Calendar No. 522

93D CONGRESS SENATE j REPORT

S.t Session No. 93--548

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATION BILL, 1974

NOVEMBER 19, 1973.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. MANSFIELD, from the Committee on Appropriations,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H.R. 114591

The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the bill

(H.R. 11459) making appropriations for military construction for the

Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, and

for other purposes, reports the same to the Senate with various amend-

ments, and presents herewith information relative to the changes

made:

Amount of bill passed by House---------------- $2, 609, 090, 000

Amount of increase by Senate from the House__ 61, 882, 000

Total of bill as reported to Senate-__ _ 2, 670, 972, 000

Amount of 1974 budget estimates___ ----------- 2, 944, 900, 000

Amount of 1973 appropriations ----- ----- ---__ 2, 323, 221, 000

The bill as reported to the Senate:

Below the budget estimate, 1974 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 273, 928, 000

Above appropriations for fiscal year 1973 ------ 347, 751, 000

(1)

99-010

GENERAL STATEMENT

For military construction for the Active Forces of the Department

of the Army, the Committee has approved an amount totaling

$567,735,000. This is an increase of $16,160,000 from the amount of

$551,575,000 approved by the House, and a reduction of $97,165,000

from the budget estimate of $664,900,000.

For military construction for the Active Forces of the Department

of the Navy, the Committee has approved an amount totaling

$608,467,000. This is an increase of $20,826,000 from the $587,641,000

allowed by the House and a reduction of $76,933,000 from the budget

estimate of $685,400,000.

For military construction for the Active Forces of the Department

of the Air Force, the Committee has approved an amount totaling

$261,198,000. This is an increase of $21,496,000 over the $239,702,000

allowed by the House and a reduction of $30,702,000 from the budga ,,

estimate of $291,900,000.

For the Army National Guard, the Committee approved $35,200,000

and approval was given for the Army Reserve in the amount of

$40,700,000, the budget estimate.

For the Naval Reserve, the Committee recommends an appropria-

tion of $20,300,000, which is the budget estimate.

For the Air Force Reserve, the Committee recommends an appro-

priation of $10,000,000.

For the Air National Guard, the Committee recommends an appro-'

priation of $20,0,0,000.

For the Department of Defense agencies, the Committeerecommends

an appropriation of $12,000,000.1 This is $7,100,000 less than the

budget estimate of $19,100,000, and is $12,000,000 above the House

allowance.

The program breakdown is as follows:

Defense Nuclear Agency, $574,000; National Security Agency,

$8,156,000; and the Defense Supply Agency, $8,370,000. The com-

mittee also recommends for the Department of Defense general

support programs a total of $2,000,000 including planning and design.

I In addition, $37,100,000 unobligated balances are available to finance the FY 1974 program.

PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS

In this year's bill several areas have been stressed by the Services.

Because the requirements of each service are unique, one Service may

place more stress than the others on a particular facilities requirement.

Areas investigated and reported on are: Bachelor Enlisted Quarters,

Construction Backlog, Family Housing, Medical Modernization, Pol-

lution Abatement, Trident Facilities Program, Athens Homeporting,

NATO Infrastructure, Shore Establishment Realignment, Moderni-

zation of Facilities, Planning and Design, Construction Management,

and Access Roads.

In evaluating the FY 1974 Military Construction Program, the

Committee was mindful of several recent, portentious events. On

the negative side, the worst inflation in United States history

continues. The effects of dollar devaluation abroad is being felt. The

dramatic reductions in the numbers of men under arms and the major

realignments in the Army, Navy, and Air Force bases create uncer-

tainties. The Defense All-Volunteer Force concept has not yet proven

itself. The military construction program approved by the Commit-

tee reflects these concerns.

BACHELOR HOUSING

ARMY

The Committee's concern with the lack of adequate housing for

our service personnel is well known. It is to be noted that the Army is

continuing its program of providing new and modernized bachelor

housing on an accelerated basis.

The fiscal year 1974 program will provide for 23,425 new bachelor

enlisted barracks spaces and 185 new bachelor officer spaces in the

United States and overseas. Included in these are 3,935 enlisted and

100 officer spaces for the Woman's Army Corps, and 380 enlisted spaces

programed for semi-permanent construction in isolated areas overseas.

The Army has assured ,the Committee that in locating this new con-

struetibn; emphasis has been placed on those troop stations which have

the largest deficits in bachelor housing and which are included in the

Army's long range planning. In addition to new construction, the

budget contains a request for funds to modernize 45,188 enlisted bar-

racks spaces and 528 officer spaces in order to bring these existing

facilities up to present day standards. All officer spaces are in the

United States and only 1,499 of the enlisted spaces are overseas. None

of the overseas spaces are in Europe or Okinawa where alternative

methods of funding are available. The total dollar request for bachelor

housing in fiscal year 1974 budget is $371,278,000.

A review of the Army situation in bachelor housing reveals that the

recent changes in criteria for new construction and modernization have

had a great impact on the Army's existing permanent assets insofar'

as their classification into "adequate" or "substandard" is concerned.

Almost none of the existing permanent barracks spaces meet, accepted

standards of adequacy with the exception of trainee barracks in the

United States. Those now classified as not meeting current standards

vary from pre-World War I buildings on some of the older posts, to

relatively new barracks built in the 1960's. Based on long range

strength projections, it is estimated that housing will be required for

approximately 497,000 soldiers of whom 60,000 will be trainees. It

will also be necessary to house an estimated 34,000 bachelor officers.

Including construction and modernization already approved in fiscal

year,1973 and earlier programs, the Army has approximately 397,000

permanent barracks spaces and 27,000 bachelor officer spaces world-

wide. Approximately 40 percent of these existing assets are classified

as substandard under current standards. Comparing the assets and re-

quirements reveals a deficit of approximately 100,000 barracks: spaces

and 7,000 bachelor officer quarters spaces which can only be met

by new construction. Additionally, over 158,000 spaces that are below

standards require modernization.

In consonance with the new criteria for barracks the Army has de,

veloped an entirely new building design with emphasis on privacy

for the individual. A review of. this design reveals that it provides

flexibility to assign, as personnel loads dictate, three. E2-E4's, two

E5-E6's or one E7-E9 to a 270 square foot room with bath. It also

provides for privacy within the room, a small lounge .to serve four,to

eight rooms, other space as required for storage, lobby, laundry, vehd-

ing machines and mail boxes and separate buildings for unit adminr-

istration and supply. The Committee endorses this new design and

believes the Army should make every effort to.continue to place. em

phasis on the bachelor housing program until' all servicemen are pro-

vided adequate housing.

NAVY

The major deficiency in Navy bachelor housing is for enlisted per-

sonnel. The Navy has a post fiscal year'1974 deficit of 124,525 adequate

bachelor enlisted spaces. Department of Defense officials declare that

approximately $612 million will be requiired to correct this defi'

ciency. A percentage breakdown of this shortage by ratings shd s the

following : Percent

E-2 through E-4 .---. __...------------------ --------78.2

E-5 through E-6 -. _ .. -_ _ -- _- 16.9

--------r--------------- 1------------- -- 9

E-7 through E-9 ------------------------------------------

E-7 through E-9 _ . _ _ _____ ____ 4.9

The Navy states that it has applied a substantial portion of its mili-

tary construction programs of the last three years to correcting this

situation, as illustrated by the above quoted figures. The Navy states

that in the next few years it expects to continue funding bachelor hous-

ing construction at approximately the $60 million level. The Commit-

tee supports this effort and will monitor closely the bachelor housing

program in the continuing years.

SAIR , FORCE

The Air Force is continuing its program to upgrade and modernize

bacheib-housing. The Air Force has a deficit of 8,000 spaces in officer

quarters" and 37,000 spaces in enlisted quarters. In addition, 18,000

officer and 167,000 enlisted spaces require upgrading/moderniza-

tion. In fiscal year 1973, funds were provided to build 220 officer and

6484 enlisted spaces and to upgrade 180 officer and 8996 enlisted spaces.

The current bill provides for 60 officer and 4768 enlisted new spaces

and modernization of 4757 enlisted spaces. At the current rate of up-

grading the Air Force inventory, adequate housing for all airmen will

not be realized in the near future. The Air Force should continue and

expand its efforts toward this goal.

The $38 million requested in this year's program approximates re-

cent years' Military Construction Program efforts; however, the em-

phasis is shifting from new construction to upgrading/modernization

of the existing inventory. The deficiency in new spaces will require ap-.

proximately $323 million and modernization of the current inventory

an additional $581 million. The Air Force Construction Program pri-

marily provides on-base housing for E-4's and below; all personnel at

isolated locations; and at other locations where requirements are gen-

erated by student or transient personnel. They plan some new con-

struction for E-5's and above when the local community cannot pro-

vide adequate housing. Modernization/upgrading of existing build-

ings for E-5's and above is being programmed on a selected basis.

Air Force continues to emphasize privacy in their new construction

and modernization efforts since a recent survey on bachelor housing

indicates airmen still place this item at the top of the list of desired

amenities. The Air Force feels that a maximum of two persons per

room is an economically acceptable substitute for their ultimate goal

ii privacy of a room for each airman. The Air Force is different in

their objectives from the other Services, who prefer three and four-

man rooms; however, their force is comprised mostly of highly trained

technicians who work as individuals rather than in units. They are not

providing more living space per occupant than the other Services-

merely more privacy. Their construction program pursues their ob-

jective within Congressional statutory authorization limits by reduc-

ing space in lounges and other common use areas. The committee sup-

ports the Air Force program..

HOSPITAL PROGRAMS

ARMY

The Army program for fiscal year 1974 represents a moderate in-

crease of approximately $5 million over last year's request.

'The fiscal year 1974 Military Construction, Army program includes

$89,609,000 for medical facilities to provide for one new hospital, one

hospital addition, three dental clinics and one medical/dental clinic.

Also included are parking facilities in support of the new hospital

uhder construction at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The single

new hospital included is a replacement for the outmoded and inade-

qSate plant at the United States Military Academy which has been

constructed piecemeal since 1890. The single hospital addition is for

the purpose of expanding outpatient facilities at the hospital con-

cerned. That project reflects the continued trend in the military health

care system toward increasing demand for outpatient medical care.

That demand is partially due to changes in concepts of health care

delivery. Whereas in the civilian sector the increased demand for

health care is noted across the spectrum of health related businesses,

institutions and offices of private practitioners, nearly all aspects of

the military health care delivery system are physically located within

the hospital. Thus, changes in concepts of delivery of health care as

well as in the amount of care demanded by the patient manifest them-

selves in the military system, to a great extent, as increased hospital

outpatient requirements.

Included within this program are two prototype dental clinics. The

clinics are designed on a modular concept which permits ready site

adaptation to accommodate the number of dental treatment rooms re-

quired as well as certain types of supporting facilities. These clinics

are designed to take maximum advantage of available professional

dental resources through more efficient utilization, allowing each den-

tist to treat or supervise care for patients in as many as four chairs.

The first major increment of the Army's accelerated health facili-

ties modernization program will be initiated with next year's military

construction program, to include an extensive series of electrical/

mechanical upgrade projects to bring existing permanent hospitals

up to current fire, electrical, safety and accreditation standards, as

well as major additions, improvements and replacement facilities.

The West Point Expansion Program has been underway for several

years and the fiscal year 1974 budget request continues to implement

that program. Three projects are contained in this year's increment;

modernization of barracks, utilities expansion, and a new hospital.

The key project is the proposed new hospital.

The requirement for a new hospital is derived from two considera-

tions:

a. First, the present hospital is outmoded and inadequate. It was

built incrementally and modified over a period of years, it is inade-

quate for servicing supported strengths, and is located in a highly

congested and noisy area with extremely limited access other than on

foot. This condition limits its usefulness to a significant portion of

the population served.

b. The second consideration is that the present hospital structure is

urgently required to meet other USMA expansion requirements.

c. The relocation of the hospital was the second priority project

in the overall Expansion Plan. The project was originally authorized

by Congress in FY 1966, however, due to several circumstances new

Congressional authorization is required. The planned relocation of

the hospital has significantly affected other planning. Other construc-

tion to date, including roads, parking, utilities, academic building,

has been based on the assumption that the hospital would be relocated.

Since a new hospital was planned the existing structure has re-

ceived little more than breakdown maintenance since 1965, as noted

above. Building systems requiring the expenditure of substantial

funds, if the structure is continued in use as a hospital for any ex-

tended period, include: the high pressure steam system, electrical

service and branch wiring, both hot and cold water systems; the cen-

tral dictation, nurses call, personnel paging and telephone systems

require replacement; three building elevators require replacement;

existing piecemeal air-conditioning requires major expansion and

rehabilitation.

Overall, the actual building configuration is a limiting factor in

accommodating the increasing staff, treating an increased number of

patients, and providing the medical services that are required.

Hospital equipment replacement in the existing structure has been

kept to a minimum since it was anticipated that a new hospital would

be constructed. Failure to provide a new facility in the near future

would require a major expenditure for new equipment for which pro-

curement was deferred during the past seven years. It is doubtful that

the type and amount of equipment could be properly accommodated

in the existing building.

The estimated cost of the hospital is $25 million, a point that has

raised considerable question. Improvements in the state of the art of

medic~4 care facilities in the past two years have resulted in increases

ifi- costs because of upgraded standards for electrical, mechanical, en-

vironmental, and fire protection systems which have been incorporated

in the West Point design. For example, new standards adopted by the

Veterans'Administration; HEW, and the American Society of Heat-

ing, Ventilation and Refrigeration Engineers have brought about bet-

ter, but more expensive systems for temperature and humidity con-

trol, air conditioning and filtration. Also, new NFPA fire codes have

required such things as higher fire ratings for walls and doorways

along the major paths of egress from the building. In addition, recent

developments in diagnostic and therapeutic equipment, as well as new

codes and standards, have placed greater demands on the quantity and

reliability of electrical service, its flexibility, and the number of service

terminals required.

Historically, construction costs at West Point have been very ex-

pensive. Several prime and subcontractors who have recently bid on

projects at West Point were contacted informally and questioned with

regard to the magnitude of risk and contingency factors that they

had applied to their bids. From the responses given, it is concluded

that contractors add a factor of 50% to all labor costs at West Point

as compared to similar projects in other areas.

An alternative to a new hospital would be to renovate and modern-

ize the existing facility. This alternative has been investigated and the

results further support constructing a new facility. The estimated

space requirements under modern criteria are just over 157,000 square

feet. The present hospital can only provide just over 93,000 gross square

feet of usable space. An ancillary clinic building would also be re-

quired to provide the remaining area. Engineering estimates for reno-

. eating the existing structure and providing an additional clinic build-

ing are approximately $21 million. Also, facilities, estimated to cost

approximately $3.6 million, would be required to house those activi-

ties which are now programed to move into the old hospital building

upon completion of a new hospital. Further significant considerations

are the serious degradation of medical service during the renovation

(apt to extend over several years) and the fact that the resulting fa-

cility would still be located in a very congested area with very limited

access to the users.

The Committee approved $20,000,000 for the hospital.

The condition of Army medical facilities in overseas areas, particu-

larly Europe, has been a matter of concern for some years. The major-

ity of medical facilities now being used by the Army in Europe were

not designed and constructed ifi a manner which lends itself:to the

needs of the modern health care delivery system. Existing designs re-

sult in inefficient use of personnel at a time when professional medical.

resources within the Arny are declining in quantity. Many years of

austere funding for maintenance and repair has resulted in physical

plants which are marginal and in some cases shabby.

Projects in Europe programed over the next five years to effect.

minimal correction of current conditions include one new medical-

dental clinic, one medical clinic addition, one dental clinic, one.new

optical laboratory and major alterations, improvements or renova-

tions to seven hospitals. It is the opinion of the Committee that the

Army and the Department of Defense should start negotiations with

the host government in overseas areas, particularly Germany for re-

pair of hospitals. In Germany, these hospitals are owned by the Ger-

man government. This Committee will not look with favor upoqpU.S.

Government funds being used to repair hospitals in Germany.

NAVY

The Secretary of Defense has recognized a serious need to up-

grade facilities to assure the effective delivery of a high level of health

care and has approved a program for modernizing military medical

facilities.

The goal of the medical modernization program is to replace or up-

grade all health care facilities to comparable civilian standards by the

mid-1980's in order to continue to provide military persoitnel and

their dependents a high level of health care and to attract and retain

professional medical personnel by providing them with new/mnodexn

facilities in which to work.

The medical modernization program approved by the Secretary of

Defense provided new funding levels to accelerate the replacement

and modernization of obsolete hospitals, dispensaries and dental clin-

ics and to upgrade some relatively new facilities to meet recently

changed standards of the National Fire Protection Association, the

Joint Committee on Accreditation of hospitals, Department of De-

fense planning and construction criteria and other nationally recog-

nized organizations and codes. The Committee strongly endorses the

objectives of this program.

The Navy's FY 1974 program requested a significant increase for

medical facility construction over the program appropriated last year

and is the first increment of the medical modernization program's five

year plan.

The following table compares the FY 1974 medical program with

the FY 1972 and FY 1973 programs:

Fiscal year:

1974--------------------- -------------------------- $37, 993, 000

1973 ------------------------------------ 44, 384,000

1972 .------------------------------ ------------ 27,866,000

At the time of development of the five year medical modernization

program (spring 1972), Navy deficiencies amount to 684 million dol-

lars (construction costs only based on FY 1974 dollars). Because of

,program adjustments at various levels of review, the continually

.aging and obsolescence of our present plant, and more recent cost

estimates, it will be necessary to extend the medical modernization

.program. into FY 1979, or later, depending upon appropriations ob-

tained. For FY 1975 through 1979, the medical modernization pro-

gram is expected to cost between $100 and $150 million.

AIR FORCE

The Committee notes that the Air Force has proposed projects

which will continue to strengthen the Air Force Hospital Concept

and its emphasis on a comprehensive health care delivery system

within a regionalized framework.

The Air Force Hospital System is an organized health care system

within the continental United States based upon the concept, of

regionalized medical care with facilities of different sizes and capa-

bilities in specific geographic subdivisions. The United States is di-

vided into areas, each served by an Area Medical Center. Each area

is further subdivided into regions, each served by a Regional Hospi-

tal. The number of regions within each area is determined by the

eligible Department of Defense beneficiary population to be served

and the capabilities of existing Air Force facilities.

Air Force hospitals constructed up through the mid-1960s generally

allocated greater space to the inpatient area than to the outpatient

'activity. However, during the 1960s, there was a national shift to in-

creased emphasis on outpatient care, and hospitals constructed before

this change. have proven to be functionally inadequate. The Air Force,

at the direction of the Department of Defense, has identified those

facilities which require modernization or replacement through the

Military Construction Program.

Projects of this type have been supported by this Committee in the

recent fiscal year programs. Among those medical facilities recently

enlarged and modernized were these: fiscal year 65-Homestead Air

Force Base, Florida; fiscal year 66-Wright-Patterson Air Force

Base, Ohio;. fiscal year 68-Columbus Air Force Base, Mississippi;

fiscal year, 69-Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas; fiscal year 70-

Blytheville Air Force Base, Arkansas; fiscal year 71-Langley Air

Force Base, Virginia; fiscal year 72-Hill Air Force Base, Utah;

and fiscal year 73- Eglin Air Force Base, Florida.

The fiscal year 74 Military Construction Program contains 12 health

facility projects. Three of these projects involve total replacement of

the.aged, professionally obsolete composite medical facilities at F. E.

Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming; Laughlin Air Force Base, Texas;

RAF Upper Heyford, England; which have been in use for 86 years,

18 years, and 49 years, respectively. The other three composite medical

facilities in the program at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama;

Richards-Gebaur Air Force Base, Missouri; and Tinker Air Force

Base, Oklahoma; involve additions and alterations principally ad-

dressing the problem of inadequate space for outpatients in the clinics,

the pharmacy, the laboratory, the X-ray department, and the other

'aeas serving these patients.

The Committee also recognizes the gross deficiencies to be rectified

by the replacement of the functionally obsolete dental clinics at Barks-

S. Rept. 548, '93-1--2

dale Air Force Base, Louisiana, and Shaw Air Force Base, South,

Carolina, and the addition/alteration project involving the dental

clinic at Keesler Air Force Base, Louisiana.

To permit the vacating of temporary facilities, the committee notes

the proposed construction of vital aeromedical staging facilities at

Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, and Scott Air Force Base, Ill-

inois. Finally, the alteration of an existing dining hall on the Medina

officer training base at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, will provide

a small dispensary for the officer candidate trainees.

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

ARMY

The Army has again proposed a significant program for Community

Facilities as an important segment of an overall soldier oriented

budget. Their program for $34.4 million approximates the $45.6 mil-

lion approved in last year's appropriation and presents a well-balanced

mix of facilities. This Committee is aware of the need for providing

adequate facilities for welfare, recreation and leisure time activities

for the soldier and his dependents. Many activities must still function

in temporary World War II or permanent pre-World War II struc-

tures that are no longer adequate.

This year's Army program includes commissaries, a chapel center,

a gymnasium, a confinement facility, a post office, service clubs, and

dependent schools overseas. The requirement for this mix of commu-

nity facilities in the Army is directly related to the corresponding

service provided in the civilian community. The remoteness and large

population of many Army installations generally preclude use of civil-

ian community facilities.

AIR FORCE

The fiscal year 1974 Air Force request for Community Facilities

totals $24.5 million after authorization actions. This is a decrease of

$31.8 million from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1973. Com-

munity facilities includes: Gymnasiums, Libraries, Chapels, Com-

missaries, and Enlisted and Officer Open Messes. The Air Force feels

that these and similar Morale and Recreation facilities are essential

to the maintenance of a quality force. The Committee supports this

position and feels that the Air Force current achievement of their

all Volunteer objectives is directly related to these efforts to provide

adequate community support facilities for its people.

MAINTENANCE FACILITIES

ARMY

This year's Army military construction bill contains five projects,

totaling $16.4 million, for maintenance facilities and represents a

balance between depot and organizational level maintenance facility

needs. Two of the projects are for aviation maintenance activities.

This dollar total closely approximates the $15.9 million for mainte-

nance facilities approved by this Committee in fiscal year 1973.

The Army continues to have a very sizable backlog of maintenance

facility requirements, estimated at over $850 million, needed to re-

place World War II temporary type structures and reduce outright

shortages at many installations. After an intensive study, many fa-

cility deficiencies have been specifically identified across-the full range

of maintenance responsibilities and scheduled into upcoming Army

construction programs. It is anticipated the Army FY 1975 efforts

toward providing adequate maintenance facilities will be at a level

at least double that of fiscal years 1973 and 1974. The Committee

expects the Army to remedy this facility shortage-an area that has

been one of the Army's most significant problems in equipment

readiness.

NAVY

Naval Shipyards and Naval Air Rework Facilities are industrial

complexes essential for Fleet logistic support. The objectives of the

Shipyard and Naval Air Rework Facilities modernization programs

are to reduce operating costs, improve the efficiency of industrial oper-

ations, attain balanced capacity based on projected need for workload

and mission assignments, and provide new capabilities required to

support new weapon systems and changing technologies of the Fleet.

The long range Shipyard Modernization Program is a capital in-

vestment program to upgrade and modernize the Naval shipyards and'

improve yard surge capacity to react to limited or general war situa-

tions. Fleet readiness will be significantly improved through increased

yard responsiveness both to Fleet regular overhaul and emergency

repair requirements. The program incorporates the long range devel-

opment of management techniques required to exploit scientific ad-

vances and increased productivity. It was initially conceived as a 10

year program with the first full increment approved by Congress in

FY 1970. However, levels of funding required for accomplishment

within the 10 year timeframe were not obtained for fiscal years 1970

through 1974 and Shipyard Modernization has been significantly

delayed.

A very significant step was taken by the Navy this year with regard

to its shipyard posture. On 17 April 1973 it was announced that both

the Boston and Hunters Point Naval Shipyards would be closed.

By eliminating this excess industrial capacity from the inventory and

consolidating workload in other yards located near Fleet concentra-

tions, the Navy's backlog of modernization work was reduced by some

$320 million.

Notable achievements toward modernization of the Naval shipyards

have already been realized through the Shipyard Modernization Pro-

gram. However, continuing changes in Fleet size and composition, the

recent Shore Establishment Realignment actions directly and indi-

rectly affecting naval shipyards, and the austere outlook for future

facilities budgets dictate the need to update or restructure the mod-

ernization program to reflect these conditions in terms of valid long

range facility and equipment requirements. Accordingly, in mid fiscal

year 1974, the Naval Ship System Command has scheduled to com-

mence a restructuring of the original Kaiser Engineer firm Shipyard

Modernization Study for all shipyards with exception of Boston and

Hunters Point which are scheduled for closure and Portsmouth, N.H.,

which was not included in the original study (a modernization study

for Portsmouth, N.H., was completed in April, 1972). Following com-

pletion of this restructuring the proposed capital' investment program

'for the modernization of Naval shipyards will. be appropriately

revised. . .

The program to modernize the facilities and equipmeNnt .n e Navy's

Naval Air Rework Facilities commenced in FY 1969YPrior:_t this

very little improvements to these plants had 'been made since-- World

War II. For example, from FY 1960 through 1968, an average of only

$2.35M was appropriated annually for construction at all the facilities.

These amounts were clearly insufficient to keep World War II vintage

plants capable of meeting today's increased and more complex work

load. Obsolete buildings and equipment contributed to increases in

aircraft in-process time, higher rework ccosts and failure to meet Fleet

work load requirements. Longer rework time resulted in fewer operat-

ing aircraft available to the Fleet. Studies conducted on rework pro-

grams for three first line fighter and attack aircraft during 1967 and

1968 showed that investments in new buildings and equipments would

result in substantial reductions in aircraft rework time, slow the rapid,

escalation in customer costs to a more normal level, and improve

rework efficiency. The modernization program is the result of an

extension of this evaluation to all aircraft models at all rework

activities.

Future rework level is expected to show only minimal reductions.

Even though the Navy's aircraft inventory and flying hours will de-

cline, this will be offset by increased man-hours required to rework

the more complex aircraft now in operation and being developed.

Consolidation of the rework facility resources was carried out with

the April 1973 announcement of the closure of Naval Air Rework

Facility Quonset Point. The remaining six rework facilities can absorb

the Quonset Point workload with improvement in the overall utiliza-

tion rate. The trend towards concentrating Navy-wide capability at

individual rework facilities will be furthered by this action. The fund-

ing provided for modernization in recent programs is as follows:

[In millions of dollars

1971 1972 1973 1974

Naval air rework facilities................ -.. .... $10.9 $6.2 $17.7 1 $11.4

Shipyard modernization--...---------------------- 28.9 12.7 13.9 1 18.4

1 Budget request.

The Navy has not been able to program at the originally conceived

correction rate of ten years for the Naval Air Rework Facility Mod-

ernization Program or the Shipyard Modernization Program in recent

years because of overall Military Construction budget constraints, the

need to program personnel support, pollution abatement and other

urgent programs.

