in their action on H.R. 10777, the House Armed Services Committee has added in a new general provision (section 507(b)), which requires that section 810 housing must now be authorized as a line-item project in our annual authoriza-: tion bill. Although section 810 housing is not strictly comparable to that for which line-item authorization is currently required, we do not object to this new provision.

· Authorization requested for the Reserve components.-Title VI of S. 3006 contains the authorization required to carry forward during fiscal year 1961: the facilities programs of all of the Reserve components of the Armed Forces. A total of $42,108,000 of authorization for new projects, including expansions and alternations, is contained therein, divided as follows: $12,168,000 for the Army National Guard, $11,674,000 for the Army Reserve, $6,450,000 for the Naval and Marine Corps Reserves, $7,226,000 for the Air National Guard, and $4,590,000 for the Air Force Reserve.

Following the procedure begun 2 years ago for the Reserve components at the request of the Congress, the authorization requested is in the form of specific projects, or so-called line items. The programs of the respective Reserve components are of such a magnitude as to provide for orderly accomplishment of the maximum of projects within the financial program of the President. For any component, the total authorization program will not exceed the financial resources programed to be available by more than approximately 25 percent-a modest degree of flexibility which experience has indicated to be adequate. In order to give the committee a concise view of the status of the construction program for the Reserve Forces, the following summary is provided (all figures are in millions of dollars):

The last two lines of this tabulation serve to confirm my statement above to the effect that the unfunded authorization will not be more than approximately 25 percent of the financial resources programed to be aavilable for fiscal year 1961.

We also have prepared two charts which indicate in total, and for each Reserve component, where we stand with respect to fulfilling the total long-range requirements for facilities. These are appended to the copies of this statement. Chart D shows, in terms of dollars, what has been authorized and appropriated for facilities for the respective Reserve components since enactment of the National Defense Facilities Act of 1950, the amounts proposed for fiscal year 1961 in title VI of S. 3006, and the tentative future requirements, which latter, it should be emphasized, represent estimates by the Reserve components based on their assigned missions and strengths, and which are subject to review and

refinement as they are proposed incrementally for inclusion in future annual programs for authorization by the Congress. Chart E shows the same data translated in percentages of the total program of each Reserve component, in order to allow a comparison of the relative status of the requirements between the various components.

Army Reserve Forces.-When we appeared before your committee in support of the proposed Reserve Forces Facilities Act of 1959, the reorganization of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve was in progress. We are pleased to report that, since that time, complete stationing plans for the entire Army National Guard and Army Reserve have been developed. This has been a significant achievement which has been possible only by the commendable efforts and cooperation by the National Guard officials of the respective States and by the various Army agencies concerned. While some minor adjustments in the plans are still to be made, these stationing plans will provide a continuing basis for our annual authorization programs. In accommodating units of the revised organizational structure in the armories and training centers already existing, every effort is being made to utilize the existing capacity to the fullest extent feasible. In a number of instances, however, the results have been less than we originally desired, but appear to be all that is practicable of accomplishment at this time. We shall continue, however, to explore every possible means to further improve the utilization picture.

For the Army National Guard, authorization proposed for fiscal year 1961 comprises 65 new armories, 13 major conversions and expansions of existing armories, and 7 nonarmory projects which are summer training and supplyadministrative facilities. This proposed authorization will support an execution program of approximately $20 million during the coming fiscal year. Title VI also contains, for the Army Guard, an item of correction of a deficiency in estimated cost of one armory project authorized in the Reserve Forces Facilities Act of 1958.

For the Army Reserve, the proposed authorization consists of 42 new Reserve centers, 10 alterations and expansions of existing centers, and 6 minor additions, including the necessary site acquistions for the new centers.

Naval and Marine Corps Reserves.-More than half of the $6.4 million of new project authorization proposed for these Reserve components is for essential additional facilities at 10 established Naval Air Reserve installations which serve both Naval Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve aviation. The remainder consists of 19 projects for the Naval Surface Reserve and 3 projects for the Marine Corps Reserve. It is significant to note that 14 of the 19 Naval Reserve nonaviation projects and 2 of the 3 Marine Corps Reserve projects involve joint utilization or joint construction.

Air Force Reserve components.-For the Air National Guard, the proposed authorization consists of essential projects for the operation and support of Air National Guard aircraft at 10 locations, 7 of which are at civil airports and 1 at a jointly used military airfield.

The relatively small authorization proposed for the Air Force Reserve again reflects the substantial fulfillment of urgent requirements for this component, and consists of various operational and support facilities at nine locations, three of which are civil airports and six are jointly used military airfields.

As mentioned earlier in the portion of my statement concerning projects for the Active Forces, the need for certain project deletions, substitutions and cost estimate adjustments also has arisen in the Reserve program during the past several weeks since this bill was first introduced. With your permission, the details with respect to these items will be presented to the committee during the testimony on the line items by the respective departmental witnesses.

