Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. NEASE. The priorities, according to the State adjutant's wishes." It is sent over by the National Guard Bureau, but it does not have the Department of Defense approval.

Senator STENNIS. But they did not take exception to the priorities and listing of these projects; they just did not approve them and include them in the bill ?

Mr. NEASE. That is right.
Senator STENNIS. All right.

Well, General Seeman, we hold you responsible for everything connected with the Army, and this National Guard, in a way, is related to your work. You had better look over this list that was put in on the House side, and someone from the Department of Defense, Assistant Secretary for Construction, Mr. Bryant's department over there—let me look over this list-because the committee might want to add some of the eligible sites for National Guard armories.

Senator Cannon, do you have some questions of the general ? ..

Senator CANNON. Just one question. General Harrison, you discussed armory authorizations, and then you said, in suggesting that the committee incorporate additional project authorizations:

It will likewise provide a much needed degree of flexibility which would permit substitution of authorized line items on the basis of unforeseen contingencies.

Are you still talking about armories there or are you talking about

General HARRISON. No; armories, Senator.

Senator CANNON. In other words, you mean that if there were a lot of them approved they might switch around and construct one and not another one ?

General HARRISON. There are a number of instances where projects have been recommended and they are included by line item, but later developments, when the States attempt to get the project underway, some instances develop where the land title has not been cleared. I have three such instances in my State now, where originally we had everything, we thought we had everything, clear.

If there were projects authorized in addition to appropriated dollars, then if a project was not cleared another one could be substituted in place of it."

Senator STENNIS. Certainly you would need some cushion there to allow for change of facts. General HARRISON. Yes; for changes.

Senator CANNON. The reason that question was raised in my mind, it was my understanding that these projects are supposed to be cleared and ready to go as far as the Bureau was concerned at such time as they are reported; isn't that right?

General HARRISON. Well, they are, Senator, generally cleared.

In many instances, because of the timelag in these projects from when they were originally planned, it is about 10 years, and many communities will not give you land in title until you assure them that you are going to build.

Well, you get to that point that you know or suspect that you have got the assurance that you are going to get title and then when it is firmed up by legislation and you go to the community you find that there are impediments in getting the title over, and in that case, why, you are in a bind, and you cannot move any other place because it is committed by line item to a specific location.

Senator Cannon. I see.
General HARRISON. And community.
Senator CANNON. Thank you. That is all I have.
Senator STENNIS. Thank you, Senator Cannon.

Senator Cannon, years ago, before you came to the Senate, we did not require a specific line item authorization for these armories, but appropriated money, and that left them with a certain discretion.

There is a change that goes on all the time. We found, as the general suggested, for one reason or another, by the time they started construction some of them had to fall out. Now, since we require authorizations, if we do not put in some cushion, they find themselves frustrated in many places. We certainly will recommend, I hope, some extras if for no other purpose than that. I would like to see the program speeded up myself.

All right, General. We are always glad to have you here.

Is there anything you wish to say, General Galusha, who, you well remember, is a former member of the staff of this committee.

General GALUSHA. I have nothing to add to what General Harrison has already said, sir. Thank you, sir.

Senator STENNIS. Well, we miss you here on the Hill, and we want you to come back to see us.

We have here, Senator, the list that had been submitted to the House which does list additional armories. Shall we insert this in the record, and then we will look at it further later? All right; it will be inserted at this point:

[This is a copy of letter dispensed February 16, 1960]
Hon. L. MENDEL RIVERS,
Chairman, Subcommittee No. 3, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Pursuant to your request during the hearings on February 9, 1960, submitted herewith are a list of armory projects for the Army National Guard, a report of the states of appropriation for Army National Guard construction, and a report of expenditures for Army National Guard construction.

The projects listed in the first enclosure are those valid projects which have been submitted by the various States for authorization action in fiscal year 1961 but which are not included in the authorization program as submitted. Sincerely,

R. L. VITTRUP, Major General, GS, Chief of Legislative Liaison.

Fiscal year projects submitted by states for authorization not included in fiscal

year 1961 authorization request

[In thousands]

[graphic]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Houlton

Conversion... Sanford

-do... Auburn

----do... Portland.

Expansion
Maryland

None..
Massachusetts:
Brookline.

2 units plus.. Boston..

Rehabilita

tion. Michigan: Albion

Conversion.
Alpena.

Expansion
Minnesota:
Ortonyille.

Conversion
Crosby ---

----do. Stillwater.

Expansion.. Jackson

---.do.-----Moorhead

Conversion.
Alexandria

Expansion
Crookston..

-do..
Red Wing

_do.. Montevideo

Conversion.. Mississippi: Forest --

1 unit(s) Newton...

1 unit plus (s)Missouri: Richmond

1 unit(s). Lebanon.

1 unit.--Warrenton

-----do... St. Louis.

1 unit(s). West Plains

Expansion
St. Louis

- do.
Montana: Helena.-- Alterations
Nebraska:
O'Neill...

1 unit(s).
Ogallala...

1 unit.--Beatrice

2 units... Camp Ashland

1 unit(s) Scottsbluff

Conversion.. Lincoln...