AIR FORCE

Air Force Depot Plant Modernization Program progress and re-

quests were reviewed in detail by the committee. Appropriations to

date, the 1974 construction request, and remaining requirements are

displayed below:

[In millions of dollars]

MCP fiscal year

Equipment Programr

Air Force base 1972 1973 1974 To go Total total total

Hill..___.-......-.... . 14. 1 0 8.3 20. 6 43 18 61

Kelly...........____ ... 11.0 3.8 5.5 25. 7 46 35 81

McClellan---.....--- - 0 9.2 2.5 27.3 39 26 65

Newark.............. 1.5 0 0 2.5 4 4 &

Robins__ _..-......... . 15.8 7.2 4.3 15.7 43 15 58

Tinker ................ 12.8 9.7 10.8 41.7 75 42 117

Total............ 55.2 29.9 31. 4 133. 5 250 140 390'

The Committee notes that the Air Force is aggressively improving

force effectiveness and reducing costs through this logistics depot

modernization program. Improved force effectiveness is obtained by

increasing logistics responsiveness through the provision of modern

facilities and equipment for maintenance, supply and transportation

activities in the logistics depots. With these new improvements, repair

times are reduced, worker productivity enhanced and the quality and

reliability of the weapon systems maintained increased. In the process,

the depots are acquiring the technological capability to support the

new, more sophisticated systems needed to meet today's threat. The

demand for efforts, such as this, is even greater today than when the

program was started two years ago.

The objective is to maintain a depot logistics plant that can rapidly,

effectively and efficiently meet the needs of the deterent forces or pro-

vide a base for mobilization, if needed, in a national emergency.

Maintenance manpower is being reduced as programmed increases in

productivity occur so that total organic depot production will not

increase. In fiscal year 1973, this reduction amounted to 761 depot

maintenance personnel spaces; in fiscal year 1974, there will be 464

more reductions; and by fiscal year 1978, if the program remains on

scheduile,- an accumulated equivalent of 3,360 depot maintenance man-

power spaces will be reduced. Old buildings and equipment are being

disposed of as their replacements become available. By 1978, the total

space occupied by depot maintenance and supply activities will be less

than it is today. As a result, the cost of maintaining these deteriorated

facilities will be eliminated and depot maintenance capacity will not

increase. An auditing system has been established to ensure that the

above occurs and that maximum benefits are indeed achieved..

The Air Force is just beginning to realize benefits from the fiscal

year 1971 MCP Depot Plant Modernization Program forerunners.

Kelly AFB began to use the largest of these, a $15.7 million Depot

Engine Overhaul Facility, in March and will start receiving full bene-

fits by October 1973. This facility will operate with 200 fewer person-

nel than required to accomplish the same programmed workload in

the WW I shops and old warehouses formerly used. Reduced engine

procurement, made possible by repair time reductions achievable in

this facility, amounts to over $14 million. Because of these benefits,

the investment cost will be amortized after approximately one year of

operation.

BASE CLOSURES

ARMY .

In January 1973 the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff

announced a series of major management actions designed to modern-

ize, reorient and streamline the Army's organization within the Con-

tinental United States. In April 1973 the Secretary of Defense

announced a number of facilities realignment actions to scale down the

Department of Defense base structure commensurate with reduced

force levels and training requirements.

The reorganization of the Army is designed to improve readiness,

training, the materiel and equipment acquisition process, the quality

and responsiveness of management and better support for the soldier

in an era of constrained personnel and budget resources. Although

improved efficiency is the main purpose of the Army reorganization,

these management actions will also result in reduced operating costs

and manpower savings. The reorganization will be essentially com-

pleted by 31 December 1973.

The detailed planning process which resulted in the reorganization

was coordinated closely with the Army's concurrent planning for base

realignments announced by the Secretary of Defense on 17 April. The

Army's base realignment plan includes consolidation of service school

activities, closure of one general hospital, reduction of depot activities,

and closure of bases for which a need no longer exists.

These two actions are being carried out within the budget con-

straints of FY 73/74 and when fully realized, total annual savings

from these two actions were originally estimated at approximately

$248 million, with over 21,000 manpower spaces eliminated.

As a result of this reorganization and realignment 524 excess family

housing assets were generated at four Army bases. Final disposition of

the units at Hunter Army Airfield, Georgia, (506 units), Valley Forge

General Hospital, Pennsylvania (2 units), and Fort Wolters, Texas

(5 units) has not been determined. Eleven units at Charleston Army

Depot, South Carolina will be transferred to Navy control. At Hamil-

ton Air Force Base, California, the family housing assets will be

transferred from the Air Force to Navy control and will be operated

for use by all Services. About 200 units are occupied by Army

personnel.

NAVY

The program reviewed by the Committee included 25 projects total-

ing $45,918,000 which are needed to implement the Navy's planned

Shore Establishment Realignment as announced by the Secretary of

Defense on 17 April 1973. The Navy has indicated that, in addition,

approximately $46 million dollars will be required in next year's pro-

gram to support the realignment. Since the time of submission of the

FY 1974 program, the Navy has been able to reduce its FY 1974

requirement to $45,199,000. According to present Navy estimates

the realignment will permit cancellation of approximately 12

prior year construction projects totaling $23 million and will result

in annual savings of over $200 million. The one time closure costs

associated with the realignment are $277 million including the esti-

mated FY 1974 and FY 1975 military construction costs of $9.1 million.

In addition to the annual savings, the Navy stated that future mili-

tary construction requirements in the amount of $197 million will

no longer be required at the installations closed or with reduced opera-

tions. However, these costs are not included in the estimated $200 mil-

lion annual savings.

The Navy stated that any delay in the Shore Establishment Realign-

ment will result in deferral of the above mentioned savings.

A breakdown of the realignment by categories of activities follows:

S1pyards.-Two shipyards will be closed, the Hunters Point

Naval Shipyard, San Francisco, California and the Boston Naval

Shipyard, Boston, Massachusetts.

Air stations.-Four will be closed and two will have operations

reduced. The Naval Air Stations to be closed are Quonset Point,

Rhode Island; Albany, Georgia; Glynco, Georgia; and Imperial

Beach, California.

At the Naval Air Station, Alameda, activities will be realigned and

activities at the Naval Air Station, Lakehurst, New Jersey will be

significantly reduced.

Naval air rework facilities.-One will be closed at Quonset Point,

Rhode Island.

Naval hospitals.-Three hospitals will be closed at Portsmouth,

New Hampshire, St. Albans, New York and Chelsea, Massachusetts.

Training centers.-The Naval Training Center, Bainbridge, Mary-

land will be closed.

Naval complexes.-The greater portion of the Naval Complex at

Boston will be phased out by reduction and disestablishment of ac-

tivities.

A large portion of the complex at Newport and Quonset Point,

Rhode Island will be phased out by the realignment or reduction of

activities.

The Naval Station Complex, Key West will be disestablished. Sig-

nificant reductions and realignment of activities will take place at the

Naval Complex, New York City.

In Philadelphia, the Naval Air Engineering Center will be dis-

established. The Marine Corps Supply Center will be closed and es-

sential functions relocated to other Marine Corps Supply Facilities.

Family housing.-As a result of the Shore Establishment Realign-

ment a total of 2,200 adequate and 1,064 substandard family housing

units will be excessed from the Navy inventory. The Navy will ac-

quire 2,170 adequate. family housing units from force realignments of

other Services which will help to alleviate the housing situation at

these locations.

AIR FORGE

In April 1973, the Air Force announced major closure and realign-

ment actions at six bases. As a result of this action, there will be ulti-

mate savings of $91 million in Air Force future expenditures (see

chart below). The actions were made possible by: (1) the reduction

of older model B-52 bombers at Westover AFB, Mass., and McCoy

AFB, Fla.; (2) the consolidation of C-130 tactical airlift aircraft

fkom Forbes AFB, Kansas, with other airlift units which were in a

more favorable location to operationally support Army airlift require-

ments; (3) the reduction in overall pilot training requirements which

permitted termination of training at Laredo AFB, Texas; (4) the

consolidation and relocation of smaller missions from Hamilton AFB,

Calif., and Ramey AFB, Puerto Rico to other major installations.

ULTIMATE SAVINGS

[In thousands]

Military 0. & M., 0. & M., 0. & M., Total,

personnel AF ANG AFR AF MFH Total

Forbes AFB ---......... -- -10,168 -$5, 521 +$6, 759 ............ -$8,930 -$309 -$9, 239

Hamilton AFB.......... - -8, 330 -10,647 ...........------------ +$6, 360 -12,617 -1,374 -13, 991

Laredo AFB.._. ...... -11,485 -4,896 _.....--..-..-.-.. --16,381 -427 -16,808

McCoy AFB.......--- - -8, 839 -6,763 ----- __..____ --15,602 -729 -16,331

Ramey AFB.... ------- -11, 104 -8, 923 . __-____ . ___ .. -20,027 -1,115 -21,142

Westover AFB _ -11, 008 -9,199 ------------ 7, 367 -12, 840 -687 -13,527

Total........ -.. -60,934 -45,949 +6,759 -13,727 -86,397 -4,641 -91,038

With respect to Military Family Housing at closed Air Force bases,

the Air Force has, since 1966, entered into seven revenue producing no-

cost protection and maintenance (P&M) revenue producing contracts

with local governmental agencies, housing authorities, or other non-

profit entities to provide care and custody and rental service with re-

duced and/or no requirement for appropriated funds. The contracts

covered 3,585 Capehart, 1,601 Wherry, 505 appropriated fund, and-

150 Lanham Act (inadequate) family housing units. Through 31 Au-

gust 1973, $4,108,176.91 over and above operational expenses have been

collected in rentals of which $3,875,924.30 have been returned to the

Department of Defense Family Housing Management account. The

balance currently being held in an Air Force suspense account will 'be

transferred to the Department of Defense Family Housing Manage-

ment account in the near future.

Since 1962, in excess of $27,000,000 in proceeds resulting from the

sale of houses on closed bases has been returned to the Department of

Defense Family Housing Management account.

CONSTRUCTION BACKLOG

ARMY

The Army estimates its construction backlog at approximately $7

billion, of which $4 billion is for replacement and modernization.

SAFEGUARD, NATO Infrastructure and overseas construction re-

quirements are excluded from these totals. The Army is striving to hold

this estimated backlog to manageable proportions by including only

hard requirements and purging less essential items that realistically

would probably never be built. With an estimated backlog of this mag-

nitude it is difficult to register any significant annual reduction in the

overall total. Newly identified requirements added to the program.and.

rapidly increasing construction costs combine to nearly offset annual

construction efforts. The Army's program is focusing on projects en-

hancing the soldiers' living conditions and well being. Specific pro-

grams have been outlined which will essentially eliminate deficits in

bachelor housing and medical facilities by the end of this decade. Un-

fortunately, the backlogs in other construction categories are not ex-

pected to be reduced significantly within current funding levels.

17

NAVY

The Navy has advised the Committee that it has a backlog of essen-

tial Military Construction projects of almost $7.7 billion. This is bro-

ken down between new missions, current missions, and replacement

and modernization as follows:

BREAKDOWN BY TYPE

Percent

Amount of total

New mission... -------------------------------------------------------- $2.4 31.2

Current mission --.....-.......... --------------------------------------- - .... 2.2 28.6

Replacement and modernization.....----------------------------- ------ ---------- 3.1 40.2

Total deficiencies--..--------------------............--------------------------...................... 7.7 100. 0

The Navy estimates that the annual funding needed to correct these

deficiencies is $800 million. The following table shows the funding re-

ceived, the trend toward achieving the annual funding goal, and the

rate at which the Navy has been working to correct new mission, cur-

rent mission and replacement and modernization deficiences.

NAVY AND MARINE CORPS

[Dollar amounts in millions]

Fiscal year-

1971 1972 1973 (Requested) 1974

Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent

New mission............... 84. 6 25. 5 102.3 28.6 168. 4 32. 5 336. 5 48. 2

Current mission............ 102.3 30.9 133.8 37.4 137.3 26.5 146.0 20.9

Replacement and moderniza-

tion..------.......... ...- 144.3 43.6 122. 1 34.0 212.6 41. 0 214.9 30. 9

Total................ ------------- 331.2 ---.......... 358.2 .......... 518.3 .......... 697.4 ...

The Committee believes that programs of at least the size of that

approved for FY 1974 will be required in the future to provide the

most urgently required projects included in the Navy's construction

backlog.

AIR FORCE

The Air Force's construction backlog of facility requirements for

the active force has been estimated at $6.8 billion. This Committee

is advised that this' is approximately 29 percent of the total DOD

deficit of $23.2 billion and, that this backlog is in all categories of

facilities. Further, these deficiencies are most noticeable in the opera-

tions, maintenance, medical, bachelor housing, and community sup-

port areas. The distribution of this year's funding request fully sup-

ports this contention.

The Committee notes with particular interest that the Air Force

has placed an increased emphasis on the replacement and moderni-

zation of its physical plant. Most noteworthy is the emphasis on

improved living conditions. Funds for replacement and moderniza-

tion have increased substantially from a low of $5 million in FY69

to $110 million-in FY73, and this year's fund request of $192 million,

or X69 percent of the total amount requested for Air Force construction,

S. Rept. 548, 93-1- 3

is a positive reflection of its stated intentions to place primary em-

phasis on identifying existing facilities which can be economically

altered, or modernized to the new requirements and whose usable

life is extensible.

The Committee is cognizant of the fact that future' progress in

overcoming this deficit in construction hinges largely on a marked

reduction in inflationary trends of the nation's economy and the

ultimate development of a funding level capable of liquidating cur-

rent deficiencies while maintaining an appropriate effort to cope with

the changing status of today's usable facilities.

POLLUTION ABATEMENT

ARMY

The Committee notes that the Army is continuing its aggressive

policy of programing projects to control air and water pollution. Dur-

ing the program years 1968 through 1973 this committee has approved

appropriations for air and water pollution control projects in the

aggregate amounts of $72.4 million and $117.2 million respectively.

The Army program this year is somewhat reduced from recent years,

amounting to $7.3 million for air pollution control and $7.1 million

for water pollution control.

Passage of PL 92-500 in October 1972 placed further requirements

on both government and industry in controlling water pollution. The

Army advises that future year requests will be made for water pol-

lution control projects to meet these new requirements.

NAVY

Since fiscal year 1968 this Committee has approved appropriations

in the amount of $52 million for air pollution abatement projects and

$146 million for water pollution abatement projects at-Naval activities.

This year's program includes an additional $27.636 million for air

pollution abatement projects and $55.107 million for water pollution

abatement projects.

These projects will reduce particulate, smoke and gaseous emissions

into the atmosphere, provide solid waste disposal facilities, treatment

and collection facilities for industrial and sanitary wastes and facil-

ities to improve oil handling capability to conform to local, state and

Federal standards.

The projects included in the Navy request will correct all known

cases in which Naval activities are in violation of local air and water

standards except where projects should be delayed in order to phase the

projects with the facilities of local governmental bodies; these projects

where design of the facility will not have progressed to the point where

contracts may be awarded during the fiscal year; and, those projects

that are pushing the state of the art, i.e., where a satisfactory method

of abating the pollution has not been found, so that detailed design

may be started. Additional requirements can be expected as more:

stringent standards are established by local, state or Federal

governments.

Significant increases have occurred in the Navy's pollution abate-

ment programs over the last several years. The following table com-

19

pares this year's budget request for air and water pollution with prior

appropriations:

[Dollar amounts in thousands

Appropriation Percent of

Air Water Total (NOA) program

Fiscal year:

1968----------------............................------------ $0 $23,382 $23,382 $486,661 5

1969-------------------------..... 6,178 4,904 11,082 291,513 4

1970---------------------------4,100 20,815 24,915 300,028 8

1971.--.------------..-..- 1,210 25,899 27,109 302,483 9

-1972.... ..... 15, 962 20,295 36, 257 355, 500 10

1973........ 24, 194 51, 216 75, 410 517, 830 15

Subtotal----------------------....................... 51,644 146, 511 198,155 2,254,015 9

1974.......................-----------------------...... 27, 636 55, 107 82,743 608, 467 14

Subtotal....--.................. 79, 280 201, 618 280, 898 2, 862, 482 10

1975-79.......................... 134, 423 203,248 337, 671 ...........................

Note:The committee recognizes that additional requirements for pollution abatement will be generated as more stringent

air and water standards are established by local, State, and Federal governments.

AIR FORCE

The Committee notes that, in keeping with national environmental

protection policies, the Air Force is continuing its program for abating

pollution at all its installations. Working from a base of an investment

of over $250 million in facilities for wastewater collection and dis-

posal, the Air Force has, since 1967, spent over $121 million from all

accounts for pollution abatement at its installations.

Of this amount, this Committee has approved Military Construc-

tion appropriations of $31 million for air pollution abatement projects

and $54 million for water pollution abatement projects. This year we

propose $9.8 million for projects to assure compliance with current

air and water quality standards.

The $9.8 million proposed in this year's bill (over 3% of the regular

Military Construction Program), consists of 21 line items of which

$6.1 million is for control of water pollution and $3.7 million is for

air pollution control. The air pollution control projects reflect the

initial state implementation of the Clean Air Act Amendments of

1970 and are primarily directed toward providing vapor recovery sys-

tems for fuel tanks and providing controls at the Eielson AFB heating

plant to enable the Air Force to use coal and still comply with air

quality standards.

The water pollution control projects represent the initial steps to

compliance with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-

ments of 1972. These provide for sanitary and industrial waste treat-

ment and connection to municipal or regional systems where feasible.

Also included are projects for complying with new host nation stand-

ards established for several overseas installations. The Committee has

been advised that all projects included in the bill have been coordi-

nated with the Environmental Protection Agency.

The Committee anticipates much larger environmental protection

construction programs in the future as more stringent quality stand-

ards are promulgated by the several states and the Environmental Pro-

tection Agency under recent legislation. The Air Force is expected

to continue to play a leadership role in environmental restoration and

protection.

The Committee endorses the pollution abatement program and is ap-

proving the full amount approved for authorization. As indicated m

previous reports, the Committee considers pollution abatement of

equal importance with mission essential requirements at Defense

installations.

AccEss ROADS

ARMY

The Defense Access Roads program is to respond, on a.fairly short

reaction time, to access road requirements important to national de-

fense. The program supplements construction of access highways to

defense activities otherwise provided in the public roads program

which normally require a three to five-year lead time. Over the past

decade, the Army portion of the program has averaged approximately

$1 million per year. No funds were originally requested in the fiscal

year 1974 Army program because no specific project requirements

had been identified. Also a reasonable unobligated balance was avail-

able from prior year appropriations to respond to unforeseen require-

ments. Subsequent to the budget submittal, late developing projects

have been undertaken utilizing a large portion of the unobligated

funds available. The Army access roads program will therefore re-

quire an infusion of new funds in future budgets to retain a responsive

posture.

The Committee added $2,000,000 for the Army.

NAVY

For a number of years, the Navy has received $1,000,000 for urgent

access road projects for which authorization is obtained from United

States Code, Title 23, Section 210. In last year's appropriation bill,

the Navy was given $3,000,000 to reduce the mounting backlog of un-

funded access road projects. However, because of increased construc-

tion costs and new requirements, the Navy still has an unfunded back-

log over $6,000,000. The Committee feels it prudent to fund this year

at the $2,000,000 level to reduce the backlog of these urgent projects.

Therefore, the Committee approved $2,000,000 for access roads.

With the funding of $2,000,000, the Navy anticipates satisfying a

majority of the following urgent access road requirements through

the Federal Highway Administration during the fiscal year 1974:

West entrance road-NAS Pensacola, Fla ----________________ _ $750, 000

4-lane improvement-NAS Meridian, Miss----417, 000

Road improvements-Virginia Beach, Va., housing ____________---228, 000

Entrance way improvements-NSB New London, Conn --------- 50, 000

Entrance way improvements-Little Creek, Va., housing ---------- 100, 000

Entrance improvements-NH Pensacola, Fla ------___-_____-------- 25, 000

Street improvements-NTC Orlando, Fla- __-___-___________--- 275, 000

Road improvements-MCAS Yuma, Ariz_______-__________________ 332, 600

Road relocation-NADC Warminster, Pa .. -------___________- 822, 400

Total --------------------------------------------- 3,000,000

AIR FORCE

Since 1968 the Air Force has received a total of $6,500,000 in new

appropriation for defense access road needs. These funds are fully

committed to projects which are under construction or are in an ad-

vanced stage of design. New requirements have been recently identified

in the amount of $5,300,000; however, because of budgetary restric-

tions and other operational priority requirements, the Air Force has

not been able to include funds for these requirements in its appropri-

ation request.

In addition, the Committee notes with particular interest that Kees-

ler Air Force Base, Mississippi has made known a requirement to

improve Pass Christian Road in the city of Biloxi. This heavily trav-

eled two lane road is used by over 12,100 vehicles per day which are

generated solely by the Air Base. Further, that historically, in the

event of a national disaster, this is the only base access road available

for evacuation of personnel and valuable equipment. Both the City

of Biloxi and Keesler Air Force Base agree that the only positive

solution to this requirement is to reconstruct Pass Christian Road to

four lanes.

The Committee further notes that the Air Force recommends that

this project be certified and the Military Traffic Management and

Terminal Service has indicated that they will certify the project.

Defense access road funds in the amount of $3,000,000 will be required.

Therefore, in view of the existing backlog of unfunded requirements,

and this urgent project at Keesler Air Force Base, the Committee be-

lieves that funds in the amount of $2,000,000 should be provided now

so that construction can begin on this worthwhile project. The Com-

mittee has approved $2,000,000 for access roads.

PLANNING AND DESIGN

ARMY

The Army's fiscal year 1973 obligation for planning and design,

excluding SAFEGUARD and Site Defense, totalled $30.4 million.

An additional $0.3 million was utilized for SAFEGUARD and Site

Defense design. The unobligated design funds carried over from FY

1973 to FY 1974 for the regular Military Construction, Army pro-

gram was $5.7 million. The Army has requested $39 million for plan-

ning and design in FY 1974, which is consistent with the increased

design program anticipated. No additional design funds were re-

quested or SAFEGUARD or Site Defense.

It is noted that the Army's cost for design effort (excluding SAFE-

GUARD) on projects deleted by the Congress, revisions to conform

to new standards and redesign for changed conditions, totalled ap-

proximately $3.9 million over the last 2 years. The advance design

process 'permits orderly development of designs in advance of ap-

propriations for construction which allows earlier award of construc-

tion contracts, thereby avoiding cost escalation that would more than

offset the cost of lost design effort. The FY 1972 and FY 1973 lost

design costs were 0.94% of construction expenditures for those two

years as compared to an average construction cost escalation rate of

9.7% per year during this period. The Committee urges the Army

to continue its efforts to improve management of design and construc-

tion to the end that a greater portion of the annual program is con-

tracted as early as possible to reduce the adverse impact of cost

escalation.

Unlike construction, for which cost of supervision and administra-

tion is billed to customers at a flat-rate, design services are billed at

actual costs to include both A-E contract costs and a proportionate

share of related District office supervisory and administrative costs.

Costs of general supervision at Division office and Headquarters levels

are not billed.

NAVY

The funds provided each year for planning and design are used to

assure the development of sound scope and good cost estimates for

projects submitted to Congress for consideration, and to develop final

designs in time to allow award of construction contracts for these

projects in the budget year. The Navy exerts continuous management

effort on the orderly development of designs in order to assure timely

construction awards with minimum lost design effort. These planning

funds are also used for the design of Urgent Minor and Emergency

Construction projects, special studies and the preparation of standard,

definitive plans. Approximately 90 percent of the appropriation for

this planning and design effort is used for contracts to architect-

engineer firms and the remaining 10 percent is used for in-house

design.

As of 30 June 1973 the Navy's unobligated balance of funds ap-

propriated for planning and design was $353,542. The original ap-

propriation request for planning and design by the Navy in the FY

1974 Military Construction, Navy Program was $53,800,000. Sub-

sequently, the Secretary of Defense increased this request by $4,000,-

000 to cover a deficiency in Navy planning and design funds caused

primarily by the acceleration of the medical facilities modernization

and pollution abatement programs.

This committee recommends appropriation of funds for planning

and design in the amount of $57,800,000.

Of the total requested by the Navy $10,800,000 is for planning and

design of the support facilities for the TRIDENT Weapons System.

Planning and design fund obligations during FY 1973 for TRIDENT

were $1.171,345. The TRIDENT obligation rate will accelerate during

FY 1974. Should additional funds be required for TRIDENT, they

will be obtained from appropriated planning and design funds and

funds remaining will be applied to the planning and design of other

military construction projects.

AIR FORCE

On June 30, 1973, the unobligated availability in Air Force planning

and design funds was $5,115,642, all of which was required to'complete

the design of the fiscal year 1974 program presently under review by

the Congress. Of this amount, all but approximately $0.6 million has

been funded to the design agents to be applied to the design completion

of the fiscal year 1974 Military Construction Program. It is anticipated

that all of these funds will be obligated prior to the end of 1973.

The $18 million of design funds requested in the Air Force fiscal year

1974 Program are intended for completion of the design of this pro-

gram, initiation of design of the fiscal year 1975 Program, and advance

planning and concept design for medical facilities in the proposed

fiscal year 1976 Military Construction Program. In the past five years,

the Air Force has received appropriations for planning and design

as follows:

Fiscal year : Millions

1969 ---------------------------------------------$16. 0

1970 --------- ------------------------------------- 23. 6

1971 ---------- ------------------------------------ 17.0

1972 ----- ----------------------------------------- 17.0

1973 --- ------------------------------------------- 17. 0

CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISION AND ADMINISTRATION

ARMY

During fiscal 1973, the Army's Corps of Engineers continued the

close management required to produce quality and economy in con-

struction and at the same time maintained its charges for construction

supervision and administration at the 5.0 percent rate established on

1 July 1972. These charges for construction supervision and adminis-

tration have been progressively reduced from a 7.5 percent rate in

effect in 1963 when the system was instigated to the 5.0 percent rate

currently in effect through intensive management to adjust organiza-

tion to meet workload changes and a continuing program to improve

techniques and management. Additionally, one-time savings totalling

approximately $3.1 million in FY 72 and $0.8 million in FY 73 were

refunded by crediting to each affected project 0.6% of the cost of direct

construction placed in FY 72 and 0.15% of the cost of direct con-

struction placed in FY 73. Thus the final charge to the user was re-

duced to approximately 4.5% in FY 72 and 4.85% in FY 73. The com-

mittee urges the Army to continue its cost effective techniques and

methods of construction supervision and management. The Committee

will continue to monitor very closely the S.I.O.H. costs that the Corps

of Engineers charges the Army for construction.

NAVY

The Committee is aware of the progress the Navy has made in de-

veloping cost effective procedures to minimize the costs for planning

and design of military facilities. Among these procedures are the

management techniques being used to reduce the expenditure of funds

during the planning stage by making optimum use of standard, repeti-

tive designs with good historical cost data. Further, a combination of

design concepts has been developed which permits evaluation and se-

lection of the most cost effective method available. Among the more

notable of these have been the master designs for bachelor quarters

whereby a single design is site adapted and constructed at many loca-

tions, the use of design/construction contracting (turnkey) proce-

dures, and the use of computer-aided design. It is encouraging to note

the success that the Navy has had in the use of turnkey construction

and the fact that this concept is being considered for further applica-

tions.

