year ago or 2 years ago, I appeared before you and you have been very responsive and cooperative, and much progress has been made in providing Capehart housing at the base.

I inspected that a couple of times in the past year and there is great satisfaction and improvement and enhancement of the morale there because of these fine housing accommodations.

Now, I think that so far as this new proposal is concerned, there are some aspects that are difficult to cope with, but while it was proposed that an authorization for 500 units might be made for Mountain Home, I have discussed it with Mr. Robinson and Mr. Bryant of the Air Force and they indicate they would like to see an experiment for authorizing 100 units, and while I realize the House has taken no action on section 810 housing, I believe that if the staff of this subcommittee will check carefully, there will be little, if any, doubt about the advisability of authorizing these 100 units; and that is the appeal that I make to your subcommittee.

Senator STENNIS. Senator, we certainly will check into it carefully. We remember your interest in presenting these matters before, and we found you to be correct in your analysis of the situation. I hope it turns out that we feel justified in putting this item in the bill.

Of course, we have to look into it, as you know.

Senator DwORSHAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Iwould not be here urging this action if I were not absolutely sure that there are available three or four builders and with the approval of the Idaho Manager of FHA, it would seem to me that there is evidence of the need of these housing units.

Senator STENNIS. We are familiar with this, and I do not know just with how much favor the military looks upon that item though, and we have got to have it out with them. We will certainly go into this matter fully.

Senator DwORSHAK. I think the Air Force realizes that some approach should be used to determine whether section 810 will fill their needs.

Senator STENNIS. Yes.

Of course, Mountain Home is one of the so-called isolated locations in our military setup.

Senator DwORSHAK. That is right.

Thank you.

Senator STENNIS. Thank you very much, Senator. We are glad to have you here.

Do you have any questions?

Senator CANNON. No.

Senator STENNIS. Gentlemen, we are favored with several of our friends from over on the House side who are interested in projects here.

May I call the names of those whom I have listed and ask you gentlemen to come forward and sit around the table with us and we will call on you in order.

Congressman Everett of Tennessee? Come right around and have

a seat.

Congressman Bailey of West Virginia? Congressmen, we are glad to have you here. Suppose you sit over here where you won't be so far away.

Senator Saltonstall is here already; Senator Douglas is coming in; Congressman Yates and Congressman O'Brien, have a seat.

Are there others from the House of Representatives?

Then we have Senator Kefauver and Senator Carlson.

All right, gentlemen. We are delighted to have you here. There is no preference being shown any of you. We just have the items listed here for consideration and we are calling you here in that order. All right, Congressman Everett.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT A. EVERETT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you, Senator Stennis.

It is certainly a pleasure to be before your committee and the members of your committee.

I appear here today in reference to the construction of an armory in my home town of Union City, Tenn.

The reason this was not presented over in the House was the fact that the local authorities, the city of Union City, and the county court of Obion County, which is the governing body of the county, had not participated in their local contribution, and they have done this on the first Monday in April at the meeting at the county court, and the State has listed it as its No. 1 priority and has so advised the National Guard Bureau and I understand from talking them that they have sent that information on to the committee.

Senator STENNIS. Correct; they have already testified here; the project is entirely justified, and the question is whether or not we can get it into the bill, in view of all the other requests.

Mr. EVERETT. If you can do that, I certainly would appreciate it. As I say, it is in my home town of Union City.

Senator STENNIS. Yes.

Mr. EVERETT. And they have a National Guard company there of 145 members which is full strength. It is an engineering company and I want to say just anything you might do to help us we certainly will appreciate.

Senator STENNIS. We have favored the National Guard as one of the ways to utilize the trained talent the country has and one of the few ways to save any money in this military program. These armories not only serve in that capacity but they serve the community where they are located in other ways, too. It is a source of great pride.

Mr. EVERETT. Yes, sir. The local authorities agreed to furnish the site, some 10 or 15 acres, and to pay their proportionate part.