Certain general progisions are included in title VI, which correspond to those contained in the Reserve Forces Facilities Acts of both 1958 and 1959, namely: Section 601 (4)--A provision for authorization of urgent projects made necessary by changes in assignment of weapons and equipment; section 603 which provides, with respect to Reserve Forces facilities, the same ancillary authority that is regularly contained in the general provisions for military construction for the Active Forces; and section 605 which provides for a limited degree of flexibility in costs indicated for the individual line items within the overall dollar totals for the respective Reserve component programs. In addition, there is included in this year's bill-as section 606-a provision which would repeal the authorization for any projects which have not been initiated within 3 years subsequent to their authorization. This provision is similar in effect to a provision which

has been in the construction authorization acts for the active Military Establishment for a number of years, including the present bill where it is section 506. Its primary purpose is to avoid the accumulation of unused authorization for projects which are no longer essential due to changed requirements of the Reserve components.

Before concluding my general statement, I should like to acquaint the committee with two particular areas in which we have encountered problems in the general administration of the Reserve programs, mainly as a result of the reorganization of the Army components.

The first relates to one of the amendments to the basic National Defense Facilities Act of 1950 which was contained in Public Law 302 (84th Cong.). The purpose of the amendment as stated to the Congress at that time was to allow the Federal Government to pay 100 percent of the cost of "converting or constructing additions to State-owned armories made necessary by the conversion, redesignation, or reorganization of a unit or units of the National Guard." The intention indicated by both that language of the stated purpose and the example used to illustrate same during the testimony is interpreted to limit such expenditures to correction of deficiencies generated by a change in the composition or mission of the troop unit occupying the armory. The testimony also indicated that construction of new armories—that is, new capacity for housing of troop units would remain under the 75-25 cost-sharing formula originally established by the act. It is our policy, in reviewing requests for 100 percent Federal financing arising from the current reorganization of the Army National Guard, to apply the principles referred to above, so as to insure against circumvention of the 75-25 cost-sharing principle established by the original act.

The second problem area, of which we believe the committee should be aware, also arises from the reorganization of the Army National Guard. Historically, our armory construction has been based on the troop unit concept, with space allowances related to authorized strength of an average unit, rather than to the number of personnel actually enrolled in the unit. Under the current reorganization, the authorized strengths of units are based on the total paid-drill strength of the guard, which has resulted in generally lower so-called authorized strengths for the units. Consequently, we have initiated a general review of the space criteria for armories which, incidentally, were last reviewed and revised over 5 years ago, to assure that expenditures of appropriations for armories are related to a reasonable military necessity.

We hope that the committee will not feel that we have taken its time unnecessarily in discussing these two problem areas, since our understanding from the original National Defense Facilities Act of 1950 is that the committee is intensely interested in the policies of the Secretary of Defense under which the program generally is administered.

In closing, I should like to inform the committee that this proposed legislation has been reviewed by the Director of the Budget who states that there is no objection to its submission to the Congress and that it is in accord with the program of the President. The Secretary of Defense recommends its enactment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your patience and courtesy in receiving this rather lengthy statement. I am pleased to meet with you here, and it is my wish, together with the departmental representatives who will also appear before you, to provide this committee with any information it desires in connection with its consideration of this legislation.

TAB A.-Military family housing requirements and assets as of Dec. 31, 1959

Includes existing, under contract and authorized but not under contract, excludes approximately 21,000 Navy rental units adequate for junior enlisted men and nonkey civilians.

3 Includes a number of projects which may not be acquired, but excludes 1,665 units lost through conversion in projects already acquired, and 1,965 units at installations where there is no foreseeable military need. * Includes 1,850 units authorized but not allocated to the military departments for leasing in the United States.

Excludes 2,083 units which, for various reasons, including lack of foreign currencies, may not be constructed.

* Includes 5,000 units presently planned for construction.

'All, except public quarters to be rehabilitated, included in military construction authorization program for fiscal year 1961.

TAB B.-Military family housing requirements and assets as of Dec. 31, 1959

2 Includes existing, under contract, and authorized but not under contract; excludes approximately 21,000 Navy rental units adequate for junior enlisted men and nonkey civilians.

Includes a number of projects which may not be acquired, but excludes 1,665 units lost through conver sion in projects already acquired, and 1,965 units at installations where there is no foreseeable military need. 4 Includes 1,850 units authorized but not allocated to the military departments for leasing in the United States.

5 Excludes 2,083 units which, for various reasons, including lack of foreign currencies, may not be constructed.

6 Includes 5,000 units presently planned for construction.

7 All, except public quarters to be rehabilitated, included in military construction authorization program for fiscal year 1961.