Mr. DUCANDER. Then you wanted to change, as I understand, Mr. Chairman, this section to strike out all of line 1 and line 2, put a period-no, you just strike those two lines, and capitalize “” in appropriations.

แ

Mr. BROOKS. It will read "Appropriations for facilities projects authorized by section 3 for the respective Reserve components of the Armed Forces, may not exceed."

Mr. DUCANDER. Right.

Mr. BROOKS. Then 1, 2, 3; is that right?

Mr. DUCANDER. Right.

Is that satisfactory?

Mr. MAYER. That is correct.

Mr. BROOKS. That is all right.

Mr. DUCANDER. Fine.

Mr. BROOKS. Now did you get that figure for the Air National Guard? You better get it while the general is here.

Mr. DUCANDER. Do you have it with you?

Mr. DEININGER. I have the three figures that we got off your project sheets, General Wilson.

Mr. DUCANDER. Why don't you add them? We will make a note of it here. Then

Mr. DEININGER. Rather than take the time of the committee, can we insert the figure in the record?

Mr. BROOKS. All right.

Mr. DEININGER. We will add them up here.

Mr. BROOKS. What were the three items that we agreed to put in, but in different language?

General WILSON. Millford Point, A. C. and W. facility. Wellesley, Mass., aircraft control and warning, operational and training facility. Westchester County Airport, N. Y., increased aircraft parking facility.

Those are the three facilities.

Mr. BROOKS. Do you have those three, Mr. Ducander?

Mr. DUCANDER. I don't; but General Wilson told me he would furnish the language.

General WILSON. The whole thing.

Mr. DEININGER. We will furnish the proper category for the items. Mr. BROOKS. Why couldn't that be put under section 4, on page 11 of the bill, as an exception?

Mr. DUCANDER. TO 3?

Mr. BROOKS. To 3. Where you say, "are funded from appropriations made before the date of enactment of this act," and just say "excepting the following projects in the following amount."

Mr. DEININGER. I believe, sir-I am not a lawyer, but I believe there would be a technicality there, in that there would nowhere be authority to appropriate funds. You see, it still requires new appropriations. Mr. BROOKS. We have the authority already. All we are doing is extending the authority.

Mr. MAYER. Yes, that is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BROOKS. It could be worded so, couldn't it, so we would say the authority for the following 3 projects is hereby extended 1 year?

Mr. DUCANDER. But, Mr. Chairman, I see what Mr. Deininger is talking about. The Air Guard's appropriations are going to run out on June 30 of this year.

Mr. MAYER. That is right.

Mr. BROOKS. Yes.

Mr. DUCANDER. Then when you write this in, he has to go back to the Appropriations Committee for these three items.

General WILSON. We have to go back to the appropriations. Mr. DEININGER. So you would have to have language in here to authorize the appropriations for it, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. We have no authority to reappropriate the money? Mr. DUCANDER. No.

General WILSON. No, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. If the money runs out, it is too bad. But we do have authority to extend the authorization.

Mr. DUCANDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. Why can't we extend it in just the way we suggested? Then your authorization would continue regardless of your appropriations.

Mr. MAYER. That is right, sir. The authorization would continue, but then we would have to get the appropriations through the usual procedures.

Mr. BROOKS. You are going to have to do it anyway.

General WILSON. You are going to have to do it anyway.

Mr. DUCANDER. The chairman's point is, Why couldn't you work in the 3 authorizations of General Wilson's as an exception to subsection 3 of section 4?

Mr. MAYER. Yes, we can do that, certainly.

Mr. DUCANDER. Without increasing the total in the back?

Mr. DEININGER. Mr. Chairman

Mr. BROOKS. Just off the record and for the committee here. (Discussion off the record.)

Mr. BROOKS. Go ahead, sir.

Mr. DEININGER. May we go back on the record, sir?

Mr. BROOKS. Sure.

Mr. DEININGER. I would like to suggest this. I think we understand what the chairman desires and we are certainly sympathetic with it.

