Senator JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, I just want to associate myself with the remarks made by the chairman.

I think we are in the situation here where the Congress having authorized and appropriated funds for various armories, we come back the following year and find that we have additional authorizations, but the funds for the previous year have not been utilized. I don't know what we can do about it. The only thing we can do is put some strong language in and say, "Please go ahead." But after a while, we lose control of these projects. You know they get so old and stale that in the meantime things have changed.

General HARRISON. Yes; I can understand the concern of the Congress on this. I am certain that you gentlemen realize that we in the States are very, very much disturbed about it, and I don't know personally how we can get the funds released. I gave a lot of study to it. Senator STENNIS. We have to keep trying.

General HARRISON. We have put all the pressure we could in my State through the members of our congressional delegation, and we have not been able to get anything loose. What is actually happening, Mr. Chairman, is that the Congress appropriates these moneys for one specific fiscal year, and we are denied the release of these funds so that they are carried over and each year there is more money carried over so that the appropriation yearly is less on it.

Senator JACKSON. That is right.

General HARRISON. And it is embarrassing, as I said earlier, to the States, particularly to the communities.

Senator STENNIS. Yes.

General HARRISON. The States have gone to communities. They have sold them this program and the communities have cooperated. Now they have been holding the bag, as the slang expression is, for 10 or 12 years, and these facilities are needed for public purposes. Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman?

Senator STENNIS. Senator Case?

Senator CASE. There is no one who is more conscious of the situation I think than the Senator from South Dakota.

General HARRISON. I understand.

Senator CASE. We had two armories that were to be established in connection with State colleges, two teachers' colleges. The State legislature made the funds available on its part. We understood there was more or less of a contract between the State and the Federal Government on those two armories. I am referring to Southern Teachers at Springfield and Teachers at Madison, S. Dak.

They were delayed. We did finally get a release on them. But there we had the failure to carry out what was understood to be a commitment between the State and the Federal Government.

We also still have a situation in one town, the town of Salem, where the authorization was made, an understanding was made, and the city voted its bonds, and it has had two maturity dates, the last I knew, two maturity dates come due on those bonds, so that it has had to pay the maturing interest and a part of the principal on some of those bonds, and still is holding the bag in a very real sense.

General HARRISON. That has happened, Mr. Chairman, in a number of States all the way through. There is one additional point, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CASE. I would like to complete for just a moment. With respect to those two points we had a luncheon. Secretary Brucker invited Members of Congress to a breakfast down at the Pentagon once last year, and the breakfast was not called for that purpose I am sure. But following the breakfast, there was an opportunity for a few of the Members to talk and ask questions and instead of asking questions about, perhaps, the subjects that had been expected, we turned to this guard armory matter.

The Secretary had to leave early, but Mr. Finucane, I believe, was the one who was senior of those who remained, and possibly Mr. Milton, but in any event there was an Under Secretary and some staff members there, and they professed some ignorance of the situation.

But it resulted in enough of an uproar that morning, I think 13 different Members of Congress, when 1 or 2 mentioned the matter, the suggestion was that that was probably an isolated instance. But as I said something about it, I think there was a general uproar that followed and I found that I was not alone in the situation, with the result that that day they assured us that they would contact the Bureau of the Budget and within that week I think it was $10 million was released, or a sizable sum was released and some action was obtained.

But not enough. And we are now still in a situation like with this town of Salem, and General Harrison says there are others. I do think that the committee has a responsibility to see that these authorizations and appropriations are followed through in this particular. There is no part of the Defense Establishment which is more important to the Department of Defense than the relationship between these communities where they have the interest of the National Guard. It is the interpretation of the Department of Defense in many communities I think from a public relations standpoint, the Department of Defense cannot afford to have this interpretation of bad faith that necessarily follows failure to carry through.

I do think we ought to have the Secretary of the Army and representatives of the Bureau of the Budget up here to explain the failure to make this money available for carrying out what are understood by local communities to be commitments.

