We propose to construct a new training center on 3 acres of land to be provided by the Christian Brothers Academy at a 50-year lease of $1 per year. This will then provide the complete facility. Mr. BROOKS. This is the Christian Brothers Academy. Who are they? Major HEINEMANN. It is a Catholic school, sir, located in the center of Memphis. Mr. BROOKS. They will, in effect, give you the land for 50 years? Mr. BROOKS. And you will provide these facilities on the land? Mr. BROOKS. Are your present facilities owned or leased by the Marine Corps? Major HEINEMANN. We occupy them with the Naval Reserve. Commander MILLER. We do, sir. Mr. BROOKS. The Navy owns it? Mr. BROOKS. What are you going to do with the present facilities? Commander MILLER. We are going to retain ours, sir. Mr. BROOKS. It just means the Marines are leaving? Commander MILLER. Yes, sir. Mr. BROOKS. There isn't enough space in the present facilities for you and the Marines to remain there? Commander MILLER. And there is no possibility of acquiring in fee title any additional real estate at that training center because of some plans the State has on a superhighway that is going through there. Mr. BROOKS. If you get this new place, will you have room enough for the Navy, because they will be joining you in a few years? Major HEINEMANN. We would have, yes, sir. We are always ready to go into joint utilization with another service. Incidentally, one item I omitted on this present training center: Shortage of space is so acute that we are holding our classes outdoors. In inclement weather, the troops are in the boilerroom and passageway for classes. Mr. BROOKS. Well, for that climate, midwinter is a bad time to be out of doors. Now, will you have enough facilities to do outside drill training for the Marines? Major HEINEMANN. Yes, sir; we will. The authorities at the Christian Brothers Academy have leased us these 3 acres for the training center and are making other acreage available for us, for our drill and training purposes. Mr. BROOKS. That sounds like a pretty good arrangement to me. If there is no objection to it, we will approve that item. Navy and Marine Corps Reserve Training Center, Moline, Ill., training facilities, $152,000. Major HEINEMANN. This unit is presently located in Rock Island, Ill., at the Rock Island Arsenal. They are located in the basement of an Army barracks constructed in 1847. Approximately 20 percent of the space that this unit requires is available. There is no room for further expansion in this area. The Army cannot make additional spaces available to us. To correct the deficiency in space, we propose to construct an addition to the Naval Reserve Training Center in Moline, Ill. The addition will contain 10,553 square feet. Mr. BROOKS. And that will cost you how much money? Major HEINEMANN. This will be at a cost of $152,000, sir. Mr. BROOKS. You are going to build that on Government-owned land? Major HEINEMANN. Yes, sir. Mr. BROOKS. And it will be a joint-use project after you do that? Major HEINEMANN. Yes, sir. Mr. BROOKS. What is the Navy going to do? Commander MILLER. They are adding to our facility, Mr. Chair man. Major HEINEMANN. We are adding to the Naval Reserve Training Center, adding to their facility. Mr. BROOKS. You will move over with the Navy? Major HEINEMANN. Yes, sir. Mr. BROOKS. Who are you with now? Major HEINEMANN. We are in the basement of an Army barracks at Rock Island, Ill. Mr. BROOKS. Is the Army using that building? Major HEINEMANN. Yes. Mr. BROOKS. The Army will retain the use of it? Major HEINEMANN. Yes, sir. Mr. BROOKS. But it isn't large enough for both of you? Mr. BROOKS. Is it large enough for the Army to use? Major HEINEMANN. The Army is utilizing it for school purposes. They have some upper stories they are using for school purposes. However, they do not have additional space to make available to us. Mr. BROOKS. That being built in 1847, I think we have gotten most of the utility out of it. If there is no objection, then, we will approve that, and thank you very much, Major. You have answered the questions quickly. You know the answers, and we appreciate that type of help. Major HEINEMANN. Thank you. Mr. BROOKS. We will turn aside for the time being from the bill and go down to the Air Force Reserve and hear General Harrison, who has to leave town. Admiral, we certainly thank you for coming by. There are two items to be carried over. In the meantime, between now and the next meeting, we will look into those items and try to clear some of these things up, and then we can dispose of them in a hurry. You have a prepared statement, General? General HARRISON. Yes, sir. My name is Maj. Gen. William H. Harrison, Jr., president of the National Guard Association of the United States. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the courtesy of hearing me this afternoon. I have been in Washington for a week and I must get back to my office tomorrow. Mr. BROOKS. We understand that and we are glad to hear you. General HARRISON. The National Guard Association of the United States appreciates this opportunity to appear before your committee during its consideration of H. R. 12369, a bill to provide additional facilities necessary for the administration and training of units of the Reserve components of the Armed Forces of the United States. In discussing the features of this bill, which are of interest to the National Guard, we should like to deal separately with the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard, as follows: AIR NATIONAL GUARD Maj. Gen. Winston P. Wilson, Deputy Chief of the National Guard Bureau and Chief of the Air Force Division of that Bureau, will provide you with an excellent picture concerning the construction accomplishments and those proposed to be effected under H. R. 12369. It is a source of great pride to the National Guard that the construction operations of the National Guard Bureau in support of the Air National Guard have been geared so closely to existing requirements and, in the past, flexible enough to permit the completion of those items of most benefit to the overall program. The matter of flexibility in the construction program takes on added importance and significance in view of the changing requirements in the Air National Guard equipment program, and the increased tempo of conversions of Air National Guard squadrons to the latest and most modern aircraft. The Air National Guard construction program has operated under extremely realistic ground rules. Construction of facilities has been geared to the availability and delivery of type aircraft, and also to personnel growth of the units concerned. Such policies have permitted a molding of programs and requirements to an unusually successful degree. It is extremely unfortunate that, due to expenditure ceilings and limitations on obligational authority during the current fiscal year, some of the items scheduled to be placed under contract during fiscal 1958 will not now be so contracted. These particular items are not included within the line-item terms of the proposed bill and, therefore, there appears to be no reasonable chance of obtaining their construction until fiscal 1960 or later. The basic reason for this is that the Air National Guard has what may be called 1-year money, and no provision is made in this bill to