-----do.. Nevada: Carson City.

1 unit plus Fallon ---

1 unit(s)
Reno.----

Expansion.
Las Vegas

----do.--
New Hampshire.. None.
New Jersey: West Expansion (5
Orange.

unit). New Mexico.---

None.
New York:

Brooklyn (Eighth) Conversion.-
Brooklyn (Sumner)

do.--New York City (66th -----do.

St).
North Carolina:
Lenoir.

do Goldsboro

Addition
Kings Mountain

1 unit(s)
Beulaville

..do. North Dakota:

Hettinger Mandan..

Expansion.. Bismarck..

3 units... Ohio:

Cleveland (Shaker)... 8 units
Dayton.

5 units. Columbus.

6 units... Oklahoma: Oklahoma City -- Expansion

(building 1095).
Okmulgee.

Conversion
Alva -----
Anadarko.

do
Ardmore..
Chandler.
McAlester.
Chickasha.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors]

Fiscal year projects submitted by States for authorization not included in fiscal

year 1961 authorization request-Continued

[In thousands)

[graphic]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Pawhuska..
Norman...
Cherokee
Clinton..
Durant...
Duncan
Holdenville
Mangum
Oregon --
Pennsylvania:

Lehighton
Phoenixville.
New Castle
Norristown..
York.--------
Williamsport.
Indiantown Gap (mil-

itary reservation).
Lock Haven..
Bethlehem..
Pine Grove...
Columbia

Hazleton.-
Puerto Rico:

Albonito.-

Cayey.
Rhode Island:

Bristol
Warren.

Providence.
South Carolina:

St. MatthewsNewberry SpartanburgDarlington. Rock Hill.. Georgetown Dillon.-Lyman. 1Organgeburg Bennettsville.

Hampton
South Dakota:

Mobridge
Wagner---

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed]

(NOTE.—The following letter from Congressman James A. Burke, of Massachusetts, was received subsequent to this hearing and is hereby made a part of the record at this point:)

APRIL 29, 1960. Hon. JOHN STENNIS, Chairman, Military Construction Subcommittee, Senate Armed Services Com

mittee, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I wish to thank you for letting me express my views regarding the military-construction-authorization bill now pending before your committee.

Maj. Gen. William Harrison, adjutant general, Massachusetts National Guard, has appeared before your committee regarding armories for the city of Brockton, Mass., and the town of Weymouth, Mass. As you already know, I am also interested in these projects.

I wish to be recorded as endorsing the stand taken, before your committee, by
General Harrison with regards to these two armories.
: Again, may I express my thanks and, with best wishes, I am,
Sincerely yours,

JAMES A. BURKE,
Member of Congress.

*". Senator STENNIS. The next item on the docket here is the Boardman Bombing Range, and the witness is Mr. Samuel Mallicoat, deputy director of the Oregon State Department of Planning and Development.

You desire to appear in support of an amendment to the bill offered by Senators Morse and Lusk to permit exchange of certain Stateowned lands for lands now owned by the Federal Government consisting of the Boardman Bombing Range?

Mr. MALLICOAT. Yes, sir.

Senator STENNIS. This is under the Navy's jurisdiction, and the Navy is assisting in bringing about this exchange of land ?

Mr. MALLICOAT. Yes, sir.
Senator STENNIS. Do you have a written statement, sir?
Mr. MALLICOAT. Yes, sir.

Senator STENNIS. You speak for the people of Oregon on this, do you?

Mr. MALLICOAT. Yes, sir; I do.
Senator STENNIS. All right.
Mr. MALLICOAT. I will be very brief, Senator.

Senator STENNIS. We do not want to unduly rush you. If you want to put it in the record and then summarize it, or if you would rather read all of it, why, we will hear you.

Mr. MALLICOAT. It is just a very brief statement, and I will ask to insert a portion of it in the record.

Senator STENNIS. All right. You may start, even at the expense of having to stop.

STATEMENT OF SAMUEL H. MALLICOAT, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, STATE

OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Mr. MALLICOAT. Mr. Chairman and members of this subcommittee, I am Samuel H. Mallicoat; I am appearing before your committee on behalf of the State of Oregon. The people of Oregon appreciate this opportunity to be heard on a matter so vital and important to the economic development of their State.

On April 1, 1960, Senators Morse and Lusk, of Oregon, introduced an amendment to the military construction authorization bill, H.R. 10777. Subsequently, Congressman Al Ullman, representing the Second District of Oregon, has asked that additional language be incorporated in the Senators' amendment. This amendment is before your committee today.

The Honorable Mark O. Hatfield, Governor of Oregon, respectfully requests that your committee give favorable consideration to the proposal incorporated in this amendment which, in effect, will authorize the transfer of the lands incorporated in the Boardman Bombing Range, Morrow County, Oreg., to the State of Oregon in exchange for State-owned lands in the southeastern part of the State of equal value.

The people of the State of Oregon have been very favorably impressed with the reaction of the various governmental departments and agencies toward the proposed exchange and no known opposition exists to the proposal by any department or agency of the Federal Government.

« PreviousContinue »