« PreviousContinue »
Mr. BRooks. That shouldn't enter into the present situation because you both come up here and make a case to show that you need more armory construction, whether it be the Guard figures or your figures. General SHULER. Yes, sir. Mr. Brooks. You still need more money. General SHULER. I just wanted to be fair to the guard people by acknowledging that there is this difference of opinion on the remaining deficit for National Guard armories, sir. Mr. BRooks. Any further questions ! Mr. Fis III.R. No. Mr. WINSTEAD. No. Mr. BRooks. Thank you very much, General Shuler. We appreciate your explanation very much. General SHULER. Thank you, sir. Mr. Brooks. Who is next? Mr. DUCANDER. Well, you could hear General McGowan on the needs of the National Guard Bureau. Mr. BRooks. General McGowan, could you come forward, sir? General McGowan, we have a short statement here in reference to H. R. 12369. We are rushed a little bit for time. So if you will proceed, we will appreciate it very much. neral McGowan. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to appear again before the committee. With me is our Colonel Taylor, the Comptroller of the Army Division; Colonel Kibler, who succeeded Colonel McCormick a year ago, is in charge of Army National Guard construction; and Colonel Kenyon from his shop. I have three charts which quickly, with your permission, would illustrate the Army National Guard construction requirements and capability. y June 30, 1957, the 932 armories shown in red were constructed or placed under contract. During the last of June of fiscal 1958, as shown by the red horizontal line, 94 more will be placed under contract this fiscal year. The deficit is 838 to be constructed in fiscal 1959 forward, as shown in the hatched red. The next chart shows the $134 million of appropriations that are still needed to complete the armory construction deficit just shown. This chart shows in blue the estimated Federal contribution of $249 million to meet the construction costs as were originally estimated in 1952. The gray bar shows the appropriations including fiscal 1958 made available by the Congress, of $115 million. And the red bar shows the remaining estimated required appropriations, of $134 million to construct the deficit. Now, chart 5, the third and last chart, shows our armory construction performance from fiscal 1953 through fiscal 1957 of actual, obligations. The fiscal 1958 bar shows obligations of $11.3 million to which the Army National Guard has been limited and the fiscal 1959 bar shows the $13 million limitation for next fiscal year. While I was out of town we received a request from your committee, Mr. Chairman, in connection with House Resolution 12369, and
I am prepared to submit an Army construction program in response to your request for the Army National Guard, for your consideration.
The armory projects included have been requested from the adjutants general of the States. They meet the requirement of the Department of Defense criteria as to unit strength. And they meet the requirement of a continuing need in the new force structure of the Army National Guard, in our judgment.
The urgency of adequate logistical and maintenance facilities is also of concern to the States, although it is habitual to speak only of armory construction.
I am aware of this committee's interest in providing these essential facilities for the Army National Guard and therefore a nonarmory program has been attached to this letter addressed to the committee, sir, in the amount of $3 million for your consideration and whatever action you desire to take. That concludes my statement, sir. (The prepared statement of General McGowan follows:) Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, I welcome the opportunity to report on the scope of the National Guard construction program, the construction progress to date, and future requirements, by project and by dollar requirements for armories and other facilities. I would first like to cover the armory requirement. I have several charts that I will use to illustrate our armory construction program.
Chart No. 1.-This chart shows the number of units and strengths of the National Guard prior to World War II, and compares them with the number of units and strengths projected to June 30, 1958. The growth depicted on this chart was the factor which necessitated a federally supported National Guard armory construction program. The bars on the left reflect the 80-percent increase in the number of units, and the bars on the right show the 100-percent increase in strength.
Maj. Gen. Kenneth F. Cramer, then Chief, National Guard Bureau, stated in testimony before the Senate subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services on March 23, 1949, that in surveying existing State-owned armories, approximately 1,000 were then considered adequate, and 500 more required rehabilitation and expansion. About 1,500 new armories were required to be built in a future armory construction program, bringing the estimated total armory requirement to approximately 3,000 structures.
Chart No. 2. Further studies incident to a federally supported armory construction program resulted in only slight modification of the initial requirement established by the early surveys. Accordingly, 2,780 was set as the total armory requirement. Since that time, units have increased by 750, located in 400 additional communities. Today's units are found in 2,600 small communities throughout the Nation and only to a limited degree in the large cities. Nine hundred and sixteen of the existing State-owned armories were considered adequate, leaving 1,864 armories to be expanded or constructed as shown in blue on this chart.
