93D CONGRES H IOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT

1st Session No. 93-638

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATION BILL, 1974

NOVEMBER 13, 1973.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. SIKES, from the Committee on Appropriations,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H.R 11459]

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in

explanation of the accompanying bill (H.R. 11459) making appropri-

ations for military construction and family housing for the Depart-

ment of Defense for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974.

SUMMARY OF THE BILL AND COMMITTEE ACTION

Budget estimates of new obligational authority considered by the

Committee are contained in the President's budget as set forth begin-

ning on pages 310 and 343 in the Appendix thereof, and in House

Document 93-155.

The estimates for new budget authority which the Committee was

able to consider total $2,944,900,000. An additional $35,400,000, which

was requested in House Document 93-155, the Committee was unable

to consider due to lack of authorization. The Committee recommends

new budget authority of $2,609,090,000, an increase of $285,869,000

above the amount provided in fiscal year 1973 and $335,810,000 below

the requests considered for fiscal year 1974. The following tabulation

lists, in summary form, appropriations for fiscal year 1973, estimates

for fiscal year 1974, and the Committee action on the fiscal year 1974

request together with appropriate comparisons.

99-0060

SUMMARY OF THE BILL AND COMMITTEE ACTION

Bill compared with-

Budget estimates New budget (ob- Budget estimates

New budget (ob- of new (oblig- ligational) au- New budget (ob- of new obliga-

ligational) au- tional) author- thority recom- ligational) au- tional) author-

thority, fiscal ity, fiscal year mended in the thority, fiscal ity, fiscal year

Agency year 1973 1974 bill year 1973 1974

Department of the Army................-.....-................ .---------. $492, 155, 000 1 $740,800,000 $627, 475, 000 +$135, 320, 000 -113, 325, 000

Department of the Na-vy..----------------------------............................ 538, 330, 000 705,700, 000 610, 541,000 +72,211, 000 -95,159,000

Department of the Air Force-----------------------------------------------------....... 288,652,000 321,900,000 269,702,000 -18,950,000 -52,198,000

Defense Agencies- . . . . . . . . . . . ..------------------------------------------------------------- 36,704,000 19,100,000 0 -36,704,000 -19,100,000

Family Housing.....................................................................967, 380, 000 1,150,400,000 1,094,372, 000 +126,992,000 -56,028,000

Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense...............................................................7, 000,000 7,000,000 +7,000,000 ..............

Total .............................. .........------------------------------------- 2, 323, 221,000 2,944,900,000 2,609,090,000 +285,869,000 -335,810,000

1 Due to lack of authorization, does not include additional $4,300,000 requested in H. Doec. 93-155. s Includes $7,000,000 requested in H. Doc. 93-155.

3 Due to lack of authorization, does not include additional $31,100,000 requested in H. Dec. 93-155. 4 Excludes permanent budget authority.

SUMMARY OF BUDGET REQUEST AND COMMITTEE ACTION

The estimates considered by the Committee represent an increase of

$621,679,000 over the amount approved for fiscal year 1973. In addi-

tion, the Committee was not able to consider supplemental items in the

amount of $4,300,000 for the NATO infrastructure program in the

appropriation "Military construction, Army" and $31,100,000 for op-

eration and maintenance of Army family housing. These are included

in House Document No. 93-155 and are required as the result of the de-

valuation of the dollar. However, the request was received too late to be

considered in the authorizing bill for military construction. An amount

of $7,000,000 for the Homeowners Assistance Fund was included in

the authorization bill, although this was also a late request. This is

required as a result of the recently announced closure actions and is

included in the appropriation bill recommended by the Committee.

The Committee has allowed a net increase of $285,869,000 over fiscal

year 1973. Several large programs account for the major part of this

increase. Most important is the construction in support, of the Trident

submarine and underwater-launched ballistic missile systems. This

construction, which is to be initiated in the fiscal year 1974 program,

represents a net increase of $112,320,000 over fiscal year 1973. The cost

of properly operating and maintaining military family housing has

increased substantially, and an increase of $94,131,000 is recommended

to meet these costs. In addition, the Army has increased the size of its

bachelor housing program in fiscal year 1974. The amount recom-

mended by the Committee represents an increase of $130,084,000 over

the amount provided in fiscal year 1973.

The size of the reduction of $335,810,000 reflects, to some extent,

the effect of announced and Dending base closure actions upon the mili-

tary construction and family housing programs. Substantial reduc-

tions in funds provided in fiscal year 1974 have been made possible as

the result of the cancellation of projects at military bases which have

been announced for closure. In addition, it has been possible, to some

extent, to eliminate projects requested in fiscal year 1974 due to ex-

pected base utilization changes.

The bill recommended by the Committee represents a reduction of

approximately 12% below the budget request.

The Committee feels that the amounts recommended in the bill rep-

resent a prudent annual program to continue the long-range objective

of meeting outstanding facilities deficits of the military services. Ob-

viously there are going to be continuing base realignment actions. Evi-

dently our forces and their deployment around the world will change.

At the same time, there are a great many very firm military installa-

tions with old facilities which are wearing out, facilities that are in-

efficient and that cannot be anything but a detriment to any effort to

retain a ready, high quality, volunteer military force. We cannot

afford to fail to meet these valid needs.

The reductions due to authorization actions are partially offset by

funding provided for additional items allowed by the Congress for

which the Committee feels there is a need. The net reduction result-

ing from these actions is $221,189,000.

In addition, the Committee has made further reductions in funding

and projects in the amount of $114,621,000.

Of the reduction in both the authorization process and appropria-

tion recommendations, $88,648,000 represents funding adjustments and

$247,162,000 represents elimination or reductions in projects.

FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR OBLIGATION AND EXPENDITURE IN FISCAL YEAR

1974

The funds approved by the Committee for military construction,

exclusive of family housing and the homeowners assistance program,

when added to funds remaining unobligated from prior appropriations

will make $2,505,082,000 available for obligation in fiscal year 1974

for the regular forces and $192,486,000 available for the reserve forces,

as shown in the following tabulation.

FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR OBLIGATION IN FISCAL YEAR 1974

Unobligated

balance carried Recommended Total available

forward June in bill, fiscal for obligation,

30, 1973 year 1974 fiscal year 1974

Regular forces:

Department of the Army............................... $545,497, 000 $551, 575,000 $1,097,072,000

Department of the Navy........------------------- - 314,437, 000 587,641,000 902,078,000

DepartmentoftheAirForce-........................ . 199,058,000 239,702,000 438,760,000

Defense agencies-...---......... ................ 67, 172,000 0 67,172,000

Total.....-................ ... ......._______ .... 1,126, 164,000 1,378,918,000 2, 505, 082,000

Reserve components:

Department of the Army................................ 35, 575, 000 75, 900,000 111, 475,000

Department of the Navy.---------------------------. 19,573,000 22,900,000 42,473,000

Department of the Air Force............. ............ 8,538,000 30,000,000 38,538,000

Total..------------------................................---------------------- 63, 686, 000 128, 800, 000 192, 486, 00

Note: Excludes family housing and homeowners assistance. Actual rounded to nearest thousand.

The appropriations made available in the accompanying bill for

military construction, exclusive of family housing and the homeowners

assistance program, when added to unexpended balances remaining

from prior appropriations will make $4,058,947,000 available for ex-

penditure in fiscal year 1974 for the regular forces and $290,255,000

for the reserve forces, as shown in the following tabulation.

FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR EXPENDITURE IN FISCAL YEAR 1974

Unexpended Recommended Total available

balance carried in bill, fiscal for expenditure,

forward year 1974 fiscal year 1974

June 30, 1973

Regular forces:

Department of the Army---------------- .--- $1,353,800,000 $551 575, 1,905,375, 000

Department of the Na-vy------------ ......" 762, 924, 000 587, 641, 000 1 350, 565.000

Department of the Air Force-----............. ---- 473, 628, 000 239, 702, 000 713, 330,000

Defense agencies....-...-....__.....__ ._..... 89,677, 000 0 89,677,000

Total...-----........------------------------------------- 2,680,029,000 1,378,918,000 4,058,947,000

Reserve components:

Department of the Army----..............-....-...... _ 102,439,000 75,900,000 178,339,000

Department of the Navy-..-.. --.................. . 33, 453, 000 22,900,000 56', 353,000

Department of the Air Force -....-..... .------------- 25,563, 000 30,000,000 55,563,000

Total----....................... ---------------------------------161,455, 000 128, 800,000 290, 255.000

Note Excludes family housing and homeowners assistance. Actual rounded to nearest thousand.

EXPENDITURE EFFECTS OF COMMIIITTEE'S ACTION

The net reduction in outlays from the budget request which will re-

sult from net reductions during the authorizing process and actions

recommended by the Committee is estimated to be $12,000,000.

TRIDENT

The Navy's Trident ballistic missile submarine program is com-

prised of three basic elements: A new, improved submarine which is

larger and more survivable than our current submarines; new, long-

range missiles which will increase the possible patrol area sixfold over

current submarines; and a dedicated support facility which will assure

maximum time on station for the submarine and minimum time under-

going repair and overhaul.

Present plans call for the support facility for ten Trident subma-

rines to be sited at Bangor, Washington, with initial operational ca-

pability for the system and the site scheduled for late calendar year

1978.

Procurement of the submarine and missile systems is outside the

purview of this subcommittee, but extensive classified and unclassified

briefings have convinced it of the advisability of proceeding with

the Trident program and, thus, with construction of the facilities

which will support it.

Facilities to support the Trident submarine constitute the major

portion of the fiscal year 1974 military construction program for stra-

tegic forces. The development of new longer-range Trident undersea-

launched missiles as well as a modern Trident submarine to carry them

should produce an effective and survivable strategic weapon. Their de-

ployment at the end of this decade should provide a key element of

our deterrence in the 1980s or beyond.

The Navy's original fiscal year 1974 budget request for military con-

struction in support of Trident was $125,223,000. Later the Navy re-

duced this estimate by $6,903,000. The Committee recommends new

budget authority in the amount of $112,320,000, a reduction of $12,-

903,000 from the original budget request and $6,000,000 below the re-

vised request. These funds are the initial increment for construc-

tion of facilities in support of the Trident. In fiscal year 1973 Congress

provided funds only for planning of Trident facilities.

TOTAL COST OF FACILITIES FOR TRIDENT

Last year the Committee reported that the Navy's estimate of the

cost to provide facilities to support the program through the first 10

Trident submarines was on the order of $600 million to $1 billion. The

Committee still believes that the total cost of all of the facilities re-

quired as a result of the Trident program through the first 10 sub-

marines will be in the range reported last year. The Navy, by narrow-

ing its definition of Trident facilities and refining its estimates of the

Trident construction program, has come up with a cost of $543 mil-

lion, including planning costs, for Trident construction. In the Com-

mittee's opinion, there are significant costs for family housing as well

as for other supporting facilities which are not taken into account in

the Navy's Trident construction plans. First of all, the Navy admits

that its cost estimate excludes the cost of military family housing. The

housing program is managed by the Office of the Secretary of Defense,

and the extent of Government investment required depends on the rate

of growth of available housing in the community. Therefore, from the

Navy's standpoint, these costs are not a part of the Navy program.

Also, the Committee feels that the Navy has not made allowances in

its cost estimates for modernization of medical facilities and other

similar facilities which support Trident as well as other military activi-

ties in the area. These, like the family housing program, are influenced

by other factors which are not directly controllable by the Trident

project officer. In effect, the Navy has given the Trident program a

ceiling of $543 million, which it may not exceed, for those construction

costs which are controlled by the Navy. This is a commendable man-

agement technique for holding down the amount of gold plating which

might otherwise be associated with the construction of a high priority

weapons system such as Trident. On the other hand, it is not useful in

showing a realistic picture of the total cost of construction.

DEDICATED REFIT FACILITY

The Navy's long-range plans for shore support at the Trident base

include the construction of a dedicated refit facility. Such a facility

should provide, according to the Navy's estimates, a significant reduc-

tion in the time which each Trident submarine will be required to spend

in refit between its patrols. Thus, it will provide more time on patrol

for each submarine and for a limited number of submarines (which is

the name of the game unless arms control efforts prove fruitless) the

maximum number of survivable strategic missiles deployed at any

time.

Currently, major Navy ship repair facilities are highly populated

industrial complexes. The Navy expects that the existence of a refit

facility which is not closely surrounded by areas of high population

density will allow the maximum number of Trident missiles to remain

undisturbed on board the submarines and reduce breakage of missiles

due to loading and unloading operations.

The Committee is extremely interested in this concept and will fol-

low it closely as it develops. There are no facilities funded in the fiscal

year 1974 program which commit the Congress or the Navy to this

method of operation at the Bangor site. The Committee will expect the

Navy next year to be farther along in its overall planning and to be

able to substantiate its projections with regard to the feasibility of this

method of operation.

PROJECTS RECOMMENDED FOR FISCAL YEAR 1974

The projects provided in fiscal year 1974 include flight test facilities

at Cape Canaveral. These include a wharf, channel dredging, and a

turning basin, which will provide facilities with a sufficient explosive

safety radius to handle the new missile. There is also the addition and

alteration to a guidance and telemetry building to accommodate equip-

ment for the accurate testing of the longer range Trident missiles, a

lifting device proofing facility, and alterations to launch complex 25.

The total cost of these facilities, based upon preliminary cost esti-

mates by architect engineers, is $35,150,000. The plans and specifica-

tions for these projects are virtually completed.

The Trident operating base is to be at the former Naval Torpedo

Station, Bangor Annex, Washington. The facilities requested here in

fiscal year 1974 include a covered explosive-handling pier for loading

and unloading of Trident missiles and other munitions on Trident

submarines, a refit pier and ship, the first increment of utilities for

the site, land acquisition to provide appropriate safety areas, a weap-

ons/navigation training building, a warehouse sized to support con-

tractor requirements, and necessary site improvements. Unlike the

projects at Cape Canaveral, the cost estimates at Bangor were not based

upon preliminary cost estimates prepared by an architect engineer. In

fact, the master planning contract for the Trident base at Bangor had

not been awarded at the time the current estimates for the fiscal year

1974 projects were computed. The reason for this was the lateness of

the Navy's decision to put the Trident base on the West Coast. The

Committee understands that the original budget estimate of $125.223,-

000 was based upon costs projected for an East Coast site. The Navy

reduced its budget request by $6,903,000 as a result of moving to the

Bangor site. This will be discussed further in this report.

As a result of the lack of adequate time to accomplish proper plan-

ning, several items included in the revised request will not be required

at the cost presented by the Navy. In view of these, the Committee feels

safe in reducing the overall amount appropriated for Trident facilities

by $6,000,000. The land acquisition cost is currently estimated by the

Navy at $5.1 million. However, in the Committee's opinion, this figure

contains unreasonably large contingency factors and can be reduced.

The Navy, after restudy, decided that an explosion-proof crane at the

explosive-handling pier was not required and that a less expensive

crane could be used. Finally, the requirement for a sewage treatment

plant, which is included in the first increment of the utilities request,

appears doubtful as a result of plans which the county has, and of

which the Navy was not aware, to build a sewage treatment facility in

the area.

JUSTIFICATION FOR TRIDENT FACILITIES

In its hearings on the Trident program, the Committee looked into

the size and design of the Trident submarine; the requirement for a

new generation of more sophisticated ballistic missile submarines; the

need for longer-range submarine-launched ballistic missiles; the deci-

sion to base the initial Trident submarines on the West Coast; the

selection of the Bangor, Washington, site; and the plans for Trident

support facilities. In general, the Navy appeared to have good justi-

fication for all of its decisions in these areas.

SITE SELECTION

The Committee examined with particular care the Navy's decisions

with regard to facilities. In this area the Committee enjoyed excellent

support from a very capable team from the General Accounting Office.

Their report spells out in detail the Navy's efforts to define Trident

base requirements and select a site. The Committee feels that the Navy

was very thorough in its site selection process. It surveyed numerous

possible locations on the East, West, and Gulf Coasts. It developed

criteria on requirements for a Trident base and applied these to each

of the likely locations. Having narrowed the selection to one base on

the West Coast and three on the East Coast, the Navy finally made its

decision based upon strategic criteria involving, chiefly, targeting and

antisubmarine warfare capabilities of possible adversaries. Although

the decision was long delayed, the Committee believes the Navy's rea-

sons for the choice of sites are justified.

CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE

The Committee notes that the current schedule for the delivery of the

first Trident submarine barely leaves adequate time for an orderly

construction program to provide the necessary testing, training, and

operational facilities. Major delays in funding for the facilities re-

quested in the fiscal year 1974 program would only result in an un-

economic concentration of work in progress toward the middle of the

construction program, thus maximizing community impact and con-

tractor mobilization and manning problems. The Committee feels

that the amount of $112,320,000, which is recommended, should be

appropriated for fiscal year 1974.

BASE CLOSURES

This year the subcommittee devoted much time to the question of

future base realignments. Substantial base closures were announced

earlier this year. The Department of Defense has identified large sav-

ings associated with these realignments as well as significant first costs.

The major reductions will have a sizable and concentrated impact on

both losing and gaining communities. As the result of its hearings on

this subject, the Committee has concluded that, despite Defense De-

partment efforts to this end, not all of the pertinent costs or savings

resulting from these actions were taken into account. On the other

hand, the proposed closures appear to be consistent with reasonable

criteria developed by the services and the Department of Defense for

base utilization. The continuing reductions in military force levels and

the probable net savings dictate significant reductions in military in-

stallations. Due to the same factors, further base reductions in the

United States can be expected, and significant base closures overseas

appear to be in order and should be carried out.

The Committee held over 92 hours of hearings on the fiscal year

1974 military construction request. This represents a 55% increase

over the previous year. Much of this additional time was devoted to an

examination in detail of base utilization and base realignments. The

Committee studied the savings and disposition of missions and forces

resulting from the announced base closures, and their effects on past,

present, and future military construction programs. The Committee

also looked carefully into base utilization criteria and trends and tried

to gain insight into the factors governing possible future base realign-

ments.

APRIL 1973 BASE REALIGNMENT ANNOUNCEMENT

On April 17, 1973, Secretary of Defense Elliot L. Richardson an-

nounced details of 274 specific actions to consolidate, reduce, realign

or close military installations in the United States and Puerto Rico.

These actions were estimated to result in savings of approximately

$3.5 billion over the next 10 years. An estimated 42,800 military and

civilian positions are to be eliminated as a result.