This Committee notes the Navy's continued efforts to provide su-

pervision and inspection at minimum cost.

The current overhead rate of 6 percent is still considered high and

the Committee would like to see this reduced further. However, the

Committee is aware that construction administration costs within the

Naval Facilities Engineering Command Headquarters are charged

to supervision, inspections and overhead. Headquarters ,costs are

funded from operation and maintenance appropriations in the Army

and Air Force Program.

NATO INFRASTRUCTxRE

The NATO Infrastructure program is under the supervision of the

Assistant Secretary of Defense (International Security Affairs).

Department of the Army is the executive agent for the program. This

program provides the facilities necessary to support NATO military

forces which are intended for common use or have a high degree of

common interest. The program covers such varied items as airfields, air

defense facilities, communications, missile sites, war headquarters,

nuclear storage sites, pipelines, and Petroleum, Oils and Lubricants

depots.

Now that the program has provided most of the basic facilities re-

quired in the common defense, its character is gradually changing. The

requirement for major air and naval installations has given way to

the new requirement for modernization and expansion of existing

basic facilities. Airfields must be improved so that they can support-

today's more complex aircraft. The Petroleum, Oils and Lubricants

system must be modified to insure its ability to function, in an emer-

gency, independent of that part of the system located in France. Prog-

ress in technology has resulted in a dramatic change in the communi-

cations area. One example is the project for the NATO satellite

communications system, which was based on the U.S. interim defense

communication satellite system. On January 27, 1971, the second

NATO-funded communication satellite was launched from Cape

Kennedy. Both satellites, now in orbit, are performing very well. Re-

placement satellites are programmed for launch in 1975. Another ex-

ample is the semiautomation and integration of NATO's early warning

system to provide a control and reporting system for the air defense

of Allied Europe. In order to make the program fully responsive to

the needs of the new NATO "flexible response" strategy and associated

force planning, we must provide facilities to support reinforcement on

the flanks, improved air defense, and conventional capabilities for

NATO air forces.

In 1970 the NATO Defense Planning Committee approved the fi-

nancing of a 5-year infrastructure program for the years 1970-74--

Slices XXI through XXV-and agreed that the ceiling be set at $700

million. The agreement provides that NATO military commanders

will program those urgent military requirements which can be accom-

plished within the ceiling, and report the financial condition after pro-

graming of Slice XXIV in 1973. The current costsharing formula-

U.S. share 29.67 percent-remains unchanged, but the recent devalua-

tion of the dollar will result in a higher dollar cost.

In December 1970, the Eurogroup-NATO less France, Portugal,

United States, and Canada-offered an additional $420 million to the

infrastructure program as part of the European Defense Improve-

ment Program-EDIP-to permit urgent implementation of the

NATO Integrated Communications System and of the NATO aircraft

shelter program. The Eurogroup has since announced that the entire

$420 million will be made available to Supreme Allied Commander,

Europe for the shelter program, thus permitting early recoupment of

United States funds spent in constructing shelters on a prefinanced

basis and relieving the pressure on the infrastructure funds to allow

programing of additional NATO Integrated Communications System

projects.

Each year the major NATO commanders draw up a list of construc-

tion or modernization projects which they consider essential for the

support of their forces. These projects are reviewed multilaterally by

the participating nations within the NATO Military Committee, the

NATO Infrastructure Committee, and finally within the Defense

Planning Committee (which is the North Atlantic Council without

France). The projects finally selected make up the yearly Infrastruc-

ture Program or Slice. In the United States, each proposed annual

slice is reviewed thoroughly within the executive branch, starting with

the interested subordinate military commands and continuing through

the U.S. Commander in Chief, Europe, and the Commander in Chief,

Atlantic, to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the military departments, the

Department of State, and all interested offices within the Office of the

Secretary of Defense.

The approved NATO slice is an approved list of military construc-

tion requirements and nothing more. After slice approval, the host

country in which a project is to be built takes full responsibility for

the work. It must obtain the necessary land (at its own expense),

plan utilities connections and access roads (which it later builds at its

own expense), prepare engineering plans and specifications, and de-

velop cost estimates. When all is ready, the host country submits the

project with all supporting data to the NATO Payments and Progress

Committee for construction authorization and fund commitment. Be-

fore agreeing, the Payments and Progress Committee satisfies itself

that the project still represents a valid military requirement, conforms

to NATO criteria, is reasonable in cost, and is in other respects eligible

under NATO Infrastructure rules. When the Payments and Progress

Committee authorizes construction of an Infrastructure project, the

United States obligates funds for its share of that project.

The new orientation of the program is providing a large proportion

of facilities needed by the United States forces. In particular, it sup-

ports controlled humidity storage to maintain in good condition the

equipment of our dual-based forces. The program will also include air-

craft survival measures which are now being implemented by the

United States Air Force, with the approval of Congress, on a "pre-

financed" basis.

5. Rept. 548, 93-1--4

The 1972 program includes an air weapons training facility in the

Mediterranean to replace the facility lost in Libya. It also contains

vital fuel facilities for the United States Navy, and contemplates ad-

ditional facilities in the 1973 program for the naval bases in Sicily and

Crete. The proposed Slice XXIII Infrastructure program includes

airfield protection, including shelters, at Ramstein, Zweibrucken, Bit--

burg, Spangdahlen, and Aviano. Additional shelters have been pro-

gramed in Slice XXIV and more have been proposed for Slice XXV.

Reimbursement will be effected after Slice approval and subsequent to

submittal by host nations and approval by the NATO Payments and

Progress Committee of individual estimates. This process requires 12

months and longer.

The United States enjoys a greater benefit from this NATO pro-

gram than could be expected from the size of our contribution. Ex-

cluding facilities for common use by all nations-facilities which

would in any case have required common funding-the United States

has had significant success in convincing NATO that U.S. programs

are worthwhile. In 1968 Slice XVIII included U.S. projects in the

amount of 40 percent of all projects for use by national forces. In Slice

XIX this percentage rose to 47 percent; for Slice XX to 55 percent,

for Slice XXI, 68 percent; and for Slice XXII, 58 percent. In the five

annual programs therefore, over 56 percent of all such national user

projects were programed for benefit of U.S. forces, but the U.S. con-

tribution remains at 29.67 percent of the entire program (or some 18

percent if the Euro-Group EDIP contibution is added to the total of

normal Infrastructure funding). It is apparent, therefore, that the

U.S. has a distinct financial interest in the continuing success of the

NATO Infrastructure Program and that as long as U.S. national

programs fit into the available common funds, the U.S. will benefit

directly from this NATO effort.

The initial request for fiscal year 1974 for the U.S. share of the

common funded NATO Infrastructure Program is $80,000,000 in au-

thorization, $60,000,000 in total obligation authority and $40,000,000

in new obligation authority. Subsequently a budget amendment was

submitted requesting an additional $25,300,000 in authorization and

total obligational authority and $4;300,000 in new obligational author-

ity. 'However, this amendment was received too late to be .acted upon

by 'Congress. These funds are required to meet U.S. obligations dur-

ing FY 1974. These projects were previously approved by NATO

in the NATO annual programs (Slices) and received final approval

for construction and funding from the NATO Payments Progress

Committee. It is anticipated that recoupments from projects pre-

financed will total $26,000,000 in FY 1974.

The high cost of recent dollar devaluations is having an increas-

ingly adverse impact on the ability of the United States to support

and participate in the NATO Infrastructure program. The total cost

of U.S. dollar devaluations in FY 1973-74, for the U.S. share of the

NATO Infrastructure program is $63 million. FY 1973 costs are $23

million, none of which were provided for in the DOD FY 1973 budget.

These unbudgeted FY 1973 costs were accommodated by canceling

and deobligating $10.3 million of projects and deferring $12.7 mil-

lion projects to FY 1974. Including provision for projects deferred

from FY 1973, the devaluation of the dollar will increase the cost

of the FY 1974 program by $52.7 million. Only $6.7 of this require-

ment is provided for in the initial DOD FY 1974 budget. The situa-

tion is approaching the point where the U.S. will be forced to defer

participation in the infrastructure program because of a lack of

funds. The impact of non-participation by the U.S. is outlined by

Deputy Secretary of Defense Clements in a recent letter to the Chair-

man, Committee on Appropriations United States Senate, as follows:

Such a U.S.-caused moratorium would be seriously disruptive. It

would run completely counter to past U.S. exhortations that NATO

countries improve their military forces and do more for themselves.

It would inevitably lead to diplomatic protests that internal U.S.

procedures are preventing these countries from using their own funds

to construct high priority military projects. There would also be an

adverse effect on U.S. military posture, because we have in recent

years enjoyed a very substantial return on our Infrastructure invest-

ment in the form of projects benefitting U.S. forces. Further, the

Allies could question the seriousness of our proposal for a larger

1975-1979 program with a reduced U.S. cost share if we are unable

to meet the requirements of the existing program.

"NATO Infrastructure is a continuing program, where U.S. actions

are taken pursuant to commitments previously made by the U.S. We

have agreed to a long range (five year) cost sharing plan. This has

been reaffirmed in terms of specific projects at time of approval of

the annual slice programs. Any U.S. action to delay project imple-

mentation would be seriously damaging to the Alhance and to the

U.S., since most of the national user projects are for U.S. Forces."

The cost of the dollar devaluation is displayed below:

Cost of devaluation, fiscal year 1974

Millions

Increase in unliquidated obligations ($176 million times 11.1 percent)--- $20. 0

May 8, 1972, revaluation NATO IAU (reflecting Dec.-18, 1971, dollar de-

valuation) ------------------------------------------------- 5. 0

Feb. 12, 1973, dollar devaluation, fiscal year 1974 projects.-------------- 8. 0

Increased cost fiscal year 1974 expenditures (official Feb. 12, 1973, dollar

versus foreign exchange)............. -------------------------------------- 7.0

Total cost dollar devaluation, fiscal year 1974 program----------- 40. 0

Projects deferred fiscal year 1973 to fiscal year 1974------------------- 12. 7

Total increased requirement fiscal year 1974 budget, due to dollar

devaluation ..--------------------------------------------- 52. 7

Proposed additional funding

Included in fiscal year 1974 initial budget (including $1.7 million carry-

over) -......----------- ------------------------------------------ 6. 7

Total unbudgeted----------.. ------------------------------ 46. O0

Fiscal year 1973 reprograming from Safeguard, approved November 1,

1978 .......---------------------------------------------------- $20. 7

Balance not provided for in initial budget or through reprogram-

ing ----------- ----------------------------------- 25. 3

Additional reprograming from Safeguard, requested fiscal year 1974 budget

,amendment ------------------------------------------------ 15.0

Estimated additional recoupment ($26 million versus $20 million), fore-

cast fiscal year 1974 budget amendment----...-------------------------- 6. O

Additional fiscal year 1974 NOA, requested fiscal year 1974 budget

amendment --------------....................----------------------------------- 4.8

TOTAL FUNDING FISCAL YEAR 1974

NOA TOA

Initial DOD fiscal year budget........................------------------------------------------ $40.0 $60.0

Fiscal year 1974 budget amendment request....------...........------------------....----------. 4.3 25.3

Total fiscal year 1974 budget request-----...----.......-----.............----------......------------ 44.3 85.3

The Navy's proposed FY 1974 Military Construction Program

includes $6.0 million of projects eligible or partially eligible for NATO

common funding. These projects are being proposed for prefinancing

to achieve early completion in support of urgent operational require-

ments in the Mediterranean Sea.

The projects in Navy's proposed FY 1974 Military Construction

Program considered fully or partially eligible for NATO common

funding are shown below:

Amount

Location (millions) Eligible for NATO funding

Sigonella, Sicily, photo building.... $0.3 Partially eligible.

Souda Bay, Crete, parking apron... 2.7 Do.

Souda Bay, Crete, air terminal..... .6 Do.

Souda Bay, Crete, warehouse.... .5 Do.

Elevsis, Greece, airfield facilities.... 1.9 Eligible. Submitted as sec. 202 emergent project.

Total...------.....---------------- 6.0

The estimated total amount prefinanced by Navy for FY 1973 and

prior is $14.7 million. As of 31 December 1972, $0.7 million of the pre-

financed amount had been recouped from NATO. The $14.0 million

balance is currently considered potentially recoupable from NATO

Infrastructure, after the individual projects are included in a NATO

program (Slice). Slice 23 approved in February 1973, included $0.5

million of the $14.0 million balance, and recoupment of this $0.5 mil-

lion is anticipated shortly. Slice 24, pending approval by NATO,

includes an additional $0.4 million for Navy prefinanced projects.

Navy's projected recoupment from NATO Slice 25 is $5 million.

The Committee approved these projects for military construction

prefinancing with the understanding that 'the Navy will make every

effort to recover the funds from future NATO programs.

OFFSET AGREEMENT, FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

ARMY

In fiscal year 1968, the United States Army, Europe initiated a con-

certed effort to upgrade troop living conditions in the 165 kasernes

housing Army troops in Germany. The major effort involved complete

renovation of barracks and dining facilities in 120 of the worst

kasernes, emphasizing complete rehabilitation of latrines, shower

rooms, heating systems, lighting, electrical outlets, structural features,

and painting. This program came to be called stem-to-stern and

originally was estimated to cost an average of $4 to $6 per square foot

compared to approximately $25 per square foot for new construction

in Germany.

Stem-to-stern work was financed at 26 kasernes with a total of

$62.4 million of Operation and Maintenance, Army funds from five

fiscal year budgets, fiscal year 1968 through fiscal year 1972. Due to

contract change orders the total cost is now $76 million. Except for

the effort of Labor Service forces, the work was contracted for directly

by the United States Army Engineer Command, Europe, which super-

vises the construction through their field organization. The rehabilita-

tion is now complete at 24 kasernes and nearly complete at the other

two.

Under the 10 December 1971 Offset Agreement, the Federal Re-

public of Germany provided 600 million Deutsche marks during fiscal

years 1972 and 1973 for services and deliveries for modernization,

construction and improvement of barracks, accommodations, housing

and troop facilities of U.S. forces in Germany. Army's share was 576

million Deutsche marks and Air Force's was 24 million Deutsche

marks per agreement between Commander in Chief, United States

Army, Europe and Commander in Chief, United States Air Force,

Europe. The Federal Republic of Germany will continue the rehabili-

tation of the Army troop billets and dining facilities that are in the

stem-to-stern program as well as those at other sites where stem-to-

stern is not contemplated. It was estimated that available funding

would be adequate to cover the next 61 kasernes on the United States

Army, Europe, priority listing.

The Offset rehabilitation work, to United States criteria and specif-

ications, is contracted for and administered by the German construc-

tion authorities. At the time of the agreement, the Engineer Command

had stem-to-stern design packages for 10 kasernes essentially com-

pleted and turned over to the Federal Republic of Germany authori-

ties before the end of January 1972. The first contract, for Drake-

Edwards Kaserne in Frankfurt, was awarded on a expedited basis on

21 January 1972. Twenty additional kaserne design packages were

completed and turned over to the Federal Republic of Germany au-

thorities during the period April to June 1972.

During, fiscal year 1973 progress continued very satisfactorily and

by 1 September 1973 renovation under the Offset program had been

completed at Wilkins Kaserne and contracts were underway at 43

others at a total current working estimate of 457 million Deutsche

marks. In addition, the German construction authorities had adver-

tised projects for 11 more kasernes and 27 border and remote sites.

The remaining requirements to complete the rehabilitation of troop

barracks and dining facilities have been proposed by the Department

of Defense for inclusion in the next round of Offset negotiations. The

Committee hopes that action will be taken by the Department of De-

fense and the Army to negotiate another Offset program to rehabilitate

,the remaining Kasernes.

AIR FORCE

The December 10, 1971 Offset Agreement between the United States

and the Federal Republic of Germany resulted in the United States Air

Forces, Europe receiving $7.2 million to upgrade 69 barracks at eight

bases.

The Committee notes that as of September 1, 1973, construction was

complete at four bases, with the remaining four ranging from 75 to 98

percent. The total program is 93 percent complete.

MINOR CONSTRUCTION

ARMY

Although most of the Army's urgent construction requirements are

met through regular Military Construction, Army (MCA) program-

ing, unanticipated requirements develop which must be accomplished

on a more timely basis than provided by normal MCA programing.

Minor construction funding is the only method available to accom-

plish these facility needs. Work accomplished under this minor con-

struction authority in the past fiscal year has touched nearly all facility

classes contributing to Army readiness. Recently, minor construc-

tion activity has increased, due in great part to the turbu-

lence within the Army caused by troop redeployments to the United

States from Vietnam, and reorganization and realignment of the

Army with changes in missions or functions and troop relocations.

This higher level of activity is expected to continue and has gener-

ated a larger dollar request to support minor construction in fiscal year

1974.

NAVY

The Navy has made increased use of minor construction authority

over the past few years. During fiscal year 1974, major emphasis is on

short establishment realignment facilities moves and construction.

There has also been an increased use of the new three-year pay-back

criteria and new emphasis developing with respect to fuel conserva-

tion. Future increases in the requirement for military construction

can be expected in these areas. Additionally, continuing cost escalation

will further erode the scope that can be accomplished with the cur-

rent project limits and will reduce the number of valid requirements

that can be satisfied through the program.

AIR FORCE

The Committee notes that the construction accomplished under the

Minor Construction Program supports rapid changes in technology

and mission deployments that are vital for effective military oper-

ations. Adequate support facilities have been or are being provided

such as: bachelor housing in Alaska and Korea, additional storage

capacity for heating fuel oil at 17 CONUS locations, and mission

deployments generated by base closures. Operational safety has been

enhanced at bases by the installation of navigational aids, aircraft

arresting barriers and runway lighting. Classified missions, affecting

the defense posture of the United States, have been supported. Total

fund requirements depend upon the number of situations which arise

throughout the year that can be certified as being urgently required

so that they cannot be deferred until the next regular construction

program. With the enactment of PL 92-145, however, special consid-

eration was provided for projects that will, within three years follow-

ing completion of the project, result in savings in operation and main-

tenance costs in excess of the cost of the project. The Air Force has

stated that the number and cost of such projects will be closely mon-

itored to preclude any loss in flexibility in providing support for

urgent projects. To date 10 projects having a total funded cost of

$1,255,300 and claiming first three year savings having a present value

of $2,165,300 have been approved.

NAVY TRIDENT SUBMARINE WEAPONS SYSTEM SUPPORT COMPLEX

The Committee has approved $112,320,000 for construction at

Bangor, Washington and Cape Canaveral, Florida to support the

TRIDENT system.

The TRIDENT system is being developed to insure that our nation

has a modern, survivable strategic deterrent system in the 1980's

and beyond. TRIDENT will preserve the sufficiency and high credi-

bility of our strategic deterrent throughout this century. It will be

available to replace current sea-based strategic systems as technology

advances and age reduces their mission effectiveness and be assigned

to augment current strategic deterrent systems. Finally, it will have

greater survivability due to the large available operating area made

possible by the longer range of the new missile.

The total military construction program identified with the deploy-

ment of ten TRIDENT submarines is expected to extend through FY

1979 with a total facilities costs, excluding family housing, of about

$510 million dollars. With the addition of $33 million dollars for

planning and design, the total cost will be about $543 million dollars.

When the program was presented a year ago, the cost estimated for

facilities was approximately $1 billion dollars. The Navy was able to

reduce the cost by the following methods:

(a) Elimination of depot level submarine maintenance at the

TRIDENT Support Complex site and the transfer of this support

to shipyards.

(b) Reduction of the military manning level by the transfer of

some functions to civilian personnel with a resultant reduction in

bachelor and family housing facilities requirements.

(c) Reduction of the facility support level from 15 to 10 ships

lowered the facilities requirements.

(d) Re-examination of the requirement for concurrent high

explosive operations and reductions in some of the explosive

safety factors internal to the base permitted a reduction in the

land required at the Bangor Support Complex.

(e) More detailed examination of the facilities cost for the

Bangor site vice the use of an estimate that would approximate

the cost of any one of four candidate sites.

The Trident Military Construction program for FY 1974 includes

facilities at both Cape Canaveral and the Trident Support Complex,

Bangor, Washington. Those at Cape Canaveral are the missile flight

test facilities. The facilities are required in FY 1974 so that the missile

development flight test program may commence in 1975.

The facilities required at the Trident Support Complex, Bangor are

asfollows:

(a) Trident Training Facility (1st Increment): This facility

is required in fiscal year 1974 so that construction and equipment

installation can be completed in time to meet the required

ready-for-training date of 1 January 1977. This will be the start

of training for the second Trident crew. The first crew will have

to be factory trained.

(b) Covered Explosive Handling Wharf #1: Refit Pier #1.

These facilities are required in fiscal year 1974 to allow construc-

tion at the waterfront to proceed in an orderly, efficient manner,

to avoid an unacceptable high peak workload, and thus to reduce

the environmental impact of the construction.

(c) Utilities (1st Increment): Site Improvements (1st Incre-

ment). These facilities are required in fiscal year 1974 so that the

primary roads and utility systems may be in place prior to the

start of the peak construction period. They are required to pro-

vide electric power to the construction sites and access to the

sites in the extremely rainy winter weather encountered at

Bangor.

(d) Land Acquisition. Funds for land acquisition are required in

fiscal year 1974 so that negotiations with the land owners can begin

as soon as possible. Land acquisition can often become bogged

down in protracted negotiations involving court suits. It is es-

sential that these negotiations begin early in the program.

Additionally, it will increase public support for the Trident

Support Complex if land owners are dealt with promptly and

fairly and not left holding their land longer than is necessary.

The Committee accepts the Navy reasoning and endorses the above

timetable. The Committee expressed its general support of the Trident

program by approving $13.5 million in fiscal year 1973 for planning

of the program.

NAVY, ATHENS HOMEPORTING

The Committee has approved construction to enable the home-

porting of a destroyer squadron and an aircraft carrier in Athens,

Greece in the belief that this will enable the Navy to continue to meet

its overseas commitments while undergoing reductions in manpower

and ship force levels. The Navy asserts that without homeporting in

Greece two carrier task groups cannot be kept operational in the

Mediterranean, given the reduction from fifteen to twelve aircraft

carriers in future years and All-Volunteer Force constraints.

A secondary purpose of homeporting offered by the Navy is the

improvement of morale and the increasing of personnel retention

rates and enlistments caused by allowing its men to live with their

families in Athens and reducing family separations. Family separation

is a major cause of low retention. In this respect, this initiative will

conserve the Navy's most vital resource-skilled people. Homeporting

will reduce the need for carriers and escorts to make rotational transits

from East coast bases to the Mediterranean at six month intervals.

This benefit accrues to Navy personnel homeported in the United

States as well as overseas.

The Committee notes that Athens homeporting will not increase

the number of Navy personnel in the Mediterranean. The long-stand-

ing two carrier task group force level will remain unchanged. The

homeported ships simply replace ships formerly in the Mediterranean

on rotational deployment.

Phase I, including the homeporting in Athens of the Task Force

Commander and staff, and a six ship destroyer squadron, was com-

pleted in September 1972. A Fleet Support Office was established in

July 1972 to coordinate establishment of schools, medical/dental

facilities and the execution of leases. All facility support requirements

are provided by lease or lease-construction. A Technical Arrangement

between the U.S. Navy and Greek Navy has been signed.

The program approved this year will allow implementation of the

second phase of the Athens homeporting plan.

Phase II has been approved in principal by the Government of

Greece and State Department. A dependents' support ship (USS

SANCTUARY) will be homeported to provide medical/dental support.

This phase will also homeport one aircraft carrier and one air wing in

Athens.

The Committee notes that the Navy's current estimate of costs

associated with homeporting in Greece are within original estimates

as shown below:

[In millions]

Recurring costs Nonrecurring costs

Original Current Original Current

Additional PCS .......---------------------------------- $3.5 $4. 1 $3.0 ........

Dependent support ship.....-.--- ----- 2.5 .9 10.8 $10.7

Expansion and operation of USAF facilities....... --..-.. ...... 2.8 3.0 .2 .3

Port operations, charter, hire and pier costs...... .............. 3.0 1.2 .............1

Logistics costs ....... -...--.......... . . .. . .. . . 1.7 2.7 ...........7

Airfield operations-. --............. --.--....._ 1.0 .4 .4 1.9

Subtotal-.....-.....-- ..... ... .................... -- 14. 5 12. 3 14. 4 13. 7

Savings from reduced transits.....______.... .......... ..... 1.1 1.0 ............

Total--........................................-------------------------------------...... 13.4 11.3 .---------------------

S. Rept. 548, 93-1----5

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY

The Committee has approved a total of $567,735,000 for Military

Construction for the Active Forces, and $75,900,000 for the Reserve

Forces.

For the Active Forces, the Committee allowance represents a re-

duction of $97,165,000 in the budget estimate of $664,900,000 and is

$153,780,000 more than the appropriation for fiscal year 1973. A de-

tailed tabulation by installation and states follows. Army family

housing is not included in the above figures but is presented in a sub-

sequent portion of this report. A tabulation of the Committee action

by major Army Commands and special programs follows:

[In thousands of dollarsI

Approved by

DOD request House action committee

Activity

Inside United States:

1st Army ------------------------------...

3d Army.--...... .. . . . . ...-----------------

5th A rm y...---- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6 t h A rm y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

U.S. Army Materiel Command..-.------..... ---.-.. . . .

U.S. Army Security Agency--- ...... . . .

U.S. Army Strategic Communications Command_. .-..-

U.S. Army Military Academy--..----... ...... _.__-----------

Army Medical Department .......... . .

Corps of Engineers ...... . . .

Military traffic management and terminal service ........... .....

U.S. Army Alaska--- ....... . .

U.S. Army Hawaii ....------... --..-.... ---

Air pollution abatement--- ........ ____ ____. . . . . .

Water pollution abatement._.... .. .... ..... ....

Total, inside United States--- .. .. . . . . . . . . . . .

Outside United States:

U.S. Army Forces Southern Command..._...........

U.S. Army Pacific-Korea-- ... . . ____. .. . . .. . .

Puerto Rico .... _ .

Kwajalein Missile Range_-_ .... ... .... ... ...

U.S. Army Security Agency ......

U.S. Army Strategic Communications Command.__- .. -_----"---

USAREUR Germany----.....

USAREUR NATO infrastructure--- ...... . .. .. .. .. .

Total, outside United States........ .__ .._. .....__ .... .

Sec. 102........................ ... .....

General support programs:

Minor construction ...

Planning---- .............. ..

Access roads

Total, general authorization......... ....... __. _.____

Grand total program----- ...........

Unobligated balance available to finance fiscal year 1974 program ......

Budget authority..................._..__ ._ .......