Senator STENNIS. I am ready to sign a letter if it is the wish of the committee just saying that before we pass on any items in this military construction bill we want to know what the pattern is going to be with reference to the National Guard. We might say the same things about appropriations bills. We must know. I think the Senator from South Dakota should not be blamed, but unless he does a lot of explaining he will be blamed, in part, for that situation in his State. Senator CASE. I think it goes further than the position of any individual Member of Congress.

Senator STENNIS. Of course.

Senator CASE. It goes to the status of the Department of Defense to the people of the country.

Senator STENNIS. And I say though that there is a subconscious blaming there. All right, General, do you have something else?

General HARRISON. One other point, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to make. I don't believe in the bill that is before the committee now that there are any provisions for authorization for the remodeling of existing armories that are necessary because of the new reorganization of the Army National Guard. Where the facilities were adequate and satisfactory for the old-type units, but the new-type unit as a result of the pentomic reorganization required modification. That is going to be a serious problem because there is going to be heavy equipment, tanks, trucks of every description and many of the older armories are going to have to be remodeled.

Senator STENNIS. Should that take a priority over the present program, do you think, of construction?

General HARRISON. No, I don't think it should take a priority, Mr. Chairman, but I do believe that some provision should be made in the bill.

Senator STENNIS. For this bill?

General HARRISON. Yes. If no additional authorizations, at least authorizations to the extent that if there are funds available for this purpose appropriated later, that some of these things can be done. They will never be done in a few years. It is going to take time on that.

Senator STENNIS. It certainly is timely, and if you have some specific language you want to consider, we will be glad to have you send it in, General.

Senator JACKSON. Right at that point, are you getting the equipment though?

General HARRISON. We are getting some of the equipment, at least enough for training purposes at the home station. Some of the equipment will not

Senator JACKSON. You are afraid it is going to be slow. You are going to get a lot of old equipment probably, but it is not going to come too fast, is it?

General HARRISON. No, I don't believe so.

Senator JACKSON. That is my fear. I mean it is one thing to talk about a changeover to a pentomic division on paper, but one thing you need in a pentomic division is a lot of armor and a lot of mobility.

General HARRISON. That is right. One of the things that happened is that we get these changes, and before we get ready to accept the equipment nothing has been done. The equipment is in our hands and then we do not have a place to store it.

Senator JACKSON. There is a lag in there.
Senator STENNIS. Senator Beall?

Senator BEALL. I am glad the general brought up that. That is a thing we know of in my State. It has been quite a problem with us in Maryland. We have armories, plenty of armories, but they are not modern armories and it is very fine that you did bring that up.

Senator STENNIS. Before we leave this subject, Senator Case expressed a thought that has often come to my mind. The military, the Department of Defense is overlooking one of their very best avenues of good public relations when they overlook the National Guard and the Reserve units, because to so many people that is the military program that they see and that they have a personal interest in and often there is some member of the family who lives there and takes part in it. We thank you very much, general. We feel that you have rendered a real service.

(The prepared statement of General Harrison referred to follows:) Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before this committee during its consideration of H.R. 5674, a bill "To authorize certain construction at military installations, and for other purposes."

The National Guard Association of the United States and the States are exceedingly interested in title V of H.R. 5674 which provides the authorization for the construction of National Guard facilities.

I am certain that the Department of Defense witnesses and in particular the witnesses from the National Guard Bureau have adequately and expertly illustrated the historical, current and projected aspects of the National Guard construction program.

Over the past several years the construction program for the Air National Guard which is accomplished by 100 percent support from Federal funds has been exceedingly successful. The results obtained can be attributed to a realistic and sympathetic attitude on the part of the Department of the Air Force to the needs of the Air National Guard. Generally, the construction of new facilities and the extension of existing facilities has been projected to coordinate with the delivery of aircraft and changes in mission. Sufficient fiexability has existed to permit maximum advantage to be taken of changes in the program.

Conversely, the armory construction program for the Army National Guard has been subject to unreasonable deliberate administrative delays as a result of actions by the Department of Defense and the Bureau of the Budget.