I think, however, we had better verify that we are doing it in the way here that will let General Wilson build these things-verify it with Assistant Secretary McNeil's attorneys, who can verify that this will constitute valid authorization against which appropriations, if they are given, can be used.

We wouldn't want to get into a box where we wouldn't have the proper language.

Mr. BROOKS. Is there any objection on the part of any of the members of the committee to treat that that way, writing it in as an exception?

(No response.)

Mr. BROOKS. If not, will you verify it with our own counsel, too, as well as Mr. McNeil.

Mr. DEININGER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. Then we can place the language in there.

Now, that brings us to the two items

Mr. DUCANDER. The last section, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BROOKS. All right, the last section.

Mr. DUCANDER. Section 7.

Any of the amounts named in section 3 of this act may, in the discretion of the Secretary of Defense, be increased by 15 percent, but the total cost for all projects authorized for the Naval and Marine Corps Reserve, the Air Force Reserve, and the Air National Guard of the United States may not exceed the amounts named in clauses 1, 2 (a), and 2 (b) of section 6, respectively.

Mr. BROOKS. Now, there is no objection, I suppose to that.

One witness appeared before the subcommittee asking for a larger amount than 15 percent. From what I have heard, I believe the committee would just want to treat them all alike, and provide for a 15 percent additional that is better than their project estimate.

If there is no objection, we will approve section 7 as written. Now, I would like at this time to take up the matter that we were discussing earlier today. What do you wish to do in reference to the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve? There is no money at all in this bill for either one of them.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Mr. Chairman, I haven't heard all the testimony. Have they given any reason why all the other services are includedthose two?

Mr. BROOKS. They are holding back on the Army Reserve, and they have enough money, they said, held back to go ahead with the program without any additional funds. That is substantially what has been

said.

My thought is this, and I would be very frank to the committee: We are going to be in some difficulty if we go to the floor of the House with no money at all for the Army Guard and no money for the Army

Reserve.

The actual backlog of armory projects in the Army and the National Guard is greater than for any other branch of the service.

The Air Force made a very good case showing its program, how it has progressed, and I think they are over the hill, and they are nearing the end of their program.

The Navy certainly is reaching the end of its program and will finish up next year or the following year.

But the Army and the Army Guard program is far from being completed.

That is the weakness of this situation.

Mr. WINSTEAD. It would certainly seem to me, if we go back to the testimony we had from the Chief of Staff and the Secretary of Defense and all the military leaders on this Reserve Act, National Guard and all our Army Reserves, the whole commotion 2 years ago was about building up an Army Reserve. Now, we come in here at this hour and every time we move it looks like it is going in the opposite direction. I just don't quite understand it. I don't mind going to the floor of the House with it if I have anything to go with it.

Mr. DUCANDER. Have you copies of that statement to give all the members of the committee?

Mr. DUCANDER. I handed it out.

Mr. BROOKS. Did you?

Mr. DUCANDER. I don't know whether Mrs. St. George got a copy. Mr. BROOKS. That is the Army statement.

Mr. DUCANDER. The Army National Guard.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Devereux has one. Give me one.
Mr. DUCANDER. All right, sir. Here is the original.

You might find out what the attitude of the Defense Department would be, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BROOKS. You are representing the Defense Department here. What would be the attitude of the Defense Department if this committee puts in a limited amount for construction, Reserve construction for the Army and the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard.

Mr. DEININGER. May I answer that question this way, sir: We recognize that there is an additional requirement for National Guard armories over and above what we have presently authorized and appropriated for.

The same is true of the Army Reserve.

We feel that the programs that have been laid down, the obligation objectives for fiscal year 1959, are sound and will produce a reasonable and efficient program.

We feel that to put specific projects into this bill for those two components prior to the time that the new troop basis under the pentomic division and the distribution of units which General Shuler referred to prior to the time that those plans are crystalized, that we know exactly where these things should go, and the precise size of them—it is just premature to put it in this bill.