Senator STENNIS. No complications that way; everything is clear? Mr. EVERETT. That is correct. They have the money.

Senator STENNIS. Thank you, Congressman; we are glad to have

you.

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you.

Senator STENNIS. Congressman Bailey, we have your matter here. an armory at Charleston, W. Va.

STATEMENT OF HON. CLEVELAND M. BAILEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

Mr. BAILEY. Mr. Chairman and gentleman of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to testify in order that I may have a chance to discuss with you an emergency that has developed in the National Guard armory program in my State of West Virginia.

The authorization contained in the legislation coming from the House Committee on Armed Services for the fiscal year 1961 includes new armories for Montgomery, Hinton, Elkins, and Spencer.

This leaves only three projects to complete the West Virginia program of National Guard armories. An emergency has arisen which I want to discuss with your committee today with the thought that you will recommend including authorization for an armory in the capital city at Charleston, W. Va., in the Senate version of the military construction bill. The emergency mentioned above is outlined in a communication I have before me from the adjutant general's office of the State of West Virginia concerning the armory installation planned for Charleston. I shall recap the contents of this letter and enumerate the emergency angle and then ask to have the letter submitted as a part of the record.

The present armory quarters in Charleston are in a building owned by the American Legion. The Government has occupied these quarters since 1924. Since the guard was recognized in 1946, following World War II, and continuing to the present time, the Government has paid $550 monthly rent, with $75 a month additional for janitor service, making a total of $625 a month. Over the past 14 years, they have paid over $65,000 in rent.

Six months ago, the American Legion began extensive repairs on this building and recently served notice on the Government, through the State guard officials, that from now on the rental would be $675 monthly instead of $550.

The new rent proposal restricts the guard to access to the building only 4 nights each week, and at no time do they occupy any part of the second floor. They are also denied the privilege of bringing automobiles and other vehicles on the Legion lot.

In face of these restrictions and attempted rent gouging, the adjutant general refused to accept the Legion's rent proposal and has temporarily secured the use of a building on Government-owned property at the South Charleston, W. Va., Naval Armor Plant. Since this building has been turned over by the Navy to the General Services Administration for sale as of June 30, 1961, their new quarters are available for approximately 1 year, and the construction of a new armory becomes immediate and necessary.

It might be well to call the attention of the committee to the fact that, in addition to paying an enormous rent on the American Legion property, the Government also for the use of the guard rents office and drill space for State headquarters detachment and for the senior Army adviser in another building in the city of Charleston. The organizational maintenance shop for the first squadron and regional and State headquarters unit is being provided in still another building. The State adjutant general has crowded quarters in the State capitol and a new armory building would eliminate these heavy rental

charges and provide adequate space by putting all of these several activities under one roof.

The Federal funds for matching State funds to cover the cost of this construction would be a maximum of $250,000. State funds are presently available and should your committee, in its wisdom, choose to include this Charleston Armory facility in the present authorization bill, it would be possible to begin construction of the new facility at the beginning of the fiscal year on July 1, which would insure its completion for occupancy at the end of the temporary arrangements made with the Government for housing the armory in the Government-owned naval armor plant.

May I, in closing, call the attention of the members of the committee to the fact that West Virginia's unemployment situation is a serious one and the Charleston area, where this armory would be erected, has an extremely high unemployment rate. Building this project at the present time would provide jobs for some of the many thousands of unemployed people in the area.

Let me again thank the committee for its courtesy in hearing me.. I am sure our West Virginia Senators will be making the same request, and I want to thank you in advance for an early and favorable decision on this matter.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, may I submit for inclusion in the committee record the letter I have received from the State adjutant general's office confirming the situation as I have just described it. Senator STENNIS. Without objection, the matter will be inserted in the record.

(The document referred to follows:)

Hon. CLEVELAND M. BAILEY,
Member, House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

LIVELY, LIGHT & FRANCIS, Charleston, W. Va., March 8, 1960.

DEAR CLEVE: Since I talked with you a week ago, we have experienced a rather serious turn of events with regard to the Charleston Armory.