A few years ago there was tremendous agitation over space and criteria for armories. When the new troop basis for the Army National Guard was being considered these agencies stubbornly maintained that construction should be halted until the revised troop basis was developed, accepted by the States and implemented. Moreover, for the last 2 years the program has been effectively reduced in scope by the administrative imposition of expenditure ceilings which have prevented the utilization and obligation of dollars actually appropriated by the Congress. These tactics, which are cumulative in nature, must be confronted and overcome each year in order that the congressionally approved construction program may be implemented.

There is great agitation on the part of communities within the States that have furnished, at great sacrifice, public buildings to house and train the guard, for the return of these facilities. We believe that these communities are justified in view of the manner in which the program was originally presented to them and that it is unreasonable for them to continue to assume this burden. For instance, this year, fiscal 1959, Congress appropriated $5.2 million for armory construction. Not a single dollar has been released to date, and there is no indication as to when it will be released. Considering the mass of administrative procedures which must be accomplished prior to the actual construction of an armory for which the Congress has authorized its approval the National Guard Bureau and the States are doing a magnificent job under most adverse circumstances.

You gentlemen are familiar, of course, with the fact that the Army National Guard armory construction program is not supported exclusively by Federal funds. Theoretically, the Federal Government contributes 75 percent of the cost of an armory project but in practice this figure is just that-theoretical, for the State must first furnish the land and thereafter any departures from the basic and bare plan must be borne by the State. It is the contributory feature which lends substance and effectiveness to the program. Coincidentally, it becomes more important than ever that armory construction authorizations and Federal funds to support that construction be made available to match the funds already appropriated and on hand in the States. At the present time it is estimated that the States have on hand in State appropriated funds earmarked for Army National Guard armory construction in excess of $30 million. The facilities authorized in H.R. 5674 fall far short of meeting the Federal share of construction moneys for this program. Moreover, the continual Federal delay in matching State appropriated funds may result in those funds being lost to the program. Certainly, this is not in the interest of national defense. It would appear far wiser to authorize additional projects for construction to meet the existing availability of State contributions to the cause of national defense. In such a manner the Federal Government obtains a far greater return on its investment in the Army National Guard and in national defense. In this respect, Mr. Chairman, we ask that the list of additional projects furnished by the National Guard Bureau to the Rivers subcommitee of the House Armed Services Committee and contained in the hearings thereof be included in this authorization bill. For that purpose we have an extract copy for the record.

H.R. 5674 as enacted by the House included 60 armory and nonarmory projects located in 31 States. The additional list totaling $23 million increases the number to 159 projects located in all the States, all of which are regarded as essential to meet the requirements of the reorganized Army National Guard and for which matching funds have been appropriated by the States.

As a result of the nationwide reorganization and reequipping of the Army Guard now being actively pursued in more than two-thirds of the States, many existing armories will require modification because of the newer, heavier and more bulky tanks, guns, armored and other vehicles. Authorization for such essential modification is contained in the National Guard Bureau list. More over, projects to provide minimum kitchen and latrine facilities at field training sites which are sadly lacking in this regard are also included.

Projects requested for Fort Steward, Camp Shelby, and Fort Harrison will correct unsatisfactory conditions at these locations which are of long standing and which are essential to the health and well-being of the Army Guard and other troops training there.

The additional armory projects will permit the States to plan their own construction programs on a firm basis. Such advance planning is essential to joint State-Federal programs and their successful accomplishment.

Although this authorization bill is a necessary prerequisite, its enactment without corresponding funding support required to implement its provisions does not guarantee the construction of a single armory for the National Guard. Accordingly, we respectfully urge that this committee make known its recommendations pertaining to the construction program to the Appropriations Committee of the Senate when that latter group is considering appropriations to support the construction program.

Senator BEALL. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hill has just come in the room. Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman, in that letter you mentioned, I hope you will ask that the people who come up also be prepared to testify about the armory program for the Organized Reserve. I am tremendously embarrassed at another point because in a community where the Army Organized Reserve project was approved, the Department of Defense backed away from it later because the land price went up and they had no accommodation but encouraged the local community to go ahead and find another site, a site team was sent out, and approved a site.

In order to protect the Department of Defense from a rising price in speculation there, the chamber of commerce put up $6,000 and