NATIONAL GUARD FACILITIES STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. JAMES F. CANTWELL, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL GUARD ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we welcome this opportunity to present the views of the National Guard Association of the United States of H.R. 10300, a bill to authorize certain construction at military installations. and for other purposes. Title VII of H.R. 10300 provides the authorizations for construction of National Guard facilities, both Army and Air, for fiscal 1965. The enactment of Public Law 783 of the 81st Congress established a policy of mutual Federal-State participation in the construction of armories for the Army National Guard. The ratio of participation was set in the act as 75 percent Federal and 25 percent State after the acquisition of the land by the State. Administrative restrictions and criteria which have evolved over the years have had the effect of increasing the State share to an almost equal ratio of that provided by the Federal Government. Over 1,300 armory projects at a total combined Federal-State cost in excess of $240 million have been awarded under this policy. This figure does not include the cost of the land acquisition borne exclusively by the States. Over $28 million of Federal funds has been obligated for the support of nonarmory projects during this time. The average annual obligation under the authorized construction program for the Army National Guard has been about $18.7 million and has ranged from a low of $8.3 million in fiscal year 1953 to a high of $29 million in fiscal year 1957 During the current fiscal year an obligational target of $10.5 million was established. The National Guard Bureau will attain that figure by May 30 The obligation target for fiscal year 1965 has been set at only $9 million—at extremely unrealistic figure when compared to demonstrated capabilities and actual requirements. It is reliably reported that the States have on hand in State moneys available as their share of construction in fiscal year 1965 in excess of $15 million. It is evident that the proposed armory construction program is considerably short of providing a reasonable annual increment of obligational authority. It is reasonably estimated that the remaining requirements to provide ade quate facilities for the support of the Army National Guard are in excess of $150 million, and it is conceivable that studies now underway may consideraby increase that figure. At the present and proposed rate of construction, the completion of the armort construction program is more than 25 years away. Lack of adequate facilities is reflected in deterioration of equipment and materiel. An Army National Guard construction program in the magnitude of $15 t $20 million is considered reasonable and capable of implementation. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, we urge that the authorizations for armory con struction be increased to at least $20 million for fiscal 1965 by inserting the figure “$20,000,000" for the figure "$5,450,000" where it appears on page 58 line 24, of the bill. The authorization for construction of facilities to support the Air Natiota! Guard as contained in the bill appears to be adequate to provide for essential construction associated with the approved Air National Guard program Accordingly, we endorse that figure. NATIONAL GUARD ARMORIES IN CALIFORNIA STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE DON EDWARDS, OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Chairman, I appreciate being given the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee on a matter that I deem of great importance. The House-approved program of $3,650,000 in Federal funds for 24 armory projects in 24 States, and $1,800,000 for 16 nonarmory projects in 16 States does not provide for any program in California. My testimony today is to respectfully request that the Senate bill provide for a larger construction pro gram which would include the Newark Armory which is first on the priority list. The Newark Armory calls for a $344,00 Federal appropriation. The situation in Newark is that there is a vital need for the armory as planned. Newark lies within the center of a rapidly expanding area insofar as population is concerned, and there is a severe shortage of armory facilities. As of July 1, 1964, the California Legislature made available for immediate expenditure the sum of $2,400,000 in State funds for California's participation for the Newark facility. In addition, an excellent site has been provided by the city of Newark, a fine 5-acre site on Jarvis Avenue. It is my understanding that we will lose the State money if it is not committed before June 30, 1965. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesy this morning, and further for any consideration which you might give to my request. DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY JOHN E. MCCOLLUM ATTORNEY AT LAW Suite 204, the Northern Virginia Bank Building, 6315 Backlick Road, Springfield, Va., June 5, 1964 Hon. JOHN STENNIS, Chairman, Military Construction Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR STENNIS: It has come to our attention that your subcommittee recently held public hearings concerning the location of the Defense Intelligence Agency. We regret that we were not aware of these hearings in time to request an appearance; but because of our great interest in this matter, we should like to make known our views and to request that this statement be accepted and incorporated in the record of testimony under consideration. The board of directors of the Springfield Chamber of Commerce, at its meeting held on June 2, 1964, voted unanimously to endorse the proposal advanced by the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors for the relocation of the Defense Intelligence Agency to the county of Fairfax. In particular, the chamber would like to bring to your attention the advantages of the Springfield area as a location for this facility. Firstly, the acquisition of a suitable site would appear to be a problem of only minimal proportions, in view of the potential availability of at least a portion of the Army Engineers Proving Ground at Springfield. Utilization of a portion of this site would certainly be consistent with the present governmental emphasis on economy and would also constitute utilization of a tract of land more in keeping with its true value. At present, only a small portion of the land available at the proving ground is utilized. Certainly, all taxpayers would benefit by a fuller utilization of this land which now is only partially used. Secondly, Springfield is strategically located at the interchange of Shirley Highway (Interstate 95) and the Capital Beltway (Interstate 495), two of the major high-speed, arterial highways of the National Capital area. Work is now underway to improve Shirley Highway to eight lanes, with provision for two reversible express lanes directly to the Pentagon and downtown Washington. The Army Engineers Proving Ground is served by two major interchanges offering direct access to the Shirley Highway. The proving ground is located approximately 12 road-miles from the Pentagon. In view of the fact that this distance would be traversed on a high-speed, 65-mileper-hour, heavy capacity, arterial highway, generally during periods of reverse traffic flow, it would seem apparent that the trip from one building to another easily could be made within 15 minutes. Anyone familiar with the traffic and parking problems of the District of