The closure announcement came late. The military services had

completed the bulk of their work on their base closure recommenda-

tions by the end of 1972. However, it is the official position that the

change in command of the Department of Defense from Secretary

Laird to Secretary Richardson delayed the date of the announcement,

first, to allow Secretary Richardson to take office before the an-

nouncement was made and, secondly, for the new secretary and his

staff to exhaustively review the proposed realignments.

Parenthetically, the delay in the announcement of base realign-

ments caused a substantial delay in the Department of Defense's sub-

mission of the military construction program to the Congress. It was

not officially provided until May 3, 1973, less than two months before

the beginning of the new fiscal year. The realignments also generated

a number of late program changes, the last of which was not received

until September 21, 1973. A more orderly and timely construction pro-

gram would have resulted from an earlier base closure announcement.

It has been apparent for several years that substantial base closures

were pending. The military services, particularly the Navy, had been

requesting with increasing urgency, as each year passed, that they

be allowed to reduce their installations to correspond to their reduced

levels of forces and activities in order to reduce operating expenses.

Examples of force reductions cited in the closure announcement were:

Army strength will be down from 1.6 million military per-

sonnel in 1968 to 804,000 in June 1974. Also, Army aviation

training requirements will be reduced from 6,887 pilots in

1969 to 1,502 by June 1974.

The Navy's active fleet ship level will be down from 917 to

523 ships and active fleet aircraft from 5,014 to 3,956 between

June 1964 and June 1974.

The number of active Air Force aircraft will be reduced

from 12,535 during 1968 to 8,313 in 1974. Pilot training re-

quirements will be down to a level of 3,425 from the peak

1972 requirement of 4,440.

To these could be added reductions in maintenance workloads at

military depots and major reductions in recruit training workloads

(Iue to lower manning and the change to the all volunteer force.

A marked imbalance had been building up over the years between

forces and support structures. This allowed the base reductions, when

finally approved, to be both rapid and concentrated. The recent closure

actions were not dependent on future reduction in forces to allow them

to take effect. The reductions already had occurred. Furthermore, the

size of the gap between supporting bases and supported forces allowed

whole complexes of bases to be closed. This has a snowballing effect on

the savings which can be achieved. In many instances the whole mili-

tary sunport structure in a given area can be eliminated. But the

major closures, because of their size, speed, and concentration. will

produce serious adverse impact on certain areas of the country. Hope-

fully, the various Federal programs aimed at ameliorating these im-

pacts will be well run and will receive high priority.

MANAGEMENT OF BASE REALIGNMENTS

The Committee's hearings brought out the fact that, despite attempts

by the Department of Defense and the military services to identify all

of the costs associated with the April, 1973 realignments, this was not

done in all cases. For instance, the supplemental request for additional

budget authority for fiscal year 1974 of nearly $25 million for the

homeowners assistance program was a direct result of the April base

realignments. Yet it was not identified as one of the costs of the re-

alignments. There will be additional costs incurred under this pro-

gram in later years, which cannot yet be estimated, which will also

result from these realignments. Similarly, it is obvious that the full

cost of additional housing allowance payments and the cost of con-

struction of family housing required as a result of the realignments

were not fully taken into account. The rate of this additional expendi-

ture is very difficult to estimate since it is dependent on the extent to

which additional housing is provided by community housing and by

other than Government investment. Either way there are additional

costs, and these are not fully accounted for. On the other hand, it

appears that the services may have, in some instances, disregarded

some legitimate savings in their estimates of construction costs which

would have occurred at the installations to be closed.

COMMITTEE'S REVIEW OF BASE UTILIZATION

As part of its responsibility to carefully review annual military con-

struction requests, the Committee has consistently attempted to devel-

op information on base utilization options. The need to do this, despite

the problems involved, was pointed out in the Committee's report on

the fiscal year 1973 appropriations bill. The point was forcibly brought

home by the April, 1973 base realignment announcement. It is further

reinforced by recent statements by the Secretary of Defense regarding

continuing base closure studies.

To develop base utilization information is a difficult task. Responsi-

ble Department of Defense officials are understandably reluctant to

speculate in public or in private upon matters which can affect so many

jobs and have such a major impact on communities, both in the United

States and overseas. This is especially true when major base closure

studies are under way at the higher levels of the Defense establish-

ment. These studies are extremely closely held, and there are strong

restrictions against the release of any of this information. Neverthe-

less, it is possible to follow the same logical steps as the Department of

Defense must in its base utilization studies. As a preliminary step, the

Committee has obtained the services' criteria used for base utilization

decisions.

As pointed out in the report on the fiscal year 1973 military con-

struction appropriation bill, the lack of good criteria hindered the

Congress in making the most prudent use of the limited funds avail-

able for construction. This may be true to some extent of the military

services themselves. The Committee last year directed the services

to produce these criteria and provide them to the Congress. The diffi-

culty which at least one of the services experienced in producing ade-

quate information and the somewhat ad hoc criteria which were pro-

vided by another of the services indicate that this exercise may have

been of benefit not only to the Congress but to the Department of

Defense. Using the criteria supplied by the Department, the Com-

mittee tested the April realignment actions. It appears to the Com-

mittee that the majority of the proposed base closure actions follow

logically from the criteria. Where they didn't meet these criteria, the

services, in most cases, are reexamining their proposed actions.

The Committee also attempted to apply these criteria to possible

future base closures. Obviously, even with adequate criteria in hand,

the services are reluctant to indicate for the public record which bases

are weak and which strong. However, by examining factors such as

growth potential, physical plant, and the scope and number of cur-

rent and projected missions, it is possible to get a general idea of how

an installation stands. The Committee also explored in detail the pres-

ent and projected rates of utilization and the extent of duplication of

various types of facilities. Examples are depot activities such as ship-

yards; recruit training centers (particularly those of the Army) ; and

research, development and test installations. In the last area, the Com-

mittee's surveys and investigations staff produced comprehensive re-

ports on the structure and utilization of Navy and Air Force research,

development, and testing facilities. The Committee also examined to

some extent the thrust of developments in Defense programs and in

overall community development upon certain installations. As the re-

sult of substantial efforts in this area and with the occasional coopera-

tion of knowledgeable Defense officials, the Committee has, this year

as in the past, avoided recommending appropriations for projects at

installations whose tenure may be in doubt. To do otherwise would be a

serious lapse in its responsibilities to the Congress and to the Amer-

ican taxpayer.

While not specifically advocating the closure of specific bases, the

Committee has repeatedly urged the military services and the Depart-

ment of Defense to make the maximum efficient use of existing facili-

ties before requesting new facilities. This applies to facilities at single

installations as well as to whole classes of installations. In addition, the

Committee has tried to discourage the waste involved in the construc-

tion of facilities at installations which may be abandoned or under-

utilized. One way to achieve this is to encourage the services to con-

centrate the preponderance of their construction programs on support

facilities at bases which have many missions instead of those which

have only a few. The small post with only a few missions is apt to be

drastically affected by fluctuations in defense requirements, whereas

a large multipurpose installation is less vulnerable. Also, facilities

which have general rather than specialized uses, such as barracks, fam-

ily housing, warehouses, electric distribution systems, and similar in-

frastructure facilities, tend to be useful whatever mission is assigned

to a base. They may continue to be of economic benefit to the Nation

even if the installation is excessed by the military and turned over to

the community. Conversely, exotic, highly specialized facilities may be

abandoned even before they are completed. Examples are the manned

orbiting laboratory launch complex at Vandenberg Air Force Base,

California, and the massive radar facilities at the Safeguard Malm-

strom complex in Montana.

Even in times when base realignments must be a factor in construc-

tion planning, it cuts against the grain, in both the military services

and the Congress, to shortchange some bases while concentrating on

others which are more firm. But this is necessary if construction is to

proceed at a rapid enough pace to meet needs for replacement, mod-

ernization, and to support new and ongoing missions without excessive

waste. The Committee feels that the Department of Defense should

use, and should be provided with, the facilities and installations which

it actually needs, both to meet ongoing and projected requirements

efficiently and economically and to provide a basis for required expan-

sion of military efforts during emergencies. Anything more, either in

terms of new construction or in the operation and maintenance of

existing installations, is clearly unnecessary.

The Department of Defense, to some extent, becomes involved in

other types of meritorious activities in its role as landlord. It acts as

museum keeper for historic places, preserver of lands in their natural

state, and provides economic and infrastructure support for depressed

or underdeveloped areas. Much of this comes about as a result of

legitimate defense requirements. To the extent that it becomes signif-

icantly more expensive to achieve these objectives as a part of our

national defense effort, the Committee feels that a hard look should

be taken at the costs. When forces decline drastically, it is realistic to

expect the installations which support these to be reduced.

OVERSEAS INSTALLATIONS

The Committee is concerned that the Department of Defense is not

pursuing the reduction of unnecessary functions overseas and the

reduction and closure of excess overseas facilities with the same deter-

mination as it has applied to those functions and installations in the

United States.

By way of preface, the Committee realizes it would be a grave mis-

take to be too hasty in removing U.S. combat units overseas, thereby

undermining the military or political strength of the United States

and its allies. By the same token, it would be imprudent to remove

necessary support for these forces or to so dismantle our overseas

support capabilities that we could not reinforce our forces or resupply

our allies in areas of the world in which we have a commitment to do

so. Our overseas bases must provide the capability to meet ongoing

requirements, and our base planning must take into account the ability

to expand during various types of contingencies. Moreover, having

given up a foreign base, it may be difficult to reoccupy it. In general,

civilian population pressures and land shortages are much more a

problem to our allies than they are in the United States. Similarly

political problems within the United States or for our allies may

discourage the expansion of our foreign base structure in a timely

manner when this is needed.

However, even taking all of these factors into account, our foreign

base structure appears to the Committee to be excessive. That there

is a good deal of water which can be squeezed out of our foreign base

structure has been admitted by Department witnesses. There have

been certain actions to reduce overhead overseas, such as the consoli-

dations of U.S. military installations in the Kanto Plains near Tokyo,

Japan, and the reduction/realignment of the Air Force Headquarters

to Ramstein Air Base in Germany. However, there are similar actions

which are overdue. These should not affect our strength or negotiating

positions. They would save money. They could increase the effective-

ness of our forces. The Committee has seen no evidence that the De-

partment of Defense is seriously studying overseas base closures at

this time. The Committee feels strongly that much the same reason-

ing should apply to overseas base realignments that applies to domestic

ones. If it is wise to reduce our overhead and support structure in the

United States, then it is equally true abroad. The April 17, 1973, base

closure announcement should have been closely followed by a similar

package for overseas bases. Any future base realignment announce-

ments must include a substantial amount of tightening up of our base

structure overseas as well as in the United States.

NATO INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM

The Committee is aware of the recent strain which has been placed

on NATO by the war in the Middle East. As a result, there have been

questions about the desirability of NATO and on the use of our troops

and equipment in Europe. While the Middle East poses severe prob-

lems for us and our allies, the situation there does not directly involve

the survival of the Western World. It was this which NATO was

established to protect and has very successfully protected. It would be

a tremendous victory for our communist adversaries if their exploita-

tion of Arab-Israeli hostility succeeded not only in geographically

flanking NATO to the south but in driving a wedge between us and

our European allies. Conversely, any strong indication that such a

course of action might succeed in substantially weakening the NATO

alliance might further encourage irresponsible actions in the Middle

East. The Committee feels that action this year to reduce the United

States' commitment to this part of the world and to NATO would be

extremely imprudent.

One of the key programs carried in this bill is the appropriation for

the NATO infrastructure program. The $40,000,000 of new budget

authority which is the U.S. portion of this NATO construction pro-

gram is carried in the Military construction, Army appropriation.

The resulting construction benefits all of the military services as well

as further cementing our relations with our NATO allies.

The infrastructure program has proved a flexible and useful instru-

ment in its more than two decades of service to NATO and has pro-

vided $3.4 billion worth of installations in support of the common

defense of Europe. It has been a model for cooperation and realistic

burden sharing between the NATO allies. Furthermore, its past and

present benefits to the defense of the United States and the NATO

alliance are significant. If wisely used and managed in conjunction

with our military construction program, it can continue to provide

important benefits. It is true that the program is somewhat complex

both in its administration and in its relationship to the remainder of

the military construction program. This sometimes occasions disap-

pointing delays. But it is a useful program, one that we need to un-

derstand better, which deserves more attention than it is getting.

FLEXIBILITY OF INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM

The NATO commonly funded infrastructure program was inau-

gurated by the North Atlantic Council in 1951 as a follow-on to a

similar program begun in 1950 by the Western European Union coun-

tries. Since that time it has provided a flexible vehicle for joint co-

operation, adapting to changing conditions and program needs.

Initially, under the NATO infrastructure program, the United States

provided through common financing the installations required to sup-

port the military end items which we furnished to our European allies

under the military defense assistance program. The early programs

concentrated on airfields, naval facilities, and training areas. It also

provided such essential support facilities as pipelines and oil storage

which could not be provided by the severely crippled civilian econo-

mies of participating countries or were needed to support our own

military deployment. In addition, the infrastructure program pro-

vided a means for integrating facilities planning among the NATO

nations. It also served as a means of providing common projects which

involved crossing borders, thus channeling the often difficult process

of base acquisition in other countries through a single conduit. It

made possible needed facilities in a timely manner and at the scope

required in strategic areas for which the individual national govern-

ments might not have been able to pay, a role which the program still

plays to some extent.

With the European economic recovery and the entrance of Germany

into NATO in the mid-1950s, the geographical center of the NATO

infrastructure program shifted to the east. West Germany's entrance

into NATO allowed facilities constructed in Germany to be brought

under the infrastructure program. Thus, the NATO infrastructure

program was able to provide a large number of facilities in Germany

to .carry out a forward defense of Europe. The United States began,

also, to press within NATO for a maximum number of projects in the

program for United States use and the maximum common funding of

facilities required by United States forces in the European NATO

area. In addition, steps were taken to shift a greater portion of the

cost of the program from the United States to the European countries.

Later, after the United States was forced to relocate its forces from

France, the NATO infrastructure program was revised to allow us

to be reimbursed for the identifiable construction costs we incurred

and to provide facilities which our forces require as a result of this

relocation.

BENEFITS OF PROGRAM

The NATO infrastructure program has been a successful common

endeavor and has been credited with fostering a large part of the

cohesion among the Allies. Essential military facilities costing about

$3.4 billion have been completed, and facilities worth another $1 bil-

lion are under construction or programed. The program has given

NATO a network of modern airfields, an efficient system of POL dis-

tribution and storage, common communications without which the

NATO command structure could not function, essential air defense

warning installations, and air and naval navigational aids. In addi-

tion, many of the facilities required for the day-to-day or wartime use

of United States forces have been provided by the NATO infrastruc-

ture program. At air bases in Germany, Netherlands, the United King-

dom, Italy, Greece, and Turkey, U.S. aircraft fly off runways provided

by NATO, use NATO operational facilities and training ranges, and

are provided fuel and ammunition storage funded by NATO. Our

aircraft, while on the ground, are protected by shelters and other sur-

vival measures for which NATO is reimbursing the United States. In

the Mediterranean and the north Atlantic, our fleet enjoys the use of

NATO piers, fuel depots, repair facilities, munitions storage, and

maritime airfields. Our Army forces stationed overseas use NATO

training areas, storage sites, and antiaircraft installations. Much of

the prepositioned equipment for U.S.-based forces committed to

NATO is stored in dehumidified NATO warehouses. In wartime,

NATO-committed U.S. forces would integrate into the NATO com-

mand structure and utilize the NATO integrated air defense, com-

munications, and headquarters facilities.

CHANGES IN PROGRAM

The program has provided many of the basic facilities required in

the common defense, and 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 POL system should be modified to ensure

its ability to function in an emergency independently of that part of

the system located in France. Progress in communications technology

has resulted in dramatic improvements to NATO's command and con-

trol and integrated defense efforts. For instance, the NATO Satellite

Communications System will provide better and more survivable com-

munications. Another example is the semiautomation and integration

of NATO's early warning system to provide a control and reporting

system for the air defense of Allied Command Europe. In order to

make the program fully responsive to the needs of the NATO "flexible

response" strategy and associated force planning, the infrastructure

program is providing facilities to support reinforcement on the flanks,

improved air defense, and conventional capabilities for NATO air

forces.

The new orientation of the program is providing a larger portion of

the facilities needed by U.S. forces. The controlled humidity storage

for U.S. prepositioned equipment and the aircraft shelters are fairly

recent examples. If and when the U.S. reduces its troops in Europe,

the former may become increasingly important. In addition, expansion

in NATO's criteria to include more sophisticated support facilities for

complex modern weapons systems is generally to the benefit of the

United States which has many systems requiring such facilities.

Finally, Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird proposed last December a

new category of infrastructure projects in support of "stationed

forces," those forces stationed outside of their own boundaries. With

present force deployments, the United States must have sizable instal-

lations, both in the United States and overseas, which to some extent

must be duplicative in order to provide logistics support and mobiliza-

tion capability during contingencies. The economic value of military

installations and their supporting facilities benefit communities in the

host countries rather than communities in the United States. It should

be recognized that the additional costs of constructing and maintain-

ing these military complexes in NATO countries are a direct result of

our participation in NATO. The Committee urges that Secretary

Laird's proposal be implemented as soon as possible.

UNITED STATES SHARE OF COSTS AND BENEFITS

Over the years, the U.S. share of the contributions to the infra-

structure program has declined from above 43% in 1951 to an effective

rate of below 20% in 1973. In the last few years the percentage of

NATO national user projects for the United States has increased

markedly.

There are several factors which serve to reduce our share of the

total amount of money used in the infrastructure program. As shown

on page 518 of Volume 1 of the Committee's hearings this year, the

cost-sharing formula for the various nations has been revised periodi-

cally. In 1970, the Euro-Group (NATO less France, Portugal, United

States, Iceland, and Canada) offered an additional $420 milion (closer

to $450 million in devalued dollars) over a 5-year period to the infra-

ttructure program as part of the European defense improvement pro-

gram (EDIP) to permit implementation of the NATO aircraft shelter

program. This permitted early recoupment of U.S. prefinancing funds

spent on this program and relieved the pressure on programed infra-

jtructure money to allow funding of additional NATO Integrated

Communications System (NICS) projects. When the EDIP contribu-

tion is considered, the effective U.S. share reduced to approximately

18 to 20 percent. Another factor is that host nations provide the land,

access roads, and utility connections for each NATO infrastructure

project. These host nation contributions are estimated to average

about 13% of costs paid by NATO common funding. If these costs

were added to the total, the U.S. contribution would drop another 3

to 4%.