$66, 891 $43,750 $43, 750

153,476 146,493 144,533

155,697 143,713 146,452

37,745 34,640 34, 640

58,649 42,995 43,451

287 0 0

8, 226 8, 226 8,226

30, 145 5,145 25,145

12,827 13,535 13, 535

597 0 597

5,716 1,971 4,171

0,344 7,915 7, 915

10,825 9,592 10,825

7,295 6,900 7,295

7,099 7,099 7,099

563, 819 471,974 497,634

8, 095 8, 095 8, 095

1,568 1,568 1,568

517 517 517

2,353 1,029 1,029

1,434 1, 434 1, 434

2, 097 2, 334 2, 334

12,517 13,124 13,124

160, 000 295, 650 275, 650

188,581 2123,751 2103,751

3,000 3, 000 3, 000

12, 500 15, 000 15, 000

39,000 39,000 39,600

0 0 2,000

51, 500 54, 000 56, 000

1706,900 2652,725 2660,385

42,000 2101,150 292,560

1664, 900 2551, 575

2 567, 735

1 Due to lack of authorization, does not include additional $4,300,000 requested in budget amendment.

2 Reflects $35,650,000 unobligated prior year Safeguard funds transferred to NATO Infrastructure toward meeting cost

of dollar devaluations.

FIRST ARMY

Ih the First Army area, the Committee approved 18 projects at 10

installations at a total cost of $43,750,000. Significant among the

,approved projects are barracks for enlisted men at Fort Belvoir at

$897,000,

Indiantown Gap Military Reservation at $1,657,000, Fort Lee at

$3,444,000 and Camp Pickett for $476,000; barracks for enlisted

women at Fort Devens at a cost of $2,749,000 and Fort Lee for $1,558,-

000 and, barracks modernization at Fort Eustis for $2,577,000, Fort

Knox for $7,055,000 and Fort Meade at $5,924,000. Other projects

which .are approved include an addition and alternation to Kenner

Army Hospital costing $5,310,000, a central food preparation facility

estimated at $6,876,000, and bachelor officer quarters at Fort Lee

for $1,138,000. The Committee also approved conversion of buildings

to administrative facilities at Fort Knox for $250,000, and a supply

and administrative facility at Fort Eustis costing $680,000. Also

approved are a post office at $533,000 and alteration to the electrical

distribution system at Fort Eustis estimated at $992,000.

THIRD ARMY

The Committee approved 29 projects at 9 installations in the Third

Army area for a total cost of $144,533,000. Major projects in the total

are the barracks complexes at Fort Bragg for $18,203,000, Fort

Campbell at $31,459,000, Fort Gordon at $19,212,000, and Fort

Benning for $9,500,000; the Eglin AFB ranger training complex for

Fort Beniing at an estimated cost of $2,950,000; and, modernization

of barracks at Fort Benning at $5,748,000, Fort Bragg for $8,381,000,

Fort Campbell for $8,114,000, and Fort Rucker for $2,402,000. Funds

for projects associated with the expansion program for the Women's

Army Corps are approved for barracks at Fort Bragg at $2,399,000,

Fort Jackson at $2,902,000, Fort McClellan for $2,739,000, and Fort

Rucker for $1,051,000; modernization of barracks at Fort Gordon

costing $1,018,000 and Fort McClellan at $3,543,000; additional

academic space estimated at $2,695,000, bachelor officers quarters at

$1,560,000, a gymnasium for $1,261,000, and alterations and additions

to the headquarters for $333,000 at Fort McClellan. Other projects

approved are tactical equipment shops and facilities at $2,709,000 and

an administrative facility costing $708,000 at Fort Bragg; a commis-

sary at Fort Campbell for $3,888,000; upgrading airfield facilities at

.ort Rucker for $534,000; phase three of the tactical airfield complex

..at Fort Campbell estimated at $8,420,000; and, a central food prepa-

ration facility at Fort Benning for $5,346,000. The Committee also

,approves modification of the electrical distribution system estimated

at $1,310,000 at Fort Benning, an extension of utilities for $1,932,000

at Fort McClellan, a gas generating plant for $264,000 at Fort Stewart,

and a commissary for $2,924,000 at Fort Gordon.

FIFTH ARMY

For the Fifth Army area the Committee approved 24 projects at 9

ins'tallatiois costing $146,452,000. Major projects among those ap-

proved are barracks complexes at Fort Riley, for $22,547,000, Fort

Polk for $26,016,000 and Fort Leonard Wood at $32,247,000; barracks

with support facilities for Military Police for $1,831,000 at Fort

Leonard Wood; barracks at Fort Sam Houston costing $9,474,000 and

Fort Benjamin Harrison for $746,000; an addition to barracks for

enlisted women for $1,136,000 at Fort Leonard Wood; and, barracks

for enlisted women estimated at $2,167,000 at Fort Benjamin Har-

rison. Other projects approved include modernization of barracks for

enlisted men and women at Fort Bliss totalling $6,087,000 and Fort

Sam Houston at $932,000. Also approved are a confinement facility

costing $6,287,000 at Fort Leonard Wood, a commissary for $1,977,-

000 and enlisted service club at $1,283,000 at Fort Polk, air-condi-

tioning of bachelor officer quarters at Fort Hood for $630,000 and

Fort Sam Houston for $1,332,000, a maintenance evaluation facility

at $235,000 at Fort Sill, an approach control-ILS at Fort Hood for

$1,903,000, and a veterinary school facility at Fort Sheridan for

$762,000. Other major barracks modernization projects approved are:

Fort Harrison for $980,000; Fort Hood for $7,291,000; Fort Riley for

$8,396,000; Fort Sill at $9,212,000; and, Fort Wood $2,981,000.

SIXTH ARMY

The Committee approved $34,640,000 for 8 projects at 5 installa-

tions in Sixth Army. The approved program provides a barracks

complex at Fort Ord for $8,622,000; a barracks complex at Hunter

Liggett Military Reservation for $7,776,000; modernization of bar-

racks for enlisted men at Fort Carson at $4,615,000, Fort Lewis at

$7,127,000; and for enlisted women barracks at the Presidio of San

Francisco at $3,074,000 and barracks modernization for $1,190,000 at

Fort Ord. Also approved are dental clinics at Fort Carson for $1,036,-

000 and Fort Lewis for $1,200,000.

U.S. ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND

The Committee grants approval of $43,451,000 for 23 projects at 14

Army Materiel Command installations. Significant approvals are

projects for modernization of barracks at Aberdeen Proving Ground

at $4,507,000, Fort Monmouth at $7,196,000, Picatinny Arsenal for

$225,000, Redstone Arsenal for $3,852,000, Sacramento Army Depot

at $412,000, and White Sands Missile Range for $670,000; barracks

at Aberdeen Proving Ground for $2,965,000, and Pine Bluff Arsenal at

$294,000; and, additions to barracks at Natick Laboratories for

$466,000 and Yuma Proving Ground costing $1,526,000. Also ap-

proved are conversion of barracks and a classroom building to admin-

istrative facilities estimated to cost $1,205,000 at Fort Monmouth; a

multitarget launch complex for $467,000 and phase one of land

acquisition at White Sands Missile Range for $2,706,000; an NCO

open mess for $483,000, expansion of the electrical system for $1,777,-

000, and the first phase of improvements at KOFA Range costing

$2,686,000 at Yuma Proving Ground; a medical equipment mainte-

nance facility for $456,000 at Tobyhanna Army Depot. Approval also

includes upgrading turbine engine test cells at $1,088,000 and a supply

operations and storage building for $5,196,000 at the Aeronautical

Depot Maintenance Center; and a chapel center at $1,119,000 for

Redstone Arsenal. A repair and processing vehicle facility for $3,745,-

000 at Anniston Army Depot and security lighting for Sierra Army

Depot at $380,000 were also approved.

U.S. ARMY STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS COMMAND

(Inside the United States)

The Committee approved $8,226,000 for five projects at two in-

stallations. The approved projects include modernization of barracks

at Fort Huachuca for $4,702,000 and Fort Ritchie for $1,394,000 and

barracks for medical personnel at Fort Huachuca estimated to cost

$1,347,000. Also approved are improvements to the Libby Army

Airfield at an estimated $490,000 and electronic test equipment facility

for $293,000, both at Fort Huachuca.

U.S. MILITARY ACADEMY

The Committee approved $25,145,000 for three projects at the U.S.

Military Academy. These include a new hospital at $20,000,000,

modernization of barracks at $2,245,000 and extension of utilities

for $2,900,000.

ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT

The Committee approved two projects totalling $13,535,000 for the

Army Medical Department. These projects are the underground

parking structure at Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC)

for $10,830,000, authorized but not funded per the Army's request in

fiscal year 1972, and a deficiency of $2,705,000 for a laundry from

fiscal year 1973, also for WRAMC.

MILITARY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND TERMINAL SERVICE

Approval is granted by the Committee for four projects at three

installations of the Military Traffic Management and Terminal Serv-

ice with a total cost of $4,171,000. The approved projects provide

barracks modernization for enlisted women at $343,000 at Oakland

Army Base, a container transfer and marshalling facility at $1,628,000

at Sunny Point Military Ocean Terminal, and an electric substation

for $400,000 and administrative facilities at $1,800,000 for Bayonne

Military Ocean Terminal.

U.S. ARMY, ALASKA

The Committee approved four projects for U.S. Army, Alaska

amounting to $7,915,000. The approvals provide for barracks es-

timated at $3,060,000 at Fort Greely, barracks modernization for

$2,140,000 at Fort Richardson and relocation of activities to South

Post for $1,965,000 and bachelor officer quarters modernization for

$750;000 at Fort Wainwright.

U.S. ARMY, HAWAII

Three projects for $10,825,000 in Hawaii are approved. At Schofield

Barracks the Committee approved barracks modernization at $8,-

1j4,00W08 49 a consolidated dining facility for $1,468,000. Amedical/

1en4al cni cgas approved at $1,233,000 for Fort Shafter.

38

CORPS OF ENGINEERS

One project, a logistics and storage facility, was approved at $597,000

for the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, New

Hampshire.

POLLUTION ABATEMENT

In support of the national goal of reducing environmental pollution,

the Committee approved the Army request for $14,394,000 for air

and water pollution abatement facilities. Of this total $7,295,000 are

for air pollution abatement projects and $7,099,000 for water pollution

control projects. The fiscal year 1974 program responds to require-

ments derived from increasingly more stringent standards and accom-

plishments projects now within technological capabilities. Larger

amounts are anticipated in future programs resulting from the require-

ments dictated by standards established in the Federal Water Pollu-

tion Control Act Amendments of 1972. The Committee endorses

the pollution abatement program, and is pleased to recommend the

Army pollution abatement projects.

U.S. ARMY, SOUTHERN COMMAND

The Committee approved the Army request for two projects at

two installations for the US Army, Southern Command at a total cost

of $8,095,000. The most significant project is for barracks moderniza-

tion for $7,820,000 at various locations within the Panama Canal

Zone. Also approved is upgrading of the airfield at Fort Sherman

estimated at $275,000.

U.S. ARMY, PACIFIC

Two projects are approved by the Committee for Korea at a cost

of $1,568,000. These are a logistics airfield for $675,000 in the vicinity

of Andong and a POL mooring system at Pohang for $893,000.

PUERTO RICO

The Committee approved a barracks modernization project costing

$517,000 for Fort Buchanan in Puerto Rico.

KWAJALEIN MISSILE RANGE

The Committee approved one project, an electrical system feeder

upgrade for $1,029,000, at the National Missile Range.

U.S. ARMY SECURITY AGENCY

(Outside the United States)

One project at an ASA overseas location, for a new barracks, is

approved for $1,434,000.

U.S. ARMY STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS COMMAND

(Outside the United States)

The Committee approved the Army request for a project fot

upgrading power at eight overseas communications sites at a cost

of $2,097,000. Also approved was a $237,000 deficiency for upgrading

power approved in fiscal year 1973.

U.S. ARMY, EUROPE

The Committee approved projects for U.S. Army Europe in the

amount of $88,774,000. Included are $75,650,000 for NATO Infra-

structure ($20,000,000 NOA, $20,000,000 estimated recoupments and

$35,650,000 unobligated Safeguard funds) and $13,124,00 for installa-

tions in Germany. Major items approved for installations in Germany

are additions to dependent schools located at Nuernburg Fulda and

Wuerzburg totalling $7,154,000 and new dependent schools at Baum-

holder and Mannheim for $4,937,000. Also approved are barracks for

enlisted men at Pruem Post estimated at $426,000. The Committee also

granted a $607,000 deficiency for dependent school additions approved

m fiscal year 1972.

CLASSIFIED LOCATION

(Inside the United States)

The Committee approved the Army's request for $3,000,000 for a

classified project.

GENERAL AUTHORIZATION

The Committee approved $56,000,000 for general authorization for

the Army. The amount includes $15,000,000 for minor construction,

$39,000,000 for planning and design, and $2,000,000 added by the

Committee for access roads.

ARMY (ARMY RESERVE)

Appropriations in the amount of $40.7 million have been provided

for the construction of Army Reserve facilities. This is consistent with

Army's continuing recognition of the need to acquire adequate Reserve

facilities to effect improved training and readiness and it represents

the largest Army Reserve facilities construction appropriation to date.

Within this $40.7 million amount, Army proposes to construct 19

new training centers, expand 21 existing training centers, and provide 9

other training, aircraft maintenance, and personnel support facilities.

In addition, this appropriation will provide $4.8 million to support

planning, design, and various minor construction requirements.

ARMY (ARMY NATIONAL GUARD)

The Army National Guard fiscal year 1974 military construction

appropriations request of $35.2 million again demonstrates Army's

continuing emphasis on the acquisition of adequate facilities for the

effective training and improved readiness of its Reserve components

under the Total Force Policy. It will provide a relatively balanced

program of 29 armory facilities, 40 maintenance and logistical support

facilities, and 10 training facilities at various state and federal installa-

tions. In addition, this appropriation will provide $5.3 million for plan-

ning, design, and essential minor construction.

AUTHORIZATION ACTIONS

A summary of the additions and deletions made by the Congress in

the authorizing legislation follows:

Fort Belvoir, Va.: Enlisted men's barracks complex ------------ $11, 878, 000

Carlisle Barracks, Pa.: Physical conditioning facility ---------- -2, 465, 000

Fort Dix, N.J.: Convert buildings to administrative facilities .-- -339, 000

Fort Lee, Va.: Confinement facility-200 men-- ...--..----------- -4, 443, 000

Fort George G. Meade, Md.: USMA prep school facilities---- -1, 521, 000

Fort Monroe, Va.: Barracks modernization___- -------------- --867, 000

Fort Bragg, N.C.: Enlisted men's service club----------------- -1, 071, 000

Fort Gordon, Ga.: Automotive self-help garage _ _ ---------- - --626, 000

Fort McPherson, Ga.: Barracks modernization_-------------- -1, 804, 000

Fort Hood, Tex.: Improve Robert Gray Army Airfield.------- -5, 270, 000

Fort Riley, Kans.:

Support facilities for enlisted men's barracks complexes----- -2, 635, 000

Outdoor athletic facilities, Custer Hill_______ ----------- -1, 340, 000

Fort MacArthur, Calif.: Barracks modernization (enlisted

women) _ __ _ ___________ ------------------------------- 428, 000

Presidio of San Francisco, Calif.: Barracks modernization---- --- -2, 677, 000

Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.:

Human factors engineering research laboratory------------ -2, 962, 000

Chapel center______ ....._____________________________---- -1, 500, 000

Army Materials and Mechanics Research Center, Mass. Dynamic

deformation of materials laboratory _________________---___ -325, 000

Atlanta Army Depot, Ga.: Security fencing _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -119, 000

Fort Monmouth, N.J.:

Alter classrooms for language labs____________----------_ -2, 097, 000

R. & D. electronic installations facility_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--- -590, 000

Dental clinic-32 chair_ ________________ ____ --1, 198, 000

Picatinny Arsenal, N.J.: Explosive laboratory additions-------- -2, 660, 000

Savanna Army Depot, Ill.:

Enlisted men's barracks with mess _ _ _---------------------- -859, 000

Bachelor officer quarters______________________________-- -1, 774, 000

White Sands Missile Range, N. Mex.:

SAM-D remote area test facilities ______________________ -116, 000

Post library ____-_______________-_____-____ --339, 000'

Addition to Bell Gymnasium _________________________ -157, 000

Water wells_________________________________ --316, 000

Vint Hill Farms Station, Va.: Storm drainage_ _----------------- --287, 000

Walter Reed Army Medical Center, D.C.:

Patient visitor facility ----------------------------- -- 1,997, 000

Laundry (deficiency)_____________________________ +2 705, 000

Oakland Army Base, Calif.: Security lighting________________ --142, 000

Fort Greely, Alaska: Automotive self-help garage-------------- -429, 000

National Missile Range, Kwajalein, Marshall Islands:

Additional instrumentation and technical support facilities-- -849, 000

Ennylabegan power addition_ --475, 000

Various, U.S. Army Strategic Communications Command (Over-

seas): Upgrade power (deficiency)_______________________ _ 237, 00

Various, Germany: Dependent school additions (deficiency)_._i_ +607, 000

Appropriation limitation .........-------------------- __ -7, 500, 000

Total .......------------------------------------------ -60, 506,.000

(40)

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, NAVY

The Committee has approved a total of $608,467,000 for Military

Construction for the Active Forces, and $23,100,000 for the Reserve

Forces.

For the Active Forces, the Committee allowance represents a re-

duction of $76,933,000 in the budget estimate of $685,400,000 and is

$90,637,000 more than the appropriation for fiscal year 1973. A de-

tailed tabulation by installation and states follows. Navy family hous-

ing is not included in the above figures but is presented in a subsequent

portion of this report. A tabulation of the Committee action by Naval

districts and special programs follows:

DOD

Naval district request HAC SAC

InSide the United States:

1st Naval District..............................-----....... . $3, 184 $2, 952 $2,952

3d Naval District...........................------------------ 12, 695 6,158 11, 564

4th Naval District.._.____.._. __.... ............_ ............. 1,130 180 180

Naval District, Washington, D.C........------------------------. 25,740 17,882 18,182

5th Naval District-... -------------------- - 50,.. 358 46, 863 50, 263

6th Naval District - . -.............................----....... 86, 022 65, 489 66, 930

8th Naval District.....-.........-----...... ....------------ 25, 623 25, 623 25, 623

9th Naval District- _..- -_.--_.... .....-..__ ........ 19, 908 15, 148 15,148

11th Naval District_ ______.. ____.. ______..._............ ..... 44, 272 43,132 43,132

12th Naval District - .....-....-.........---------------.. .... 23, 001 17,956 17,956

13th Naval District............................----............ 11,073 6,915 6,915

14th Naval' District ..-...-................... ---------------- 15, 694 14,349 15,694

Marine Corps--------.. ---------..--......................------------------- 54, 844 53, 845 51, 019

Various locations:

Trident facilities ..............................-----------------------------------.. 118, 320 112,320 112, 320

Pollution abatement-air..---------.... --............---------------- 27,636 27,636 27, 636

Pollution abatement-water-----......--------------------------... 60, 680 51,112 51, 112

Total inside the United States--..................-----------------------... 580, 180 507, 560 516, 626

Outside the United States:

10th Naval District... ---..--.......-............_._ ._ 2,852 2,852 14, 852

15th Naval District..--..--..--------.........--.......-------------------------- 0 0 0

Atlantic Ocean area....------------------------------------- 17, 478 17, 478 11,386

European area --------------------....--------------------- 8,192 10,050 10,050

Indian Ocean area.. 0 0 0

IndianOceanarea------------------------------ 0 0 0

Pacific Ocean area......-------------------------------------- 14, 903 10, 978 12, 458

Variouslocations:

Pollution abatement-air..---------------------------------- 0 0 0

Pollution abatement-water.. ..----------------------------- 3, 995 3, 995 3, 995

Total outside the United States............---- ----------- 47, 420 45,353 52, 741

Classified programs---------.... ---------.......................------------------------- 0 0 0

General support programs-------... -------................------------------- 627, 600 552, 913 569, 361

Urgent minor construction--------.... ---------...---........--------------- 15,000 15, 000 15, 000

Planning and design.......--------------.... -------------------------- 53, 800 53, 800 57, 800

Access roads.................----------------------------........ ----------------- 1, 000 1, 000 2, 000

Total continuing authorization------.........-------------------- 69, 800 69, 800 74, 800

Total obligational authority--......--.........---------------------------- 697,400 622,713 644,167

Reductions in total obligational authority.....-------------------------- 12, 000 35, 072 35, 700

New obligational authority---------------.......................---------...------- 685, 400 587, 641 608, 467

(41)

S. Rept. 548, 93 6----

FIRST NAVAL DISTRICT

The Committee has allowed $2,952,000 for projects at Naval

installations in the states of Maine and New Hampshire.

The significant projects approved are an operational trainer build-

ing project at the Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Maine which will

provide facilities for training flight crews in the directional JEZEBEL

Sonobuoy system; and one project for the Portsmouth Naval Ship-

yard, Portsmouth, New Hampshire (Kittery, Maine) that will

improve the operational capability of this shipyard. The project

approved at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is an additional crane

rail project.

No projects were denied funding by the House in this district.

THIRD NAVAL DISTRICT

In this district $11,564,000 was approved for projects' at Naval

installations in the states of Connecticut and New Jersey.

The significant projects approved were a bachelor eilisted quarters

modernization project for 1,322 men and an electrical tie and distri-

bution line project at the Naval Submarine Base, New London,

Connecticut; an engineering building project at the Naval Underwater

Systems Center, New London Laboratory, New London, Connecticut

that will replace existing facilities and provide space for engineering

and scientific personnel engaged in the research and development of

Sonar and Accoustic Sensor systems; and a Military Sealift Command/

Atlantic relocation project at the Military Ocean Terminal, Bayonne,

New Jersey.

The Committee has restored two projects denied by the House.

These projects are the engineering building in the amount of $3,600,-

000 at the Naval Underwater Systems Center, New London, Con-

necticut and the Military Sealift Command/Atlantic relocation

project at the Military Ocean Terminal, Bayonne, New Jersey.

The Committee believes the physical plant facilities for the develop-

ment of sensors for submarine program should not limit the Navy's

ability to keep pace with current sensor and related technology,

which may be the case without the new engineering building. The

relocation project was restored to provide the administrative spaces

needed for relocating the Military Sealift Command from the Brooklyn

Army Terminal to Bayonne, New Jersey.

FOURTH NAVAL DISTRICT

The Committee approved $180,000 for projects at Naval installa-

tions in the state of Pennsylvania. The project approved is a computer

support facility at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard. A primary

substation expansion project at the Naval Air Development Center,

Warminster, which is a low priority project, was denied. This project

was also denied by the House.

NAVAL DISTRICT WASHINGTON

In this district $18,182,000 was approved for projects at Naval

installations in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia.

In Maryland the projects approved include the Maury Hall rehabil-

itation project at the Naval Academy; an environmental health effects

laboratory at the Medical Research Institute, Bethesda; and a fire

protection system modifications project at the Naval Ordnance

Station, Indian Head. In Virginia, the two projects approved were:

an amendment for the sewage treatment plant expansion project at

the Naval Weapons Laboratory, Dahlgren, and a hospital alterations

project at the Naval Hospital, Quantico, Virginia.

In the Naval District Washington, the significant project approved

was an electromagnetic test and analyses laboratory at the Naval

Research Laboratory. This project will provide facilities to conduct

basic research required to develop and evaluate counter measures

against hostile weapons systems, such as the cruise missile.

At the Naval Academy, the Committee restored the $300,000

reduction for the Maury Hall Rehabilitation project, since the reduced

funding for this project could result in some spaces remaining un-

finished and unusable. The Navy advises that all the spaces are

required, therefore, if unfavorable bids were received for this project,

the Navy .could be in the position of having to request additional

authorization and funding in a subsequent year. Based on recent

trends in the construction industry, cost escalation will continue and

the net result could be a more costly rehabilitation of Maury Hall.

FIFTH NAVAL DISTRICT

The Committee approved $50,263,000 for projects at Naval instal-

lations in the state of Virginia.

The significant projects approved are: an applied instruction build-

ing project at the Fleet Combat Direction Systems Training Center,

Atlantic, Dam Neck, that will provide facilities to support the Combat

Information Training Center being relocated from the Naval Air

Station, Glynco, Georgia; a dispensary and dental clinic at the Naval

Amphibious Base, Little Creek, Virginia that will provide a new

facility to replace an existing substandard facility; and a helicopter

maintenance hanger project at the Naval Air Station, Norfolk, that

will provide hangar space for on-board helicopter units and 37 addi-

tional units being transferred to the station from the Naval Air

Station, Lakehurst, New Jersey. At the Naval Station, Norfolk, three

significant projects approved are: a berthing pier project to provide a

pier with cold iron utilities that will accommodate ships that are too

large to use existing berthing spaces; an applied instruction building

project that will provide instructional and administrative space for

the Fleet Sonar School being relocated from the Naval Station, Key

West, Florida; and a pier utilities project that will provide cold iron

utilities to the nuclear submarine pier.

At the Naval Air Station, Oceana, an aircraft systems training

building project was approved to provide a maintenance training

facility and an addition to the flight training building to house equip-

ment to train pilots and ground crews in the F-14 aircraft systems. At

the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia, four projects were

approved. The machine shop project will alter and install an addition

to, the inside machine shop to provide consolidated, efficient work

spaces. The bachelor enlisted quarters project will provide 516 men

with modern living spaces that meet current habitability standards;

and an enlisted men's dining facility project will provide a new con-

solidated messing facility and replace the existing temporary deteri-

orated facility. The remaining project, a utilities improvement project,

will provide the fifth increment for upgrading existing utilities systems

required for the overhaul and repair of ships. At the Naval Weapons

Station, Yorktown, the torpedo overhaul shop project will provide a

facility for maintenance and operational support of the new MK-48

torpedo weapons system.

An amendment of $3,400,000 was added by the Armed Services Com-

mittee for the FY 1972 land acquisition project at the Naval Station,

Norfolk. This amendment was added to give the Navy authority to

acquire leasehold interests of tenants and to pay appropriate re-

settlement and relocation costs to the tenants as authorized by

Public Law 91-646, the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real

Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. The Committee approved

the $3,400,000 in appropriations for this amendment.

The Committee approved the appropriations for this Amendment

so that the Navy may proceed to properly compensate and relocate

all the tenants at one time instead of on a piece meal basis as originally

planned. It seems to the Committee that the intent of Public Law

91-646 was to properly compensate tenants, not only for their interests

in the real property and improvement, but also for their relocation

expenses. Any delay in providing for relocation will work a severe

hardship on the numerous small businesses located on the land.

