. GEORGE. Yes.

Mr. BROOKS. If the committee goes along with me on that idea, then, I think we will adjourn until tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock, Mr. Ducander.

Mr. DUCANDER. (Aside.)

Mr. BROOKS. We will start with the Navy tomorrow morning, as the first witness, and after that the Air Force and the Army.

The committee is adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 9:50 a. m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 9 a. m., Friday, June 6, 1958.)



Washington, D.C., Friday, June 6, 1958. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 9:10 a. m., in room 313-A, Old House Office Building, Hon. Overton Brooks (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. BROOKS. The subcommittee will come to order.

This morning we have as the first witness Rear Adm. John Taylor, United States Navy, in support of H. R. 12369.

Admiral Taylor, will you come forward, sir?

Admiral TAYOR. This is Captain Etter of the Bureau of Yards and Docks, who is responsible for the execution of the program.

If I may, I will read my statement.
Mr. BROOKS. Very well.

Admiral TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to appear before you again in support of the Naval Reserve forces facilities program.

Under the provisions of Public Law 783–81, the facilities for sup: port of the Naval and Marine Corps Reserve have been extended and improved to the extent that they are now numerically sufficient.

At this point I would like to interject a qualifying phrase. With the exception of one center which has been disestablished, but which has not yet been replaced.

We consider the replacement center in Manhattan as being a replacement for a center which was disestablished several years ago and which we have not been able to replace yet.

Mr. BROOKS. Other than that you have, numerically, a sufficiency?
Admiral TAYLOR. Yes.
Mr. BROOKS. How about capacitywise?

Admiral TAYLOR. Capacitywise, in most cases it is suffcient, but there are a few exceptions which we will come to later in the statement.

Mr. BPOOKS. Very well.

Admiral Taylor. In past years a total of $82 million has been appropriated to carry out this program. To date, a little more than $64 million have been obligated and it is expected this total will be raised to $70 million by the end of fiscal year 1958.

Our performance in current years has been as follows:

[blocks in formation]

Mr. BROOKS. Right there, if I may interpolate, the real program for Navy Reserve facilities must have been prior to 1957. I notice you had a carryover, for instance, from 1956, of $34 million, which is almost twice as much as you have had in the way of direct appropriations since.

Admiral TAYLOR. Yes, sir. The performance under the program was not good in prior years, due perhaps to problems in real estate and things of that nature and we were looking forward to or trying to get this carryover down to a reasonable figure, as you can see, and one that will be acceptable to your committee.

Mr. BROOKS. Now, your carryover at the end of this year will be $10 million

Admiral TAYLOR. That is estimated.

Mr. BRooks. Is that calendar year, or fiscal year? Admiral TAYLOR. That is fiscal year, sir. Mr. Brooks. That is a good deal better than it has been. Admiral TAYLOR. In going to this new plan, this line item authorization, we are also trying to put the whole program on a more realistic and logical basis than it has been in the past. In the beginning, as you know, there was a very large job ahead and there was an effort to approach it as a mass problem. Now, we are§§§ down to individual cases. r. BRooks. You state the program for the Navy was $82 million, but you are not telling the committee, are you, that that $82 million constitutes all of the money that the Navy has spent for its reserve facilities program over a period of many years? Admiral TAYLoR. No, sir. Mr. BRooks. That is only for 3 years? Admiral TAYLOR. Under the provisions of Public Law 783. Mr. BRooks. Proceed. Admiral TAYLOR. However, many of the activities now in use are World War II vintage buildings converted to reserve training and are of temporary type construction, while others are occupied on a lease basis from nongovernmental activities. Most of these two categories will ultimately require replacement. Coupled with the foregoing, the facilities program must keep pace with up-to-date training equipment and procedures. Thus, modernization and rehabilitation of existing facilities is a continuing requirement. Our plans for the future envision only replacement and modernization of facilities. Further, we plan to replace only those facilities which have a well-attended, virile training program, and where replacement is necessitated by lease provisions, high annual costs of maintenance, or advanced deterioration. The facilities program consists of three budget activities: (a) The Naval Reserve, aviation program, which also supports Marine Corps Reserve aviation, is composed of 22 activities. Six of these are Naval Air Reserve training units situated on regular air stations and the remainder are reserve air stations. Our foreseeable requirements to keep these activities in step with the demands of modern aircraft and associated equipment amounts to $125 million. This includes replacement of those buildings which are deteriorated beyond economical repair, modernization of other buildings and modernization of operations facilities. (b) The Naval Reserve, surface program consists of 319 trainin centers and facilities, and 184 electronic facilities and stations. major effort is now underway to reorganize sizeable segments of the surface program into crews ready on short notice to man antisubmarine warfare ships for immediate augmentation of the fleet in an emergency. This will necessitate the providing of some berthing facilities and dockside services in conjunction with the adjacent training centers. Modernization and replacement of overage temporary buildings, previously mentioned is required. The total foreseeable requirements for the Naval Reserve, surface program are estimated at $29 million. (c) The Marine Corps Reserve, ground, facilities establishment consists of 231 training centers, 163 of which are combined with the 20066–58—No. 85—2

« PreviousContinue »