We continue to enjoy a greater benefit from this NATO program

than would be expected from the size of our contribution. If we ex-

clude facilities which are used in common by all nations-facilities

which would in any case have required common funding-we have had

significant success in convincing NATO that U.S. projects are worth-

while. Slice XVIII (1967) included projects for U.S. forces in the

amount of 40% of all projects for use by national forces. In slice

XIX this percentage rose to 47%; for slice XX to 55%; for slice

XXI, 68%; for slice XXII, 58% ; and 59% for slice XXIII. In the

six annual programs, therefore, well over 50% of all national user proj-

ects were programed for benefit of U.S. forces, but our formal con-

tribution remains at 29.7% of the entire program. This does not take

into account the additional financing by the EDIP which is discussed

above. It is apparent, therefore, that we have a distinct financial

interest in the continuing success of the NATO infrastructure pro-

gram. As long as we can fit our national programs into the available

common funds, the United States Treasury will benefit directly from

this NATO effort. Thus, we derive major benefits from the infrastruc-

ture program and, for this reason as well as for the sake of honoring

our international commitments, it seems reasonable for the United

States to pay its agreed-upon share of the programs as they become

due. The United States commitment to NATO infrastructure occurs

at, the time of approval of the multi-year program by the North At-

lantic Council/Defense Planning Committee and is reaffirmed in terms

of specific projects of the time of approval of the annual slice program.

NATO REVIEW, APPROVAL, AND PAYMENT PROCEDURES

A description of the NATO review and approval procedures for

infrastructure programs follows. Each year the major NATO com-

manders draw up a list of construction or modernization projects

which they consider essential for the support of their forces. These

projects are reviewed by all 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 infrastructure program or slice. In the United States each

proposed annual slice is reviewed thoroughly within the executive

branch, starting with the interested U.S. subordinate military com-

mands and continuing through the U.S. Commander-in-Chief, Europe

and the Commander-in-Chief, Atlantic to Joint Chiefs of Staff and the

military departments, the Department of State, and all interested

offices within the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

After slice approval, the host country in which a. project is to be

built takes full responsibility for the work. It must obtain the neces-

sary 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 develop 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 authoriza-

tion and fund commitment. Before agreeing, the Payments and Prog-

ress 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 construc-

tion of an infrastructure project, the United States obligates funds

from its annual appropriation for its share of that project. During

fiscal year 1974, we will be paying for projects which we have agreed

to in slice XXIV and prior-year slices at the rate agreed upon for

each of these yearly slices. There will be, in the near future, negotia-

tions which the Committee expects will lower the United States cost-

share. However, these would affect slice XXV and subsequent slices.

Accordingly, we would expect to see a reduction in our costs begin-

ning in fiscal year 1976 from this cost-sharing adjustment.

PROPER UTILIZATION OF THE PROGRAM BY THE MILITARY SERVICES

In recent years the Committee has repeatedly emphasized to the

military services the importance of using the NATO infrastructure

program effectively to meet their needs for operational facilities in

NATO countries. Using the NATO infrastructure program effectively

does not mean waking up late to operational requirements or support

of new weapons systems when they arrive at a base. It does not mean

programing projects in NATO countries in the military construction

program, or providing them by reprograming or through the Defense

Emergency Fund, and submitting a prefinancing statement to NATO

in hopes that the projects may fit one or the other of NATO infra-

structure criteria and thereby be eligible for some partial recoupment,

and then forgetting about them. The use of prefinancing may be legiti-

mate in a few real emergency situations. Otherwise, it results in an

unfavorable gold flow impact on the United States, the unnecessary

addition of interest costs on the public debt, and the denial of scarce

dollars to other worthy programs. As can be seen on the table on page

529 (Volume 1) of the Committee's hearings, recoupments from pre-

financed projects are often small and slow in coming. The alternative

is to obtain approval of projects in NATO slice programs where

these projects qualify under NATO criteria. Where they do not fully

qualify under NATO criteria, the services and US NATO must first

work to get NATO criteria extended and then to obtain their approval

in slice programs. This requires effort, foresight, and adequate plan-

ning, which is why so many projects are prefinanced. To counteract

this tendency, the Committee has recently adopted a policy of not

providing funds for prefinanced projects. This makes it clear to any

sponsor of a prefinanced project that he is depriving other worthy

projects of funding since the resources must be obtained from other

areas of his service's construction program. Moreover, he should feel

embarrassed before his peers and before the Congress and the Ameri-

can taxpayer.

EFFECT OF DOLLAR DEVALUATION

The infrastructure program has suffered a substantial funding im-

pact from two recent dollar devaluations. Upon official notification by

the Secretarv of the Treasury to the International Monetary Fund

that the dollar has been devalued, the unliquidated obligations for

NATO infrastructure carried upon the books of the United States

Treasury were adjusted to reflect the higher costs of Infrastructure

Accounting Units (TAUs) which are the official NATO infrastruc-

ture unit of account. The cost of the program which is to be under-

taken in fiscal year 1974 will increase as a result of dollar devalua-

tion, both due to the higher official rates and the difference between the

value of the devalued dollar and foreign currencies on the current

market. While the careful screening of prior obligations and deferral

of some projects allowed the infrastructure program to operate within

limits of authorization and appropriations in fiscal year 1973, there

will be an increased cost in fiscal year 1974 due to projects which were

temporarily deferred. The total additional net cost of all of the above

factors in fiscal year 1974 is expected to be $52.7 million. On the other

hand, higher-than-expected payments of recoupments to the U.S. by

other NATO countries and a small allowance for the earlier dollar

devaluation which was included in the fiscal year 1974 budget will re-

duce the amount of devaluation to $40 million for which no funds are

available. The Army has identified unobligated Safeguard funds

which will not be required in the amount of $35,650,000. The transfer

of these funds to meet the deficit in NATO infrastructure is approved.

With regard to the handling of this matter, the Committee notes that

requests to the Congress for relief in both funding and authorization

have been late, inadequately supported, and bungled by the Depart-

ment of Defense and the Office of Management and Budget. In turn,

the Congress has not given this program the favorable attention which

it deserves.

The infrastructure program is one about which there is a large de-

gree of ignorance and inattention. This applies to the military serv-

ices which could and should use it to a greater extent. It includes the

Department of the Army, which is the military service responsible

for budgeting the dollars and managing the financial aspects of the

program, including its presentation to the Congress. And it is true

of several of the offices in the Office of the Secretary of Defense which

deal with it. To some extent the mishandling of the program may be

due to its complicated nature. This is perhaps understandable. What

is not understandable is that it is not receiving appropriate emphasis

and that effective management by the Department of Defense appears

to have declined rather than improved. Perhaps a contributory factor

is that responsibility for the program is not really fixed. In view of

the Administration's concern about Europe this year, it would seem

that ongoing programs which work well, provide cohesion with our

allies, and are to the benefit of the United States should receive more

consideration at all levels.

BACHELOR HOUSING

The Committee notes the importance being placed by the military

departments on housing for bachelor personnel and concurs in this

judgment. The fiscal year 1974 request includes $501 million for con-

struction and modernization of bachelor housing. This would provide

39,000 new enlisted spaces and modernize existing quarters for an ad-

ditional 55,000 personnel. The fiscal year 1974 budget includes $102

million more than was appropriated last year for new construction and

an increase of about $18 million for the modernization of quarters.

The Committee has had a long-standing interest in seeing that liv-

ing conditions of our military personnel are improved. Year after

year the Committee has expressed its concern in this area and has sup-

ported Defense efforts to provide better quarters for bachelor person-

nel. The Committee early expressed its objection to the construction of

open bay barracks except for recruits. This interest in adequate

quarters has been shared by the Department of Defense and reflected

at the highest Administration levels for many years. President John-

son, in an address at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, in

1964, called for a review of housing, medical care, pay, and allowances

for the military.

The present Defense criteria for enlisted housing is an outgrowth of

a comprehensive study by a Department of Defense task force which

was completed in 1966. This study was conducted by headquarters

personnel from the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military

departments, and involved input from base commanders as well as offi-

cer and enlisted personnel. The basic findings of this study were that

there was a need to provide greater privacy in quarters and that im-

proved housing was necessary to boost morale, improve mission effec-

tiveness and increase reenlistments. Based on the recommendations of

the study, designs were developed which provided a 3-man room for

E2-E4 personnel with central latrines; a 2-man room with shared bath

for E5-E6 personnel; and a 1-man room with bath for E7-E9 per-

sonnel. A special Defense Department task group study on bachelor

housing completed in August, 1971, confirmed the desirability of im-

proved standards.

In the 1971 program, Congress approved the statutory limitations

which permitted construction of 3-man rooms and raised the standard

for E2-E4 personnel from 72 to 90 square feet per man. At the same

time, E5 and E6 personnel were allotted 135 square feet and E7

through E9 senior personnel 270 square feet each. In its report on the

fiscal year 1971 program, the Committee applauded this increase in

space allowance for bachelor enlisted housing. Attendant to this policy

decision in 1971 was the realization that increasing space allowances

would also increase the cost of troop housing per man. Furthermore,

it was recognized that the new criteria, by decreasing the loading of

existing facilities, would create a need for a substantial amount of

additional barracks construction at a significant cost. Congress has

authorized and appropriated funds in the fiscal year 1971, fiscal year

1972, and fiscal year 1973 programs for new construction of about

124,000 barrack spaces and modernization of 235,000 spaces based

upon these new standards. The criteria for these new barracks will

provide 3-man rooms for the Army and Navy to be occupied by E2-E4

personnel. By special action, the Air Force was permitted to construct

2-man rooms provided that this could be accomplished within average

cost constraints and still obtain livability standards. To the extent

that architectural and engineering considerations permit, moderniza-

tion projects have also been based on providing rooms for occupancy

by three E2-E4 personnel.

In fiscal year 1973, plans were developed for the construction of

standard barracks rooms, each to be 270 square feet in size. This design

provides maximum flexibility to the military. With bath and latrine

facilities for each room, lower grade enlisted men would be housed

three to a room with a bath for their use. Intermediate grade enlisted

men would be housed two to a room with a bath, and senior grade en-

listed men would have a 270 square foot room of their own with pri-

vate bath facilities. Thus, various types of military units with widely

differing tables of organization and distributions of personnel by rank

can use effectively this same standard barracks. The need for flexibil-

ity in assignment of quarters has been stressed by Congress and was

particularly underlined in House Report 91-386.

Personal contact as well as the results of at least two studies indi-

cate that, in the opinion of enlisted personnel, we are moving in the

right direction. In the 1966 study, troop comments indicated about

half those queried expressed dissatisfaction with their quarters. To

determine the level of acceptability of the fiscal year 1973 design, the

Committee commissioned a limited study conducted early in calendar

year 1973 which disclosed that 75% of those enlisted personnel queried

felt the proposed designs and criteria would be satisfactory.

Chief among the complaints noted, both in 1966 and in the most

recent Committee study, were lack of soundproofing, lack of privacy,

and the requirement to use latrines and bath facilities which were used

by great numbers of other troops. The 1973 design effectively met these

complaints.

Modernization projects are, where it is possible, overcoming these

deficiencies in existing barracks facilities. Had adequate standards

been employed at the time these barracks were constructed, the sizable

cost of this modernization program would not have been necessary.

But because at the time of construction these barracks were not built

with an eye to future needs, literally tens of thousands of barracks

spaces are in need of modernization.

The criteria proposed for the fiscal year 1974 are the same as those

provided in fiscal year 1973. Having already embarked on this con-

struction and modernization program, the Committee would be ex-

tremely reluctant to endorse proposals to alter the criteria to provide

larger rooms in which four lower grade enlisted men would be housed,

and 270 square foot rooms in which two men or one man would be

quartered. This suggested design change is, in the Committee's view,

undesirable for several reasons. First and foremost, it would not

provide adequate accommodations now and in the future. Secondly,

it would reduce the flexibility of the military in quartering troops.

While it is obvious that some military units would ideally fit into a

prescribed mix of large and small rooms, any change in troop units

likely would result in a differing mix of rank and seniority so that

overcrowding and underutilization would occur at the same time.

Also, having embarked upon the construction of superior barracks in

the fiscal year 1973 program, it would be difficult to go back to less

adequate standards, particularly where projects for 1973 and 1974

are at the same base. Next, design changes at this time would result

in a loss of design funds already spent as well as a delay in project

completion which would result 'in higher construction costs due to

inflation. Lastly, the delay would mean that a sizable number of mili-

tary personnel will be ill housed for an additional eight months to a

year. Rather than taking arbitrary actions, the Committee prefers to

rely on the results of careful study, sound planning, and deliberate

decisions. The better standards will result, certainly, in bachelor hous-

ing spaces which are more expensive than those provided in prior

years but, also, in spaces which afford the maximum in privacy, flexi-

bility and livability. They are designed and built to be utilized for

years to come without the need for expensive modernization such as

is now proceeding on substandard barracks built just a few years

ago.

The Committee encouraged the Department of Defense to develop

quarters standards which would be acceptable to the troops, adapt-

able to the needs, and economical to the taxpayers. The Department

has met this challenge. The Committee recognizes and commends the

work that has been done, and it would be extremely reluctant to re-

verse the direction taken.

COMMISSARIES

The Committee has denied funding in many cases where requests

were made for commissaries.

This action should not be construed as a policy decision that com-

missary facilities are not a traditional part of the military benefits.

Rather, it is an action designed to stimulate the military into devising

another means of providing such facilities without coming to the

Congress for public monies.

It appears to the Committee that the Department of Defense could

and should recommend new legislation which would allow for the im-

position of an additional surcharge, the proceeds of which would go

into a building fund for commissaries.

The Committee notes the Department of Defense subsidizes the

commissary program at a level of $288 million a year. Commissaries

do not pay taxes. They have extremely low overhead, and as a gen-

eral rule, their prices are one-quarter to one-third less than are avail-

able in the civilian community. Surely, a slight increase in prices

could be instituted to provide a building fund.

The Committee recognizes that commissaries became an integral

part of military life at a time when pay scales were extremely low.

That is not now the case. Salary increases in recent years have brought

military pay much nearer those in the civilian community. Further,

commissaries were built in the past at a time when local supermarkets

were an unacceptably long distance away from military installations.

Today, one need drive only a short distance to food stores and shop-

ping centers.

For these reasons, the Committee urges the Department of Defense

to examine closely the role of the commissary in the modern military

environment, to seek means of having commissary users pay for com-

missary facilities, and to submit requests for new commissaries only at

those locations where there is overwhelming justification for the ex-

penditure of tax money.

IMPACT OF OIL EXPLORATION ON MILITARY INSTALLATIONS

The Committee is concerned that proposed off shore oil drilling or

exploration will adversely affect the operational availability of test

ranges and other facilities of the Department of Defense. The Com-

mittee directed its Surveys and Investigations Staff to study the im-

pact of oil leasing and production operations upon Department of

Defense installations using the Eastern Gulf Test Range Area. The

report submitted pointed out that the cost of the government's invest-

ment in Defense installations in the Mississippi, Alabama and Florida

areas of the Gulf of Mexico is more than $1.5 billion and that the

estimated replacement value of these facilities is $3.4 billion. The

normal activities of these installations include hazardous activities

such as the testing of live armament over water ranges. Such tests are

essential to the maintenance of the combat readiness of the military

services. The construction of permanent installations, such as oil rigs,

in test areas could result in the creation of dangerous conditions both

for military personnel and for those involved in oil exploration and

production.

While recognizing the need to find additional sources of oil, the

Committee does not believe that it is desirable that the usefulness of

expensive military installations which have been paid for by the tax-

payers be destroyed in the process. The Committee directs the De-

partment of Defense not to release test ranges or facilities which are

required for national defense programs for the purpose of oil drilling

or exploration until a determination has been made by the Secretary

of Defense that there is no military requirement for the test range or

facility involved and until full and complete environmental studies

have been made by the Environmental Protection Agency. The Com-

mittee wants to prevent the disruption of the testing of equipment vital

to the armed forces and the Committee wants to avoid the unnecessary

and very heavy expenditures which would be required to relocate

facilities which might be compromised by oil operations.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY

Appropriation, 1973 ---------------------------------------- $413, 955, 000

Estimate, 1974---------------------------------- ----641, 900, 000

Recommended in bill 5--------------------------------51,575, 000

Reduction -- --------------------------------------- 113, 325, 000

The Committee has approved $551,575,000 for Military construction,

Army, a reduction of $113,325,000 below the budget estimate and

$137,620,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1973.

The reductions include a net reduction of $60,506,000 as a result of

the action taken by the Congress on the authorizing legislation. The

Committee recommends further cuts and additions which result in a

net reduction of $52,819,000. The Committee action on this program

is reflected in the State list and tables at the end of this report. Addi-

tional specific actions relating to individual line items and installa-

tions are set forth in subsequent paragraphs.

SPECIFIC ACTIONS RELATING TO INDIVIDUAL INSTALLATIONS

At Davison Army Airfield, Fort Belvoir, Va., the Army request

includes a helicopter landing facility and parking apron in the amount

of $1,628,000. The Committee believes that this is a low-priority proj-

ect and that utilization of this airfield does not justify these additional

facilities at this time.

The Committee has denied the request for $2,924,000 for a com-

missary at Fort Gordon, Ga. As mentioned earlier in this report,

alternate methods of funding this project should be sought.

The request to alter training facilities, at a cost of $558,000, at Fort

McClellan, Ala., is denied.

At Fort Polk, La., a commissary requested in the amount of

$1,977,000 is denied.

The Committee has denied a request for $762,000 to convert exist-

ing facilities to provide academic and orientation space for the Army

Veterinarian School at Fort Sheridan, Ill.

Army veterinarians conduct food inspections for all the services,

but the Committee has not been convinced this particular location is

the only possible site for such a facility. A similar request was denied

in fiscal year 1973, and the Army was instructed to look into alterna-

tive sites for the school. This year the Army listed several such sites

and dismissed them in a single sentence: "None of these locations

proved feasible."

The Committee does not accept this as valid justification for ap-

proving the requested expenditure. Rather, it feels that there is the

possibility of consolidating this mission into facilities now used by

compatible medical orientation facilities. The Committee wishes to

make clear this is not a veterinarian school where untrained personnel

are converted into qualified veterinarians. It is, as explained by the

Army, a facility where previously trained veterinarians are given

military orientation and refresher courses, and where enlisted person-

nel are given technician training.

It is the Committee's feeling the Army presented insufficient hard

data to warrant approval of this request.