SIXTH NAVAL DISTRICT

In this district $66,930,000 was approved by the Committee for

projects at Naval installations in the states of Florida, Georgia,

Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

Several projects approved for this district are associated with the

Navy's Medical Facilities improvement program. These projects are

a medical/dental support facilities project at the Naval Aerospace

Regional Medical Center, Pensacola; a dispensary and dental' clinic

at the Naval Air Station, Whiting Field; a dispensary and dental

clinic at the Naval Air Station, Meridian; and an addition to dispen-

sary project at the Charleston Naval Shipyard, Charleston, South

Carolina. Other significant projects approved in this district are: an

intermediate maintenance facility at the Naval Air Station, Cecil

Field that will provide a maintenance facility principally for airborne

electronics equipment for the S-3A aircraft; an aircraft final finish

facility and utilities project at the Naval Air Rework Facility, Jack-

sonville; a nuclear power training building at the Naval Training

Center, Orlando; a systems development and test facility project at

the Naval Coastal Systems Laboratory, Panama City; an electronics

warfare training building and bachelor enlisted quarters projects at

the Naval Communications Training Center, Pensacola; the second

phase of the New Naval Home at Gulfport: and finally an applied

instruction building at the Naval Air Station, Memphis. At the Naval

Air Station, Jacksonville, a land acquisition project in the amount of

$2,200,000 originally required only authorization, since it was planned

to acquire the land by exchange through the excessing of approxi-

mately 142 acres in the Jacksonville area. Subsequent to the submission

of the project to the Congress, it was determined that the $2,800,000

in authorization would be required.

The Committee has added funding in the amount of $2,400,000 to

permit acquisition of 365 acres of land at the Naval Air Station,

Jacksonville, needed to forestall possible residential development

which could lead to impairment of flying activity. Navy subsequently

advised that an exchange cannot be accomplished in view of a claim

by the Corps of Engineers to acquire the bulk of the proposed trade-off

land for dumping of spoils dredged from Jacksonville harbor.

The Committee's decision to provide funds for an outright cash

purchase is given in the interest of protecting a substantial investment

m the Naval Air Station, but with reservations as to future Defense

plans for the lands previously proposed for exchange. It is not clear

whether the proposed dumping of dredge spoils is even viable in view of

possible economic or ecological damage to land which appears to have

a relatively high current market value.

The Committee desires that the feasibility of acquisition through

full or partial exchange be restudied, and that the consent of the

Committee be obtained prior to taking contractual action to acquire

the land contiguous to the Air Station or otherwise disposing of the

land originally proposed for exchange.

The Armed Services Committee during their deliberations on the

authorization bill added two projects because they believed the

requirements for the projects warranted their inclusion in this year's

bill. The Committee approved appropriations for both projects and

for one restoration of damaged facilities project at the Naval Supply

Corps School, Athens, GA., as shown in the following tabulation:

[In thousands]

Installation/project: Amount

Naval lir Station, Jacksonville, Fla., land acquisition------------$2, 400

Naval Air Station, Whiting Field, Fla., outlying fields ------------ 1, 400

Naval Communication Training Center, Pensacola, Fla., petty officers

mess...--------------------- ----------------------------- 831

Naval Supply Corps School, Athens, Ga., commissary store restora-

tion...--------------------------------------------------120

Total___------------ ---------------------------------- 4, 751

EIGHTH NAVAL DISTRICT

In this district $25,623,000 was approved at Naval installations

in the states of Louisiana and Texas.

The significant projects approved were a nursing unit addition

project at the Naval Hospital, New Orleans which will provide an

addition of 150 beds to increase the capacity of the 100 bed hospital

authorized in FY 1973. At the Naval Support Activity, New Orleans,

Louisiana four projects were approved. These projects will provide

an administrative complex for consolidating in New Orleans the follow-

ing organizations: Personnel Management Information Center,

Naval Reserve Personnel Center, and Enlisted Personnel Distribution

Offces. A project for an Armed Forces Examination and Entrance

Station will provide administrative spaces for offices that will move

fromi'downtown New Orleans. Modern living quarters with mess for

21i. men will be provided under the bachelor enlisted quarters project.

Parking spaces for personnel working at this activity will be provided

by'a project for an employees parking building. Similar training build-

ings and dispensary/dental clinic projects will be provided at the

Naval Air Stations, Chase Field and Kingsville. A flight training

building project will provide space to house new flight simulator equip-

ment capable of simulating six different types of motion which enables

it to provide very realistic simulation of an aircraft flight environment;

The dispensary and dental clinic projects will replace existing facilities

with modern clinics.

No projects were denied funding in this district by the House.

NINTH NAVAL DISTRICT

The Committee approved $15,148,000 for projects at the Naval

Complex in the state of Illinois.

The significant projects approved are a hospital project to modern-

ize and upgrade existing hospital utilities to the current National

Fire Protection Association regulations; a dispensary and dental

clinic project to provide a consolidated medical care facility to replace

the existing dispersed deteriorated World War II facilities; a medical/

dental processing facility to replace the existing substandard facility,

and a Machinist/Boilerman instruction building project to provide

classroom space for training associated with 1200 pounds per square

inch (PSI) propulsion plants.

No projects were denied funding in this district by the House.

ELEVENTH NAVAL DISTRICT

In this district, $43,132,000 was approved for projects at Naval

installations in the state of California.

The significant projects approved in this district are discussed in

the following paragraphs.

At the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Long Beach, California, a serv-

ice group building project was approved to accommodate and consoli-

date the temporary service, rigger, mill and joiner, plastic and pat-

tern shops and the sail loft. All of the shops require special building

configuration. These configurations include high bay spaces with

bridge cranes, sawdust and plastic dust collection and exhaust systems.

At the Naval Air Station, Miramar, California, two projects were

approved. One project will provide an applied instruction building

for conducting operational and maintenance training for the E-2 air-

borne early warning aircraft being transferred from the Naval Air

Station, North Island. The second project, an avionics shop addition,

will provide a facility for intermediate level maintenance of the air-

borne early warning aircraft.

At the Naval Air Station, North Island, the Committee approved

appropriations for an avionics facility authorized in FY 1973. The

avionics facility will provide space for the maintenance of electronic

equipment and sensors on the aircraft now supported and on the new,

even more complex S-3A, which is scheduled for Fleet introduction

in March 1974.

The Committee also approved an applied instruction building

project at the Naval Air Station, North Island, California to provide

an addition to the existing training building for Light Airborne Multi-

Purpose Systems (LAMPS) operational flight trainer and modifica-

tions to the existing building to accommodate helicopter operational

and maintenance trainers.

At the Naval Air Rework Facility located at the Naval Air Station,

North Island, a maintenance hanger project was approved to provide

an addition to the E-2 rework hangar to accommodate the increase

workload which has been generated by the more complex electronic

systems installed in the E-2 aircraft. The Naval Air Station, North

Island will become the homeport for all West Coast rotary wing air-

craft squadrons when the transfer of all helicopter activities from the

Naval Air Station, Imperial Beach has been completed.

An electronics development and test laboratory project was

approved to provide a controlled electronics environment with

electromagnetic shielding for integration and testing of command

control, communications, and surveillance systems at the Naval

Electronics Laboratory Center, San Diego.

Two projects were approved at the Naval Station, San Diego,

California. The berthing pier project will provide additional berthing

space required to accommodate ships being relocated from the Naval

Station, Long Beach. The pier utilities project will provide "cold

iron" utilities and structural repairs to Pier 5.

At the Naval Training Center, San Diego a bachelor enlisted

quarters project was approved to provide modern living quarters for

504 men.

At the Navy Public Works Center, San Diego, a steam distribution

project was approved to provide steam distribution lines to berthing

piers from the new steam plant approved in FY 1973. This will

permit more ships to go "cold iron."

A bachelor enlisted quarters project for 468 men was approved at

the Navy Submarine Support Facility, San Diego and a pier utilities

project to provide "cold iron" utilities to two piers bemg used by

submarine tenders and attack submarines.

No projects were denied funding in this district by the House.

TWELFTH NAVAL DISTRICT

For projects at Naval installations in the state of California, the

Committee approved $17,956,000.

Only the significant projects approved in this district will be dis-

cussed in the following paragraphs.

A pier utilities project was approved at the Naval Air Station,

Alameda, to provide a final segment of a program to supply all

berthing piers with complete utilities from shore facilities.

At the Naval Air Station, Lemoore a dental clinic project was

approved to provide a new larger facility in the operational area which

will permit existing space in the hospital to be converted to hospital

usage.

A hospital alterations project was approved at the Naval Hospital,

Oakland to provide increased electrical power and air conditioning

to patient care areas.

No projects were denied funding in this district by the House.

THIRTEENTH NAVAL DISTRICT

In this district, $6,915,000 was approved for projects at Naval

installations in the states of Alaska and Washington.

At the Naval Complex, Adak, Alaska a bachelor enlisted quarters

projects was approved to provide modern living spaces for 136 men.

An electrical distribution system project to upgrade and replace

the antiquated and under sized existing system was approved along

with a crane track extension project at the Puget Sound Naval Ship-

yard, Bremerton, Washington.

No projects were denied funding in this district by the House,

FOURTEENTH NAVAL DISTRICT

$15,694,000 was approved for projects at Naval installations in

the state of Hawaii.

A summary of the requirements for the significant projects approved

in this district will be provided in the following paragraphs.

At the Naval Air Station, Barbers Point a dispensary and dental

clinic was approved to replace the existing functionally inadequate

facility.

A perimeter fence and security culverts project was approved at

the Naval Ammunition Depot, Oahu to improve and complete

existing security features which only provide one-half of the fencing

and culverts needed.

An evaluation center project at the Naval Station, Ford Island

was approved to provide facilities to expand the center to accom-

modate new equipment that will increase the capability of the Anti-

Submarine Warfare System.

A bachelor enlisted quarters project was approved to modernize a

quarters and mess for 474 men at the Naval Submarine Base, Pearl

Harbor.

At the Naval Communications Station, Honolulu a satellite com-

munication terminal project was approved to provide facilities for

programmed Phase II Satellite Communication System. At the same

station a VLF antenna modifications project was approved to correct

deficiencies in the antenna which require a reduction in operating

power and a lowering of the signal strength to an unacceptable level.

The Committee restored the enlisted men's dining facility at the

Naval Station, Pearl Harbor in the amount of $1,345,000. A study

of the requirement for this project shows that the present facility

had several years ago outlived its useful life on the basis of sanitary

conditions, esthetics and economics. The building is also remotely

located from the bachelor enlisted quarters it serves which exposes

personnel to the hazards of walking along and across a busy in-

dustrial roadway that serves the harbor area. On the basis of these

requirements, the Committee restored the project.

MARINE CORPS

The Committee has approved $51,019,000 for Marine Corps

installations in the states of Arizona, California, ,,Georgia, Hawaii,

North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia.

The Marine Corps program continues a major effort to satisfy

deficiencies in Bachelor Enlisted Quarters and in other personnel

support facilities, such as a gymnasium and commissary. The re-

mainder of the Marine Corps program includes utilities projects,

air/ground operational facilities, a combat training complex,'an

applied instruction facility and an administrative; facility at the

Marine Corps Supply Center, Albany, Georgia. This administrative

facility will allow relocation of the Inventory Control Point from the

Marine Corps Supply Activity, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to

Albany, Georgia.

The Committee restored funding for the commissary project at the

Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, AZ in the amount of $999,000. The

Marine Corps advises that they will not be able to maintain a viable

commissary modernization program within the limited dollars gen-

erated by commissary profit reserves and also accomplish this project

from those reserves.

The committee denied funding in the amount of $3,825,000 for the

dispensary at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, without

prejudice to a future program.

TRIDENT FACILITIES-UNITED STATES

The Committee approved $112,320,000 for the various locations

TRIDENT Facilities-United States project, which is the same

amount appropriated by the House. This is a $6 million reduction

from the amount authorized for this project, but a reduction ac-

ceptable to the Navy. The Navy advised that this reduction could

be absorbed this year in the land acquisition and utilities areas. A

detailed discussion of the requirement and the facilities to be con-

structed under this project were provided earlier under the general

section of the report.

POLLUTION ABATEMENT

Inside the United States

The Committee approved $78,748,000 for two projects located inside

the United States.

Approved for air pollution abatement was $27,636,000 and for

water pollution abatement $51,112,000.

A detailed description of the facilities to be provided under the water

and air pollution abatement projects was provided in the general

section of this report.

OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

TENTH NAVAL DISTRICT

In this district the Committee approved $14,852,000 for projects at

one Naval Complex and one Naval installation in Puerto Rico, the

West Indies. At the Naval Complex, Puerto Rico, two projects were

approved. An enlisted men's dining facility was approved to provide a

new messing facility to replace the obsolete deteriorated mess hall at

the Naval Station Roosevelt Roads. At the Naval Security Group

Activity, Sabana Seca an enlisted men's dining facility improvement

project was approved to replace a 32 year old overcrowded and obso-

lete facility. At the Naval Facility, Grand Turk West Indies an electric

power and water project was approved to replace obsolete generators,

and a desalination plant with an efficient electric power and water

plant.

50

In order to permit the Navy to proceed with the relocation of

weapons ranges from Culebra, an appropriation of $12,000,000 was

provided to match the amount authorized for the Relocation of the

Weapons Ranges from Culebra project at the Atlantic Fleet Weapons

Range, Naval Complex, Puerto Rico.

ATLANTIC OCEAN AREA

In this area the Committee approved $11,386,000 for projects at

Naval installations in Burmuda, and Cuba.

An underwater weapons compound project and a power and water

plant expansion project were approved at the Naval Air Station,

Burmuda. Three projects were approved for the Naval Complex,

Quantanamo Bay, Cuba. At the Naval Hospital, an air conditioning

project was approved to relieve patient discomfort by modernizing and

partially replacing the existing air conditioning system. An electrical

generating plant project was approved to provide a new turbine boiler

and a salt water conversion unit to increase power production to meet

anticipated power demands and to increase water production to

eliminate the problems of water rationing. An electrical substations

project was approved to increase power production to meet anticipated

growth and relieve current overloading of the existing system during

peak load (summer months). A bachelor enlisted quarters project and

a bachelor officer's quarters project were deferred in the amounts of

$2,834,000 and $3,258,000, respectively at the Naval Station, Keflavik,

Iceland. These projects were deferred pending the outcome of a new

base rights agreement to be negotiated between the United States

Government and the Icelandic Government.

No projects were denied funding in this district by the House.

EUROPEAN AREA

The Committee approved for this area $10,050,000 for projects at

Naval installations in Greece, Italy, Scotland, and Spain.

For the Naval Detachment, Souda Bay, Crete, Greece, the four

projects approved are: an aircraft parking apron to provide space for

5 P-3 patrol planes and for transient carrier based aircraft; an air

passenger/cargo terminal, a general warehouse and an enlisted men's

club.

Six projects were approved at the Naval Air Facility, Sigonella,

Italy. A photographic building was approved to support the increased

level of aerial photo missions. The other projects approved are: a

public works shop stores addition, a gymnasium, an officers' Club, a

Chief Petty Officers club, and utilities systems improvements to

provide utilities to the administrative area.

A bachelor enlisted quarters project was approved to provide a new

facility to relieve a 50% deficiency in space at the Naval Security Group

Activity Edzell, Scotland, where community support is almost non-

existent. At the Naval Station, Rota, Spain, a tactical support center

project was approved to provide an operational link between the

P-3C ASW Aircraft and shore ASW operations.

The House approved the projects for the Naval Detachment,

Souda Bay, Crete, Greece and the Naval Air Facility, Sigonella, Italy,

but indicated that a portion of several projects should be funded from

savings or by the cancellation of lower priority projects as shown below:

Amount to

Project be funded

amount from savings

Naval detachment, Souda Bay, Greece:

Aircraft parking apron.----... .................................. $2,666 $2,666

Air passenger cargo terminal---------------__ - - - --....... .. .. ... 554 277

General warehouse . _._._._........_.......................... ...... 531 266

Naval air facility, Signoella, Italy: Photographic building........... ............. 328 164

The reduction was made by the House on the basis that the Navy

should have been alert to these needs many years ago and should

have programmed these facilities in a NATO Infrastructure Slice pro-

gram. The Committee does not believe the Navy could have improved

substantially on the management of the NATO eligible projects, there-

fore full funding has been provided for these projects.

PACIFIC OCEAN AREA

In this area, the Committee approved $12,458,000 for projects at

one Naval installation and two Naval Complexes in Australia, the

Marianna Islands, and the Republic of the Philippines.

For the Naval Complex, Guam, the significant projects approved

are: a mine assembly facility project at the Naval Magazine Guam

that will provide a mine assembly maintenance and inert parts stor-

age compound for processing a large percentage of mines in the

Pacific area; a wharf utilities project that will provide dockside utili-

ties at the Naval Station, Guam for homeported ships to allow the

.ships to shut down their engineering plants; and at the Naval Public

Works Center the Finegayan telephone exchange project to provide a

facility to house a new 1,000-line dial control office. Also at the Pub-

lic Works Center, a water system improvements project was approved

to increase the production of treated water and to improve the exist-

ing distribution system to accommodate increasing user demands.

Two projects were approved for the Naval Complex, Subic Bay,

Republic of the Philippines. A tactical support center project at the

Naval Air Station, Cubi Point will provide facilities to operationally

link the P-3C ASW aircraft with shore based ASW operations. A

utilities improvements project at the Navy Public Works Center will

replace exposed electrical pier connections with modern connections

to eliminate safety hazards.

The Committee restored the funding for the theater at the Naval

Complex (Naval Station), Guam in the amount of $1,480,000. The

Committee believes the Navy has carefully examined its requirements

for theaters on Guam and that this theater is needed to adequately

serve the personnel of the Naval Station.

POLLUTION ABATEMENT

Outside the United States

Water pollution abatement projects located outside the United

States were approved in the amount of $3,995,000. These projects will

52

provide: A sewage treatment plant expansion at the Naval Station,

Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico; a ship waste water collection ashore

system and a water plant backwash control facility at the Navy

Public Works Center, Guam.

CONTINUING AUTHORIZATIONS

The Committee approved $74,800,000 for continuing authorizations

broken down as follows:

Amount

Access roads ....------------------------------------------- $2, 000,000

Planning and design------------------------------------- 57, 800, 000

Urgent minor construction..... --------------------------------- 15, 000, 000

The amounts approved for access roads and planning and design are

$1,000,000 greater and $4,000,000 greater, respectively than the

amounts originally requested.

The basis for the increases for access roads and planning and design

have been addressed in the general portion of this report.

NAVAL AND MARINE CORPS RESERVE

A total of $18.9 million in FY 1974 appropriations has been pro-

vided for the construction of Naval and Marine Corps Reserve facili-

ties. This amount excludes $2.6 million added by the House to

reimburse the Naval Reserve for costs associated with the relocation of

Naval and Marine Corps Reserve Headquarters. This amount was de-

nied until the Navy is able to provide the Committee with an explana-

tion of the original and current construction costs for this relocation.

The appropriation will provide nine Reserve Center in 7 states, .6

Naval Air Reserve operational facilities, and 4 ship, logistics, and

personnel support facilities. In addition, $1.4 million is provided for

necessary design and planning and essential minor construction

requirements.

AUTHORIZATION ACTIONS

A summary of the additions and deletions made by the Congress in

the authorizing legislation follows:

Naval Security Group Activity, Winter Harbor, Maine: Theater__ -$232, 000

Naval Support Activity, Brooklyn, N.Y.:

Relocate telephone switchboard__________________________ -75, 000

Bachelor enlisted quarters modernization _.... -----------1, 056, 000

Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Penn.: Electronics equipment

facility--------------------------------------------- -735, 000

Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, District of Columbia:

Acoustic research facility______________________________ -740, 000

Naval Station, Annapolis, Md.: Bulkhead replacement_---- --1, 080, 000,

National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Md.:

Navy Exchange retail store______________________________ -1, 764, 000

Roads ------------------------------------ -1, 546, 000

Naval Communication Station, Cheltenham, Md.: VLF antenna

modifications .... .. --------------------------- -1, 300, 000

Naval Air Test Center, Patuxent River, Md.: Electromagnetic

propagation facility - _________________-- ------------- - -680, 000

Naval Ordnance Laboratory, White Oak, Md.: Hypervelocity wind

tunnel ------------------------------------------- --448, 000

Naval Amphibious Base, Little Creek, Va.: Electronics Building - -139, 000

Naval Station, Norfolk, Va.:

Vehicle parking area_____ _-- --------------------------- -310, 000

Land acquisition________----------------------------- 3, 400, 000

Naval Air Station, Oceana, Va.: Utilities- ------------------- -576, 000

Naval Air Station, Cecil Field, Fla.: Naval Regional Medical

Center, Jacksonville, dispensary addition.._ --- ------- ------- -107, 000

Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Fla.: Land acquisition ----------- +2, 400, 000

Naval Hospital, Orlando, Fla.: Hospital replacement ---- --------20, 981, 000

Naval Training Center, Orlando, Fla.:

Dental clinic......___________ ----------------------- --1,481, 000

Basic electricity and electronics training building----- --1, 274, 000

Naval Communications Training Center, Pensacola, Fla.: Petty

officers mess....------... .------------------------------- -831, 000

Naval Air Station, Whiting Field, Fla.: Outlying fields------ +1, 400, 000

Naval Complex, Great Lakes, Ill.: Naval Training Center bachelor

enlisted quarters ____ ___ _ _...... ......... .._ -4, 760, 000

Naval Air Station, Miramar, Calif.: Applied instruction building

(reduction) --------------------------------------- -419, 000

Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Calif.: Bachelor enlisted

quarters with mess ....------------------------------------ -721, 000

Naval Air Station, Alameda, Calif.: Naval Air Rework Facility

avionics building environmental control -------------------- --1,409, 000

Naval Air Station, Moffett Field, Calif.:

Taxiway overlay ------------------------------------ -2, 115, 000

Operational trainer building addition__ . ...------------ -430, 000

Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, San Francisco, Calif.: Dry dock

support facility_____________------------------------- -250, 000

Naval Security Group Activity, Skaggs Island, Calif.: Dispensary

and dental clinic_... --------------------------------- -641, 000

Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, Calif.: Electronic shop

alterations..----------------- ----------------------- --200, 000

Naval Complex, Adak, Alaska: Naval Station runway and taxiway

overlay --------------------------------------------- -4, 158, 000

Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Calif.: Ship waste water collection

ashore... -------------------- ----------- ---------- -3, 700, 000

(53)

54

AUTHORIZATION ACTIONs--continued

Naval Air Station, Barbers Point, Hawaii: Municipal sewer con-

nection facility...... .._____-- _...............

Navy Support Office, Athens, Greece: Aircraft support facilities..

Naval Security Group Activity, Edzell, Scotland: Bachelor

enlisted quarters......................................----------------------------...

Taval Complex, Subic Bay, Republic of the Philippines:

Naval Station bachelor enlisted quarters modernization.....

Naval Station dependent school expansion-......----------

Appropriation limitation __......._.....___.....__....._

Sec. 204. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total..-- ---------------------------------------- -47, 251, 000

-$5, 868, 000

+1,948,000

-90, 000

-1, 411, 000

-1, 034, 000

-7, 500, 000

+ 12. 000. 000

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE

The Committee has approved a total of $291,198,000 for military

construction, of which $30,000,000 is for the reserve forces. The Com-

mittee allowance represents a reduction of $30,702,000 in the budget

estimate of $321,900,000 and is $2,546,000 more than the appropria-

tion for fiscal year 1973. A detailed tabulation, by installations and

States is detailed later in this report. Air Force family housing is not

included in the above figures and is presented in a subsequent portion

of this report. A tabulation of the Committee action by major Air

Force command and special programs follows:

[In thousands of dollars

Activity DOD request House action Senate action

inside the United States:

Aerospace defense command..................................

Air Force communications service...... ...........

Air Force logistics command...................................

Air Force systems command________________

Air training command ......

Air University .....................................

Alaskan air command ........................ ......

Headquarters command, USAF..................................

Military airlift command_ _.........__._._.. . . .. . .. . .

Strategic air command...... ............................

Tactical air command-.--.. -----.--...-...............

U.S. Air Force Academy-------------- --------------

U.S. Air Force Acudem md............................ ...

Air Force security service...............................

Pollution abatement .....-.-............ ....... ....... ...

Air installation compatible use zones .......

Total, inside United States.-..-...............--------------

Outside the United States:

Aerospace defense command....-.......---------............

Pacific air forces .................----------------------------------

U.S. Air Forces in Europe.........-..............--- ---------

U.S. Air Forces southern command..............---------------

U.S. Air Force security service .---. --...... --..--........-

Pollution abatement-...................--------------------

W orldwide com munications.------..-.-.-- ---. .. . . . . .

Total, outside United States-.-...........------------------

Classified (sec. 302): Radar support facility, various worldwide--.. -

General support programs:

Planning and design-..-.---...-. --.-.----...-----.- .

Minor construction.......--------------------------------

Access roads .......------------------------------------

Total, general appropriation--.-..----. . . .. ..-----------

Grant total program-.-...........----------------------

Unobligated balance available to finance fiscal year 1974 program. - -

Budget authority...------------------------------------

8,794 8, 863 8, 863

3, 963 3,963 3, 963

60,934 44,430 46, 074

9,062 8,120 8, 582

56, 282 54, 089 54, 089

5,462 0 0

8, 658 8,658 8, 658

18, 435 4,639 18,139

12,416 9,709 9,709

7,331 7,331 7,331

25,738 23,134 21,847

17,703 12, 589 16,795

645 483 483

0 6, 115 6, 115

9, 070 9, 070 9, 070

2,000 0 0

246,493 201,193 219,718

1,355 1,355 0

11, 788 7, 950 7,950

15, 925 15,776 17,102

1,038 927 927

221 221 221

750 750 750

330 330 330

31,407 27,309 27,280

1,000 0 1,000

18, 000

15, 000

0

33, 000

311, 900

20,000

291,900

18,000

15,000

0

33,000

261,502

21,800

239,702

18,000

15, 000

2,000

35,000

282,998

21,800

261,198

AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND

The Committee is in agreement with House action to approve

$8,863,000 for eight line items at two installations.

I

7

56

AIR FORCE COMMUNICATIONS. SERVICE

The Committee is in agreement with House action to approve

$3,963,000 for two line items at one installation.

AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND

The Committee has restored $1,887,000 for the construction of an

Aircraft Engine Component Research Facility at Wright Patterson

Air Force Base, Ohio. This provides funding for an important aircraft

engine research facility by modification and alteration to an existing

structure at more than $10 million less than it would take to locate

the facility elsewhere. There is no other facility in the free world in

which this important research can be conducted. The Committee also

deleted a project for the alteration of a Precision Measurement Facility

at Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma, in the amount of $243,000. The

actions result in a total Committee approval of $46,074,000 for this

command.

AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND

The Committee has restored $462,000 for the construction of an

Automotive Maintenance Facility at Kodiak, Alaska, making a total

program for this command in the amount of $8,582,000.

AIR TRAINING COMMAND

Funds in the amount of $54,089,000 have been approved for this

command. This is in agreement with House action.

AIR UNIVERSITY

The Committee is in agreement with House action to defer the two

line items requested for this command.

ALASKAN AIR COMMAND

Funds in the amount of $8,658,000 have been approved for this

command. This is in agreement with House action.