Columbia is well aware that, in most instances, it is virtually impossible to travel from one Government agency to another in such an abbreviated period of time. Furthermore, given the congested traffic conditions on Route 50, travel time from the proving ground would be little greater than travel time from the present Arlington Hall site to the l'entagon. The third and perhaps most important consideration in the selection of a site for DIA is the receptivity of the community to the Agency. It is clear that in some areas the Defense Intelligence Agency is being received with less than open arms. We wish to emphasize that Springfield not only is receptive to this Agency but would most wholeheartedly welcome its inclusion in our community. At present, approximately 60 percent of the heads of families in Springfield are employed by the Federal Government or are members of the armed services. Over the years, a rapport has developed in this community among civilian and military personnel which we believe is unparalleled in the Washington area. We respectfully place ourselves fully at your disposal and offer every possible assistance to your subcommittee and to the Defense Intelligence Agency in this matter. We thank you for your consideration. JOHN E. MCCOLLUM, President, Springfield, Va., Chamber of Commerce. Senator STENNIS. Are there any other matters to come before the subcommittee? You gentlemen have nothing you wish to submit that you know of now? All right, all the services will have the privilege of submitting additional matters, if they wish, for the record. The Chair wants to thank all members of the committee who have attended throughout the hearings. I also thank the members of the services who have supported the bill as well as the additional witnesses who have come in, and for their help. In addition to the services, Members of the Congress, both the House and the Senate, who wish to file statements in the record may do so. But we will have to put a time limitation on that. The record will be kept open for 48 hours. I thank the reporter, too, Mr. Robert G. Cantor, for his fine services. If there is nothing further before the subcommittee, we will take a recess subject to the call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the subcommittee, adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.) MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1965 MONDAY, JULY 27, 1964 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 1114, New Senate Office Building, Hon. John Stennis (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Stennis, Saltonstall, and Ellender. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. W. R. SHULER, DIRECTOR OF INSTALLATIONS, OFFICE, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR LOGISTICS; ACCOMPANIED BY H. T. LaCROSSE, OFFICE, COMPTROLLER OF THE ARMY; LT. GEN. L. D. HEATON, THE SURGEON GENERAL; D. K. CHACEY, CHIEF, ENGINEERING DIVISION, OFFICE, CHIEF OF TRANSPORTATION; AND H. B. NORWOOD, OFFICE, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS GENERAL STATEMENT Senator STENNIS. The subcommittee will be in order. Gentlemen, we will proceed in the regular way. I would like to welcome you gentlemen from the Department of Defense. I have a very brief opening statement that I shall read. First, however, let me express the hope that all witnesses will be as brief as possible and to the point. Due to the fact that the Appropriations Subcommittee members participated in the armed services construction authorization hearings, it is not our intent to hear again those projects about which there is no controversy. It is our intent to hear first those items from previous years' authorizations. Then, we will continue with the items that the services are appealing from the House appropriation action; and, then, we will hear the reprograming items now pending before the subcommittee. I wish to say it is not our intent here to cut any of the testimony short in any manner. I want everyone to have his say and bring up any problems and items he feels the subcommittee should hear. However, I must point out that the subcommittee has in its possession, and will print as a part of its hearings, the complete testimony taken before the Armed Services Committee. 34-036-64—1 It is my feeling that we have plenty of data and information upon which to mark up this bill when combined with the testimony which we will take during these hearings. ESTIMATES, 1965 To outline briefly, the budget estimates as submitted by the Department of Defense in January included Army, $408 million; Navy $278 million; Air Force, $406 million; Defense agencies, $34 million; Army Reserve, $5 million; Navy Reserve, $7 million; Air Force Reserve, $5 million; Army National Guard, $6 million; Air National Guard, $14 million; and loran stations, $5 million. This makes a total construction budget of $1,168 million. The family housing total was $711 million. HOUSE ALLOWANCE This makes a total request of $1,879 million. The House Appro priations Committee approved for military construction $948,656,000, and for family housing $650,358,000. The revised budget estimates to which you will testify at this hearing are: Army, $327,168,000; Navy, $261,182,000; Air Force, $368,691.000; Defense agencies, $12,656,000; and Reserve forces a combined total of $37 million; and loran stations $5 million additional for the Army National Guard. This makes a total request for construction. exclusive of the $5 million additional for the Army National Guard of $1,011,697,000. The revised budget estimate for family housing is $655,381,000. Senator STENNIS. At this point in the record I wish to insert the reclama letter from the Department of Defense. (The information referred to follows:) Hon. JOHN STENNIS, THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Construction, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Department of Defense has reviewed H.R. 113%, the Military Construction Appropriation Act of fiscal year 1965, passed by the House on May 26, 1964, and its accompanying report. The bill as passed by the House will provide new obligational authority for military construction of $948,656,000 as compared with the President's budget request of $1,168 million, a decrease of $219,344,000, and new obligational authority for the family hous ing account of $650,358,500, or a reduction of $60,641,500. It should be noted that the decreases in the various appropriations under these headings are due to (1) reductions of the Department of Defense authoris ing legislation as passed by the House, and (2) to changes in the program made by the Appropriations Committee of the House which are indicated in the House Appropriations Committee Report No. 1424. All of the adjustments made by the House have been reviewed carefully and the statements and comments of the committee report have been taken into consideration. On the basis of this reexamination of the facilities requirements. the Department of Defense is requesting the restoration of $42,640,000 in the military construction appropriations and $5,022,500 in the family housing account. It should be noted that the revised budget estimate for the military constræe tion accounts reflects authorization adjustments made to H.R. 10300 over sod above the House-passed bill as indicated in the Senate-House Conference Report No. 1558. In addition, the estimate includes a request for your committee's consideration of $20,401,000, the estimate representing certain adjustments to the line item lists in the three major construction accounts which were neither pre |