The budget request includes $73,000 for barracks modernization at

Frankford Arsenal, Pennsylvania. The Committee feels that this item

can be deferred.

A medical equipment maintenance facility is requested in the

amount of $456,000. Originally, the Army requested that this be located

at Memphis Defense Depot, Tennessee. The Army later determined

that this activity, which is relocating from Atlanta Army Depot,

would be better located at Tobyhanna Army Depot, Pennsylvania.

However, the authorizing legislation retained the Memphis location.

Because of the conflicting situations the Committee has denied funding

for this project.

At Savanna Army Depot, Illinois, security lighting is requested in

the amount of $113,000. The Committee feels this project should be

deferred.

The Committee has denied funding for a proposed $25 million hos-

pital at the U.S. Military Academy, West Point, New York.

Planning of a new hospital facility at the Academy has been on-

going for 10 years. The Congress appropriated $4.9 million for such a

facility in 1966, but the funds were withheld due to the war in South-

east Asia. Again in 1969, Congress appropriated additional funds so

that work could go forward on what was then to be a $6.45 million

facility. Bid estimates proved to be low and the hospital, twice ap-

proved by Congress, was not built.

This year the Army requested $25 million. This request was not ac-

companied by an economic analysis as were the earlier requests which

were supported by a 1963 study indicating the feasibility of first a $5

million and then a $6.45 million investment. Logically, the Army would

have conducted such an economic analysis, especially with the pro-

posed cost, now five times that of the initial proposal.

The present hospital is a 113,398 square foot facility, designed for

a normal bed capacity of 130 beds and an expanded capacity of 187

beds. The proposed facility would contain 157,350 square feet with a

normal bed capacity of 100.

Aside from the lack of meaningful economic analysis of the pro-

posed project, the Committee also is concerned over inadequate plan-

ning with regard to the new hospital. The present hospital is located

in the heart of the cadet area and is easily accessible to cadets for

routine sick call. The new hospital would be built more than a mile and

a half from the cadet area and would require transporting cadets to

the facility for the most routine of treatment. No study or considera-

tion has been given the question of cadet transportation.

When pressed to offer alternatives to the $25 million hospital, the

Army provided figures indicating it would cost $21 million to con-

struct a smaller 65-bed hospital and $21.2 million to renovate the pres-

ent hospital. These estimates were not based, however, on adequate

design or detailed data and, therefore, their validity, accuracy, or

representativeness is not substantiated.

There is no question the hospital provides excellent medical care.

As recently as October 1972. the present facility was fully accredited

by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hosplitals. While short-

comings and recommendations were cited ini the accreditation report

in such areas as dietetic service. environmental service, records keep-

ing, pharmaceutical series, and physical medicine services, no no en-

tion is made of the inadequacy of the physical plant itself.

A study of this facility was made by the surveys and investigations

staff of the Committee. This report was completed in August, 1973, and

its suggests questions on the justification of the $25 million expendi-

ture. Among them, the report points out that the present hospital

served a cadet strength of 2,488 in 1963, at the time recommendations

for a new hospital first were put forward. Today the same hospital

serves a cadet population of 4,005, still maintaining a high quality of

medical service without serious overcrowding. Clearly, this would

indicate the hospital has not impeded cadet population expansion.

The study also pointed out that the Army's plans for future cadet

care may include a dispensary, to be provided in the current hospital

facility, at a substantial additional cost.

It is the Committee's feeling that proper studies should be con-

ducted as to alternatives, economics, and siting. While this Committee

fully supports adequate medical care for all members of the armed

forces, it does not believe it prudent nor a proper use of tax money

to replace the hospital at the Military Academy on the basis of the

data presented during the hearings and the questions which subse-

quently arose during the staff investigation.

The budget request includes $597,000 for a logistics and storage

facility at the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory,

New Hampshire. The Committee feels that this is a low-priority

project which can be deferred.

The Committee has denied two projects requested at the Military

Ocean Terminal, Bavonne, New Jersey: administrative facilities,

$3,203,000; and an electric substation, $400,000.

At Fort Shafter Military Reservation. Hawaii. a medical/dental

clinic requested in the amount of $1.233.000 has been deferred. The

Committee feels the Army should restudy the requirements here.

Within the Army's request for air pollution abatement, the Com-

mittee has deferred a project for stack emission controls at Pueblo

Army Depot, Colorado.

Finally, the Committee recommends funding reductions in two spe-

cific areas. The Committee believes that the appropriation for fiscal

year 1974 can safely be reduced by $8,500.000 as a result of unobligated

balances.of funds appropriated for Southeast Asia construction in

prior years. Similar reductions of $7.500.000 for anticipated savings

in Army projects provided in prior years as a result of base utiliza-

tion changes and other factors can be made.

The Committee has increased the amount provided for minor con-

struction in fiscal year 1974 by $2,500,000 in order to cover unantici-

pated large requirements in this area.

26

The Committee notes that hospital facilities at Madigan General

Hospital, Washington, are unsatisfactory. The Committee feels that

a modern hospital facility should be provided to military personnel

associated with ongoing missions at Fort Lewis and other installa-

tions in the area. The Committee directs the Department of Defense

to initiate planning for facilities to provide modern hospital care in

this area.

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, 860, 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) --------------------------______________ +237,000

Various, Germany: Dependent school additions (deficiency) --- +607, 000

Appropriation limitation------------------------------------- -7, 500, 000

Total...........-------------------------------------------- -60, 506, 000

SUMMARY OF THE ARMY PROGRAM

The fiscal year 1974 military construction program requested by the

Army reflects the impact of three major actions which will have a last-

ing effect on the U.S. Army. These actions are: Army reorganization;

base realignments; and implementation of the zero draft concept.

The Committee commends the goals of the Army in its reorganiza-

tion plan which is designed, in the words of one Army witness, to

"modernize, reorient, and streamline the Army's organization . . . to

improve readiness, training, the materiel and equipment acquisition

process, the quality and responsiveness of management, and better

support for the soldier...."

These are goals with which the Committee does not quarrel, but it

does have serious reservations as to the adequacy of the base utiliza-

tion and facilities planning aspects of this reorganization.

While the other services were directing their attention toward base

closures and realignment, the Army concentrated on reorganization. A

recent statement by the Secretary of Defense that additional base

closures are planned and statements by Army witnesses that training

installations and small bases were currently under study reinforced

the Committee's determination to appropriate construction dollars

only at firm bases. Requests for facilities at bases which could be

candidates for realignment or closure were carefully screened by the

Committee.

It should be pointed out that the great majority of the Army's fiscal

year 1974 requests are at bases with obvious firm long term require-

ments. For example, an analysis of the program of the Continental

Army Command shows that two-thirds of the money requested would

go to major bases which would be required in the interest of national

security even under the most austere of budgets.

Consistent with its policy of providing modern bachelor quarters

for enlisted men, the Committee has recommended fundini for nu-

merous major barracks complexes at various Army installations.

At Fort Bragg, North Carolina, approval has been given to con-

struct an $18.2 million complex to house 1,649 enlisted men. Similar

facilities to house 3,300 enlisted men have been approved at Fort Camp-

bell, Kentucky at a cost of $31.4 million. At Fort Gordon, Georgia,

$19.2 million is recommended for construction of a 2,028 man barracks

complex. The Committee also recommends approval of $9.4 million

to provide modern bachelor enlisted spaces for 1,100 men at Fort Sam

Houston, Texas. At Fort Polk, Louisiana, $26 million was requested

and approved for a complex to house 2,550 enlisted personnel. More

than 1,600 enlisted men will benefit from approval of $22.5 million

for a complex at Fort Riley, Kansas, and at Fort Leonard Wood,

Missouri, it is recommended $32.2 million be approved to construct

quarters for 2,522 bachelor spaces. Finally, at Ford Ord, California,

$8.6 million is approved to construct spaces for 1,170 enlisted

personnel.

Other, smaller barracks complexes also are included in the recom-

mended program. In all, the Army requested appropriations to pro-

vide 24,553 new bachelor enlisted spaces and to modernize 46,896

existing substandard spaces.

While some projects, notably a major complex at Fort Belvoir, did

not survive the authorization process, this Committee has approved

the vast majority of bachelor quarters projects, both large and small

and both for new and modernized quarters.

Clearly it was not size alone nor was it historical or urgent opera-

tional requirements which solely dictated the Army program. Ex-

amples are to be found in requests, granted by this Committee, for

facilities for active duty personnel assigned to bases where Reserve

or National Guard forces train. These bases are Camp Drum, N.Y.,

Camp A.P. Hill, Va., Indiantown Gap Military Reservation, Pa.,

Camp Pickett, Va., and Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico.

The Committee notes, however, that in its reorganization plan, the

Army seemed overly anxious to establish headquarters operations at

bases with historical rather than military values.

The Committee is concerned over what appears to be a general trend

to locate training bases in the more moderate climatic regions of the

United States. There is ample justification for the location of air

training facilities in such regions, but there is an equally overriding

need to have combat troop training facilities available in adverse

weather regions. The Committee is aware of the fact that combat is

not always carried out in ideal weather and that there is a very real

requirement for troops trained to perform their mission in colder

climates. The Committee also feels that geographical factors should

be given proper weight in the Army's plans for its basic training

installations.

It is clear little progress is being made in controlling the backlog of

deferred construction. Although this year's backlog of $6.5 billion is

$1.6 billion less than that reported last year, the Army said this is due

largely to a purging of the list and base realignment actions rather

than a vigorous program of modernization and construction.

Equally clear is the situation with regard to adequate maintenance

of facilities. Maintenance funds are insufficient. Dollars which are

available are spread too thinly to properly maintain many facilities

which potentially have long life but which, 'for lack of maintenance,

will need replacement within a few years. This Committee urges the

Army to embark on a meaningful maintenance program so as to avoid

unnecessary expenditures for replacement of facilities.

The Army continues to move forward with its pollution abatement

program and the Committee is heartened to have been told it appears

"the corner has been turned" on this expensive but necessary program.

It is expected however, that more rigid standards will generate future

requirements for the control of pollution and that this program will be

ongoing for some time.

Construction is to continue on the new Walter Reed Medical Center.

This is only a part of the Army's long range program to modernize or

replace medical facilities. The full impact of this program is not ex-

pected to be reflected in requests until fiscal year 1975. This Committee

expects the Army to carefully study this program so that facilities to

provide health care are located only as needed at locations with long

term requirements.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, NAVY

Appropriation, 1973--------------------------- ----_ $517, 830, 000

Estimate, 1974------------------------------------------------- 5, 400, 000

Recommended in bill-----------------------------------------587, 641, 000

Reduction ---------------------------------------- 97, 75, 000

The Committee has approved $587,641,000 for Military construc-

tion, Navy, a reduction of $97,759,000 below the budget estimate and

an increase of $69,811,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal

year 1973.

The Committee's action reflects a net funding reduction of $47,251,-

000 as a result of Congressional action on the authorizing legislation.

The Committee recommends further cuts totalling $50,508,000. The

Committee action on this program is reflected in the State list and

tables at the end of this report. Additional specific actions relating to

individual line items and installations are set forth in subsequent

paragraphs.

SPECIFIC ACTIONS RELATING TO INDIVIDUAL INSTALLATIONS

The Navy's request includes $3,600,000 for an engineering building

at the Naval Underwater Systems Center, New London Laboratory,

Connecticut. The Committee feels there is too much duplication in

Navy research in this area and that the missions of the various labora-

tories involved should be restudied. Accordingly, it has denied this

project.

At the Military Ocean Terminal, Bayonne, New Jersey, a project

to support the relocation of the Military Sealift Command, Atlantic,

is denied.

At the Naval Air Development Center, Warminster, Pennsylvania,

a low-priority request for $215,000 for a primary substation expansion

has been deferred.

At the Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, the Navy is request-

ing $4,334,000 to rehabilitate Maury Hall. The Committee feels that

the cost per square foot for this rehabilitation is excessive. Accord-

ingly, the Committee has reduced the cost of this project by $300,000.

The Committee has provided no funds to meet an additional au-

thorization of $3,400,000 for a land acquisition project at Naval Sta-

tion, Norfolk, Virginia. The $3,400,000 was to be used for lease

termination and building demolition on land recently acquired by the

Navy with funds provided in fiscal year 1972. The prior owner of the

land, Norfolk and Western Railway, had entered into a total of 41

leases with individuals and businesses. The Navv now desires to termi-

nate these leases and demolish the buildings. While it might be desir-

able to accomplish this, there appears to be no immediate necessity

to make the land available for construction or other requirements for

the Navy.

Of the 41 leases, only four are long term in nature, with expiration

dates ranging from 1976 to 1996. The remaining leases are either on a

month-to-month basis or are renewed yearly, some with special pro-

visions.

The Committee feels it is unnecessary to provide money to the Navy

with which to purchase a lease and relocate a business when such lease

is subject to cancellation or expiration within a year. The Committee

further questions the Navy's liability to pay relocation costs to a busi-

ness upon the legal expiration of a lease.

The Navy is requested to restudy this matter and to submit to the

Committee a revised and realistic estimate of what it will cost to pur-

chase the leases of and relocate businesses with long-term commit-

ments. The Navy is further requested to provide the Committee con-

struction schedules for the area in question together with a phased

plan to terminate short-term leases.

The budget request includes $2,470,000 to provide a nuclear training

building at the Nuclear Weapons Training Group, Atlantic, Norfolk,

Virginia. This is a low-priority project to replace present training

facilities at this location. The Committee feels the existing spaces

should continue to be utilized by this training function until there is

further justification for this project.

The Committee has approved $299,000 to provide utilities to the

Naval Air Museum, Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida.

Private donations provided $1.4 million to construct the museum

which will be the focal point in the entire Navy where the history of

Naval Aviation will be chronicled. The Secretary of the Navy has

officially accepted the facility on behalf of the Navy and the building

will be completed in March, 1974.

The Navy made a commitment to the Naval Museum Association

that, provided private funds were used to construct the basic facility,

Navy funds would be used to support it. The time has come to honor

this committment.

This Committee commends the Naval Museum Association for its

work in raising the money to provide the Navy with this historic facil-

ity and it trusts the Navy will attach significant importance to making

it the repository for the documents and displays befitting the official

Naval Air Museum.

At the Naval Station, Charleston, South Carolina, the budget re-

quest includes $1,321,000 for a communication facility. The Navy tes-

tified that it recently conducted a joint survey with the Coast Guard

of the overall communications needs in the Charleston Harbor area.

This survey shows the present plan to move only the Navy transmitter

may not offer the best solution. Also, a joint project on a cost-sharing

basis might offer the most economical approach to a new communica-

tions facility there. The present project emphasizes high frequency

equipment and antennas. It now appears that most needs can be met

with VHF and UHF equipment, and a small band transmitter and

receiver can serve the high frequency needs.

The Committee feels it could be wasteful to provide funding for

this project without additional study.

The Committee has approved $10 million for the construction of a

new pier at San Diego, California. Approval is based on sound justifi-

cation for a new pier. The scope and size of the pier apparently would

not vary significantly regardless of whether or not a proposed transfer

of surface vessels from Long Beach, California, to San Diego takes

place.

Because of testimony presented to the ('omnittee from various

sources, serious reservations are held by the (oninittee as to the

advisability of carrying out the proposed move of these ships. It was

pointed out time and again that the stationing of large numbers of

ships at San Diego could well place in jeopardy the safety of these

vessels in time of emergency. The length of the San I)iego channel

and the resulting delay and risk in movement of vessels was detailed.

Apprehension also was expressed that a bridge across the channel

could be felled by an adversary to effectively trap our naval vessels in

the harbor.

The Committee recognizes the fact that base closures and base re-

alignments are not within its sphere of authority. Nevertheless, the

Committee is not convinced the move of nuclear surface ships from

Long Beach to San Diego is wise or economical. Therefore, the Com-

mittee feels strongly that the Navy should restudy this proposal, and

directs the Navy to submit to the Committee a report, as to possible

dangers, economic savings, and time factor data in connection with

moving such ships to new combat stations.

In the event of a change in the Navy's plans for this transfer of

ships, the Navy will be expected to submit new plans for a pier at

San Diego based on the actual requirements of the ships which will

utilize its facilities.

The Committee does not expect the Navy to award a construction

contract for this project until the Navy has certified that it will not

pursue additional overseas homeporting which will affect the need

for this pier.

At the Naval Station, Pearl Harbor. Hawaii, the Navy requested

the replacement of an enlisted men's dining facility. In the opinion of

the Committee, the present facility is adequate. The request is denied.

The Committee has provided $7,168,000 to replace barracks at the

Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.

An entire Marine division is based at Camp Lejeune and there are

long range plans to bring all bachelor enlisted quarters up to current

Department of Defense standards. Funds provided in this year's pro-

gram will replace six substandard facilities with a new facility with

room configurations for up to three men per room. At present, the

Marines are quartered in 1942 era open bay barracks with gang

latrines.

Marine Corps officials have said the replacement of the remaining 70

buildings is not scheduled to begin until 1980 and that until that time.

Marines based at Camp Lejeune will be living under conditions below

DOD standards. The Committee is concerned about this situation, but

it commends the Marine Corps for its long range planning to replace

substandard facilities on an orderly basis and as the facilities in use

reach the end of economical utilization.

The Marine Corps requested a commissary at Marine Corps Air

Station. Yuma, Arizona. in the amount of $999.000. The Marine Corps

testified that previously all of their commissaries hlve been provided

with surcharge funds. The Committee feels that a further effort should

be made to provide for this project in a similar manner.

As explained earlier in this report, the Committee has reduced the

amount provided for the Trident support complex by $6,000.000. This

should leave sufficient funds to complete the facilities requested in

fiscal year 1974.

The Committee has approved $6,092,000 to construct bachelor offi-

cers and enlisted quarters at Naval Station, Keflavik, Iceland.

This approval comes despite continuing reports the government of

Iceland may terminate our base agreements in that country. Final dis-

position of this matter is expected within a reasonably short time, and

the Navy is instructed to have assurances of our tenure in Iceland be-

fore proceeding with these projects. If we are to remain there, these

facilities will be needed. If we are to shortly leave, the money is not

to be obligated.

At the Naval Detachment, Souda Bay, Crete, the Committee has

deleted some of the funding but not the authority to proceed with

projects requested at this strategic installation. The amounts of funds

deleted, totalling $3,208,000, represent those portions of the aircraft

parking apron, the air passenger/cargo terminal, and the general ware-

house which are NATO eligible. The Committee will expect the Navy

to proceed with these projects by absorbing this funding reduction

through savings or through cancellation of other lower priority proj-

ects. The Committee believes that the Navy should have been alert

to these needs several years ago and should have programed these

facilities in a NATO infrastructure slice program.