As you know, the Charleston Armory is rented from the local American Legion post. We pay $550 a month rent, $75 a month for janitorial service, and onehalf of the utilities. We have had the use of the entire building, but the post has always used it on Monday nights for wrestling matches and at other times for other special events. The facilities have been highly inadequate, the building being dirty and dingy, the floor poorly kept, and the janitorial service improperly performed. Toilets were unsanitary and the building has been condemned several times by the health department and the building inspector. We have been after the trustees of the post for some time to renovate the building. They have stalled us off for almost a year.

This last week, however, they suddenly began renovation work on the premises and then confronted us with the proposition that we would no longer have the use of the second floor and that our use of the first floor would be confined to 4 nights a week. The same amount of rent is to be charged for the reduced facilities, and the janitorial fee is to be raised to $150 per month. Not only does the new proposition increase our cost materially, but it crowds the administrative and supply facilities of the unit into an inadequate amount of space on the first floor, takes away all classroom and lockerroom space, and makes it impossible to have multiple drills over the weekends as required by NGB and CONNARC directives.

General Blake has refused to knuckle down to the American Legion demands and has immediately started a search for new quarters for the unit. The Navy has offered us one of its buildings at the naval ordnance plant in South Charleston, which can be done over to provide temporary quarters for a year or 18.

months. The necessary requests for the release of this space to the National Guard have been started through channels and everyone is pushing the matter to get it resolved as quickly as possible.

This is only a temporary solution, however, and the problem of construction of an armory becomes an immediate one. The purpose of this letter, therefore, is to ask you to investigate and see if there is any possibility of getting the Charleston Armory added to the authorization and appropriation bills for fiscal year 1961 which are now pending before Congress. The amount of the Federal share of the cost of construction would be $250,000.

In addition to Headquarters Troop, 1st Squadron, which has been using the American Legion Armory, the adjutant general also rents office and drill space for State headquarters detachment and for the senior Army adviser in another building in Charleston, and the organizational maintenance shop for the 1st Squadron and regimental and State headquarters unit is being operated in still a third building in Charleston. It is planned to combine all of these activities in one armory, so that the armory would house headquarters troop, 1st Squadron: the squadron headquarters: State headquarters detachment; the State headquarters; and the office of the senior Army adviser. In addition, facilities will be added at State expense for the adjutant general's office, thus relinquishing space now occupied in the State Capitol.

An adequate site is available for this armory near Coonskin Park and the State money is available through the sale of armory board revenue bonds. If we start our work on the plans and specifications at this time, the project can be under contract within 60 days of the release of the Federal appropriations.

This situation has been discussed with Colonel Kibler at the National Guard Bureau and he has indicated that he will go along and help with whatever he can do. He has been in the Charleston Armory, knows its condition, and agrees with the action which has been taken by General Blake.

I believe this is almost an emergency situation, and hope you will be able to get the project included in the military construction bill and the appropriation bill now pending before Congress.

Sincerely yours,

J. HENRY FRANCIS, Jr.,
Army Program Coordinator.

Senator STENNIS. Congressman, we certainly thank you for coming over here. You have a very clear and forceful statement and we will give this the utmost consideration. We have not formulated any program yet as to what we will do about these matters outside the bill.

And I cannot indicate anything to you now.

Mr. BAILEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STENNIS. We will hear from Mr. Slack, a Representative in Congress from the State of West Virginia.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. SLACK, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

Mr. SLACK. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I wish to express, first of all, my gratitude for the opportunity to present my views and to call your attention to a particularly critical situation which exists in my home city of Charleston, W. Va., in relation to the armory program. It is a situation which, I believe, calls for some immediate action; it is one of those circumstances in which an expenditure of funds now will save money in the long run. The truth of the matter is that the Charleston Armory, as such, does not exist. Armory quarters have been rented from the local American Legion post. This condition has existed for some time, but recent developments have changed the entire character of the situation and are the