Chart No. 3.-As of June 30, 1957, the 932 armories shown in red were constructed or placed under contract. During fiscal 1958, as shown by the red horizontal line, 94 projects are programed for construction.
The deficit of 838 yet to be constructed from fiscal 1959 forward, is shown in hatched red.
Cover.-Armory appropriations of $17 million for fiscal 1958 brought the total armory appropriation, fiscal 1952 through fiscal 1958, to $109 million. A transfer of $6 million from nonarmory to the armory program in fiscal 1957 increased this availability to $115 million. Obligations through fiscal 1958 of $103.2 million will leave an unobligated balance in fiscal 1958 of $12 million to carry over into fiscal 1959.
(hart No. 4.-One hundred and thirty-four million dollars remains to be appropriated by the Congress to complete the armory construction requirement.
This chart shows in blue the estimated Federal coentribution of $249 million to meet the construction costs of the 1952 armory requirement. The gray bar shows that appropriations by the Congress to include fiscal 1958, and transfer
of funds, total $115 million. The red bar shows the remaining requirement of $134 million yet to be appropriated. Chart No. 5.-This next chart graphically portrays armory construction obligations from fiscal 1953 through fiscal 1959 under the provisions of the National Defense Facilities Act of 1950, as amended. Actual obligations are shown in solid blue and estimated obligations in hatched blue. The fiscal 1958 bar shows estimated obligations of $11.3 million and fiscal 1950, $13 million. Obligations have progressed from a low of $6 million in fiscal 1953 to highs of $26.2 million in fiscal 1956, and $26.7 million for fiscal 1957. The budget request does not provide for new obligation authority, but does provide for $13 million obligation authority from fiscal 1958 carryover funds, to construct 74 new armories and to provide for 23 additions to existing armories in fiscal 1959. Since only $12 million carryover funds are available from fiscal 1958 into fiscal 1959 for armory projects, $3.5 million will be transferred from nonarmory to armory projects. This will support an additional $1 million obligation authority, and provide a carryover of $2.5 million to fiscal 1960. The nonarmory program includes construction and rehabilitation of logistical and training facilities. The appropriation for fiscal 1958 nonarmory projects was $3 million. Also available was a carryover of $6.1 million from fiscal 1957, for a total availability of $9.1 million in fiscal 1958. Obligations in fiscal 1958 for 25 projects are estimated at $2.7 million. This will leave an unobligated balance in the nonarmory program of $6.4 million to carry over into fiscal 1959. Three and one-half million dollars will be transferred to support armory construction, leaving an availability of $2.9 million for fiscal 1959. The fiscal 1959 request does not include new obligation authority for nonarmory projects. There is a remaining $2 million obligation authority for the construction of 21 nonarmory projects out of the $2.9 million from the fiscal 1958 carryover. The remaining $900,000 will carry over into fiscal 1960.