At the Naval Air Facility, Sigonella. Sicily, Italy, the Committee

has reduced funding for a photographic building by $164,000 for the

reasons that are cited above.

The Committee included funds which were authorized for airfield

support facilities in Athens, Greece, to support the homeporting of

a carrier task force there. The Committee is hopeful that homeporting

will prove to be a workable concept which will allow us to keep our

commitments to NATO and others with a limited number of active

fleet shins. The airfield support facilities in the amount of $1,948,000

are critical to the homeporting of a carrier in Athens. The Commit-

tee expects the Navy to press for recoupment from NATO for this

project and to obtain any future projects in support of Navy forces

here through NATO slice programs without resorting to prefinancing.

At the Naval Complex, Guam, the budget request contained

$1,480.000 for a theatre. The Committee believes, in view of the costly

nature of this construction, that present facilities will have to suffice.

As with the Army, the Committee has reduced Navy appropriations

for fiscal year 1974 to reflect balances available from prior-year ap-

propriations. A reduction of $4,700,000 is recommended as a result

of unobhligated balances of funds made available for Southeast Asia

in prior years. A reduction of $7,500,000 has been made to reflect sav-

ings due to cancellation of projects due to base realignments.

The Committee approves the transfer of $4,000,000 into the Navy's

planning account in order to allow for orderly planning of the fiscal

year 1975 Navy program. These funds are to come from projects

cancelled or reduced as the result of base realignments.

The Committee recommends no funding for construction at the

Atlantic Fleet Weapons Range.

33

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__ -$2'32, 000

Naval Support Activity, Brooklyn, N.Y.:

Relocate telephone switchboard__---------------- -75, 000

Bachelor enlisted quarters modernization_______________ __ -1. 05(, 000

Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Penn.: Electronics equipment

facility ------------------------------------------------- -735, 000

Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, District of Columbia:

Acoustic research facility ________ --- -740, (0K)

Naval Station, Annapolis, Md.: Bulkhead replacement ---..... --1, 080, 000

National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Md. :

Navy Exchange retail store________________--------------- -1, 764, 000

Roads___ _____ -____ ----------- -1,54, (00

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 ac luisition +2, 4101, (0)

Naval Hospital, Orlando, Fla.: Hospital replacement -20, 98S1, 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--------------------------- +__31, (0

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 build-

ing (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

Naval Air Station, Barbers Point, Hawaii: Municipal sewer con-

nection facility----------------------------------------- -----5, 868. 000

Navy Support Office, Athens, Greece: Aircraft support facilities___ +1. 14, 0001

Naval Security Group Activity, Edzell, Scotland: Bachelor en-

listed quarters----------------------------------------- -90.000

AUTHORIZATION ACTIONS-continued

Naval Complex, Subic Bay, Republic of the Philippines:

Naval Station bachelor enlisted quarters modernization ___ -1, 411, 000

Naval Station dependent school expansion------------- --1, 034, 000

Appropriation limitation--------------------------------- -7, 500, 000

Sec. 204 ---------------------------------------------------- 12, 000, 000

Total -------------------------------------------- -47, 251, 000

SUMMARY OF THE NAVY PROGRAM

In terms of fleet readiness facilities, the Navy's fiscal year 1974 mili-

tary construction request actually is considerably less than that ap-

proved by the Congress for fiscal year 1973.

This reduction in the budget request for the more ordinary types of

shore facilities is caused by several factors: Trident submarine base

construction ($118.3 million), and acceleration of the medical facilities

program ($89.5 million). The remainder of the Navy's 1974 request is

an austere military construction budget of $448.7 million, 36 percent

of which is earmarked for projects aimed at enhancing the all volun-

teer concept and for pollution abatement projects.

Submission of the fiscal year 1974 program to the Congress was

delayed, largely because of program adjustments needed to accommo-

date the shore establishment realignment plan announced earlier this

year. The program which was ultimately presented by the Navy re-

flected requests totaling $45.5 million which were generated because

of the Navv's shore establishment realignment. This figure later was

refined to $40.7 million, and included such facilities as a new berthing

pier at San Diego, estimated to cost $10 million and academic facilities

at locations such as Naval Station, Mirimar, California and Dam

Neck, Virginia. Navy witnesses also testified that the realignment plan

will result in the cancellation of $33.7 million in projects approved in

prior years which have not yet gone to contract.

Of all the services, it was the Navy which made the most significant

base adjustments under the Department of Defense approved base

closure and realignment plan. For this reason, it has also been the Navy

which has attracted the majority of attention as to the wisdom of these

decisions. The Committee believes the Navy to have generally con-

ducted exhaustive studies to determine which bases were to be closed

or curtailed and it commends Navy officials for the resultant decisions.

The net result of the Navy's base utilization plan will be a more com-

pact Navy, but a Navy with firepower and strength sufficient to give

pause to any would-be aggressor.

I)espite the upheaval attendant to base closures, the Navy still has

presented requests for a great many projects which are intended to

enhance the all-volunteer concept. Twenty six percent of the Navy

request was for such items as bachelor housing, community support

facilities, medical facilities and "cold iron" facilities.

Chief among the "people oriented" projects requested are those

dealing with medical facilities for the men and women of the Navy

and :Marine Corps. Navy's earmarking of 9.4 percent of its total pro-

gram for medical facilities reflects the Department of Defense direc-

tive to upgrade medical services to the armed forces. A total of 18

medical facilities were included in the Navy request, either for replace-

ment or upgrading. The Committee agrees with the Department of

Defense that medical services are of prime importance, but it cautions

against attempts to replace still useable facilities or the construction

of facilities where need has not been proven.

Training facilities continue to receive proper attention in the Navy's

request for construction funds. It would appear the Navy has been

successful in, efforts to design a reasonable program to provide ade-

quate training for recruits and new officers as well as training facilities

to maintain a high level of proficiency in the many skills required by

a modern Navy.

It is hoped continuing efforts will be made to coordinate training

requirements with the other services to avoid needless duplication of

expensive facilities. There is little doubt, for example, that the Navy

would have differing requirements from the Army in helicopter pilot

skills, for instance, but it is just as obvious that academic facilities, if

available for joint service use, would be interchangeable.

Perhaps the greatest potential for duplication among the services

is in the area of research and laboratory facilities. The Committee

encourages research and development programs. It believes a major

factor in national defense is technological excellence and superiority.

Needed R&D facilities and laboratories will pay rich dividends to the

nation and its people, but caution must be exercised to avoid a race

among the services to see which can build the most facilities first.

This is particularly true in such research areas such as those dealing

with human behavior. While there is no question humans will behave

differently when in the air than they do when submerged in a sub-

marine and to predetermine behavior is invaluable, it remains that

the study of humans, whether in the air or under water probably

could and should be done at common locations rather than by each of

the services utilizing expensive laboratories and highly skilled staffs.

A total of 15 Navy and Marine Corps installations were included

in the Navy request for pollution abatement projects. Most have been

approved by the Committee. It was noted however, that a trend might

be developing which, if gone unchecked, could be misleading to the

Congress and the people of the nation. Several so-called pollution

abatement projects requested this year, notably a pier and several sand-

blasting and paint shops, would more normally have been included as

regular line items in the military construction appropriation request

rather than coming under the blanket of pollution abatement projects.

The Committee recognizes the desire of the Navvy, and the other

services, to include as many projects as possible under the heading of

pollution abatement, but the Committee also must insist that projects

which properly should be included in normal construction requests

not be hidden under pollution.

The Navy is making significant progress in the "Cold Iron" pro-

gram to provide pier support facilities which allow most crew mem-

bers to be with their families when in port rather than standing watch

aboard ship. This year, the Navy requested $26 million for eight

projects, an amount $3 million over the request in fiscal year 1973.

Included in this year's request is $9.4 million to continue work on

the construction of a new Naval Home at Gulfnort. Mississinpi. This

new facility will replace the Home now at Philadelphia and will ac-

comodate up to 600 former Navy personnel who have served our

nation in time of need and who now deserve the gratitude and support

of their country.

The old Naval Home at Philadelphia is an historic site, but the

buildin--s also are of a vintage which makes them unreasonable to

maintain. There is no room for expansion at Philadelphia. The New

Naval Home will provide the finest of environment and service to

those who live there and the Committee has encouraged

its construction.

The Navy's program to modernize shipyards and air rework facili-

ties is progressing. Budget constraints do not allow this program to

proceed at as rapid a rate as the Navy would desire, but this year's

request includes projects at six shipyards and two air rework facilities.

The Committee understands studies currently are underway to de-

termine what steps should be taken to best utilize naval shipyards.

Testimony developed during the course of hearings on the Navy re-

quest indicated shipyards are underutilized. The Committee recognizes

the need for a Navy capability in ship repair and overhaul, but it does

not concede the requirement for more capability than can be used.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AIR FORCE

Appropriation, 1973 __- ______ ___________ --------------$265, 552, 000

Estimate, 1974_____ ______________________________ 291,900, 000

Recommended in bill- --______ _______--------------__ 239, 702, 000

Reduction _______ ___- _____________________________ -52, 198, 000

The Committee has approved $239,702,000 for Military construc-

tion, Air Force, a reduction of $52,198,000 below the budget estimate

and $25,850,000 below the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1973.

The reductions above include a net reduction of $27.804.000 as a re-

sult of the action taken by the Congress on the authorizing legislation.

The Committee recommends additional reductions totalling $24,394,-

000. The Committee action on this program is reflected in the State list

and tables at the end of this report. Additional specific actions relating

to individual line items and installations are set forth in subsequent

paragraphs.

SPECIFIC ACTIONS RELATING TO INDIVIDUAL INSTALLATIONS

The Air Force budget request contains an amount of $2,480,000 for

a weapons systems components plating shop at McClellan Air Force

Base, California. This is actually the fourth increment of an aircraft

repair complex at this installation. The Committee directs that con-

struction of this project be held up until the third increment of this

program has been approved by the Department of Defense.

At Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, the Committee recom-

mends the deletion of $1,887,000 requested for an aircraft engine com-

ponent research facility. It seems to the Committee that this type of

research should be carried on by private industry.

The Committee has approved $11 million to complete the technical

intelligence operations facility at Wright-Patterson.

Work is not yet complete on the first increment of this facility, and

the Committee is concerned insufficient planning has gone into how

best to phase the incremental construction so as to avoid confusion

and waste caused by two projects-and possibly two contractors-

working at the same site on the same building at the same time.

37

The Air Force is instructed to notify the Committee before award-

ing the construction contract for the second increment and to be pre-

pared to provide evidence and data to substantiate its contention that

no confusion or conflict will result from such an award.

At the Satellite Control Facility, Kodiak, Alaska, the Committee

has deleted an automotive maintenance facility because of its high cost

and low priority.

The budget request for $13,500,000 for special aircraft support fa-

cilities at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, is denied.

At Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana, the ('ommittee has not

provided additional funding for dormitory facilities in the amount of

$213,000, believing that the Air Force can absorb this amount through

savings.

The commissary requested at a cost of $2,273,000 at Bergstrom Air

Force Base, Texas, is denied. The Air Force testified that this is the

lowest priority commissary in their fiscal year 1974 program.

The Committee has deleted $1,933,000 for a low-priority base per-

sonnel office at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada.

The Committee has approved $1,355,000 for Air Force facilities to

be built at Keflavik, Iceland. Earlier in this report, the Navy was

instructed not to obligate funds for Iceland projects until the matter

of our tenure there is clarified. The same admonition should be ob-

served by the Air Force.

The Committee has applied a reduction in funding in the amount of

$1,326,000 for various projects in Germany for which the Air Force

experienced cost overruns. This is consistent with reductions in fund-

ing for NATO-eligible projects in prior years.

The Committee has denied $1,000,000 for a classified project author-

ized under section 302 of the authorization act.

As discussed earlier in the other services, the Committee has made a

reduction of $1,800,000 to reflect unobligated balances of prior-year ap-

propriations for Southeast Asia.

AUTHORIZATION ACTION

A summary of the additions and deletions made by the Congress in

the authorizing legislation follows:

Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla.:

Theater -------------------------------------------- -$751,000

Gymnasium +---------------------------------------------- 820, 000

Hill Air Force Base, Utah:

Ballistic missile processing support facility--------------- -3, 000, 000

Advanced logistics system utility support -----------------62, 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, 87, 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___ -4S0, 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, i,3, 000

Williams Air Force Base, Ariz.: Add to and alter chapel center_ __ -450, 000

AUTHORIZATION ACTIONs--continued

Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala.:

Add to and alter NCO academic facility (Gunter)----------__

Add to and alter composite medical facility___ ___

Andrews Air Force Base, Md.: Add to and alter air passenger

terminal

Altus Air Force Base, Okla.: Base flight operations facility __-- _-

Dover Air Force Base, Del.: Base facilities maintenance complex_

McGuire Air Force Base, N.J.: Air-condition base personnel office__

Travis Air Force Base, Calif.: Aircraft hydrant refueling system__

Barksdale Air Force Base, La.. Air-condition base headquarters

facility-------------------------------- - -

Blytheville Air Force Base, Ark.: Security police facility__ -----

Grissom Air Force Base, Ind.: Alter airmen dormitories_________

Malmstrom Air Force Base, Mont.: Dormitory facilities -__ --

Various: Aircraft instrument landing facilities (reduction) ____-

Holloman Air Force Base, N. Mlex.: Weapons guidance test facility_

U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado: Add to and alter base telephone

exchange facility -____________ ____ ___

Air Installation Compatible Use Zones: Land____________________

Goodfellow Air Force Base, Texas: Hospital____

Clark Air Base, Philippine Islands: Noncommissioned officers open

mess

Kunsan Air Base. Korea: Airmen dormitories ___________________

Ramstein Air Base, Germany" Taxiway shoulder pavement --_

Various, Germany:______ -

RAF Upper Heyford, United Kingdom:

Aircraft fueling support facility____________________________

Composite medical facility______________

Howard Air Force Base, Canal Zone: Air-condition chapel center__

Total

-562, 000

-4, 900, 000

-296,000

-692,000

-829, 000

-162, 000

-1, 024, 000

-543, 000

-140, 000

-1, 600, 000

+213, 000

-321, 000

-908, 000

-162,000

-2, 000, 000

+6, 115, 000

-2,000,000

-1, 838, 000

-465, 000

+7, 333, 000

-166,000

-5, 525, 000

-111, 000

-------------- ------_---____ -____- -27, 804,000

SUMIARY OF THE AIR FORCE PROGRAM

Air Force requests for fiscal year 1974 reflect a continuing policy of

personnel support and an accelerated program to modernize or replace

outmoded and uneconomical facilities.

One-third of the Air Force request is dedicated to troop housing,

medical facilities, and community support. The remainder of the pro-

gram presented by the Air Force is to support new and continuing

missions, training requirements, research and development labora-

tories, and pollution abatement projects.

Included in this year's requests were projects totaling $31 million

to continue the depot modernization program. This is an important

part of the Air Force's readiness posture. The most modern air force

in the world soon would become impotent without ready supplies of

fuel, spare parts, and support items, each of which must be made

quickly available wherever needed in the world. This is the mission

of the Logistics command d and the function of the Air Force depots.

For the first time in several years, the Air Force requested funding

for nmajoi administrative space facilities, the largest of which is a re-

placement for the Air Force Accounting and Finance Center at Lowry

Air Force Base, Colorado. This facility is to cost an estimated $20

million and the Comnuittee recommends it be approved.

A major program to upgrade or replace medical care facilities is

now well underway iv the Air Force as well as by the other services.

This year, the Air Force request includes $28 million for hospital

facilities including requests to replace three outmoded hospitals; at

F. E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming, at Laughlin Air Force Base,

Texas, and at RAF, Upper Heyford, United Kingdom.

The Air Force is to be commended for continuing to request fund-

ing for bachelor housing, even in the face of budget constraints.

This year, the request is for $40 million to modernize or replace

dormitory space. The Committee encourages efforts to make service

life more attractive to career minded personnel, and make comfortable

living quarters are an important part of this effort.

In recommending for approval portions of the Air Force's requests

for fiscal year 1974, the Committee took into account recent and antici-

pated base closures and realignments. A majority of projects recom-

mended for approval, aside from highly technical or specialized proj-

ects, are facilities which ultimately could be utilized by the commu-

nity in the event of base closure years from now. Barracks, shops,

maintenance facilities, and base support items included in the Com-

mittee's recommendations can be used for many things, even in the

unlikely event of base closure at a base which is today considered

firm.

With regard to research and development facilities, the Committee

encourages the Air Force to engage in a vigorous effort to develop

joint service use of these expensive and exotic laboratories. While the

Committee enthusiastically supports work which will keep the United

States technologically superior, it does question the need for each serv-

ice to build laboratories in which to engage in nearly identical research.

The Air Force pollution abatement program continues in fiscal year

1974 with requests for $9.8 million in this important area. As tech-

nology advances and new standards are developed, there will be a con-

tinuing need for many years to provide funding for projects to protect

the environment.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, DEFENSE AGENCIES

Appropriation, 1973--36-------------------------------- , 704, 000

Estimate, 1974------- 19, 100, 000

Recommended in bill _--- -------------------------- 0

Reduction _ -----------------------------------------19, 100, 000

The Committee has provided no additional funding for this appro-

priation for fiscal year 1974. ITnobligated balances in the Defense con-

tingency fund, at the beginning of the fiscal year, totalled some $54

million. This should be sufficient to meet the $30 million program for

the contingency fund as well as the $15,571,000 program which the

Committee recommends for the remainder of the Defense Agencies'

program for fiscal year 1974. The Congress' action on the authorizing

legislation reduced the authorization for appropriation by $7,100,000

The Committee has deleted the remaining $12,000,000 of new budget

authority requested. This includes the deletion of a logistic support

facility at Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, requested in the amount

of $3,529,000, which does not appear to be urgent or cost effective.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, RESERVE COMPONENTS

Appropriation, 1973----------------------------------------- $121, 800, 000

Estimates, 1974..----------------------------------------------126, 200, 000

Recommended in the bill--___- ______________________________ 128, 800, 000

The Committee has approved $128,800,000 for the reserve compo-

nents of the military forces, an increase of $7,000,000 over the 1973

appropriation. It is also $2,600,000 above the budget estimates for

fiscal year 1974, an amount added by the authorizing committee to

compensate for construction funds used to transfer Naval Reserve

headquarters from Glenview, Illinois and Omaha, Nebraska to New

Orleans, Louisiana.