HEADQUARTERS COMMAND, USAF

The Committee has approved a program of $18,139,000 for this

command. This is $13,500,000 in excess of House action and results

from the restoration of funds to construct Special Aircraft Support

Facilities at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland. This will provide

facilities necessary to support Boeing 747 aircraft that have been

approved for Air Force procurement.

MILITARY AIRLIFT COMMAND

The Committee has approved funds in the amount of $9,709,000 for

this command. This agrees with House action.

PACIFIC AIR FORCES

Funds in the amount of $7,331,000 have been approved for this

command. This is in agreement with House action.

STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND

The Committee has approved $21,747,000 for this command that is

$1,387,000 less than House approvals. This results from the funding of

$213,000 to enable completion of a WAF dormitory at Malmstrom

Air Force Base, Montana, and the deferral of dormitory construction

at Grissom Air Force Base, Indiana, in the amount of $1,500,000.

TACTICAL AIR COMMAND

Funds for this command have been approved in the amount of

$16,795,000 or $4,206,000 more than that approved by the House.

This results from restorations by the Committee of $2,273,000 for a

commissary at Bergstrom Air Force Base, Texas, and $1,933,000 for

the construction of a Base Personnel Office at Nellis Air Force Base,

Nevada.

U.S. AIR FORCE ACADEMY

Funds in the amount of $483,000 have been approved for this

command. This is in agreement with House action.

U.S. AIR FORCE SECURITY SERVICE

The Committee is in agreement with House action in approving a

program of $6,115,000 for this command.

POLLUTION ABATEMENT

'The Committee has approved funds in the amount of $9,070,000 for

this program. This is in agreement with House action.

AIR INSTALLATION COMPATIBLE USE ZONES

The Committee recognizes the need for this program but feels that

Air Force efforts to achieve program objectives through community

zoning or land exchanges in the past fiscal year can be carried into the

future. This is in agreement with action by the House Armed Services

Committee.

AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND (OVERSEAS)

The Committee has denied funding for three projects at Keflavik,

Iceland, thereby reducing the program for this command (overseas)

to zero. This action is considered necessary due to the uncertainty of

the continuation of U.S. base rights in Iceland.

PACIFIC AIR FORCES (OVERSEAS)

The Committee approved $7,950,000 for the overseas area of this

command and thereby agrees with House action.

U.S. AIR FORCES IN EUROPE

The Committee has approved funds in the amount of $17,102,000

for this command or $1,326,000 in excess of House action. This results

from committee action to restore funds to fully finance deficiency fund-

58

ing for Air Force projects in Germany that "have been negatively

affected by currency revaluations and severe cost inflation in Germany.

U.S. AIR FORCES SOUTHERN COMMAND

For this command, the Committee has approved funding in the

amount of $927,000. This is in agreement with House action.

U.S. AIR FORCE SECURITY SERVICES (OVERSEAS)

The Committee has approved funds for this command in the amount.

of $221,000. This agrees with House action.

POLLUTION ABATEMENT (OVERSEAS)

The Committee agrees with House action in approving the Air Force

request of $750,000 for this program.

WORLDWIDE COMMUNICATIONS

The Air Force request of $330,000 to provide for expansion of Tech-

nical Control Facilities has been approved by the Committee in con-

sonance with House action.

CLASSIFIED

The Committee has restored $1,000,000 to finance facilities to sup-

port a phased array radar system.

GENERAL APPROPRIATION

Committee approval is given for an appropriation of $35,000,000

for the continuing authorization requested. The program by Com-

mittee recognition of an urgent need for access road construction at

Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi, provides $2,000,000 not requested

by the Air Force. Details of the appropriation are:

Planning and design-----------------------------------------$18, 000, 000

Minor construction------------------------------------------15, 000,_000

Access roads------------------------------------------------ 2, 000, 000

Total------------------------------------------------ ................................... 35, 000, 000

PRIOR YEAR FUNDS UNOBLIGATED

The Committee is in agreement with House action to reduce the ap-

propriation request of the Air Force by $21,800,000 as opposed to an

Air Force offer of $20,000,000. The increase represents a reduction of

$1,800,000 of unobligated funds originally appropriated for use in

Southeast Asia.

AIR FORCE (AIR NATIONAL GUARD)

The Air National Guard fiscal year 1974 Military Construction

Appropriation request of $20.0 million reflects Air Force recognition

of the Committee's fiscal year 1973 concern for expanded sums to

support the increasing need for adequate Reserve forces facilities

m view of the total force policy.

59

The fiscal year 1974 appropriation will enable the Air National

Guard to construct 35 essential operational, maintenance, and training

facilities in 23 states as well as 13 other vital aircraft arresting barrier

and power check pad facilities at various locations. In addition, $4.0

million is provided to support necessary planning and design as well

as essential minor construction requirements.

AIR FORCE (AIR FORCE RESERVE)

In response to the continuing requirement for adequate reserve

facilities to support the changing missions of its reserve components

under the Total Force Policy, the Air Force has requested a fiscal

year 1974 Air Force Reserve appropriation of $10.0 million. This

amount will provide 32 operational, maintenance, and training facili-

ties in 15 states. In addition, this appropriation provides $1.0 million

to support necessary planning and essential minor construction

requirements,

Though this request is somewhat smaller than those of the other

reserve components, it is considered adequate.

60

AUTHORIZATION ACTIONS

A summary of the additions and deletions made by the Congress in.

tthe authorizing legislation follows:

'Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla.:

Theater ---------------------------------------------------$751, 000

Gymnasium ---------------------------------------------- +820, 000

Bill Air Force Base, Utah:

Ballistic missile processing support facility_----------------- -3, 000, 000

Advanced logistics system utility support-------------------- -625, 000

McClellan Air Force Base, Calif.: Advanced logistics system utility

support ----------------------------------------------------599, 000

Robins Air Force Base, Ga.: Depot aircraft run-up facility------ --240,000

Tinker Air Force Base, Okla.: Add to and alter composite medical

facility -------......------------------------------------------- -3;879, 000

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio:

Aircraft fuels and lubricants laboratory------------------- --4, 857, 000

Airmen dormitories____---.-------------------------- - --1,117, 000

Advanced logistics system utility support___------------------ -300,000

Laurence G. Hanscom Field, Mass.: Add to and alter base roads-- -480, 000

Keesler Air Force Base, Miss.: Runway extension---------------- +1, 200, 000

Lowry Air Force Base, Colo.: Airmen open mess------------------1,260, 000

Mather Air Force Base, Calif.: Base personnel office------------- -1, 683, 000

Williams Air Force Base, Ariz.: Add to and alter chapel center-___ -450, 000

Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala.:

Add to and alter NCO academic facility (Gunter) ----------- -562, 000

Add to and alter composite medical facility______------------_ -4, 900, 000

Andrews Air Force Base, Md.: Add to and alter air passenger

terminal -------------------------------------------------- -296, 000

Altus Air Force Base, Okla.: Base flight operations facility----__ -692, 000

Dover Air Force Base, Del.: Base facilities maintenance complex__ -829, 000

McGuire Air Force Base, N.J.: Air-condition base personnel office-_ -162, 000

Travis Air Force Base, Calif.: Aircraft hydrant refueling system-- -1, 024, 000

Barksdale Air Force Base, La.: Air-condition base headquarters

facility --543, 000

Blytheville Air Force Base, Ark.: Security police facility ------- --140, 000

Grissom Air Force Base, Ind.: Alter airmen dormitories-------- -1, 600, 000

Malmstrom Air Force Base, Mont.: Dormitory facilities ---------- --213,000

Various: Aircraft instrument landing facilities (reduction) -------- -321,000

Holloman Air Force Base, N. Mex.: Weapons guidance test facility- -908, 000

U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado: Add to and alter base telephone

exchange facility------------------------------------------- -162, 000

Air Installation Compatible Use Zones: Land-------------------- -2, 000, 000

Goodfellow Air Force Base, Texas: Hospital-------------------- +6,115,000

Clark Air Base, Philippine Islands : Noncommissioned officers open

mess --------------------------------------------------- --2,000,000

Kunsan Air Base, Korea: Airmen dormitories--------------- -1, 838, 000

Ramstein Air Base, Germany: Taxiway shoulder pavement------- -465,000

Various, Germany:------------------------------------------- 7, 333, 000

RAF Upper Heyford, United Kingdom:

Aircraft fueling support facility_ ___________________----- -166, 000

Composite medical facility-------------------------------- -5, 525,000

Howard Air Force Base, Canal Zone: Air-condition chapel center-- -111, 000

Total -------------------------------------------- -27, 804,000

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, DEFENSE AGENCIES

GENERAL STATEMENT

For the Department of Defense Agencies, the Committee recom-

mends an appropriation of $12,000,000. This is $7,100,000 below the

budget estimate of $19,100,000 and is $12,000,000 above the House

allowance.

The program breakdown is as follows: Defense Nuclear Agency,

$574,000; Defense Supply Agency, $8,370,000; National Security

Agency, $8,156,000; General Support Programs, $2,000,000.

DEFENSE AGENCIES

The budget request for "Military Construction, Defense Agencies"

amounted to $19,100,000. The committee has approved $12,000,000.

This is a reduction of $7,100,000 for fiscal year 1974 and is $24,704,000

below the appropriation for fiscal year 1973.

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, DEFENSE AGENCIES

IIn thousands of dollars]

DOD House Approved by

Activity request action committee

Inside United States:

Defense Nuclear Agency..---.-.-.-..................... . _ 574 574 574

Defense Supply Agency. -...-.... --. ---...--............... . 8,370 8,370 8, 370

National Security Agency-..-.. --.-..-.-..-.-.---.--.... . .. . 8,156 4,627 8,156

Total..................._________ .__ ...................... 17, 100 13, 571 17,100

General support programs:

DOD emergency construction.............._______ ....... . 30,000 30,000 30,000

Planning_ ....__....---------------------------....... 1, 000 1,000 1,000

Minor construction .....- - -- ---..-....................... 1,000 1,000 1,000

Total, general support.....___________________ _ ........... 32, 000 32, 000 32, 000

Grand total, programs..____... ------------------------49,100 45, 571 49, 100

Unobligated balance available to finance fiscal year 1974 programs...... 30, 000 45, 571 37, 100

Budget authority requested.......................----....... 19, 100 0 12, 000

The fiscal year 1974 budget submitted to Congress requested a

program of $49,100,000 and an appropriation of $19,100,000. In

structuring this program, the Department of Defense indicated a

program, or anticipated requirement, in the amount of $30,000,000

for projects which would qualify for funding under DOD emergency

construction authority. The Department further indicated that no

additional funds were required for this purpose on the basis that

unobligated prior year funds were considered adequate to finance

fiscal year 1974 requirements. The unobligated balance in the Secre-

tary's emergency fund totaled $54,429,500 as of June 30, 1973.

The program approved by the Committee, as tabulated above,

provides for essential facilities of the agencies listed. The Committee's

62

allowance of $12,000,000 is the maximum possible in view of action by

the House and Senate Armed Services Committees which gave their

approval for the full program requested for the Agencies, but made a

general reduction of $7,100,000 in the authorization for appropriation.

This action has the effect of applying additional prior year unobligated

emergency construction funds to partially finance the fiscal year 1974

program.

The House has recommended a further reduction of $12,000,000,

which deletes funding in the amount of $3,529,000 for a logistic support

facility at Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, and provides that the

balance of the program be financed entirely from unobligated prior

year funds. The Committee does not agree with the House action, and

recommends approval of the Defense Agencies program as submitted,

subject only to funding constraints resulting from the Armed Service

Committee's actions.

FAMILY HOUSING

The Committee has approved $1,188,539,000 in new appropriated

funds for the fiscal year 1974 military family housing program. This

amount comprises approximately 44 percent of the entire funds ap-

propriated in this bill and is $93,128,000 lower than the revised

Defense budget request for family housing.

To provide maintenance and operation funds for defense housing,

approval has been given in the authorized amount of $622,913,000 to

maintain and operate an estimated 380,006 housing units during fiscal

year 1974. In addition, the Committee has approved $44,703,000 for

leasing of 10,000 domestic and 7,262 foreign family housing units for

assignment as public quarters.

The Committee has recommended a $381,603,000 family housing con-

struction program. The approved program will provide for the con-

struction of 10,541 new permanent units, which is 1,147 units less than

requested. New construction approved includes 5,369 units at 12 Army

installations, 3,460 units at 11 Navy and Marine Corps bases, 1,700

units at 8 Air Force bases and 12 units for the Defense Intelligence

Agency. The Committee did not approve the 150 unit Navy project

authorized for construction at Iceland because of questions remaining

in the need for the project. A total of $309,733,000 is required for the

approved new construction program. Other construction approved by

the Committee includes $5,700,000 for mobile home facilities; $240,000

for acquisition and connection of a utility system serving Wherry

housing, $62,510,000 for improvements to family quarters, $2,720,000

for minor construction and $700,000 for planning. The Committee

recommends that $361,746,000 in new appropriations be provided for

this construction program and that the balance of the program amount-

ing to $19,857,000 be financed from savings. Savings are available in

funds appropriated in prior years but not needed because of project

cancellations due to base closures, realignments or other changes in

requirements. Sufficient funds remain to provide. adequate construction

for the valid fiscal year 1972 and 1973 housing projects.

The funding allowed by the Committee for debt payment is the

budget estimate of $159,177,000. This includes $100,167,000 for the

payment of debt principal amount owed on Capehart, Wherry, and

Commodity Credit financed housing. In addition, $53,024,000 is

approved for the payment of interest on mortgage indebtedness on

Capehart and Wherry housing and for other expenses relating to the

construction and acquisition of these houses in prior years. The Com-

mittee approved $5,986,000 for payment to the Federal Housing

Administration, for premiums on Capehart and Wherry housing mort-

gage insurance and for the payment of premiums on insurance pro-

vided by the FHA for mortgages assumed by active military personnel

for houses purchased by them.

With respect to the inadequate quarters legislations, section 508 of

Public Law 92-545, which authorized the designation as inadequate of

not more than 20,000 family housing units, in addition to inadequate

units already in the inventory, Defense reported that the Services

and the Defense Supply Agency had designated 19,282 units as inade-

quate as of July 1, 1973 and had placed them on a rental basis at fair

rental values, not to exceed 75% of the occupant's Basic Allowance

for Quarters.

The Family Housing Management Account continues to prove itself

an effective tool of management. Since the account was established

and through Fiscal Year 1973 nearly $7.8 billion has been made avail-

able for family housing; $1.8 billion for construction (74,000 units);

$4.2 billion for operation and maintenance; and $1.8 billion for debt

payment. The Committee notes that operation and maintenance costs

have increased in recent years, not only because of increased labor and

material costs and the aging of the inventory, but because of the cur-

rent efforts to reduce the significant backlog of deferred maintenance.

Continuation of business-like management principles will assure the

Committee and Defense an excellent means of gauging future reqiiire-

ments and assessing proposals for providing members of the Armed

Forces with comfortable, adequate and economic housing for their

families.

Defense requested additional legislation to complete a land exchange

on Oahu, Hawaii. Public Law 91-564, authorized the conveyance of

land at Fort Ruger, Hawaii to that State in exchange for land adjacent

to the Tripler Army Hospital as a site for family housing. Subse-

quent evaluation determined that development of the land near

Tripler was too costly and Defense requested that the legislation'be

changed to provide for the State to furnish, either in facilities and

services or money, or a combination of them, a sum equal to the

appraised fair market value of the Fort Ruger property to be available

for site preparation for military family housing at the Defense-owned

Aliamanu Military Reservation, Oahu, Hawaii.

The base realignments announced April 17, 1973 are of such mag-

nitude that resources in the Homeowners Assistance Fund will be

insufficient to take care of the requirements of the Homeowners

Assistance Program in Fiscal Year 1974. Accordingly, Defense re-

quested an additional $7 million in appropriations for the Program.

Defense also requested a modest expansion of the Program to cover cer-

tain personnel not now covered by the program because of stat-

utory technicalities, but who suffer the same losses in disposing of

their homes as the personnel covered by the program at the same

installation.

HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE FUND, DEFENSE

Defense submitted a revised budget request of $7,000,000 in new

funds for the homeowners assistance program. The program provides

assistance to qualified military and civilian homeowners by reducing

their losses incident to disposal of their homes when a military installa-

tion is closed or the scope of its operations is reduced.

The revised budget request was submitted to obtain financing for

the FY 1974 assistance costs expected to result from the April 1973

base closure announcement. These costs were not reflected in the

January 1973 budget submittal. The Committee has approved the

revised request for funds in the amount of $7,000,000. Also, spending

of agency debt receipts, authorized in permanent legislation, will

provide an additional $17,443,000.

FISCAL YEAR 1974 APPROPRIATION REQUEST-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY

[In thousands of dollars]

DOD House Senate Conference

Activity request action action report

Inside United States:

1st Army-........--.. --..-.......-... 66, 891 43,750 43,750...

3d Army ---------153, 476 146,493 144, 533 ........

5th Army----.................. .155, 697 143,713 146, 452 ...........

6th Army------------------.....--- 37, 745 34,640 34, 640 ......

U.S. Army Materiel Command...-............. 58,649 42,995 43,451 ...........

U.S. Army Strategic Communications Command... . 8, 226 8,226 8,226 .......

U.S. Army Military Academy- .--------------- - 30,145 5,145 25,145 ..........

Military Traffic Management and Terminal Service.. 5,716 1,971 4,171

Army Medical Department....................... 12,827 13,535 13, 535 ............

U.S. Army, Alaska--. - --... --..-.---__-.-. . 8,344 7, 915 7,915 ... ...... .

USARPAC, Hawaii.......-............ . ....... 10, 825 9, 592 10, 825 ..... .......

Corps of Engineers-..-.--....-.------.... 597 0 597

U.S. Army Security Agency..----.-............. 287 0 0............

Air pollution abatement-.-..-............ --... -. 7,295 6,900 7,295 ............

Water pollution abatement .....-... ------- - 7,099 7,099 7,099

Classified various locations....................... 3,000 3,000 3,000 ....

Total inside United States_..................... 566, 819 474, 974 500, 634 ._...

Outside United States:

U.S. Army Southern Command.................... 8,095 8,095 8, 095 ..........

USAREUR, Germany.-....----... ---............ 12,517 13,124 13,124 ......

USAREUR, infrastructure-..................... - 160,000 95, 65 75,50 ...........

U.S. Army Security Agency ......-----------------------.. 1,434 1,434 1,434 ____. _

U.S. Army Pacific.-...------__ ------...... . ... 1,568 1,568 1,568 -----

Kwajalein Missile Range-------.--------........ 2,353 1,029 1,029 ..............

U.S. Army Strategic Communications Command..... 2,097 2,334 2,334

Puerto Rico.-.-.-... ____..... ___..... ......... 517 517 517 ........ .

Total outside United States...--...........__ _ 1 88, 581 = 123, 751 103, 751 ..............

General support programs:

Minor construction...-.-------........... ..12, 500 15, 000 15, 000 ...........

Planning . ..........---------------------------------- 39,000 39, 000 39,000 .....

Access roads---------....-------.........-------.....................---------------------------- 2,000 ..

Total general authorization--.....---.----.- - 51, 500 54, 000 56, 000

Grand total program....... .....___ .. __ ..... 1 706, 900 0 652, 725 660, 385 .....

Unobligated balance available to finance fiscal year 1974

program-.......-_ --_____ --____ --_______ ._ 42, 000 101,150 292,650 ...

Budget authority........ ................ ____ I 664, 900 551,575 567, 735 ..............

I Due to lack of authorization, does not include additional $4,300,000 requested in budget amendment

1 Reflects $35,650,000 unobligated prior year Safeguard funds transferred to NATO Infrastructure toward meeting cost

of dollar devaluations.

(65)

66

FISCAL YEAR 1974 APPROPRIATION REQUEST-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, NAVY

[In thousands of dollars]

DOD House Senate Conference

Activity request action action report

Inside United States:

1st Naval District..---.--.-------------. 3,184 2,952 2,952 ....-......

3rd Naval District--.. ---------------.-..- - 12, 695 6,158 11,564

4th Naval District-..................-......... 1,130 180 80 ..........

Naval District, Washington, D.C--------- - 25,740 17,882 18,182

5th Naval District----------------------------.50, 358 46,863 50,263 ------

6th Naval District--.---.-----.....-.----.. 86,022 65,489 66,930 ............

8th Naval District---...--------.--.......... 25, 623 25,623 25,623 -....-......

9th Naval District------------.................. 19,908 15,148 15,148 .-----..-....-. .

11th Naval District----------..................... 44, 272 43,132 43,132 ........

12th Naval District.----------...--.. 23,001 17,956 17,956 001.17,

13th Naval District- ..-----................... 11,073 6,915 6,915 --------------.........

14th Naval District-------------------.--- 15, 694 14,349 15, 694 ......

Marine Corps facilities--------------___--------54, 844 53, 845 51,019 ......

Various locations (Trident) .--------------------- 118,320 112,320 112,320.... ......

Air pollution abatement------.--............... . 27,636 27,636 27,636_ ___.. -

Water pollution abatement---------.. ---------- 60, 680 51,112 51,112 ..........-- .

Total inside United States...................... 580, 180

Outside United States:

10th Naval District.............................. 2, 852

Atlantic area-...._............................ 17, 478

European area.......................-.......... 8,192

Pacific area-.............-................. 14,903

Water pollution abatement ...--------.--.-... 3, 995

Total outside United States..................... 47, 420

General support programs:

Minor construction.............................. 15, 000

Planning and design.-..-......-....___ ..... 53, ?00

Access roads................................... 1,000

Total general authorization..................... 69, 800

program.......----------.....--------------------------.................... 12,000

Budget authority---.......-------..---------..........-- 685,400

507,560 516,626 ....... ..

2,852 14,852 ..............

17, 478 11,386 ----------...

10,050 10,050 ..............

10, 978 12,458 ..........

3,995 3,995 .............

45,353 52,741 -..-.-......

15, 000

53, 800

1,000

69, 800

622,713

35, 072

15,000 ........------..

57,800 -----..---........

2, 000 ---..-------............

74, 800 ..............

644,167 ........---...------...

35,700 ..............

587,641 608,467 .......---...-------....

67

FISCAL YEAR 1974 APPROPRIATION REQUEST-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE

IIn thousands of dollars]

House Senate Conference

Activity DOD request action action report

Inside United States:

Aemrospace Defense Command.----.-. --........ . 8,794 8,863 8,863

Air Force Communication Service...-------..... . 3,963 3,963 3,963 ............

Air Force Logistics Command..................... 60, 934 44,430 46, 074 .............

Air Force Systems Command..................... 9, 062 8, 120 8, 582

Air Training Command.......... ................ 56,282 54, 089 54, 089 ...........

Air University----- -------------------------- 5,462 0 0--

Alaskan Air Command-------------------------. 8, 658 8,658 8, 658

Headquarters Command_..--. ---.......... 18,435 4,639 18,139 ............

Military Airlift Command..-................. . 12,416 9,709 9,709 ..... .....

Pacific Air Force- - --....-.-.-----. ---.. .. 7,331 7,331 7,331

Strategic Air Command ......................... 25,738 23, 134 21,847 .............

Tactical Air Command-----............ ........ - 17, 703 12,589 16,795

USAF Academy.------.-.----........ --------- - 645 483 483 ............

USAF Security Service--.......... --.---..-.. ... 0 6,115 6,115 ......

Air pollution abatement-.... --...-............. 3,689 3,689 3,689 ______

Water pollution abatement----...-. ---.--..... . 5,381 5, 381 5,381

Classified locations-...........-...... ....... - 1,000 0 1,000 .............

Air installation compatible use zones.......... .- 2,000 0 0 ------

Total inside United States...................... 247, 493

201,193 220,718

Outside United States:

Aerospace Defense Command----.........---- - 1,355 1,355 0

Pacific Air Forces-................. ........... - 11,788 7,940 7,950

U.S. Air Force, Europe ........................ 15, 925 17,102 17,102

Southern command..-....-..-.--.--.. --.. 1,038 927 927 -

Security service.-----.--.-.-.--.----..--...-- 221 221 221

Water pollution abatement.--.. .........-... . - 750 750 750 ........ ..

Worldwide communications--.....--....-...-....- 330 330 330 - -----

Total outside United States..-.................. 31, 407

General support programs:

Access roads............----------------------------------- 0

Minor construction-- -....--.................. 15, 000

Planning----....----..--------------------------............................... 18, 000

Total general authorization.................... 33, 000

Grant total program........................... 311,900

Unobligated balance available to finance fiscal year 1974

program..-------..--....--------------------------......................... 20, 000

Budget authority.....-..___.......__......... 291,900

28,635 27,280 ......

0 2,000 ...........

15,000 15,000 ..

18,000 18,000-------

33,000 35, 000 ...

262,828 282,998 .............

23, 126 21,800 ...........

239,702 261,198

68

FISCAL YEAR 1974 APPROPRIATION REQUEST-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF

DEFENSE, DEFENSE AGENCIES

[In thousands of dollars]

DOD House Senate Conference

Activity request action action report

Inside United States:

National Security Agency......................... 8,156 4,627 8,156 .. ..........

Defense Nuclear Agency ........................ 574 574 574

Defense Supply Agency------0--,-370. 8,370 8,370 8,370 .........

Total, inside United States-........ ........... 17, 100 13, 571 17,100 .............

:Support programs:

OSD Emergency Construction..................... 30, 000 30,000 30,000 ............

Planning .----------------------------------- 1,000 1,000 1,000 .......... .

Minor Construction-----.--.---..-.---------- 1, 000 1, 000 1,000 ............

Total, general support programs_. ---....-.--- - 32,000 32,000 32,000 ...........

Grand total, program ......_ 49,100 45,571 49,100 ...........

iUnobligated balance available to finance fisca year 1974

program------------------------------------................................. 30,000 45,571 37,100 ............

Budget authority........--................... 19, 100 0 12, 000 ..............

69

FISCAL YEAR 1974 APPROPRIATION REQUEST-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

IIn thousands of dollars

DOD House Senate Conference

State/Service request action action report

INSIDE UNITED STATES

Alabama:

Army:

Anniston Army Depot ..-------------------- 3,745 3,745 3,745-----------

Fort McClellan-.............. 19, 505 18, 947 14, 063 ..........

Redstone Arsenal.........------------ - 4, 971 4,971 4, 971 ...

Fort Rucker..-...__...........-... ......... 3,987 3,987 3,987 _........

Subtotal .. .... ------------------------ 32, 208 31, 650 26, 766 ...

Air Force: Maxwell AFB, Montgomery----...-----.... ----.... 5,462 0 0 ..........

Total .............-----------------------............------------.......... 37,670 31, 650 26, 766 ---_.....

Alaska:

ArmFort Greely-----...... -------------------- 3,489 3,060 3, 060 .........

Fort Richardson- ...........-....-... --. 2,140 2,140 2,140 ...........

Fort Wainwright ....-...................... 2,715 2,715 2,715

Subtotal......................---- --------- 8, 344 7, 915 7,915 ..