Mr. BRooks. Now your charts and your statement is based upon what size National Guard? General McGowa N. On the presently programed National Guard of 360,000, sir. Mr. Brooks. Not based on the requirement of 400,000? General McGowa N. No, sir. I would like to comment on a statement General Shuler made, which was that a reduction of 10 percent would, in practical fact, have little or no effect on the number or size of armories, since an armory built for 100 men would be required on the same basis for a unit of 90 men— reduced 10 percent, as it were. Mr. BRooks. Do you concur in that statement? General McGowa N. I concur in that statement; yes, sir. Mr. BRooks. So that substantially there would be no difference in your program whether it be for 400,000 or 360,000? . General McGowa N. Not by reason of this projected 10 percent strength cut of the Army National Guard. Mr. Brooks. Mr. Winstead. Mr. WINSTEAD. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question, maybe a little off the subject? If I understand the plan now, it is not to cut the units of the National Guard, but to cut the personnel; is that the new plan? General McGowa N. Well, Mr. Winstead, there will be some units combined and reorganized, and there will be some eliminated under the new troop structure as proposed. As you also know, it was a subject of discussion at the governors conference on the part of the Secretary of Defense and the Chief of Staff of the Army, and we are now studying, in the Army staff, proposals or a solution to the problem in the light of those discussions. Mr. WINSTEAD. I am now wondering, myself, if you are §: reduce the personnel instead of the units, if we won’t come up with a whole bunch of units that just lacks that much of being adequately prepared in case of emergency. I know the argument goes on unit cut and on individual cut. General McGowan. Yes, sir. Mr. WINSTEAD. But to me, regardless of how we talk about it, we may be cutting the efficiency as much or more than we would have under the other plan. I just wonder what your comment would be . that. I am just trying to get some information for my own satisaction. General McGowa N. There is a percentage of the table or organization strength of a unit below which no unit should be cut if it is to conduct remunerative unit training and possess at the end a real mobilization readiness. Mr. WINSTEAD. What is that percent? General McGowan. Approximately 50 percent. It varies with the opinion of the person. I would say 50 to 55 percent would be the minimum strength, sir. Mr. WINSTEAD. There is— General McGowan. That is of the full table or organization strength. Mr. WINSTEAD. Now, if I understand you correctly, what you are requesting here only reaches—well, you said that had nothing to do with the Army. But did I understand you to say $3 million is now what you are requesting that this committee put in the bill now General McGowan. We have prepared a list at the request of the chairman of the committee, sir, of $20 million of armory construction and of $3 million of nonarmory construction, sir. Mr. WINSTEAD. You mean 20 additional million to what the present— General McGowa N. Of authorization; yes, sir. Mr. WINSTEAD. Yes. General McGowan. The chairman of the committee did not request o we submit any nonarmory projects. I want to make that point Clear. Mr. WINSTEAD. What would it cost you now to construct every project you have approved by the States and approved by the Army o ing before the }. Department? What would the total cost be on that score? General McGowan. We have before the Defense Department—we have approved by the Department of Defense approximately $13 million additional for 1959–14.6. For fiscal 1959, and including a carryover into fiscal 1960, we have $20.7 million of approved projects, we will say, with Department of Defense, so by the Department of Defense and the Armed Forces Committee of the Congress. Mr. BRooks. Is that both National Guard and Reserve? General McGowan. That is just the National Guard, sir. Mr. Brooks. Army National Guard? General McGowan. Army National Guard. . . Mr. WINSTEAD. What about the approvals by the States that has never been approved by the Army Do you have very many of those now pending?
General McGowan. We have many projects, sir, that the States still wish to build. We haven't totaled that up. But I could better answer perhaps by stating that the legislatures have appropriated and have in hand for support approximately $35 million in matching funds, which indicates pretty accurately what the States have estimated the requirements are and what they are willing to back up with their own money.
Mr. WINSTEAD. I believe that is all.
Mr. BROOKS. Do you have copies enough to give to the members of the committee, as well as to the reporter?
General McGowan. Yes, sir.
NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU,
Washington 25, D.O., June 9, 1958. Hon. OVERTON BROOKS, Chairman, Subcommittee No.1, Armed Services Committee,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. BROOKS: The accompanying list of 142 armory projects totaling approximately $20 million of Federal funds is in response to your committee's request of June 6, 1958, in connection with H. R. 12369.
Adequate logistical and maintenance facilities for the ARNG are also a necessity, and, realizing the interest of this committee in providing complete facilities, the National Guard Bureau is including with the above-requested list of armories a list of 17 nonarmory projects totaling $3,198,000.
The facilities listed are in accord with the requests and priorities established by the adjutant general of the States involved with State matching funds and sites stated to be available. The individual projects, both armory and nonarmory, have been reviewed for compliance with Department of Defense criteria and a continuing requirement under the new force structure of the Army National Guard and are all considered to be essential and eligible for Federal participation. Prior consultation action by the Armed Services Committees of the Congress is indicated on the lists for 52 armory and 9 nonarmory projects. None of the projects are in the carryover authorization lists being presented the Congress by the Department of Defense in accord with H. R. 12369.
The opportunity of presenting the additional armory requirements for the consideration of your committee is deeply appreciated. The detailed analysis and basis of requirements are available and we are in a position to discuss the individual projects as you and your committee may desire. Sincerely yours,
D. W. McGowan, Jajor General, Chief, Army Division.