The Committee is distressed by the difficulties facing the Reserve

and Guard forces in recruiting and retaining personnel. It hopes that

incentives proposed for these forces will stimulate interest in them

and improve morale.

As weapons costs escalate, less and less of the limited defense dollar

is available for personnel in the regular establishment. If the defense

capability of the nation is to be maintained, it is obvious that ever in-

creasing reliance must be placed on the reserve components as active

forces are reduced. For example, nearly half of today's Army is com-

posed of Reserve and Guard units. If the expanding air fleet, new gen-

eration vehicles, and more complex, more sophisticated weapons sys-

tems inherited from the active forces are to be utilized effectively,

added aviation facilities, more specialized maintenance facilities, and

increased storage space must be provided. Likewise, more and better

training areas and facilities are needed. And modern armories and

training centers must be built to replace overcrowded facilities and

ease an ever growing backlog of construction requirements. The Com-

mittee applauds the efforts of the services to jointly utilize existing

facilities and urges even closer scrutiny in this regard in the future.

Very careful planning is necessary to properly balance growing

facilities needs due to modernization with streamlining of force struc-

ture dictated by personnel and management requirements. The rapid-

ity with which such changes have taken place may explain why some

of the projects requested this year are for units which are not con-

sidered combat ready. Facilities play a comparatively minor role in

the achievement of combat readiness, and the Committee feels that,

for noncombat ready units, attention should be directed less to facilities

and more to equipment and training. The Committee expects that fu-

ture requests by Reserve and Guard forces will include specific data as

to how the requested facility will impact on the unit's ready status.

The Committee is deeply concerned that reserve components, for

the most part, are not used in times of national emergency and that

apparently many of the units would not be combat ready if called to

duty. Being ready to defend our nation is the raison d'etre for the

Reserve and Guard forces. Thus, if future facilities requests will en-

hance the capability of meeting this mission requirement, the Com-

mittee will look favorably on such requests. Otherwise, it will not rec-

ommend funding, particularly for units which do not have the capa-

bility of performing their assigned mission.

Committee action together with balances remaining from prior

years are shown for each of the Reserve components in the following

tabulation.

41

FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR RESERVE FORCES IN FISCAL YEAR 1974

Balance carried forward Recommended Total available for fiscal

June 30, 1973 in bill, year 1974

fiscal year

Unobligated Unexpended 1974 Obligation Expenditure

Army National Guard ...... . ........

Air National Guard ............-

Army Reserve ................ ....

Naval Reserve ......... ......

Air Force Reserve...................

$3, 043, 000 $43,424,000 $35,200,000 $38,243,000 $78,624,000

5,273,000 17,021,000 20,000,000 25,273,000 37,021,000

32,532,000 59,015,000 40,700,000 73,232,000 99,715,000

19, 573, 000 33, 453, 000 22, 900, 000 42, 473, 000 56, 353, 000

3,265, 000 8,542,000 10, 000, 000 13, 265, 000 18, 542, 000

Total.....................-- . . 63,686, 000 161,455,000 128, 800,000 192,486,000 290,255, 000

Note: Actual rounded to nearest thousand.

FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE

New budget authority, 1973_ __--_ _ ______ __ $967, 380, 000

1974 budget request ___--------------------- 1, 150, 400)00

Revised budget request ------------------------------ 1, 181, 500, 000

Recommended in bill___________________________--_ 1, (1, 372, 000

Increase over 1973-----__---------------------------- 126, 992,000

Decrease from budget request ____________56__, 028. 000

Decrease from revised budget request ___-- - 87, 128, 000

The Committee recommends new budget authority of $1,094,372,00

for Family housing, Defense. This is $56.028,000 under the budget, and

$126,992,000 above the amount provided for fiscal year 1973. It, is

$87,128,000 lower than the revised budget request, which reflects a

more accurate picture of the needs in this p)rogran due to the effect of

the devaluation of the dollar and cost escalation. The ('ommnittee was

unable to consider the revised budget request because authorization for

the request has not been acted upon.

The family housing program represents a substantial portion of the

military construction appropriation bill. In addition to construction

of new units, modernizing, relocating, operating, maintaining, and

leasing military family housing, as well as debt principal and interest

payments on military family housing indebtedness, constitute the

major costs. Also covered are construction of trailer spaces, minor

construction, acquisition of Wherry housing, planning, furniture pro-

curement, payments under the rental guarantee and section s,(9 hous-

ing programs, payments to the Commodity Credit Corporation for

housing built with funds obtained from the surplus commodity pro-

gram, and servicemen's mortgage insurance premiums. Other costs

associated with housing military families are carried in the military

personnel appropriations. Housing allowances and cost of transporta-

tion of personnel and of household goods are examples.

The amount provided will allow for the construction of 10,691 new

units authorized for fiscal year 1974. To some extent. savings resulting

from cancellation of prior-year projects as the result of base closures

or other changes in requirements can b)e applied to finance the fiscal

year 1974 program. However, sufficient funds Ilave been provided to

allow for the construction of adequate units for those projects which

remain valid in the fiscal year 1972 and 1973 family housing- programs.

The Committee on Appropriations has been deeply concerned with

ensuring that military families have a sufficient amount of housing

on and off military installations. The Committee is equally concerned

that such housing be adequate in quality as well as in quantity. The

Subcommittee on Military Construction has encouraged the military

to provide the construction of housing which is suitable in terms of

size, livability, attractiveness, and privacy where it is required on base.

It has also encouraged other departments of government, such as the

Department of Housing and Urban Development, to assist the com-

munities around military installations to provide good housing for

military families.

The Committee has noted in its reports in previous years the size of

the family housing deficit for the military services. This deficit is based

upon their projected long-range strengths. Using the latest estimates

available to the Committee, the total deficit of military family housing,

based upon projected force levels for fiscal year 1978, is 212,000. Of

this amount, 170.00o consists of military personnel in pay grades of E4

and above. The remainder of the deficit, 42,000, is for married per-

sonnel in pay grades El1 through E3. This represents a deficit of 17%

in the higher grades and 30% in the lower grades. The Committee

has encouraged efforts of the Department of Defense, the military

services, and other governmental and nongovernmental programs to

siolnificantly reduce these deficits within a reasonable period of time.

The Committee has supported the construction of housing on base

as well as becoming involved in efforts to supply more adequate off-base

housing through progrLams of the Department of Housing and Urban

I)evelopment.

The Committee is very concerned that housing be built of a type

which will be an inducement for people to enter and stay in the mili-

tary service and which will stand the test of time. Too large a part of

the present inventory of military-owned housing does not meet these

tests. Much of the housing constructed at military bases under the

Lalham and Wherry housing programs was poorly designed, poorly

constructed, or both. Rather than being serviceable housing which

can continue to be used for many scores of years, too often it is too

small, too crowded, or too noisv. In most cases Lanham Act housing

has been disposed of and, in many cases, Wherry housing which could

not ibe upgraded has been declared substandard or should be declared

substandard.

To some extent it has been true even of more recent family housing

pro gramis that the family housing being built at military installations

is not meeting current or future needs in terms of size and quality.

Often desirable features, such as garages, sidewalks, etc., are left out

of the original construction. These will only have to be added back

some years later under the improvements program. Furthermore, in

the opinion of the members of the Committee, both individually and

collectively, and in the opinion of many military wives, some of the

housing desiglnel and built under the direction of the military does not

seem to bie very livable in terms of function and the provision of agree-

able space and amenities for families.

In order to overcome these problems and provide good housing, good

imaginative management in the Department of Defense and coopera-

tion by the Congress are required. Statutory size limitations for mili-

tary family housing basically have not been altered since 1948. Unit

cost allowances have not kept pace with cost increases in home con-

struction. It is the responsibility of the Department of Defense to

propose adequate standards and cost limits as it is the job of Con-

gress to approve suitable standards. It is also the job of the Depart-

ment of Defense to use the authority which it obtains from Congress in

the most effective way possible. Hopefully, some progress is being

made in both areas.

Some improvement has been made in the type of housing being

built as a result of growing use by the Department of Defense to turn-

key procurement of family housing. In general, the turnkey procedure

allows a better, more acceptable house for the money than does the

more conventional technique of housing construction, to which the

Department of Defense and its construction agencies seemed wedded

for a long time. This is, first of all, because the turnkey procedure

allows negotiation with bidders to obtain the maximum house within

the dollar limits. Secondly, in order to provide flexibility and to

allow the maximum possible use of existing homebuilder's designs, the

turnkey program, in 1969, was allowed a variance of up to 15% from

the statutory space allowances. Thus, within dollars available more

space can be provided. Next, the turnkey procedure reintroduces the

key element of consumer preferences into the design of family hous-

ing. In other words, the experience of homebuilders as to what features

housewives like or dislike in houses cannot help but be factored into

the houses that they design. The military construction agencies do not

have this marketplace experience. Finally, the use of turnkey elimi-

nates many of the obstacles which had kept experienced homebuilders

from bidding on military family housing projects. They can use their

own designs, the suppliers with whom they are familiar. This has re-

sulted in substantial savings to the military. Thus, by the use of turn-

key the defense housing program has been able to move forward to

produce better houses and has been able, to some extent, to absorb part

of the growth in housing costs.

However, it is not sufficient for the commercial builder to be the only

one in the Defense housing procurement process who is sympathetic

to or reflects the housing preferences of housewives. For this reason

the Committee has repeatedly requested the managers of the housing

program in the Department of Defense to survey military housewives

to determine their preferences in housing. This has resulted in a re-

quest by Department of Defense of proposed new space standards.

These new standards were developed as a result of a survey conducted

to solicit opinions from servicemen and their wives as to the adequacy

of military family housing and how it could be improved. The Com-

mittee recognizes that the increases being sought probably will not

allow the provision of additional rooms for family units, but will

alleviate the most prevalent deficiencies indicated in the survey by

increasing the size of dining rooms, secondary bedrooms, and the bath-

room area to permit two full baths on the second floor of three-bed-

room, two-story units and proportionately to increase interior storage

indicated to be a strong need by those families surveyed. The Com-

mittee concurs in the Defense proposal for increasing square foot limi-

tations on new construction.

Experience with costs of the fiscal year 1972 and 1973 housing

programs indicate that the statutory average cost limitations are too

tight. The average cost limitations which have so far applied to the

fiscal year 1972 and 1973 housing programs are $24,000 inside the

United States (excluding Alaska and Hawaii) and $33,500 overseas.

These have been barely adequate to award contracts for units in the

fiscal year 1972 program. They have caused delay of much of the fiscal

year 1973 program pending the enactment of new statutory limits

which will then apply to these units. The projects which have been

delayed will have to be built at costs approaching the new statutory

average unit costs allowed for fiscal year 1974 which are $27,500 and

$37,000, respectively. Sufficient funds have been provided to meet the

additional cost of these units at the higher prices.

In calendar year 1973 construction costs increased by about 10%.

For calendar year 1974 they are expected to increase by a similar

amount. Therefore, for the fiscal year 1974 program, the Committee

expects there probably will be similar problems awarding projects

within the average unit cost limit proposed by Defense. This is be-

cause the new unit cost was conservative in the first place and was

rapidly overtaken by inflation in the homebuilding industry. The Com-

mittee feels that it may be necessary for the Department of Defense to

defer the full implementation of certain new proposals, such as pro-

viding higher standard quarters for senior noncommissioned officers

and the construction of a significant number of 5-bedroom housing

units, in order to ensure that fully adequate housing is built for the

remainder of the program. Finally, if cost escalation reaches the point

where it becomes necessary to significantly reduce the size or quality

of units in the fiscal year 1974 program, the Committee would rather

see whole projects deferred rather than allow the construction of

substandard housing.

The Committee ranks adequate family housing along with pay and

job satisfaction as one of the primary factors influencing the retention

of qualified married military personnel in the services. At the present

time, it is probably not a major factor in recruitment of military

personnel. One reason may be that there is not adequate housing avail-

able for new personnel of the lowest enlisted grades on or off base.

Current policies in the provision of military controlled housing defi-

nitely favor the higher ranking personnel. Although attempts have

been made to provide low-cost housing on and off base, they have met

only with limited success so far. Since there is not enough housing for

all military families the services have tended to give preference to

senior personnel in allocating existing housing. As a result, the mili-

tary services may be, at some locations, unduly distorting the distribu-

tion of moderate- and low-income housing between the installation

and the community, by constructing or providing housing for higher

income personnel on base while forcing those in the lowest pay grades

to seek their housing in the community. In view of the problems en-

countered in attempting to subsidize low-cost housing and the ex-

tremely tight supply of adequate low-cost housing throughout the

United States, this seems unwise. If the continuance of the program

of on-base housing construction is not to meet increasing opposition in

local communities from those organizations or individuals in the busi-

ness of providing moderate-income housing, and if it is to retain the

relatively strong support which it has had from this Committee and

the support it has had from other committees in the Congress, it

would seem that policies which impede a more balanced program for

on-base housing should be revised.

One area in which the military services can move fairly rapidly to

lessen the inequitable housing burden of their lower rank personnel

is through the use of existing substandard housing to meet their needs.

The Committee is not happy with the fact that any military person-

nel must use substandard housing, but due to extreme shortages it

does represent a temporary solution to housing problems. A_ a result

of a joint effort of the military services and the Congress last year,

an additional 20,000 units which did not meet criteria for adequacy

were declared to be substandard. The Committee feels that the exist-

ence of this substandard housing represents an opportunity for the

military services to utilize these smaller and less well appointed units

for the needs of the lower rank servicemen who generally have small

families, little furniture, and scant opportunity to obtain housing on

the economy. The Committee will expect the services to report upon

their progress in this area.

A balanced program of providing for lower grade personnel hous-

ing on base in existing substandard units and the revival of HTTD-

assisted low-cost housing off base would help to meet the deficit in

housing for El through E3 enlisted grades.

The Committee also believes that programs must be undertaken to

better enable communities to meet military housing needs. Until the

recent freeze, fairly good progress was being made in the area of pro-

viding housing for low-income military personnel through HUD pro-

grams. Also, the Committee on Banking and Currency had under con-

sideration legislation to allow HUD support of housing loans in areas

impacted by military installations. If base closure actions to be an-

nounced early next year are of the scope anticipated, a good deal of the

risk to HUD in undertaking such a program should be eliminated.

Hopefully, efforts can be resumed to increase HUID support to mili-

tary housing in the community.

Furthermore, it is within the jurisdiction of the Department of

Defense to do more to enable its personnel to obtain and pay for com-

munity housing. As mentioned earlier, housing allowances are paid

from the military personnel accounts. It would seem that a more flex-

ible use of housing allowances could be made to include variable hous-

ing allowances in high- or low-cost areas. In addition, the costs of

providing some sort of reimbursement for loss from expenses of home

ownership transactions should be explored. Furthermore, it does not

seem inconsistent with the present recruiting options of the all-

volunteer Army to encourage greater stability of assignment of mili-

tary personnel to particular units. This might hopefully encourage

home ownership and take the pressure off of rental units. In any case.

the Committee feels that the Department should give more serious

consideration to such proposals.

CONSTRUCTION

The amount of new budget authority recommended for construction

is $367,746,000, an increase of $34,649,000 over fiscal year 1973. The

46

program approved by the Committee includes increases in funds for

new construction, improvements to existing quarters, trailer spares,

and Wherry acquisition. There is a decrease in the amount provided

for minor construction. However, this is more than offset by the fact

that the improvements programs has nearly doubled.

A summary of the program approved for fiscal year 1974 follows:

CONSTRUCTION

Defense

Item Army Navy Air Force agencies Total

Construction of new housing ..-........ $153,170,000 $109,397,000 $52,646, 000 $520,000 $315,733,000

Trailer spaces......... _ _ _ _ 3,300,000 400,000 2,000,000 .........---------.. 5,700,000

Wherry acquisition (utilities) _ 240, 000 .._____.._. ___ _. _ ___ _.. ... 240,000

Improvements........... 28,160,000 10,600,000 23,750,000 _... . -...-- 62, 510,000

Minor construction l ..------ 1,500,000 800,000 400,000 20, 000 2,720,000

Planning'--......... 200,000 200,000 300,000 -------------- 700,000

Subtotal . .... . _. ._ 186, 570, 000 121, 397, 000 79, 096, 000 540, 000 387, 603,000

Financing adjustments 2-......... .... --7,250,000 -17,450,000 +4,843,000 ..........-------- -19,857,000

Total..--------......-------......------ 179, 320, 000 103, 947, 000 83, 939, 000 540, 000 367, 746, 000

1 Not dependent upon annual authorization.

2 Adjustments for savings and funding of prior-year authorizations.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Funds made available for operation and maintenance provide for

the maintenance and repairs of units and supporting facilities, includ-

ing exterior and interior utilities systems and minor alterations, as

well as the cost of furniture for housing at overseas locations, utilities

services, and other items connected with the normal operation of any

housing project. Funds requested in the budget and approved by the

Committee will provide for the operation and maintenance of 380,006

housing units budgeted for fiscal year 1974. The following tabulation

shows a comparison of the average number of units maintained by each

military service for fiscal year 1973 and the average number budgeted

for fiscal year 1974.

AVERAGE NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS MAINTAINED

Fiscal Fiscal

year 1973 year 1974

Army - -.... .132,331 136,132

NA oy/Marine Corps_ _ _ _ _ _- 87,4446 95

Air Force - -- ---- ----- ---------------------- ------ - -- 1 , 4 1 1569

Defense agencies. 149, 174

Total --..--.-.----.----------......... 369,615 380,006

1 Excludes leased units.

For operation and maintenance and leasing in fiscal year 1974, the

Commiteee has approved $667,616,000, the amount included in the

budget request aln $94,131,000 above the amount appropriated for

fiscal year 1973.

There has been an alarming increase in the backlog of essential

maintenance for family housing. At least a part of the increase is due

to dollar devaluation. Inflation is another factor impacting on the

backlog. But the fact remains there is a backlog of essential mainte-

nance which amounts to more than a quarter billion dollars and there

appears to be little hope of even controlling the figure let alone lower-

ing it.

In fiscal year 1974, for example, the Department of Defense intends

to spend $42 million on family housing essential maintenance. Yet, by

the end of the fiscal year, the backlog will actually have increased

$500,000. A supplemental appropriation request (House Document

93-155) proposed an additional $31 million for operation and mainte-

nance of family housing but it was not considered by the authorizing

committee. The committee believes this money is essential and denial

of it will do nothing but bring the backlog to near unmanageable

proportions.