Navy: Naval Complex, Adak....... ..--------- 8,773 4, 615 4,615 ...

Air Force:

Cape Newenham AFS___..---........-...... . 5, 403 5,403 5,403...

Eielson AFB, Fairbanks __ ........... ... - 1,557 1,557 1,557...

Indian Mountain, AFS__.-.... ---.--... .____ 397 397 397 ..-------.....

Shemya AFB, Chichagof _....__---.......... 956 956 956 .........

Sparrevohn AFS-....................... 345 345 345 ...

Subtotal ..--...-....--------------------- 8, 658 8, 658 8,658 ...

Total.......................-- ----------. 25,775 21,188 21,188 ...

Arizona:

Army:

Fort Huachuca_ ..__...._---....---..... 6,832 6,832 6,832 .........

Yuma Proving Ground _..__.. ....------- - 6, 472 6, 472 6, 472 ...

Subtotal .........-----......--------------- 13, 304 13, 304 13, 304 - - -...-... -

Navy: Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma.....__. 1,634 635 1,634 ----

Air Force:

Davis-Monthan AFB, Tucson..............._ 232 232 232 .........

Luke AFB, Phoenix____..-------........... 2,986 2,986 2,983 ...

Williams AFB, Maricopa......_... 797 347 347 ..

Subtotal......................----- ------- 4,015 3,565 3,565 ...

Total..------.....---......................-----------------------.. 18, 953 17,504 18,503 ..

Arkansas:

Army: Pine Bluff Arsenal.-....-................. 294 294 294 .... ....

Air Force:

Blytheville AFB, Blytheville-...........-____ 140 0 0-----------

Little Rock AFB, Little Rock..-..-...._-_ -_ 1,165 1,165 1,165 ..

Subtotal ...--............--------...--- --1,305 1,165 1,165 ...........

Total-----.....--..---------..................----------------- 1,599 1,459 1,459 ..- - --

California:

Army:

Fort McArthur.----------------------------- 428 0 0 ------

Fort Ord-...... 9,812 9,812 9,812 -....-

Hunter-Liggett Military Reservation...----------- 7,776 7,776 7,776 -

Presidio of San Francisco-...._-.._ . .-----_ 5, 751 3,074 3,074 ..... -- --- ..

Oakland Army Terminal-- .-.... ------.... 485 343 343

Sacramento Army Depot---------.. --------__ 412 412 412 .

Sierra Army Depot ....................... . 380 380 380 -

Subtotal ........................------- 25,044 21, 797 21,797 -- -

70

FISCAL YEAR 1974 APPROPRIATION REQUEST-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION-Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

DOD House Senate Conference

State/Service request action action report

INSIDE UNITED STATES-Continued

California-Continued

Navy:

Naval Weapons Center, China Lake- -- --..... 3,163 3,163 3,163 ............

Naval Hospital, Long Beach_.... 878 878 878 _...

Naval Shipyard, Long Beach-............... - 6, 808 6, 808 6,808 ..........

Naval Air Station, Miramar......... .. 1, 873 1,454 1,454 ..............

Naval Air Station, North Island 4,055 4,055 4,055

Fleet Combat Direction Systems Training

Center, Pacific, San Diego 1,118 1,118 1,118 ..............

Naval Electronics Laboratory Center, San

Dieo ...-------------------------------- 3,518 3,518 3,518 ..............

Naval Station, San Diego...._................ 11,996 11,996 11,996 ............

Naval Training Center, San Diego..-......... 2,944 2,944 2,944 ..............

Navy Public Works Center, San Diego ... 2,471 2,471 2,471 .............

Navy Submarine Support Facility, San Diego.... 3, 920 3, 920 3,920 ............

Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach.. ----------- 1,528 807 807 ..........

Marine Corps Supply Center, Barstow ......-- . 3,802 3, 802 3, 802 .............

Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton---..... - 10, 920 10, 920 10,920 ..........

Marine Corps Air Station, El Toro-...---.--- - 747 747 747 ..............

Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego ....... 3,825 3,825 0...........

Marine Corps Base, Twentynine Palms ...__ 2,992 2,992 2,992

Naval Air Station, Alameda--- 5,236 3, 727 3,827 ..............

Naval Air Station, Lemoore...------...... ..- - 3,266 3, 266 3, 266

Naval Air Station, Moffett Field----.---- - 5,695 3, 150 3,150 ........

Naval Hospital, Oakland --....-......- 5, 839 5, 839 5,839..........

Naval Security Group Activity, Skaggs Island.-- 641 0 0 ............

Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo---....... 2,074 1,874 1, 874 ...........

Hunter's Point Naval Shipyard, San Francisco.. 250 0 0 .........

Subtotal----....... ..................... 89, 559 83, 374 79, 549 ..........

Air Force:

Edwards AFB, Rosamond--.... ---.......... . 889 889 889 -............

Mather, Sacremento-...--............... . 1, 993 310 310

McClellan AFB, Sacramento ....-------- - 3, 171 2, 572 2, 572

Norton AFB, San Bernardino....---------........ 1,283 1,283 1,283 -------

Travis AFB, Fairfield ..------ -------1,024 0 0.......

Vandenberg AFB, Lompoc...--------------- - 220 220 220

Subtotal ...........-------------------- 8, 580 5, 274 5, 274 ..........

OSD: DSA-Defense Depot, Tracy Annex, Stockton...--.. 747 747 747 ---

Total.....------..............--------------------------- 123, 930 111,192 107, 367 ..........

Colorado:

Army: Fort Carson..................---------------------------- 5, 651 5, 651 5,651 ............--

Air Force:

Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs------..... 645 483 483 .............

Lowry AFB, Denver- ---------------------. 21,610 20,350 20,350....... ...

Peterson Field, Colorado Springs-------------- 7, 843 7,843 7,843 -----.........

Subtotal --........ ._-------------- 30, 098 28,7 676 ..........

Total...-----......-------------------------- 35, 749 34, 327 34, 327 ..............

Connecticut:

Navy:

Naval Submarine Base, New London ...----. 6,158 6,158 6,158 ......

Naval Underwater Systems Center Laboratory,

New London--.............. ..------------------------... 3, 600 0 3, 600 ..............

Total...........------------------------------- 9, 758 6,158 9,758 ............

Delaware: Air Force: Dover AFB, Dover (total)----------........ 3, 387 2, 558 2, 558 .............

District of Columbia:

Army: Walter Reed Army Medical Center---------- 12,827 13, 535 13, 535 ............

Navy: Naval Research Laboratory............... - 5,395 4,655 4,655 -----------

Air Force: Bolling AFB ...........________ ____- 1,500 1,500 1,500 _ _ __.......

Total--------- ---------------------... 19, 722 19, 690 19, 690 --------.............

71

FISCAL YEAR 1974 APPROPRIATION REQUEST-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION-Continued

[In thousands of dollars!

DOD House Senate Conference

State/Service request action action report

INSIDE UNITED STATES-Continued

Florida:

Army: Eglin AFB, Valparaiso..---------..---...---------........... 2, 950

Navy:

Naval Air Station, Cecil Field........ ....... 3, 743

Naval Air Station, Ellyson Field.. --..------- 75

Naval Air Station, Jacksonville............ -------------11, 566

Naval Hospital, Orlando.-................. . 20, 981

Naval Training Center, Orlando............... 7, 383

Naval Coastal Systems Laboratory, Panama City_ 5, 649

Naval Air Station, Pensacola...-......... . 2, 699

Naval Communications Training Center, Pensa-

cola --------------------------------- 9,859

Naval Air Station, Whiting Field_______ 2,186

Naval Aerospace Regional Medical Center,

Pensacola.....--------------....................--------------- 1,084

Subtotal---.........------.......... ------------------- 65, 225

Air Force:

Eglin AFB, Valparaiso...----..----------------................ 7, 039

MacDill AFB, Tampa.-................... 2,657

Tyndall AFB, Springfield-.----------~.~...-- - 951

Subtotal-----...................------------------......--------....... 10, 647

Total.......---------------.................------------......... 78, 822

Georgia:

Army:

Atlanta Army Depot.........-----------. - 119

Fort Benning.... --.... ---.... -... ...... . 12,932

Fort Gordon-.....-----.-...-.--.... .... 23,780

Fort McPherson--..... ----...... --...------ 1, 804

SFort Stewart...................------------------------------- 264

Subtotal...........------------------------------ 38, 899

Navy:

Marine Corps Supply Center, Albany---.......-------. 5,204

NSCS, Athens...-----------.....-------------------.................... 0

Subtotal.....------...........------.....------------ 5,204

Air Force: Robins AFB, Warner Robins............. 4, 868

Total----..--.....................-------..... 48, 971

lawaii:

Army:

Fort Shafter-------....-----.............---------------- 1, 233

Schofield Barracks-....-...........------ ___ 9,592

Subtotal-----.......----------................------------ 10, 825

Navy:

Na aval Air Station, Barbers Point _.._______.. _ 4, 306

Naoal. Ammunition Depot, Oahu.._-......... 457

Naval Station, Pearl Harbor---....--...... . 4,060

Naval Submarine Base, Pearl Harbor_ ......... 2, 562

Navy Public Works Center, Pearl Harbor ....... 1,985

Naval Communictation Station, Honolulu, Wahi-

awa ..--.....----------------------------- 2,324

Marine Corps Air Station, Kaneohe Bay -...... 5, 988

Subtotal...------...----------...................-----------. 21,682

Air Force: Hickam AFB, Honolulu...-......------ 7,331

Total---..--..............-----------........------------------- 39, 838

Jdahe: Air Force: Mountain Home AFB, Mountain Home

(total) --------------------------------------- 253

2,950

3,636

75

13, 966

0

4, 628

5,649

2,699

10,690

3,586

1,084

46, 013

7,039

2,657

1,020

10, 716

59, 679

0

12,932

20, 230

0

264

33, 426

5,204

0

5, 204

4, 628

43, 258

2,950 ..............

3,636 ........

75 .........-----------

13, 966 ...

0 .....-----------.

4,628 ...

5,649 ........

2,699 ...

10,690 ..........-----------.

3,586 ...........

1, 084 ...

46,013 .........

7,039 ............

2,657 -- - - - - -

1,020 ........ .. ..

10, 716 ...... . . .

59,679 .......

0 ...-----------

12,932 ...-..... . ..

23,154 ...-----------....

0 .......-----------..

264 -....... .. .

36,350 ............

5,204-

5,204 ..........

120 ..............

5, 324 .......

4,628 -

46,302

0 1,233 ..............

9,592 9,592 ...........

9,592 10,825 -------...

4,306 4,306 ..............

457 457 ..............

2,715 4,060 ..............

2, 562 2,562 ...........

1,985 1,985 ..............

2,324 2,324 ..............

5,988 5,988 ...........

20,337 21,682 ...........

7,331 7,331

37,260 39,838 ...

253 253 ...

--

--

--

72

FISCAL YEAR 1974 APPROPRIATION REQUEST-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION-Continued

Iln thousands of dollars]

DOD House Senate Conference

State/Service request action action report

INSIDE UNITED STATES-Continued

Illinois:

Army:

Fort Sheridan...........------------------------------ 762 0 762 .............

Savanna Depot-----------------............. 2,746 0 0

Subtotal .........................------------------------------.... . 3, 508 0 762 ...

Navy: Naval Complex, Great Lakes .............. 19, 908 15, 148 15, 148 ...........

Air Force: Scott AFB, Shiloh_ _.---.. ------. 3, 092 3, 092 3, 092 ..............

OSD: DSA-Defense Contract Administration Re-

gional Office, Chicago...---... _____________ 404 404 404........-

Total .................................... 26, 912 18, 644 19,406

Indiana:

Army: Fort Benjamin Harrison .................. 3, 893 3, 893 3, 893 ......--------

Air Force: Grissom AFB, Bunker Hill.............. 3,100 1,500 0 ...

Total-----... ..------------------------------ 6, 993 5, 393 3,893 -

Kansas:

Army: Fort Riley................................ 34, 918 30,943 30, 943 -.....

Air Force: McConnell AFB, Wichita-.-.......... . 1,042 1,042 1,042 ........---------

Total. 35, 960 31,985 31,985 -.....-...-...

Kentucky:

Army:

Fort Campbell............................. 51, 881 51, 881 51, 881 .......

Fort Knox... --------------------.............. 7,305 7,305 7,305 ...----------

Total-..-...... -......................... 59, 186 59, 186 59,186 ..-------.....

Louisiana:

Army: Fort Polk -.............---------------- _ 29,276 27,299 29,276 ...

Navy:

Naval Hospital, New Orleans.......... . 3, 386 3,386 3,386 ..............

Natal Support Actitity, New Orleans.....13, 880 13, 880 13,880 ...----

Subtotal ..---.......-------------... _ --- 17, 266 17, 266 17, 266 ..----............

Air Force:

Barksdale AFB, Shreveport- .---------------- 1,743 1, 200 1,200 -----......---......

England AFB, Alexandria----..-.------------- 183 183 183 ...-...-......

Subtotal------------- ....... ----------- 1,926 1,383 1,383 .-..-........

Total ..... ..-------------------------------- 48,468 45,948 47,925 ---------.......-

Maine:

Navy:

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery-..--.----.. 2, 817 2, 817 2, 817 ........----.....

Naval Air Station, Brunswick --------------- - 135 135 135 ............------ ..

Naval Security Group Activity, Winter Harbor___ 232 0 0 ..........

Total---...........----------------------------- 3, 184 2,952 2,952 ----------....

Maryland:

Army:

Aberdeen Proving Ground...----.......... 11,934 7,472 7,472 ..........----

Fort George G. Meade---.. --............. . 7,445 5,924 5, 924 ...-----

Fort Ritchie_ .. .........._._...... .___ . 1,394 1,394 , 394 1,394 .........--------

Subtotal ...........----------------- 20, 773 14, 790 14, 790 ... ....-

Navy:

Naval Academy, Annapolis..-----------...... 4,334 4,034 4,334----------...

Naval Station, Annapolis---...-------------- - 1,080 0 0.......

National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda-...-- 3,310 0 0 .............

Naval Medical Research Institute, Bethesda---- 6, 372 6,372 6,372----------

Naval Communication Station, Cheltenham.---. 1,300 0 0 ..-......-

Naval Ordnance Station, Indian Head----...... 1,528 1,528 1,528------ -

Naval Air Test Center, Patuxent River..-..... 1,240 560 560 ------.----

Naval Ordinance Laboratory, White Oak .-..__- 448 0 0 ......--

Subtotal ............................19, 612 12, 494 12, 794 ...

Air Force: Andrews AFB, Camp Springs......------------ 16, 935 3,139 16,639 ----------

OSD: NSA-Fort George G. Meade.....----------- 8,156 4, 627 8,156 .........

Total--------......---------------..---------- 65,476 35,050 48,850 ...---------

73

FISCAL YEAR 1974 APPROPRIATION REQUEST-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION-Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

DOD HoIFs Cenat ConferencA

State/Service

INSIDE UNITED STATES-Continued

Massachusls:

Army:-

Army Metals and Mechanical Research Center._

- Firt)evens---- .........

Natick Laboratories._....... __

Subtotal -----------------..... ......

Air Force: Laurence G. Hanscom Field....

Tatal...... - -

Michigan: '

Air Force:

Kinche)oe AFB, Kinross ..... ..

Wurtsmith AFB, Oscoda.... ...... .___._.

Subtotal. -..----...-.-.--. --.-.

OSD: DSA--Defense Logistic Services Center,

Battle Creek - .. ._ ___. -- -- -- -- -- -- -

Total ......................-.-......

request action action report

325 0 0

2,749 2,749 2,749 -

466 466 466 -

3,540 3,215 3,215 ..........

480 0 0

4,020 3,215 3,215 .

2,430 2,430 2,430 ..

616 616 616

3,046 3,046 3,046 -- --

160 160 160

3, 206 3,206

Mississippi:

Navy:

Naval Air Station, Meridian ...........

Naval Home, Gulfport....................

Subtotal ......_..... ... . . . . _.

Air Force: Keesler AFB, Biloxi............. .......

Total........ - - - - - - - - -

'Missouri:

Army: Fort Leonard Wood......................

Air Force:

Richards-Gebaur AFB, Grandview _ ...

Whiteman AFB, Knob Noster___.._.. ...

Subtotal ......................... ....

Total_......_..._........ .........

Montana: Air Force: Malmstrom AFB, Great Falls (total).

"Nebraska:

Air Force: Offutt, AFB, Omaha -....-----------

T otal _--- --- -- --- -- --- --- -- --- --

Nevada:

Air Force: Nellis AFB, Las Vegas___ ..........

DSD: DNA-Atomic Energy Commission Test Site -..

Total ............... .. ..... .....-- - .

New Hampshire:

Army: Cold Regions Laboratories _...__...

Air Force: Pease AFB, Portsmouth _._._ ...

Totat..................................

5, 125 5, 125

9,444 9,444

14,569 14,569

8, 786 9,986

23,355 24,555

44,482 44,482

3,963 3,963

3,892 3, 892

7,855 7,855

52,337 52,337

1, 507 1,507

5,125

9, 444

14,569 ........

9,986 .. . . . --

24, 555 .......

44, 482 ..... ... .. .

3,963 ... - - -

3,892

7,855 -. ........

52,337 -......-

1,720 -

617 617 617 ...

617 617 617 --

2,588 655 2,588 .... .........

200 200 200 ..

2,788 855 2,788 ..

597 0 597 ..

526 526 526

1,123 526 1,123 ..............

New Jersey:

Army:

Fort Dix----------------------------------.....339 0 0-..--.....

Fort Monmouth ....................------ 12, 286 8,401 8,401 ..

Bayonne Mil Ocean Terminal----____ ..-3,603 0 2,200 ............

Picatinny Arsenal-...--------...~...-.. ____ 2,915 255 255---

Subtotal ---...-....... ..----------- -.... 19, 143 8,656 10, 856----

Navy: Military Ocearl Terminal, Bayonne .__....._ 1, 806 0 1,806 -------...

Air Force: McGuire AFB, Wrightstown_- _........ 1,860 1, 698 1,698 ...........

Total..----------------------------------- 22,809 10,354 14,360 ..-----------...

74

FISCAL YEAR 1974 APPROPRIATION REQUEST-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION-Continued

IIn thousands of dollars]

DOD House Senate Conference

State/Service request action action report

INSIDE UNITED STATES--Continued

New Mexico:

Army: White Sands Missile Range..----------.......----... 4, 771 3,843 3,843 ...........

Air Force:

Cannon AFB, Clovis.........------------------------- 162 162 162 --...........

Hoiloman AFB, Alamogordo------------------ 2,432 1, 524 1,524----------........

Subtotal----... ....--------------------------- 2,594 1,686 1,686 .........

OSD: DNA--Kirtland AFB..--------..........------........---------- 374 374 374 .....

Total....---.....------------------------------- 7,739 5,903 5,903 ..........

New York:

Army:

Camp Drum------------------------------ 1,099 1,099 1,099 ............

U.S. Military Academy........---------------------- 30,145 5,145 25, 145.........

Subtotal---------..........---....-------..........-------------- 31,244 6, 244 26,244 .........

Navy: Naval Support Activity, New York ....... . -------- 1,131 0 0 .........

Air Force: Plattsburgh AFB, Plattsburgh......-----------. 286 286 286 ..........

Total.....................--------------------------------- 32, 661 6,530 26,530 ..........--------

North Carolina:

Army:

SArmunny Point Military Ocean Terminal......... 1,628 1,628 1,628 ..........----

Fort Bragg..................------------------------------ 33,471 32,400 32,400 .......----------...

Subtotal--------.......--------..............------------ 35, 099 34, 028 34,028 -------..... --

NavYMarine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune ........... 8,902 8,902 8,902 ...........--------

Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point----..... 1,821 1,821 1,821 ..............

Marine Corps Air Station, New River-------........ 3,245 3, 245 3,245 .............-

Subtotal ................................ 13,968 13,968 13,968 ----.....-----

Total..............-------- --------------------- 49,067 47,996 47,996 ......------

Ohio:

Air Force: Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton----.......------. 19,551 11,390 13,277 ....--------.....--....

OSD: DSA-Defense Construction Supply Center,

Columbus-----...------...--......--------------------..................... 1,188 1,188 1,188 .......-------

Total..----...............----------------.....---------------................ 20,739 12,578 14,465 ..-----....-----

Oklahoma:

Army: Fort Sill................................. 9,447 9,447 9,447 ........--------

Navy: Naval Ammunition Depot, McAlester ........ 2,442 2,442 2,442 .----------

Air Force:

Altuos AFB, Altus --------------------........................... ---1,770 1,078 1,078 ----------

Tinker AFB, Oklahoma City.................. 15, 275 11,396 11, 153 ----------

Vance AFB, Enid............................ 371 371 371 ....-- -----

Subtotal-------.. --------........................-------------.... 17, 416 12, 845 12,602 ....----------

Total----..--..---..........................----------------------.. 27, 305 24, 734 24, 491 --...-------

Pennsylvania:

Army:

Tobyhanna Army Depot...................... 0 0 456 .....--------

Carlisle Barracks------------............... . 2,465 0 0 .........--------

Frankford Arsenal.._ 73 0 0 .....---------

Indiantown Gap Military Reservation.......... -1,657 1,657 1,657 .......-------

Subtotal.................................----------------------------- 4, 195 1,657 2,113 ......----

Navy:

Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Philadelphia...... 915 180 180 ...----------

Naval Air Development Center, Warminster.... 215 0 0 ..-------

Subtotal........-------....................---------------------.. 1,130 180 180 ..-..--------..............................

OSD:

DSA-Defense Depot, Mechanicsburg----. --.-- 2, 048 2,048 2,048 ...------.----..........

Defense Personnel Support Center, Philadelphia. 560 560 560 .....----------.........

Subtotal......... ...... ................... 2 608 2, 608 2, 608 .... . .... .

Sabtotal------------------------------- 2,608 2,608 2,608 --------------

Total................--------------------------------- 7,933 4,445 4,901 .... . ..---- .

==============================

75

FISCAL YEAR 1974 APPROPRIATION REQUEST-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION--Continued

[In thousands of dollars

DOD House Senate Conference

State/Service request action action report

INSIDE UNITED STATES--Continued

South Carolina:

Army: Fort Jackson............................. 2, 902 2, 902

2,902 ..............

Navy:

Charleston Naval Shipyard, Charleston........ 252 252

Naval Station, Charleston ................... 1, 498 177

Marine Corps Air Station, Beaufort .......---.. 126 126

Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island..... 2,580 2, 580

Subtotal................................ 4, 456 3,135

Air Force: Shaw AFB, Sumter--.....-...-.-.. - - 2, 501 2, 501

Total........-................. ............. 9, 859 8, 538

South Dakota: Air Force: Ellsworth AFB, Rapid City

(total)..........------.............................. --------------------------------514

Tennessee:

Army: Defense Depot, Memphis.... . _........ 456

Navy: Naval Air Station, Memphis---.. -... ... - -4,478

OSD: DSA-Defense Depot, Memphis............. 360

Total---------------.....................-------------------- 5, 294

252 ..............

1,498 ..............

126 ......-----

2,580 ............

4,456 ..............

2,501 ....... -

9, 859 ---...--------......

514 514

0 0 ......-----------..

4,478 4,478 ..........

360 360 ..........

4,838 4,838 ---...-----...

Texas:

Army:

Aeronautical Maintenance Center..-....... . 6, 284 6, 284 6,284 ..............

Fort Bliss....___-.._______.__.... ___ .... .. 6, 087 6, 087 6,087 ----------....

Fort Hood-.----..... --...-...-......... . 15,094 9,824 9,824 ----..........

Fort Sam Houston.-..-..... --. ---. 11,738 11,738 11,738 ....----------

Subtotal ...----------....... ......--.. 39, 203 33,933 33,933 ........ .

Navy:

Naval Air Station, Chase Field_.............-. 2,875 2,875 2, 875 ------...

Naval Air Station, Kingsville.............. 3, 040 3,040 3,040 ----------........ ---

Subtotal ........... ----------------------5, 915 5, 915 5, 915 ----------....

Air Force:

Bergstrom AFB, Austin.._.-.--.-.-......_ 2, 273 0 2,273 .-............

Dyess AFB, Abilene .-------.--.-......____ 730 730 730 ...........

Goodfellow AFB..------------..........------------------------- 6,115 6,115 ...........

Kelly AFB, San Antonio .._... _ 6, 101 6, 101 6, 101

Lackland AFB, San Antonio.......-.......... 6,509 6,509 6,509 .............

Laughlin AFB, Del Rio ___............... . 4, 635 4, 635 4,635 .....---------

Randolph AFB, San Antonio _...._..._.._... 1,463 1,463 1,463...........

Reese AFB, Lubbock---- _ -..-_--._.... ._ 4, 211 4, 211 4,211 --------..

Sheppard AFB, Wichita Falls- --............. . 2,753 2,753 2,753 ------...

Webb AFB, Big Spring---...-.-........____ 3,154 3,514 3,154 ------...

Subtotal ............................... 31,829 35, 671 37, 944 ---------

Total.......................----------- - 76, 947 75, 519 77,792-----------

Utah:

Air Force: Hill AFB, Ogden..-..... ---.-.....__ 11,968 8,343 8,343 -------...

OSD: DSA-Defense Depot, Ogden--..._-..._. ._ 250 250 250 -------...

Total ..........----------------------------------. . 12,218 8, 593 8, 593 -

Virginia:

"Army:

Camp A. P. Hill----.. ------------......-----......... 535 535 535 .........

Camp Pickett----.. -----................. ---476 476 476 ----........-----

Fort Eustis ................------------------------------. 4,782 4,782 4,782 .....-----------.....

Fort Belvoir .........................----------------------------- 14, 403 897 897 -----------

Fort Lee--.. ----...... --.-.--.... . .22,769 18,326 18, 326 ...-----------..

Fort Monroe...........------------------------------- 867 0 0 ..--........

Vinthill Farms...........------------------------------. 287 0 0 .-........

Subtotal------------------------------.. 44,119 25, 016 25,016 ....-----.

76

FISCAL YEAR 1974 APPROPRIATION REQUEST-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION-Contioued

jln thousands of dollars]

DOD "'House " Sebate- -Cdnferenci

State/Service request action action repor

. .. INSIDE UNITED STATES-Continued

'Virginia-Continued

Navy:

Naval Weapons Laboratory, Dahlgren..........

S'Fleet Combat.Direction Systems Training-Cen-

ter, Atlantic, Dam Neck. _ __ ......

Naval Amphibious Base, Little Creek..... ...

Naval Air Station, Norfolk ... ..... .

Naval Station, Norfolk.......................

Navy Public Works Center, Norfolk............

'Nuclear Weapons Training Group, Atlantic, Nor-

folk

Naval Air Station, Oceana........ .......

Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth....

Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown .... .... .

Naval Hospital, Quantico.......... .........

.Marine Corps Air Station, Quantico............

Marine Corps Development and Education

Command, Quantico .......... ... .

Fleet Marine Force Atlantic, Norfolk..........

Subtotal ................................

