We have enough money, sir, to do our programs, both in fiscal 1958 and 1959, under the levels I gave the chairman. Now, as I understand it, sir, you have asked me if these levels-if the level for fiscal year 1959 were raised, would we have needed armories that would be in the right location, in the right size for proper use is that what you asked me, sir? Mr. BROOKS. That is right. General SHULER. Mr. Chairman, I would say that we could come up with armories which because of their high participating strength we could be fairly certain would fit the final troop structure, but I must point out in all justice, sir, that the troop structure is not yet finalized. We should know exactly where the unit is going to be, its physical location, and we should know the size of that unit, in order to absolutely guarantee that any specific armory would be exactly the one which should be built with the money. But I do feel Mr. BROOKS. Let me ask you this: Did you present the program to the committee last year? General SHULER. Yes, sir; I did. Mr. BROOKS. And you presented a program which would have called for $55 million in construction for the Reserve, isn't that right? General SHULER. That is right, sir. Mr. BROOKS. Now, was all of that program needed by the Army at once? General SHULER. Mr. Chairman, that is a little complicated, for this reason Mr. BROOKS. Now, we have the record of last year. General SHULER. Yes, sir. Mr. BROOKS. It is there. General SHULER. I realize that, sir. Last year, sir, as you will recall-up until last year and last year we presented our requirements based on the Reserve forces plan 1-54. Under that plan the paid participating strengths of the Guard and Reserve were almost double what the ceiling is as given to us by the Department of Defense. I am talking now, sir, about the 630,000 total. We told this committee at that time, that there would be some reduction in our requirements because of this reduction in strength, that we could not tell you then, sir, what it was, but that we would study it and report to you as I recall, sir, by the end of calendar year 1957. We fully intended to do that, and as you know, sir, things have been somewhat delayed on getting the force structure finalized. Mr. BROOKS. Did you need the $55 million last year? General SHULER. Yes, sir. Mr. BROOKS. You needed it for Army Reserve construction? Mr. BROOKS. And guard? General SHULER. Yes, sir. Mr. BROOKS. That was needed at that time? General SHULER. Yes, sir. Mr. BROOKS. Now, it hasn't been spent. Now, is that due to a cutback in the program or is that due to your unwillingness to proceed with what is needed? General SHULER. It certainly is not due to the latter, Mr. Chairman. It has strictly been on account of the expenditure limitations placed on the Army, which caused a slowdown in obligations which would later result in expenditures. We naturally, sir, since the Secretary of the Army requested the restoration of the program for both years to $55 million, we naturally, sir, feel that we can do programs of that size and build legitimate facilities that are needed. Mr. BROOKS. If you needed all of that last year, do you need any additional money for this year? You are not recommending any, are you? General SHULER. I don't know how the Department of Defense and the Bureau of the Budget would feel about that. So I don't believe I Mr. BROOKS. How about the way the committee feels about it, too? General SHULER. May I say this, in answer to your statement, sir? Mr. BROOKS. Yes. General SHULER. If the program were raised for fiscal 1959 to $55 million as against the $40 million level we now have approved for the Army to carry out, we would need additional appropriations, by roughly the difference between the two figures. Mr. BROOKS. You have a program of $40 million for next year, but that is already money that was previously appropriated for you. General SHULER. That is right, sir. Mr. BROOKS. It will mark no new appropriation for this coming year. General SHULER. That is right, sir. Mr. BROOKS. When we go before the House, the first thing the Members of the House are going to ask is, "Why is it there is no provision for the Army and the Army National Guard in this bill?" And our answer can only be that the Army didn't ask for anything. General SHULER. That is not correct, sir. We did ask for an additional program, but the Department of Defense and the Bureau of the Budget marked it down to the way it is in the bill. Mr. BROOKS. You didn't ask the committee for any money, then, put it that way? General SHULER. That is correct, sir. Mr. BROOKS. And that is in the face of the fact that the governors came before this subcommittee and every single one of them pleaded for a pushing up of the program of National Guard armory construction. You are familiar with that? General SHULER. Yes, sir. Mr. BROOKS. Because I think you were here at the time. It was headed by the Governor from Illinois, who was chairman of the governors' conference. Have you any questions? Mr. WINSTEAD. Do I understand this $55 million-is that just for construction of armories for the Reserve and the National Guard? General SHULER. Yes, sir; that is essentially what it is, except we must include, sir, the nonarmory projects which the National Guard builds. Mr. WINSTEAD. What amount would that cover? General SHULER. That is a small percentage, sir, of the program. It usually amounts to 10 or 15 percent of the total amount of money the National Guard gets. Mr. WINSTEAD. You referred to drill pay. But no drill pay is involved in this amount of money. General SHULER. No, sir. This is strictly construction, sir. Mr. WINSTEAD. Now, as you reduce well, of course, you haven't reduced it yet. I believe we hadn't reached it. The recommendations cut you some. We don't know what we will end up with here. As you reduce the Regular force, is it the plan to also reduce the Reserve forces in proportion? General SHULER. Sir, I don't believe I am qualified to answer that question. Mr. WINSTEAD. The only thing that worries me on that: A few years ago when we were fighting for the Reserve Act the whole argument all the way through was we hoped we could get to reducing the Regular forces by increasing the Reserves. It seems to me the program is being reduced all the way down, the Reserve, National Guard, and everything else, in proportion to the Regular forces. But that is not in your field. But this $55 million is largely for armory construction? General SHULER. That is right, sir. Mr. WINSTEAD. That is all. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Fisher Mr. FISHER. In other words, that is what you are wanting, an additional authorization of $55 million for National Guard and Reserve armory construction? General SHULER. Mr. Fisher, I can't say yes to that question. But I can say this: Mr. Brucker has requested of the Department of Defense that the program for both fiscal year 1958 and 1959 be raised to the $55 million level from the level at which it is now specified. (For your information, sir, again those levels are $35 million for 1958 and $40 million for fiscal 1959.) Now, the Secretary of the Army has requested this raise, and we did not get it, although we got a partial raise to the figures I just cited, because we were below these amounts when he made the request. So that, sir, is the best answer I can give to your question. Mr. WINSTEAD. Mr. Chairman, if I understand correctly, he has made himself clear. He is not in position to request it, but he has made it definitely clear that was the original request of the Secretary of the Army. General SHULER. That is right, sir. Mr. WINSTEAD. For this amount. But since it has been set by the Defense Department, you are really in no position at this time to come here and request that we up it above the figures that have been set. General SHULER. That is exactly right, sir. Mr. BROOKS. Here is the situation that is presented to us: We have a bill here to authorize funds for reserve military construction and National Guard construction. We provide in this bill for additional Navy construction and additional Air Force construction for the reserves and additional Air National Guard construction, but there is not one penny in this bill to authorize any construction in the Army Reserve or the Army National Guard. Now, the reason they give for that is this, that last year we authorized $55 million, that you got the $55 million, and then the budget. sent the word out you should not spend more than $27 million. In other words, they cut it in half and said, "You spend half of it." Now, they say in effect, "You will live on the fat for this year, we will allow you to spend the additional sums you already have appropriated by Congress last year." The question in the mind of the committee is this: Do you have a program which if the committee placed money in the bill for the Army Guard and the Army Reserve-do you have a program which could be used as a line item program for the construction of, say, five or ten million dollars in armories? General SHULER. We could submit such a program to the Department of Defense; yes, sir. Mr. BROOKS. Can you submit it to the Congress? General SHULER. If you ask me for it, yes, sir. Mr. BROOKS. I am asking. Read the question back. I thought it was plain. I was asking for it. Mr. DUCANDER. I called the Department this morning and asked that it be submitted. Mr. BROOKS. Never mind reading the question. General SHULER. Yes, sir; we can submit it. Mr. WINSTEAD. Mr. Chairman, do you have armories already submitted and approved, for the National Guard particularly, by the States and by the Army, that would cover this portion of the $55 million that you are talking about, that has already been approved by the States and by the Army itself, or how many projects do you have that have already met the requirements and been approved by the States and by the Army and submitted to the Defense Department that is not covered in this $40 million appropriation? General SHULER. Yes, sir. Mr. WINSTEAD. In other words, you have sufficient number of troops to take up the maximum that you would spend if you were granted the $55 million by the States and by the Army at this particular time. General SHULER. Yes, sir; provided the United States Army Reserves is fitted into there, too. Mr. WINSTEAD. Yes. General SHULER. So the two of them took up the difference. Mr. WINSTEAD. It would cover both? General SHULER. Yes, sir. Mr. WINSTEAD. If it was out. General SHULER. Yes, sir. Mr. WINSTEAD. Another question, too. General, it was proposed to reduce the Reserve by 30,000 and the Guard by 40,000. Is that the reason there is a cutback in this construction program? General SHULER. No, sir. I would say, Mr. Chairman, from the best of my understanding and I sincerely believe this to be correct— that in comparing 700,000 total with 630,000 for paid drill purposes, it wouldn't make any difference in the number of armories, because it would only mean that you would have fewer people aboard in the units. In other words, you have the same unit structure, as I understand it. Therefore, I don't think the armory requirements are any different for those two figures. I am quite sure they aren't. Mr. BROOKS. But if you had an armory requirement that was near the border line, it might be pushed over as not being required. General SHULER. That could happen if you went down below the 50 percent aboard. That could throw some of them out. Mr. WINSTEAD. As I understand Mr. BROOKS. If he may finish his answer. You don't think that personnel reduction had a thing to do with the reduction in the armory program? General SHULER. The reduction from 700,000, to 630,000 doesn't, but certainly the reduction from the paid strength under RFP 1-54, from something like 1,257,000 down to 630,000-that certainly has an effect in reducing the number of armories that are required. Mr. BROOKS. Has that been the reason that has brought about this reduction? General SHULER. That is what has brought about the reduction, sir, in the figures that I have given the committee today and the ones that I gave them in past years over here, because those were based on the Reserve Forces Plan 1-54 strength and not on the 630,000. Mr. BROOKS. Your figures given us today are based on what? General SHULER. They are based, sir, on the ceiling of 630,000 paid drill strength that the Department of Defense has given the Department of the Army. Mr. BROOKS. Under your figures given us today, there is need for considerably more construction in the Army program, even under the 600,000. General SHULER. That is exactly right, sir. I can refresh your memory. Mr. BROOKS. If you will. General SHULER. Sir, by telling you that under this strength, of 630,000, there is a need for $287 million to finish both the programs. And that is broken down $52 million for the National Guard and $235 million for the United States Army Reserve. I would like to say at this point, sir, out of fairness to the National Guard-and I don't know whether General McGowan-I see him in the back of the room. Mr. BROOKS. Yes. General SHULER. I must state, as I did in March before this committee, that there is an honest difference of opinion between the Army and General McGowan's office on the total remaining requirement for armories for the National Guard. And I believe that General McGowan can speak to that, sir, when you desire. But we have figured what we think is the requirement, sir. And actually the difference is 530 armories. We feel that the total requirement for armories is 2,250 for the guard, and they feel it is 2,780. That, of course Mr. BROOKS. A difference of 500. General SHULER. Sir? Mr. BROOKS. A difference of 500, roughly. General SHULER. Five hundred and thirty. And if you cost that out, it amounts to $93 million of Federal participation. So there is quite a difference. We have done it honestly, sir, and I am sure they figured theirs honestly, but it is a different approach on both sides, sir. |