As more and more houses come into the military inventory, more

maintenance will be required to keep them habitable and in use. But,

clearly from the figures cited above, we spend more and more on

maintenance and continually get farther behind. The Committee fears

that soon, military requests for family housing will be to replace

units which simply have gone beyond rescue due to a lack of mainte-

nance. If we ever reach that point, the entire military housing program

will be in jeopardy and decisions will have to be made as to whether

dollars are to go for new housing or to save existing housing. The mil-

itary should immediately begin studies as to whether we are approach-

ing this point and programs should be undertaken to stop the current

slide into a maintenance morass.

LEASED HOUSING PROGRAM

This program provides funds for the leasing of family housing units

for assignment as public quarters, including both domestic and foreign

leases. Under the domestic program, leases are provided at installa-

tions in the United States, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Funds in the amount of $44,703,000 were requested in the budget.

The Committee feels that the leasing program, particularly overseas,

is a very useful adjunct to family housing construction. A recent sur-

vey by the General Accounting Office indicated that leasing overseas

represents a very economical way of obtaining housing, particularly if

ii is employed as lease-construction. Although leased units overseas

Ore generally not quite up to the standards of housing provided by

other programs, this may be outweighed by the critical housing short-

age at many installations in foreign countries. Leasing is also useful

where we are not sure of the tenure of our military installations. The

Committee is pleased to see that greater emphasis is being placed upon

this program. The Committee has funded the total amount requested,

which is $7,060,000 above the amount appropriate for 1973.

A summary of the program approved for fiscal year 1974 is shown

in the following tabulation.

LEASED HOUSING PROGRAM

Number of units, end of fiscal year 1974

Domestic Foreign Total Amount

Army...-------------................................ 3,241 3,688 6,929 $16,056,000

a ..................................... 3,944 438 4,382 11,639,000

Air force . . .. 2,815 2,690 5, 505 13, 577,000

Defense Intelligence Agency........................................ 274 274 1 2, 770, 000

National Security Agency....................._______.... _____ 172 172 661,000

Total..............__ __-- _ _____ ._ __.... 10, 000 7, 262 17, 262 44, 703, 000

'Includes certain support to other units not counted in the total of Department of Defense's leased units.

48

DEBT PAYMENT

The funds approved by the Committee for debt payment provide

for the payments of principal, interest, mortgage insurance premiums,

and other expenses which result from the assumption by the Govern-

ment of mortgages on Capehart and Wherry housing as well as the

payment of premiums due on mortgage insurance provided by the Fed-

eral Housing Administration for mortgages assumed by active mili-

tary personnel for housing purchased by them. The approved program

also includes repayment to the Commodity Credit Corporation for

remaining indebtedness for housing constructed in foreign countries

with foreign currencies derived from the sale of surplus commodities.

The Committee has approved the total budget program of $159,177,-

000 for these purposes. This includes a new appropriation for the pay-

ment of mortgage principals on Capehart, Wherry, and Commodity

Credit Corporation indebtedness in the amount of $100,167,000. In

addition, an estimated $8,802,000 of other resources will be applied to

debt reduction, including $3,418,000 for advance principal payments.

An amount of $53,024,000 of new budget authority is allowed for pay-

ment of interest in mortgage indebtedness on Capehart and Wherry

housing and for other expenses relating to the construction and acqui-

sition of such housing in prior years, and $5,986,000 is approved for

payment to the Federal Housing Administration for premiums on

Capehart and Wherry housing mortgage insurance and for the pay-

ment of premiums on insurance provided by the FHA for mortgages

assumed by active military personnel for housing purchased by them.

The following table reflects the status of the Capehart and Wherry

housing acquisition programs:

DEBT PAYMENT

Funds to be

Number Original Amount owed as applied in fiscal

of units mortgage of July 1, 1973 year 1974

Capehart housing:

Army_. .. 35,316 $559,150,189 $338,506,909 $36,259,000

Navy ............... 19,843 319,447,635 205,164,276 20,957,000

Air Force ....... .. __ ._ _ . _ .. . 59, 100 944,627,221 552,821,217 63, 948, 000

Subtotal ..........- 114,259 1,823,225,045 1,096,492,402 121,164,000

Wherry housing:

Army ..-. ---.. -. ............ 19,823 148, 526,271 87, 012,622 9,056,000

Navy ................. ........... 22,162 150,013,669 93,832, 525 9,235,000

Air Force.__ ...-..... _ ... _ 35, 786 269, 801, 674 155, 498, 423 16, 538, 000

Subtotal ...- -- .. ... .... ......... 77, 771 568, 341, 614 336, 343, 570 34, 829,000

Total . ~. -- -...- -... .. .- - 192,030 2,391,566,659 1,432,835,972 155,993,000

HiOrEOWNERS ASSISTANCE FUND, DEFENSE

Appropriations, 1973-------------------------------------------- ____________

Budget estimate, 1974_________________ -------------------------------------------- 0

Revised budget estimate, 1974 (H. Doc. 93-155) -----_- - - - - $7, 000,000

Recommended in bill ___ -------------------------------------- 7, 000, 000

For the homeowners assistance program the Committee has ap-

proved the revised budget request for $7,000,000 in new obligational

authority. Spending of agency debt receipts, authorized in permanent

legislation, will provide an additional $17,443,000. Thus, the Fund is

49

expected to have $24,443,000 in new budget authority for fiscal year

1974.

The program is authorized by Public Law 89-754. It originally pro-

vided assistance to qualified military and civilian employee home-

owners by reducing, to a specified extent, their losses incident to dis-

posal of their homes when a military installation was closed. However,

as amended by Public Law 91-511, it also provides such assistance

when the scope of operations at a military installation is reduced. In

such cases, the Secretary is authorized to acquire title to, hold, man-

age, and dispose of, or-in lieu thereof-to reimburse for certain losses

upon private sale of or foreclosure against any property improved

with a one- or two-family dwelling which is situated at or near the

affected military base or installation.

The additional funding required in fiscal year 1974 is to pay for

the estimated effects of the April 1973 base closure actions.

STATE LIST

SUMMARY OF THE PROGRAM APPROVED IN THE BILL (EXCLUSIVE OF FAMILY

HOUSING AND POLLUTION ABATEMENT)

Total (in thousands of dollars)

State/Service/Installation Installation Service State

INSIDE THE UNITED STATES

Alabama-------------------.................................................................-------------------------------------------------. 31,650

Army.....................----.................................................---------------------------------------------------- 31,650 .......

Anniston Army Depot...----.....------.....................----------------------- 3,745 ........................

Fort McClellan------.................-------------------------------............. 18, 947 .............

Redstone Arsenal.........................-------------------------....------------......... 4,971 ..............

Fort Rucker.........--......---------------------------------------- 3,987 .....................

Alaska........------------...---....------....................................................------------------------------------------------...... 21,188

Army..--------.......------------------------------------------------......................................................... 7,915 ...........

Fort Greely..........-----------------------------------------..... 3, 060 ..............

Fort Richardson------------...................................... ----------------------2, 140 ............

Fort Wainwright----........--....-------------....................-------------------. 2,715 ......................

Navy--- -~_. ... 4,615 .........

Naval Complex, Adak---------......... ------------------------- 4,615 .....................

Air Force ...----.... .. .---. .....-... 8,658 ......... .

Cape Newenham AFS...........---------------------------------- 5,403 --..-...................

Eielson AFB, Fairbanks..--------------------------------- 1,557 .............

Indian Mountain AFS..---...-.. - 3.................... 397 ............................

Shemya AFB, Chicago---------------------------------......... 956 .............

Sparrevohn AFS................-------------------------------------- 345 ...

Arizona------.................. 17,504

Army....--- ------------------------------------------------------ 13,304 .........

Fort Huachuca...--------------------------------------- 6, 832 ... ..................

Yuma Proving Ground ..---.... -.-.-...... ... ......... . 6, 472 .......... ..........

Navy....--- --------------------------------------------------------- 635 ..........

Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma. _. ____.._....... ... ...... 635 ...

Air Force.....---- -------------------------------------------- 3, 565 ...........

Davis-Monthan AFB, Tucson.----...... .....-............ . 232._ .......... ..........

Luke AFB, Phoenix....----------------------------------- 2,986 ....................

Williams AFB, Maricopa.........-------------------... --------------- 347 .....................

Arkansas......--- . --------------------------------------------------------- - 1,459

A rm y -- ---- ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- - 294 ... ...........

Pine Bluff Arsenal.............-------------------------------------- 294 ----------

Air Force.---- --------------------------------------------------- 1, 165 ............

Little Rock AFB, Little Rock.---------------------------- 1 .165 .-1,165 ... --....

California . 111,192

CAtrmy-a----------------------------------------------------- - 297--------------19

Arm ,- . ... .21,797 .............

Fort Ord--- --------------------------------------- 9, 812 ............... ......

Hunter-Liggett Military Reservation_..._......... .__. .__ 7,776 .....................

Presidio of San Francisco.------ 3,074 .......................

Oakland Army Terminal---- 343 .......................

Sacramento Army Depot---------------------------------- 412 .....................

Sierra Army Depot------------------------------------374 ...........380

NOOal Wea6-------beof---r ---hiua ---Lake-------------------------- 83,374 -------

Naval Weapons Center, China Lake............. 3,163 ._. 37..._...... ........___

Naval Hospital, Long Beach------------------------------- 878 ...........

Naval Shipyard, Long Beach----------------------------- 6, 808 ................

Naval Air Station, Miramar------------------------------ 1,454 ....................

Naval Air Station, North Island--------------- - .- - 4,055 -..._......-....._-....-..-

Fleet Combat Direction Systems Training Center, Pacific, San

Diego...--- 1,118

Naval Electronics Laboratory Center, San Diego....-------------- 3,518 .....-.-..._.....-......

Naval Station, San Diego------------------------------- 11,996 ..........---------------------

Naval Training Center, San Diego.------------------------ 2,944 .......-....-._...........

Navy Public Works Center, San Diego..---------.--------- 2, 471 ....................

Navy Submarine Support Facility, San Diego..... ------------------ 3,920 ...................

Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach___...................... . 807 .......................

Marine Corps Supply Center, Barstow----------------------- 3, 802 ............................

Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton _-------------------- - 10,920

Marine Corps Air Station, El Toro---- - - - 747 .....................

Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego-----.--- -------- - 3,825 ......................

Marine Corps Base, Twentynine Palms..----------------- - 2,992 ................. ....

Naval Air Station Alameda.--..-...--------------------- - 3,827

Naval Air Station, Lemoore_ -----------_- -......326.. 3,266 ..........___ ....

Naval Air Station, Moffett Field---------------------------- 3,150 .............. ......

Naval Hospital, Oakland-------------------------------- 5,839 ................. ...........

Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo __1, 874 .................. --

Air Foarceds AFB, . ------------------------------- 5,274...........

Edwards AFB, Rosamond .--------------------------------- 889.......... .............

Mather AFB, Sacramento --------------------------------- 310 .....................

McClellan AFB, Sacramento...------------------------ 2,572 ................ ........

Norton AFB, San Bernardino----------------------------- 1,283

Vandenberg AFB, Lompoc 220---------------------

OS - ---------------- ---------------- 747----------

DSA-Defense Depot, Tracy Annex, Stockton_ ___47 ......_ . .._...........

(50)

51

STATE LIST

SUMMARY OF THE PROGRAM APPROVED IN THE BILL (EXCLUSIVE OF FAMILY

HOUSING AND POLLUTION ABATEMENT)-Continued

Total (in thousands of dollars)

State/Service/Installation Installation Service State

INSIDE THE UNITED STATES--Continued

Colorado----------------------......................------------------..............................................----------------------------- 34, 327

Army .................. .. .................... ....... .... ....... 5,651 ........

Fort Carson-----------..---------------...............------------............... 5,651 .....--....

Air Force-----..............------------............................................-------------------------------------. 28,676 ..

Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs--. ------------------- 483 ..

Lowry AFB, Denver......... ...... .......-..... ........ 20, 350 .

Peterson Field, Colorado Springs - --...-...... 7, 843 ..

Connecticut----------------------....................................................-------------------------------------------........................ 6, 158

Navy ..........................6 158 .....

Navy----------------------------------------------------------- --- 6,158-------

Naval Submarine Base, New London..................... 6,158 ..-

Delaware------------................................................................------------------------------------------........ 2,558

Air Force------------------------......................................------------------ 2,558

Dover AFB, Dover..............-----------.........------------.... .....------------ 2,558 ..

District of Columbia.........................--------------------------------...............----------------------------.......... 19, 690

Army---..------..---.............................................--------------------------------------- 13,535 ..

Walter Reed Army Medical Center..........------------------------- 13, 535 ...

Navy.......................................--------------------------------------------------------- 4,655 ..........

Naval Research Laboratory ....................._.. 4,655 ......................

Air Force----...........-------------------- 1,500 .......

Bolling AFB.. ---------------------------------------- 1,500 ................

Florida.................................---------------------------------------------------------------............... 59,679

Army..............................................-------------------------------------------- 2,950

Eglin AFB, Valparaiso . ...... ..---------------------------------- 2,950

Navy....-----------............................. ........... ...... .. 46,013

Naval Air Station, Cecil Field ...... - ..3,636 ............----------

Naval Air Station, Ellyson Field .... -..-.. . . _ .. 75 ........... . ........

Naval Air Station, Jacksonville. - ~. . ......-------------- 13, 966 -..-.-................

Naval Training Center, Orlando. _ _ 4,628 .............. ............

Naval Coastal Systems Laboratory, Panama City. -.... - . . _ . 5,649 ...-..---.-.........

Naval Air Station, Pensacola. .... ..... ._ ..._._ ...._ . . . 2,699 -..

Naval Communications Training Center, Pensacola .........---------- 10,690 ............--------

Naval Air Station, Whiting Field - 3, 586 ..-.-...... ... .. ...... ...

Naval Aerospace Regional Medical Center, Pensacola .. -.... 1,084 ..................

Air Force..................................----------------------------- ....--------------------------10,716

Eglin AFB, Valparaiso .............................--------------------------- 7,039 ... ..........

MacDill AFB, Tampa------------------.................................---------------- 2,657 ..........---------------------

Tyndall AFB, Springfield................... ..... ------------------, 020 ......

Georgia .. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 43, 258

Army---.............................. ........ ..----------------------------------------------------- 33,426 ........

Fort Benning..............--------------------------------------- 12,932 .............

FortGordon...----------................------------.........-----------...------- 20,230 ..............

Fort Stewart..--------...-----..--...................--------------------------..... 264 .........-......

Navy........--------------------------------------------------------- 5,204

Marine Corps Supply Center, Albany.._.... __.. .......... 5,204 ...................

Air Force-----.......... -------------------------------------------- 4,628

Robins AFB, Warner Robins...................___...... 4,628 ................ .

Hawaii..... 37, 260

Army.........--------------------------------------------------------- 9,592 --------------

Schofield Barracks----.---- 9.-2.--..--_.." - . - - . 9, 592 ............ ......

Navy......--------------------------------------------------------- 20,337

Naval Air Station, Barbers Point ---.......-... - - 4, 306 -.....-------------------

Naval Ammunition Depot, Oahu ............ 457 ..............

Naval Station, Pearl Harbor _...__.......--.-- --... --.. .. 2,715 ..................

Naval Submarine Base, Pearl Harbor_ .. ____ _ 2,562 .......................

Navy Public Works Center, Pearl Harbor._. .... . 1,985 ..

Naval Communication Station, Honolulu, Wahiawa- -....-.... 2, 324 .......................

Marine Corps Air Station, Kaneohe Bay ... ......-...... . 5, 988 ...-----------------

Air Force. ------------------------------------------------------- 7,331 .

Hickam AFB, Honolulu- ------------------------------ 7, 331 ........................

Idaho .... -------------------- 253

Air Force ..... . . .253 -.

Mountain Home AFB, Mountain Home .................... 253 ..............--------------

Illinois... 18,644

Navy - - ---. -- .1.... 5,148" ..---------

Navy---- ----------------------------------------------------- 1,48. ....

Naval Complex, Great Lakes ................-------------.. 15,148 .................-...

Air Force. 3, 092 --- - - - - - - -...

Scott AFB, Shiloh -......- -.....-... ...... . . 3, 092 0 ............. ............

OSD... 404 ..

DSA-Defense Contract Administration Regional Office, Chicago 404------------- ..----

Indiana.. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 5, 393

Army - - .. -.. .. .. .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..-. 3,893 -- .- .

Fort Benjamin Harrison........--------------------------------- 3, 893 --------......--................

Air Force A Bn....F5. unker . Hil--- ..... . " - 500 1, 500 .

Grissom AFB, Bunkier Hill_ ___ ...__ _ 1, 500 - "............... . . .. ..

52

STATE LIST

SUMMARY OF THE PROGRAM APPROVED IN THE BILL (EXCLUSIVE OF FAMILY

HOUSING AND POLLUTION ABATEMENT)-Continued

Total (in thousands of dollars)

State/Service/Installation Installation Service State

INSIDE THE UNITED STATES--Continued

Kansas---........................................................-----------------------------------------------------------.............. 31,985

Army...................--------------------------------------------------------- 30,943 ............

Fort Riley -.....-........... 30,943 ............. .....

Air Force ------------------------------------..-------------------- 1,042 ..........

McConnell AFB, Wichita- -- .... --.-..........-........... 1, 042 .................. .

Kentucky...........--------------------------------------------------------------------- 59,186

Army......................---------------------------------------------------------59, 186 ..........

Fort Campbell..........--------------------------------------.......... 51, 881 ...........................

Fort Knox...............------------------------------------------ 7, 305 ...................

Louisiana ...------------...........----..-----------------------..................................................------------------------------ 45,948

Army..........--------------------------------------------------------- 27,299 ............

Fort Polk....................----------------------------------------- 27, 299 --.....................

Navy................---------------------------------------------------------- 17,266 .........

Naval Hospital, New Orleans__.. --.......... ......... - 3,386 .... -_............... ....

Naval Support Activity, New Orleans ....................... 13, 880 ........................

Air Force ........... ........... ............ .....------------------ 1,383 ..............

Barksdale AFB, Shreveport ------------------------------ 1,200 .......-....................

England AFB, Alexandria-.-..-..-.--...-.......... 183 .....---------------............