Air Force: Langley AFB, Hampton....

OSD: DSA-Defense General Supply Center,

Richmond --- ...........

Total ..... . ... _ ._...._.. .._._......

Washington:

Arm y: Fort Lewis .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Navy: Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton....

Total...................... _ ....

Wyoming: Air Force: Francis E. Warren AFB, Cheyenne

(total)..... ... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... ... .

Various locations:

Army:

Air pollution abatement- .

Water pollution abatement...................

Subtotal.................. ......

249 249

6, 531 6,531

3,350 3,211

2;,525 , 2,525

18,493 18,183

567 567

2,470 0

3,962 3, 386

11,133 11,133

1,327 1,327

484 484

831 -831

1,541 1,541

686 686

249 ...,,....:

6,531 ..........

3,211 : =::::::::::

- 2,525 .......

21,583 ............

567 ..........

0, -----------

3,386

11,133 .

1,327 ......... .

484 ...

831"=__........ .

1,541 ............

686 -........

54,149 50,654 54,054 ...

503 503 503 ........ .....

2,653 2,653

2,653 ..........

101,424 78,826 82, 226 ..... ....--------

8,327 8,327 8,327 ..........

2,300 2,300 2,300 ... ........

10,627 10,627 10,627 ... .----------

5, 834 5,834 5,834 ------........

7,295 6,900

7,099 7,099

14,394 13,999

7, 295 ...........---------...

7,099.----------....

14,394 ........-...

Navy:

TRIDENT facilities .... ---------------- - 118, 320

Air pollution abatement------------------ - 27, 636

Water pollution abatement-----.......... __ 60,680

Subtotal.............----------------------------- 206,636

Air Force:

Air Installation Compatible Use Zones...... 2,000

Air pollution abatement------------------ - 3,689

Water pollution abatement...------.----.--- - 5,381

Satellite control facilities...----.......... 654

Strategic Air Command-various--------------. 1, 321

SRAM-- --------------------------------- 988

Subtotal--------- ------------------- 14, 033

Total ..........-------------------------------.. 235, 063

Total inside United States (excluding classified projects):

Army---------------------------------- --..... 563,819

Navy ---..................--------------------------------- 0, 100

Air Force ---------------------------------- 246, 493

OSD .......------------------------------------- 17 100

112, 320

27, 636

51, 112

191,068

0

3,689

5,381

192

1, 000

988

11,250

216, 317

471, 974

507,560

201,193

112,320 ..............

27 636 .............

51,112 ..............

191,068 -.....------..

0 ----------..............

3,689 ------..........----

5,381 ----....----.........

654 ----------..........

1,000 ..---------....----

988 .............----------

11,712 -...-......---

217, 174 -.-........---

497, 634 ............------

516,626 ---------

219,718----------

17 Inn

, ., - ............--

Total.........---------------------------------_..... 1,407,592 1,194,298 1,251,078 ..............

OUTSIDE UNITED STATES

Australia: Navy: Naval Communication Station, Harold

E. Holt, Exmouth (total)---...------------------- 1,912 1,192 1,192 ...

Bermuda: Navy: Naval Air Station, Bermuda (total)--... 3,010 3,010 3,010 ...

--

--

77

FISCAL YEAR 1974 APPROPRIATION REQUEST-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION-Continued

[In thousands of dollars

DOD House Senate Conference

State/Service request action action report

OUTSIDE UNITED STATES-Continued

Canal Zone:

Army: Panama Area --........ --..-.. --.---.... . 8,095

Air Force: Howard AFB-.......--...........-.. 1,038

Total---------.................-----------------......---------........... 9,133

Cuba: Navy: Naval Complex, Guantanamo Bay (total). - 8,376

Germany:

Army: Various locations..____.................. 12, 517

Air Force:

Bitburg AB, Bitburg ..-.......-...-......... 3,936

Ramstein AB, Landstuhl .._..i __-. .._._.. 465

Sembach AB, Sembach ----..-..-..... . .... 1,245

Various locations-..--.- --.-..-...-.--....--- 0

Subtotal ...........................-.... 5,646

Total ...................--------------------------------. 18, 163

Greece:

Navy:

Naval Support Office, Athens ....... .....

Naval Detachment, Souda Bay, Crete..........

Subtotal ..... .... .. ...............

Air Force: Iraklion AS .--.....----------------

Total . --... -............ .... .. .. .. .... .

Guam MI: Navy: Naval Complex, Guam (total) ........

Iceland:

Navy: Naval Station, Keflavik.................

Air Force: Naval Station, Keflavik.................

Total............ ..................... .. ..

Italy: Navy: Naval Air Facility, Sigonella (total) ......

Japan: Air Force: Misawa AB (total).......-------------...

Korea:

Army: Various locations ..-_________......____

Air Force:

Osan AB, Song Tan___.... ..... ..... ..

Kunsan AB ..------------------------

Various locations.....__._..__-__-_.. _...

Subtotal...............------------------------

Total-----.........---...--..--------------...................

Kwajalein Island:

Army: National Missile Range (total) ..........

Philippines:

Navy: Naval Complex, Subic Bay ___..............

Air Force: Clark AB, Angeles.....-...........

Total........................ ...........

8,095 8,095 .......

927 927 ..

9,022 9,022 .

8,376 8,376 ..............

13,124 13,124 ...

3,936 3,936 ..............

0 0 ...

1,245 1,245 .......

7,333 7,333 .

12,514 12,514 ...

25,638 25,638 ..---.

0 1,948 1,948 ........

4,153 4,153 4,153 . ..

4,153 6,101 6,101 ...

221 221 221 .......

4,374 6,322 6,322 ...

10,988 9,508 10,988 ...

6, 092

1, 355

7,447

3,086

417

6,092

1,355

7, 447 .....

3, 086

417

0 ...----------

0 ...........

0 -... - - -

3,086 ---------

417

1,568 1,568 1,568 ..

4,162 4,162 4,162

1,838 0 0 .

944 944 944 ---------

6,944 5,106 5,106

8,512 6,674 6,674

2,353 1,029 1,029

2,723 278 278 .........

4,427 2,427 2,427 ...

7,150 2,705 2,705 ...........

Puerto Rico:

Army: Fort Buchanan .....-...........__........ 517 517 517 ..............

Navy:

Culebra, P.R------------------- ........................------------ 0 0 12, 000

Naval Complex, Puerto Rico ..--..-......... 1,707 1,707 1,707

S u b to ta l. .- . .-... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 1 , 7 0 7 1 , 7 0 7 1 3 , 7 0 7

Total................----------------------.... -----------............ 2, 224 2, 224 14, 224 .

Scotland: Navy: Naval Security Group Activity, Edzell

(total).._... ..............----- ....

Spain: Navy: Naval Station, Rota (total)_ -----------..

Turkey: Air Force: Incirlik AS, Incirlik (total)-.----

868 778 778 .......

85 85 85 ...... .... .

800 800 800 .........

-

78

FISCAL YEAR 1974 APPROPRIATION REQUEST-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION-Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

DOD House Senate Conference

State/Service request action action report

OUTSIDE UNITED STATES-Continued

,United Kingdom:

Air Force:

RAF, Mildenhall ..............----------------------------. 768 768 768 ..;.....--

RAF, Upper Heyford .....------------------------ 8,711 3,020 3,020 ...........

Total.................................... 9, 479 3, 788 3,788 .............

West Indies: Navy: Naval Facility, Grand Turk (total)... 1,145 1,145 1,145 .............

Various locations:

Army:

USAREUR, infrastructure ................4.. 4 85, 300 95, 650 75, 650 ..............

Army Security Agency--..................... 1,434 6, 454 1,434 ..............

Stratcom......--------------------------------...................... 2,097 2,334 2,334 ..............

Subtotal-----------------------------................... 88,831 299, 418 79, 418 ........_.

Navy: Water pollution abatement------.. -------...........---... 3, 995 3, 995 3, 995 ..............

Air Force:

Water pollution abatement...............-------------------.... 750 750 750 .............

Technical control facilities-----------------......... . 330 330 330 .............

Subtotal............------------------------------ 1,080 1,080 1,080 .............

Total.......................------------------------------- 193, 906 2 104, 493 84, 493 ..............

Total outside United States (excluding classified

projects):

Army....-------...........--------------------------- 1113,881 123,751 103,751 ..............

Navy---- -------------------------------- 47,420 45,353 52,741 ..............

Air Force----..... ......_._.________. _ _ 31, 437 28, 635 27,280 .............

Total......----------------..---------------- 1192,708 a 197,739 183,772 ..............

Classified (inside United States): (Total)

Army: Various---- 3,000 3,000 3, 000

Air Force: Classified locations-Radar support

facilities---------------------------- --- 1,000 0 1,000 ..............

Total..---.....__------------------------------- 4,000 3,000 4,000 ........... .--

Planning:

Army------------------------------------...... 39,000 39,000 39,000 ..............

Navy:

Trident----------.. ....---------------------- 10,800 10,800 10,800 ----............

Other-----.......................------------------------ 43, 000 47, 000 47, 000 .....----.......

SuAir btotal- -------------------- - 53, 80 0 57,800 57,800 ......----..--

Air Force--------------------------............. 18,000 18,000 18,000 ----.------

OSD--- ------------------------------------- 1,000 1,000 1000..........

Total..----------------------------------.... 111,800 115, 800 115,800 .........

'Minor construction:

Army---- ----- -------------------.... 12, 500 15,000 15, 000 -----....-----

15,000 15, 000 15, 000 --..-.......

ar--Force--------------------------------- 15,000 15,000 15,000 -----------

SD ------- -------------------------- 1, 000 1,000 1,000 ... .

Total----------------------------------- 43, 500 46,800 46,000 ..........

Access roads:

Army...------------- ------------ 0 0 2,000----------

Air Force----- ----------------------------- 1,000 1,000 2,000 ............

. . ..0 0 2,000 .. .. ...

Total ct0-------- (o-------------- ----- 1,000 1, 000 6,000 ..........

Emergency construction: OSD (total) ___ 30, 000 30, 000 30, 000 --...---......

0 Reflect budget amendment of Sept. 21, 1973 for NATO infrastructure, increasing total obligational authority by $25,300,-

600 and budget authority by $4,300,800.

SReflects $35,650,000 unobligated safeguard fund approved in HAC report for transfer to NATO infrastructure.

FISCAL YEAR 1974 APPROPRIATION REQUEST-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AIR POLLUTION

ABATEMENT PROGRAM

(In thousands of dollars]

State/service and installation

DOD House Senate Conference

request action action report

INSIDE UNITED STATES

Alabama: Air Force: Maxwell AFB, Montgomery, total... 115 115 115 ........

Alaska:

Army: Fort Wainwright......-.......____. _ - 3,227 3,227 3,227

Air Force: Eielson AFB.......... ........ _"_ -_ 2,600 2,600 2,600 -.----_'"

Total......--------------...... ---........ ----------------- 5,827 5,827 5, 827 ......

California: Navy:

Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Long Beach.---...... 4,152 4,152

Naval Air Station, North Island................ - 227 227

Navy Public Works, Center, San Diego............. 684 684

Naval Supply Center 'Oakland ....... - ----- 300 300

Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo. ~~.------.. ... 6,121 6,121

Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton..----.....-- . 365 365

Marine Corps Air Station, El Toro.--------------.. 1,698 1,698

Marine Corps Air Station, Santa Ana.........--- -.. 344 344

Total------- .........----------------------------........... 13, 891 13, 891

4,152 ............

227 ..-....-.....

684 - - - - - -

300 .........

6,121 .........

365 ........

1,698

344 ----------.......

13,891 ......

Colorado: Army: Pueblo Army Depot, total- ....

Plorida: Air Force: Lynn Haven Retail Distribution

Station, Lynn Haven, total - -.............. ........

Hawaii:

Navy: Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, Pearl Harbor....

Air Force: Hickam AFB, Honolulu ...............

Total........................----------------

Louisiana:Army Fort Polk, total..................

Nevada: Air Force: Nellis AFB, Las Vegas, total.......

New Jersey: Navy: Naval Ammunition Depot, Earle,

total....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

forth Dakota: Air Force: MinotAFB, Minot, total-.......

Pennsylvania: Navy: Naval Shipyard, Philadelphia, total..

South Carolina: Navy: Charleston Naval Shipyard,

Charleston, total ...

Tennessee: Army: Holston AAP, total...........

Texas: Army: Longhorn AAP, total-------..-........

Virginia:

Navy:

Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth ..........

Marine Corps Development Education Com-

mand, Quantico..... ... ............

Subtotal ----..........................

Army: Radford AAP_................................

395 0

532 532

395

532 .

1,302 1,302 1,302

225 225 225 --------------

1,527 1,527 1,527 ..... .. .. ..

350 350 350 ...........

98 98 98

170 170 170 ...........

119 119 119 ...... .

1,539 1,539 1,539 ..........

351 351 351 .............

730 730 730 ..............

800 800 800

4,371 4,371

730 730

3,621 ...........

750 .... .... ....

4,371 ............

730 ............

Total.... ...................__ .._._ ._

Washington: Navy: Puget Sound Naval ,Shipyard,

Bremertdn, total -

Various locations: Army: Various, total------------....

Total inside United States:

A rm y..... ...............................

Navy......

Air Force...-

5,101 5,101 5,101

6, 012 6,012 6,012 -----------

1,063 1,063 1,063 _

7,295 6,900 7,295

27, 636 27, 636 27, 636 ..............

3,689 3,689 3,689 .

. 38,620 38,225 38,620 _.

Total_ __

80

FISCAL YEAR 1974 APPROPRIATION- REQUEST--MLITARY CONSTRUCTqIrQ WATsER. QL4 IT Oj4A -

ABATEMENT IO.GRA , -

[In thousands of dollars., - " .

- DOD House Senate Conference

State/service and installation request action IacliP . report

INSIDE UNITED STATES-Continued

Alaska: Army: Fort Richardson, total__

Alabama: Army: Anniston Army Depot, total .... - .

Arkansas: Air Force: Blytheville AFB, Blytheville, total -

California:

Navy:

Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Long Beach...._.

Naval Supply Center, San Diego.__. __....

Naval Station, San Diego -___ __

Naval Air Station, Alameda __. _ .. . . .

Naval Supply Center, Oakland____

Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo ..-.......

Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton .....__

Subtotal- - - - - - - - .- - .- .. .

Air Force: Beale A'FB, Marysville...... .

Total........... .......... ............. ..

Connecticut: Navy: Naval Submarine Base, New London,

-total -... .

District of Columbia: Navy: Commandant, Naval Dis-

trict, Washington, total._..

Florida:

Navy:

Naval Fuel Depot, Jacksonville .. __..

Navy Public Works Center, Pensacola........

Subtotal........ .. .....-- --- -- - --._

Air Force: Eglin AFB, Valparaiso ....__-.. ....

Total......-------........... .............

Georgia:

Army: Military Ocean Terminal, Kings Bay.........

Navy: Marine Corps Supply Center, Albany . - . .

Air Force: Robins AFB, Warner Robins............

Total............ - . .......

Hawaii:

Navy:

Naval Air Station, Barbers Point--- ......

Naval Ammunition Depot, Oahy ..._...

Naval Station, Peral Harbor- ....... ..

Navy Public Works Center, Pearl Harbor. . ..

Subtotal

Air Force: Wheeler AFB, Oahu_.a ..a.............

Total......... ........

Indiana: Navy: Naval Ammunition Depot, Crane, total...

Kansas: Army: Fort Leavenworth, total-............

Louisiana: Army: Fort Polk, total__ _... __._._.___.

Maine: Air Force: Charleston AFS, Charleston, total -.--.

Maryland: Air Force: Andrews AFB, Camp Springs,

total...

Michigan: Air Force: K. I. Sawyer AFB, Marquette, total-.

Mississippi: Navy: Naval Air Station, Meridian, total--...--

Nebraska: Air Force: Offutt AFB, Omaha, total --......

Nevada: Navy: Naval Ammunition Depot, Hawthorne,

total -

New Hampshire: Air Force: Pease AFB, Portsmouth,

total.

North Carolina: Navy: Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry

Point, total - ..... .

Rhode Island: Navy: Navy Public Works Center, New-

port, total----------------------------------------

300 300

2; 229 2,229

276 276

3, 242 3,242

113 "113

5,945 5,945

527 527

578 578

3,700 0

542 542

-14,647 10,947

- 1, 978 1, 978

16,625 12,925

1,524 1,524

444 444

30E0 ___. ~----. -

2,229 ...

276 --- - --

3,242 ..............

5,945 ----------........

527 .

578 ......

0 ...-------- __--

542 ..........

-10, 947 ..........

1,978 ----------

12, 925 --... ..

1,524 ...

444 ..

4,095 4,095 4,095 .------.......

228 228 228 ..............

4,323 4,323 4, 23 -----..-...---

859 859 859 .......

5,182 5,182 5,182 ...---------..

175 175 175 .....

449 449 449 .

364 364 364 ........--

998 988 988 .....----------...

6,368 500 500 _......--

351 351 351 ...--.....---

6,389 6,389 6,389 -...---------

453 453 453 ........

13,561

280

13,841

972

178

717

136

304

229

276

82

4, 955

197

1,198

425

7,693

280

7,973

7,693 .... -......---

280----------

7,973 ----------

972----------

972 .. ... . .

178 -----------

717 .......--------

136 ----------

304 ........----------

229 ._-.-.......

276 ..----------.......

82 ---------.....

4, 955 ----------

197 ---..----------

1,198 .......--------

425 .....---------

-u

--

_

------

81

FISCAL YEAR 1974 APPROPRIATION REQUEST-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION WATER POLLUTION

ABATEMENT PROGRAM-Continued

IIn thousands of dollars

DOD House Senate Conference

State/service and installation

INSIDE UNITED STATES-Continued

:South Carolina:

Navy:

Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island .....-

Naval Supply Center, Charleston __......_

Subtotal_ ......- .- . .... ... ... ... . .-

Air Force: Myrtle Beach AFB, Myrtle Beach-......

Total... ..... ....-----------------------------

"Tennessee:-Navy: Naval Air Station, Memphis, total .-..

Texas: Air Force: Kelly AFB, San Antonio, total. ....

'Virginia: Navy:

Naval Weapons-Laboratory, Dahlgren ..-. -_ .....

Fleet Combat Direction System Training Center,

Atlantic, Dam Neck _.......

Naval Amphibious Base, Little Creek .........--

Naval Air Station, Norfolk ..........

Naval Communication Station, Norfolk ............

Naval Station, Norfolk _...._..._......__----....

Naval Supply Center, Norfolk .....

Navy Public Works Ceneter, Norfolk ...........

Norfolk.Naval-Shipyard, Portsmouth . ...

Marine Cor ps Development and Education Command,

Quantico...................---------------------------

Total ----------..... ------..--......-------

request action action report

116 116 ...

331 331

447 447 ..

417 417 ...

864 864 ...

107 107 ---------

107 107...

66 66

221 221 ......

600 600 - -.-..... -

433 433 .

268 268 . - --

620 620 ........-..

1,977 1,977 -- --

1,777 1,777

325 325 ...

3,114 3,114 .

2,088 2,088 -

11,423 11,423

864

4Washington:

Navy:

Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton- ---

Naval Supply Center, Bremerton ....... .

Naval TorpedoStation, Keyport ..

Subtotal...---- - -........--------

Air Force:,Fairchild AFB, Spokane _..-..........

5, 291 5, 291

204 204

434 434

5,929 5,929

193 193

5,291 .

204 --

434------------

5,929

193 -.

Totat.------------... .......--------......--- - 6,122 6,122 6, 122 -

Various locations: Army: Various, total _..__......_ ... 3,500 3,500 3,500 _ - -

Totalinside'United States:

Army.......---------.......----------------------- 7,099 7,099 7,099 ------

Navy-----------...... _.... .-----. 60,680 51,112 51,112 -

Air Force----------------------------. 5, 381 5, 381 5,381

Total ....... ...--...--...------------- 73,160 63,592 63,592

OUTSIDE UNITED STATES

'Guam: Navy: Naval Complex, Guam, total__ ....-..... 3, 237 3,237 3,237 .

Philippines: Air Force: Clark AFB, total_......_... . 400 400 400 -.............

Phoenix Islands: Air Force: Canton Island, total -~.. 350 350 350 -

Puerto Rico: Navy: Naval Complex, Puerto Rico, total.-- 758 758 758 .

Total outside United States:

Navy----------- .------------------- 3,995 3,995 3,995 .........

Air Force.....-------------------------------- 750 750 750 ...

Tota-........ . . . . . . ..------------ . 4,745 4,745 4,745

--~-

--------------~-

82

Summary of the military family housing new construction approved

State, service, and installation: Number

Arkansas: of

Air Force: Blytheville Air Force Base, Blytheville------------ 100

California:

Navy:

Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton_. ----------------- 800

Marine Corps Base, Twentynine Palms----- ---------.............---- 200

Naval complex, San Diego........---------------------------- 325

Colorado:

Army: Fort Carson, Colorado Springs---------------------- 200

Florida:

Army: Eglin Air Force Base, Valparaiso-------------- ------- 25

Navy: Naval complex, Jacksonville------------------------ 400

Air Force:

Avon Park Weapons Range--------------------------- 50

Eglin Air Force Base, Valparaiso----------------------- 250

Hawaii:

Army: U.S. Army installations, Oahu--__------------------ 600

Navy: Naval complex, Oahu----------------------------- 400

Air Force: Hickam Air Force Base, Oahu------------------- 400

Kansas:

Army: Fort Riley-------------------.....------------------- 901

Kentucky:

Army: Fort Campbell_-- ____---__------------ ....... 1, 000

Louisiana:

Army: Fort Polk, Leesville-------------------------------....... 500

Navy: Naval complex, New Orleans__------------------------ 100

Maryland:

Air Force: Andrews Air Force Base, Camp Springs- 3---------- 00

Mississippi:

Navy:

Construction Battalion Center, Gulfport..---------------- 100

Naval Home, Gulfport -__________-_____________-.. 5

North Carolina:

Army: Fort Bragg/Pope Air Force Base, Fayetteville--------... 136

North Dakota:

Air Force: Grand Forks Air Force Base_________-__ ---------100

Pennsylvania:

Army: Tobyhanna Army Depot---------------------------- 86

Navy: Naval complex, South Philadelphia------------------- 350

South Carolina:

Navy: Naval complex, Charleston.................-------------------------. 270

Texas:

Army:

Fort Hood, Killeen- -____ ... . ____ ___________-_... 900

Red River Army Depot __------------------------------- 21

Air Force: Sheppard Air Force Base, Wichita Falls----------- 200

Virginia:

Army:

Fort Belvoir ________________ ..----------------------- 700

Fort Eustis...........--------------------------------------- 300

Australia:

DIA: Defense Attach6 Office, Canberra ...----.....- 5

Marianas Islands:

Navy: Naval complex, Guam ________----------------------------- 510

Air Force: Andersen Air Force Base, Guam______________--- 300

Netherlands:

DIA: Defeyse Attach4 Office, The Hague....._............. 4

Peru:

DIA: Defense Attache Office, Lima......................... 3

10, 541

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET OBLIGATIONALL) AUTHORITY FOR 1973 AND THE BUDGET

ESTIMATES FOR 1974

PERMANENT NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY--FEDERAL FUNDS

[Becomes available automatically under earlier, or "permanent" law without further, or annual action by the Congress. Thus, these amounts are not included in the accompanying

bill]

New budget Budget estimate Increase (+)

Agency and item (obligational) of new or

authority, (obligational) decrease (-)

1973 authority, 1974

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Family housing, Defense, Homeowners assistance fund, authorization to spend debt receipts (permanent, indefinite)........ --0-- $17, 443, 000 +$17, 443, 000

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET OBLIGATIONALL) AUTHORITY FOR 1973 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES

AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR 1974

[In dollars]

Senate committee bill compared with--

Budget esti- New budget

New budget mates of new (obligational) Amount

Item (obligational) (obligational) authority, recommended New budget Budget esti-

authority, authority, recommended by Senate (obligational) mates of new House

fiscal year 1973 fiscal year 1974 in the House committee authority, (obligational) allowance

Bill fiscal year 1973 authority,

fiscal year 1974

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

413, 955, 000

517, 830, 000

265, 552, 000

36, 704, 000

(90,000,000)

40, 000,000

16, 100, 000

38, 200, 000

20, 500, 000

7, 000, 000

Military construction, Army .................... .....

Military construction, Navy.......------------------------------

Military construction. Air Force.---------------------------

Military construction, Defense agencies---------------------

Transfer, not to exceed.---------------------------------

Military construction, Army National Guard .- .......

Military construction, Air National Guard ......

Military construction, Army Reserve-----------------------

Military construction, Naval Reserve-----------------------

Military construction, Air Force Reserve-.

Total military construction_....

Family housing defense----.................--....--------------

Portion applied to debt reductiori--------------------------

Subtotal, family housing....-----------------------------....

Homeowners assistance fund, Defense---------.............------------

Grand total, new budget (obligational) authority_ ........

1 Due to lack of authorization, does not include additional $4,300,000 requested in

H. Doc. 93-155.

1664, 900, 000

685, 400, 003

291, 900, 000

19, 100, 000

(20,000,000)

35, 200, 000

20, 000, 000

40, 700, 000

20, 300, 000

10, 000, 000

551, 575, 000

587, 641, 003

239, 702, 000

0

(20, 000,000)

35, 200, 000

20, 000, 000

40, 700, 000

22, 900, 000

10, 000, 000

567, 735, 000

608, 467, 000

261. 198, 000

12, 000, 000

(20,000,000)

35, 200, 000

20, 000, 000

40, 700, 000

20, 300, 000

10, 000, 000

+153, 780, 000

+90, 637, 000

-4, 354, 000

-24, 704, 000

----------------

-4, 800, 000

+3, 900, 000

+2,500,000

-200,000

+3, 000, 000

-97, 165, 000

-76, 933, 000

-30, 702, 000

-7, 100, 000

---------------

+16, 160, 000

+20, 826, 000

+21,496, 000

+12, 000, 000

------- -----= 0

................ -2, 600,000

1, 355, 841, 000 1,787,500,090 1,507,718,000 1,575, 600, 000 + 219, 759,000 -211,900,00 +67,882,000

1, 064, 046, 000 2 1, 250, 567, 000 1,194, 539, 000 1,188, 539, 000 +124,493,000 -62, 028,00 -6, 000, 000

-96, 666, 000 -100,167,000 -100,167,000 -100,167,000 -3, 501, 000 -----------------------------......................

967, 380,000 1,150,400, 000 1, 094, 372, 000 1, 088, 372, 000 +120,992,000 -62,028, 000 -6, 000,000

-------------- 8 7, 000, 000 7, 000, 000 7, C00, 000 +7, 000, 000 .

2, 323, 221, 00000 2, 670, 972, 000 +347,751, 000 -273, 928, 000

-61, 882, 000

2 Due to lack of authorization, does not include additional $31,100,000 requested in

H. Dec. 93-155.

a Includes $7,000,000 requested in H. foe. 93-155