carry forward to fiscal 1959 the unexpended balances within the current appropriation which might then be utilized to construct those needed facilities which time, ceilings, and limitations now preclude from accomplishment prior to June 30, 1958. Moreover, the 1-year money limitation apparently is not applicable to any other component, but only to the Air National Guard. Lastly, we are apprehensive lest the provisions of the last paragraph of the bill be too restrictive in the permissible percentage figure expressed therein relating to price variation. Experience has taught that construction costs are rarely static, but vary from locality to locality, and also both up and down. Moreover, great differentials in cost can be incurred between the programing of a construction item in the budget, which is made up almost 2 years ahead of time, and the actual date at which the contracts are awarded and funds obligated. Public Law 783 permitted the absorption of high and low construction costs throughout the entire program, providing a much-needed flexibility and contributing materially to the successful Air National Guard construction program over the past several years. We believe that a greater percentage figure might well be written into the bill rather than the 15 percent now imposed therein. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, we propose the following changes to the bill: (1) That the provision on lines 8 and 9 of page 11 of the bill be made not applicable to the Air National Guard; and (2) That the percentage figure of 15 percent in the last paragraph of the bill be deleted and that the figure "25 percent" be inserted in lieu thereof. ARMY NATIONAL GUARD You will note that this bill, H. R. 12369, includes no new authorization for either armory or nonarmory construction for the Army National Guard. Likewise, the Defense budget for fiscal 1959 includes no new request for Army National Guard armory or nonarmory construction funds. The budget does, however, anticipate a carryover of $13 million of armory funds from fiscal 1958 which have been withheld from the National Guard Bureau during the current fiscal year. With these funds, it is proposed to construct 74 new armories, as well as 23 additions to existing armories in fiscal 1959. Since it now appears that the carryover will be only $12 million or less instead of the $13 million anticipated in the budget, the number of armories that can be constructed with carryover funds will be reduced proportionally unless nonarmory funds can be made available for armory construction. The unobligated balance in nonarmory funds at the end of the current fiscal year will exceed $6 million. While there are numerous requests from the States, only 21 such projects are programed in fiscal 1959 at an estimated cost of $2 million. This would still leave $4 million to carry forward to fiscal 1960. The remaining $4 million should be obligated during fiscal 1959 for many needed projects which the States have requested. There still remains a dire need for many new National Guard armories. I am sure that each member of this committee is familiar with National Guard units within his own congressional district that are occupying rented space or donated space in the basement of city halls, schools, or fire stations, that are barely adequate for the proper storage of equipment, but are totally inadequate for the training of its members. Studies which the National Guard Bureau have made indicate that there is still a requirement for the expansion or new construction of over 800 armories. The National Guard Bureau can supply complete information as to the remaining requirements for armories. It was this committee, with many of your present members, that took the initiative in enacting the National Defense Facilities Act of 1950, which authorized for the first time the joint expenditure of Federal and State funds for the construction of National Guard armories. While this act provides that the Federal Government will contribute not to exceed 75 percent of the cost of these armories, experience figures indicate that the average proportions are 55 percent Federal funds and 45 percent State funds. Being a joint venture, the program was slow in getting started. However, the Congress has done its part in providing the funds, but the executive branch has used this program in fiscal 1958 as a convenient place to save on Federal expenditures, and proposes to do likewise in fiscal 1959. That this is true, generally, is evidenced by the large carryover in this program at the end of each fiscal year. Moreover, this carryover is then used as the basis for lesser appropriations for the coming year. The States, while expending nearly as much as the Federal Government in this program, have always been ahead in providing appropriations. At this time, there is appropriated in the several States almost $35 million as their share toward the construction of National Guard armories. Moreover, the States have submitted to the National Guard Bureau individual armory projects for which this $35 million of State funds would be their proportionate share. To meet the State appropriations, the Federal Government would need to appropriate over $100 million. Yet, for the coming fiscal year no new funds whatever are included. To keep faith with the States and to continue the construction of National Guard armories which are badly needed, we recommend that H. R. 12369 be amended to include authorization for the construction of National Guard armories for which the Federal Government's share would approximate $20 million. This is about the average amount which the Congress has appropriated for this purpose for the past several years. I understand that the Chief of the Army Division of the National Guard Bureau is not scheduled as a witness before this committee because no funds are included in this bill for Army Guard construction. I am sure, however, that office can supply the committee with detailed information concerning urgently required individual projects which the States have submitted to the Bureau, in order that these projects could be added to the bill on a line-item basis. As a matter of fact, I am informed that the Department of Defense has already submitted to this committee for agreement as required by law individual armory projects for which the Federal share will approximate $20 million and for which funds must still be appropriated before they can be built. On the other hand, should the committee choose to add a lump-sum authorization, as in previous years, sufficient State projects, already acted on as provided by law by this committee, are available to require the expenditure of $20 million in Federal funds. Over a period of many years, the National Guard has had opportunities to relate our problems to this committee. Not only have you listened to our story, but you have made intelligent and wise decisions. Without the decisions and actions of this committee, we most certainly would not occupy the status we have today, and could well be nonexistent. In this instance, with respect to the pending measure, H. R. 12369, we earnestly urge that the bill be amended to provide $20 million of construction authorization for National Guard armories. As I previously indicated, the States have the funds available for their share |