We would say this. And Mr. Bryant approved this before I left the office today. If the Army gets that worked out with the States in the case of the National Guard and in the case of its own Army Reserve during this summer and fall season, that we would be prepared to come in with a supplemental project authorization bill on a line item basis at the very opening of the next session of Congress. We would feel then that we had a solid basis on which to come in and ask this committee to approve specific line items.

Mr. BROOKS. In the meantime, if we put limited amounts for each one of them, what harm would be done?

Mr. DEININGER. I can't say, sir, that there would be any real harm done, because I feel sure that the Secretary of Defense would still want the firm troop basis and distribution of these units before he would feel that under his responsibility he could authorize the bricks and mortar for the project.

Mr. BROOKS. Didn't he make a recent release in which he told the governors down in Florida that there would be no change in the number of units and no change in the troop basis?

Mr. DEININGER. I am not acquainted with any such statement, sir. Mr. BROOKS. I saw a release in the press.

Mr. DUCANDER. No change in the number of the divisions.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Divisions.

Mr. BROOKS. Didn't he say there would be no change in the troop basis?

Mr. DUCANDER. No, sir; that was the sleeper.

Mr. BROOKS. That is the sleeper?

Mr. DUCANDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Now, I am not throwing this at the witness. But it sounds mighty to me like that they will hold the thing up until the governors get in line with the Defense Department recommendations on the National Guard business, and then they consider giving them a little more for armories. I am not saying that to our present witness, because he is not the man necessarily to make those decisions.

Mr. BROOKS. I can say this now. I am certainly not actuated by self-interest, because there is not a recommendation in the list before you for the National Guard for my own State of Louisiana, not one. I am just openminded on this whole thing.

Mr. DEVEREUX. I might say I don't see anything in here for Maryland.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that in the whole State of New York there are only four. So I don't think any of us will get much out of this.

Mr. DUCANDER. This isn't going anywhere. [Laughter.]

Mr. WINSTEAD. This is not a question of where they don't because it doesn't amount to much, except it is a terrific blow to the guard and reserve force. It is not very well timed, at least.

Mr. BROOKS. I tell you what we do, if we have time. Let us do this. Let us consider the two items that we held up. One of them is Alvin Callender. What is the other?

Mr. DUCANDER. San Jose, Calif.

Mr. BROOKS. San Jose, Calif. Dispose of those and then go in executive session and decide what to do.

Thank you very much, sir. We appreciate the help of both of

you.

Mr. DEININGER. You are welcome, and thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. BROOKS. Now, who was it here who was presenting the Alvin Callender and San Jose case?

Mr. DUCANDER. Captain Etter.

Captain ETTER. Mr. Chairman, Commander Swope is here, representing Admiral Taylor.

Mr. DUCANDER. Page 4, line 10. It is a passed-over item.

Mr. BROOKS. Now, Captain, in considering the Alvin Callendar Field item, we agreed to strike out $6,000. Was that all out of Alvin Callender?

sir.

Captain ETTER. Six thousand dollars, Mr. Chairman, for land,

Mr. BROOKS. That is right, $6,000.

Mr. DUCANDER. How much would that reduce it, then, Captain! Captain ETTER. You mean what would be the total cost it would be reduced to?

Mr. DUCANDER. Yes.

Captain ETTER. $2,447,000.

Mr. BROOKS. What about this particular facility which came under question as costing a large amount per square foot?

Mr. DUCANDER. It was the administration building, Captain. Captain ETTER. I don't think the item we were discussing at the time was the cost so much per square foot as it was why so many square feet per man.

Mr. BROOKS. Well, that, and it seemed to me there was a figure of $34 a square foot.

Captain ETTER. Not for the administration building, Mr. Chair

man.

As you will recall, the $34 a foot was for the auditorium and gymnasium, which also included the pile foundations, the equipment, utilities, and services. The total cost of the structure, completely equipped and ready to operate, was $34 per square foot.