M aine .....s.. . -- 2,95 2

Navy . -- - Navaly-----------......... 2,952 ..........

Portsmouth NavalShipyard, Kittery- _ ' _- .'----- 2,817 ................--------------------

Naval Air Station, Brunswick...................... ........ 135 ...............

Maryland ... --------------------------------------------------------------------- 35,050

Army.........---------- --------------------------------------------- 14,790 ..........

Aberdeen Proving Ground-..__ --......-......... . - -..... 7,472 --....--..-. --.......... .

Fort George G. Meade.........-----------------....................----------------- 5, 924 .-----...........---------------

Fort Ritchie----------------------------------------- 1,394 ...

Navy--- ------------------------------------------------------- 12,494 ...---------........

Naval Academy. Annapolis-...---....................... 4,034 ...-------- --. .

Naval Medical Research Institute, Bethesda.... ..... 6, 372 ......--------------------

Naval Ordnance Station, Indian Head----.................. . -1,528 ......... .-. ----

Naval Air Test Center, Patuxent River----................. . 560 ......--------------------

Air Force..---.-... --------- 3,139 ...----------.

Andrews AFB, Camp Springs..----------------------------- 3,139 ----.........---------------

OSD--- -------------------------------------------------- 4,627 ...----------.......

NSA-Fort George G. Meade..---.-....-.............-__ 4, 627 ---------------............

Massachusetts---- 3,215

Army ---- ------------------------------------- --------------- 3,215 .........----------..

Fort Devens...-------------------2, 749 ... -... --.........---

Natick Laboratories. -------------------------------... 466---------------

Michigan.... ....---------------------------------------------------------------------- 0

Air Force---- AFB--Kio --------------------------------- 3,046 ---......-----

Kincheloe AFB, Kinross----- 2,430 .........-------------------

Wurtsmith, AFB, Oscoda....----... -------------------- 616 ...........---- ......--- ..----...---

OSD -----------------------------------------60 160 - . ........

DSA-Defense Logistic Services Center, Battle Creek.--------- 160 .......6...0....--.----

Mississippi ... ----------------------------------------------------------- 24,555

Navy .............................".............................14,569 - - ..--

Naval Air Station, Meridian ------------------------------ 5,125 -. 1_ ---....-...-. _ ------

Naval Home, Gulfport---------------------------------- 9, 444 -----... ....-----------.....-----

Air Force AFB, Bilo --------------------------- --------- .......9,986 ...---..---

Missouri .. '483"

Air Fort Leonard Wood---- ------------------------- 44, 482 ...... ....------------------

Whiteman AFB, Knob Noster-----------------------------3,892---------------------

Montana----------------------------------------------------------------------......................---

AFor eonard--------------------------------------------4,8---------,----------

Air Forceaa AB Ga ...Fs--1 ----------- 7...........-- --

------- ----- ----------------------------

Nebraska . ... '6617

Air aOr b OmahaF--.------_-------.--------- ----- --_ 367 617-................-

naa AFB ----------------------------------------------------------------.. ..--- -

Nevada. is AFB, Las Vegas..........------------

Air Force- 200-----------------

Nelis AFB, Las Vega s____________ -- 1,507

OSD 655 ...................... --- . .

DNA-Atomic Energy Commission Test Site ---- - 20 0...-- 2 - ......-------- ---

New Hampshire ...k- - 1 --------15

Air Force -------------------------------------------------

u AFB, Portsmoth--------------- -------------------526.......... 52 ..............

HPease A, Portsmouth . ........ -5

New Jersey ------ -----------------------------------------------------

Army .0,

Fort Monmouth---- - 8,656 -----------------------------....---------

Picatinny Arsenal ..---------------8,401 -----..~.... -----..........-

Air Force A B Las.. . g.. . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. ..---------- 255 ... ---------------------

McuireAFB, Wrightst----------------------------ow --------------------------- 1,698 ------........-----

1------------------------------ .698.................--....--

53

STATE LIST

SUMMARY OF THE PROGRAM APPROVED IN THE BILL (EXCLUSIVE OF FAMILY

HOUSING AND POLLUTION ABATEMENT)-Continued

Total (in thousands of dollars)

State/Service/Installation Installation Service State

INSIDE THE UNITED STATES-Continued

New Mexico........................-------------------------------------............................................------------------------------ 5, 903

Army ..............................-------------------------------------------------..................... 3, 843 ..............

White Sands Missile Range..................------------------------------ 3, 843 ................

Air Force . -----------------------------1,686 -------

Hollman AF, Alamogrdo.................................. ..... ,524 ......

OSCannon AFB, Clovis...---------------------........-----------..................-------------. --162 .....------.....--374............

DNA-Kirtland AFB..................................-----------------------------------. 374 ...................

New York................-----------------------------...............................................----------------------------------------............ 6,530

Army ........................... ........................................ 6, 244

Camp Drum....----....................................... 1,099 ..

U.S. Military Academy, West Point....-..................... 5, 145 ....................

Air Force ..................... 286 ...

Plattsburgh AFB, Plattsburgh.......-....-................. 286 ...................

North Carolina............................----------------------------------------------------------------- 47, 996

Army.............................--------------------------------------------------------- 34,028 ..........

Sunny Paint Military Ocean Terminal------------------------1,628

Suy Point Military Ocean Termina . .. . , 628 ... .............. .

Fort Bragg-------........-------..............---------....--................. 32, 400 ....................

Navy...................--------------------------------------------------------- 13, 968 .........

M arine C orps B ase , C am p Le eu ne ..- - - - - - - - - - - - --..- - - - - - - 8, 902 .... .... . .1. ................

Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point ........-.......... 1,821 .................

Marine Corps Air Station, New River......-....-........ .. 3,245 .............. .

Ohio .... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 12, 578

Air Force------........----------..........--.........----------------------------------.................................. 11, 390 .........

Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton......-....................... 11,390 ..........................

OSD.......................... 1,188 ............

OSD---------------------------------------------1, 188-----

DSA-Defense Construction Supply Center, Columbus....... 1, 188 ..............

Oklahoma... 24, 734

Army----..........----.......----------------........-------------------.................-------------- 9, 447 ...----------......

Fort Sill.....................................-------------------------------------------.. 9,447 .........................--------------------

Navy............ ............. ...... .....----------------------------------------------------------....... 2, 442 .......

Naval Ammunition Depot, McAlester ......-...-....... ... 2,442 .........................

Air Force. ------------------------------------------------------- 12, 845 ........

Altus AFB, Altus-----------....----------.....--................-------------. 1,078 ..................--------------------

Tinker AFB, Oklahoma City-- ...-..-............... ..... 11, 396 ..................----------

Vance AFB, Enid. ... ..........--------------------------- ----------- 371 ......... ...........

Pennsylvania......------------------------------------------------------------------- 4,445

Army .------------....... ........................ 1,657...........

Indiantown Gap Military Reservation ......... 1, 657 ........ ....----------------

Navy ----------------------------------------------------------- 180 ...........

Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Philadelphia- - ........ ........ 180 ........ .. ..........

OSD . ..... ..... .- 2,608 ......... .

DSA--Defense Depot, Mechanicsburg............ 2,048 ............... .......

Defense Personnel Support Center, Philadelphia ...-.-...... . 560 ................------------

South Carolina...------------------------ 8, 538

Army .......---------------------------------------------------------- 2,902

Fort Jackson.....................----------------------------------------. 2,902 .........................

Navy.... ..........---------------------------------------------------------- 3, 135 .............

Charleston Naval Shipyard, Charleston_.......... 252 ..........................

Naval Station, Charleston- _.-............... --............ 177 .............

Marine Corps Air Station, Beaufort - ...-. ..- - --.... 126 .-....... ....... .... ......

Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island .................. 2,580 ................... ........

Air Force..------------------------------------ 2, 501 -...-....2....

Shaw AFB, Sumter ....... . . . ....... . . ..... . 2, 501 .................

So haAB akota--- ------------------------------------- 51----------------------------

S o u th D a ko ta _ _ _ __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 4

Air Force..................------------------------------------------------ 514 ...........

EIIlsworth AFB, Rapid City-................- ..........-- 514 .................

Tennessee. 4,------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 838

Navy -- -------------------------- - 14 4..., 4,478 ....

Nay-S -------------- ---------------------------------------- 448-----------

OSD... . . . . 360 - -_.- - -

T DSA-Defense Depot, Memphis-.-.-.-............ -.. 360 .-

Texas .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75,519

Army-----------... ......------------------ ..--------------------------- 33,933

Aeronautical Maintenance Center..-......-...-.... ....... 6,284 -............---------------

Fort Bliss.- -- 6, 087 .................

Fort Hood...............-------------------- ...--------------------.. 9,824 ........................

Fort Sam Houston ........ ------------------------------------ 11. 738 .....................

Navy.... ----------------- --------------------------------------- 5,915 ........

Naval Air Station, Chase Field..........-.. ........... . 2, 875 ...................

Naval Air Station, Kingsville_ _........-.-............... 3,040 -..........-----------------

Air Force....-------------------------- 35,671 ....-.......

Dyess AFB, Abilene. ....-------------------------------------.. .... 730 ..................

Kelly AFB San Antonio ......---------------------------------.... 6,101 .....................

Lackland AFB, San Antonio......_..... .................. 6, 509 .................

Laughlin AFB, Del Rio------... ----------.......... ----------...---- 4,635 ............ ..........

Randolph AFB, San Antonio.............................. 1,463 ......-...................

54

STATE LIST

SUMMARY OF THE PROGRAM APPROVED IN THE BILL (EXCLUSIVE OF FAMILY

HOUSING AND POLLUTION ABATEMENT)-Continued

Total (in thousands of dollars)

State/Service/Installation Installation Service State

INSIDE THE UNITED STATES-Continued

Texa-Continued

Air Force-Continued

Reese AFB, Lubbock................----------------------------------- 4,211 ....................

Sheppard AFB, Wichita Falls.................._________ 2,753 ...........-----------------

Webb AFB, Big Spring--------------------------------- 3,154 .......... .............

Goodfellow AFB, San Angelo----.............---------------------... ........ 6, 115 ...--------------..........

Utah .....................------------------------------------------------------------------ 8,593

Air Force. .. -------------------------------------------------------- 8,343 ............

Hill AFB, Ogden..--..---.....---------.......................------------------------ 8, 343 ------............---------------

OSD-----...... .................... ...... ..--------------------------------------------- 250 ..............

D S A - D e fe n se D e p o t, O g d e n. . .__. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . -_ 2 5 0 . .. . .... . ...... . . . .

V i r g in ia . .-- - - - - - - - - - - --.. . . .... ... 7 8 , 8 2 6

Army ....................................--------------------------------------------------------- 25,016 .........

Camp A. P. Hill- -- 535 ..... ....---------------------

Camp Pickett------------..----------------..... ------------- 476 ........................

Fort Eustis ---.........................--------............. 4, 782 ...... . .....

Fort Belvoir.------------------------------------------ 897 .. ....

Fort Lee............................-------------------------------......----------- 18, 326 ....................---------------------

Navy................. ........................ .............. ...... 50,654 .........

Naval Weapons Laboratory, Dahlgren - 249 ..........................

Fleet Combat Direction Systems Training Center, Atlantic,

Dam Neck --...------ - 6, 531 .......... ..........

Naval Amphibious Base, Little Creek- -__ ----.............. . 3, 211 ............------------.---

Naval Air Station, Norfolk-- -----------.------------ 2, 525 ... ..................

Naval Station, Norfolk .....-....----------- 18, 183 .......... .............

Navy Public Works Center, Norfolk.----...... --............ . 567 .................

Naval Air Station, Oceana ... 3,386 .-----.-- - -..............

Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth -..................... 11, 133 ...........-----------------

Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown-....._.................... 1,327 ........................

Naval H'spital, Quantico .------..............---------------------------- 484 ............

Marine Corps Air Station, Quantico ..........-------------------- 831 .......... ...........

Marine Corps Development and Education Command, Quantico_ - 1,541 ................. ...........

Fleet Marine Force, Atlantic, Norfolk .... ..____... 686 ...............

Air Force------------------ 503 ............

Langley AFB, Hampton-..----------------------------------......................... 503 -------.........--------------

OSD ------------ 2,653 ........

DSA--Defense General Supply Center, Richmond ....... . 2,653 ..........--

Washington -- 10,627

Army Ls----------------------------------------------8,327 ..........

Fort Lewis................................__._._ 8,327 --...-......... ........

Navy ----- 2,300 .

Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton...--.............- 2,300 -.-.-..... - --.... . . . ..)

Wyoming -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ 5,834

Air Force.------------------------ 5, 834 .......5..83

Francis E. Warren AFB, Cheyenne ..-.......... _--_--- 5,834 -.............. ..

Various locations----....... 216,317

A rm y--- --------- --------- -------- --------- -------- - - - -13,999 .......- ... .

Air pollution abatement..-------------------------------- 6,900 . 3,9----------.............

Water pollution abatement------------------------------- 7,099

Navyri facilities ------------------------------------112, 320 191,06.. ..........

Air pollution abatement-------------------------------- 27, 636 . ..........---------------------

Water pollution abatement------------------------------51, 112...............---------------------

Air Force - - - - - - - - - --11, 250 ..........----

Air pollution abatementF---- ----- 3, 689----------------- ----- ------------

Water pollution abatement------------------------------- 5,381 .............---------------------

Satellite control facilities--------------------------------- 192 .......---------------------

Strategic Air Command, various ..-------------------------- 1, 000 ... ...---------------------

SRAM ---------------------------------------------- 988

Classified .- _ -. 3"000

Arm y------------------------------------ _-- -- --- -- _-_- --------_-.... . 3,000 . - ----

ClArmy sified project------------------------------------- 3,000 ........--......

OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

Australia 1,192

Nav- ---------------------------- ----------------------------------------- 1,192

Navy -----------. 1,192 ---------.....

Naval Communication Station, Harold E. Holt, Exmouth ...----- 1, 192 ----310,0

Bermuda ~ ~ ~ ~ omot - ,9-------------------------------------------- ,1

Bermuda 3,01.. . .............0

Navy-- ----. . 3, 010 -------.. .---

Nav--------------------------------------------------- 3,1----------

Naval Air Station, Bermuda -_. --------- - . .......

Canal Zone - t io . . . . .. . . 022

Army-- a a ------------- ------------------------- - 8,095 ----------

rPanama Area .-----------------------------.---.--- -- .9 -- 9 ......----

Air Force 8 ---095 .. 97.--........-.. . . .. ..

owr d A.--- ---- ------------ -----.------ 9..-.... 927 ...........

Howard AFB ...... ........................ 927 ....~..................

55

STATE LIST

SUMMARY OF THE PROGRAM APPROVED IN THE BILL (EXCLUSIVE OF FAMILY

HOUSING AND POLLUTION ABATEMENT)-Continued

Total (in thousands of dollars)

State/Service/Installation Installation Service State

OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES-Continued

Cuba ---............................ 8,376

Navy--------------------------- 8,376 ---

Naval Complex, Guatanamo Bay....................... 8, 376

Germany............. ........ ..---------------------------------------- 25, 638

Army--.................------------------------ ------------------- 13,124

Various locations--------.............. . -------- ....... 13,124 ..... .................--

Air Force---................ 12,514 -

Bitburg AB Bitburg----------------------------------- 3,936 -

Sembach AB, Sembach -..............-------- 1,245

Various locations......---.............--------------------------------- 7, 333

Greece -.... ...........---------------- 6, 322

Navy...------------........ . ....--------------------------------------- 6,101

Naval Detachment, Souda Bay, Crete .......... 4, 153 ...._............

Navy Support Office, Athens ...... .. .. ... 1, 948 .........-.. . . . .

Air Force---- 221 -.

Iraklion AS......---------------............... ..............------------------ 221 --

Guam, Marshall Islands...................................------------------------------------------------------------ 9, 508

Navy................---------------------------------------------------------- 9,508 .... --

Naval Complex, Guam...--------------------............................... 9, 508 .............-.-..---

Iceland.................---------------------------------------------------------------------- 7, 447

Navy........---------------------------------------------------------- 6,092 ........

Naval Station, Keflavik..-------------..............------------............... --------6,092 ................

Air Force...................................-------------------------------------------....---------........ 1,355 .......

Naval Station, Keflavik........................_ ... .... 1,355 -

Italy....---- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 3, 086

Navy.......-------..------------------------------------------------- 3,086 ..

Naval Air Facility, Sigonella ...................... ...... 3, 086 ............................

Naval Air Facility, Sigonella------------------------------ 3,086

Japan.... ------------------...-----------------------------------------------.. . 417

Air Force.......................--------------------------...................-------------------- 417

Misawa AB.............................. ...------------------------- 417

Korea -------------------------------------------------------------------- - - 6,674

Army...................---------------------------------------------------------- 1,568

Various locations .................------------------------------------- 1, 568 ..

Air Force.............-------------------------------------------------- 5, 106

Osan AB, Song Tan.....................................-----------------------------------.. 4,162 .........................

Various locations .............----------------------944- ...

Kwajalein Island........--------------------------.......---.............------------------------------------... 1,029

Army. ....------ --------------------- 1,029

National Missile Range.._- -----..------------------------- 1,029 ..........-......-.......

Philippines ----------------------------------------...---------------------------- 2, 705

Navy .......----------------------------------------------------------- 278 ... .

Naval Com plex, Subic Bay.-------------------------------- 278 .........................

Air Force .- 2, 427 ............

Clark AB, Angeles......---------...........--------------------------- 2,427 .....................-------------------

Puerto Rico.... ------------------------------------------------------------------- 2, 224

Army--------------------------------------------------------------- 517 ......

Fort Buchanan................---------------------------------------- 517 .............---...

Navy....---------------------------------------------------------- 1,707 ........

Naval Complex, Puerto Rico...... ........ ....--------------- 1,707 ....................

Scotland.... ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 778

Navy...... ........ ---------------------------------------------------------- 778 ...........

Naval Security Group Activity, Edzell.... ....... ...... 778 ............--------------

Spai----- 85

~avy---------------------------------------------------------------- o 85 -------

Naval Station, Rota.................--------------------------------------85.................---------------------

Turkeey 800 800

Air Force ........ ......................................................... 800 -.....-..... .

Incirlik AS, Incirlik ......... ------------------------------------- 800 -...............

United Kingdom ........---------------------------------------------------------- 3,788

Air Force........------------------------------------------------------- 3,788 ...........

RAF, Mildenhall----------... ----------------------------- 768 ......................---------------------..

RAF, Upper Heyford. ---------------------------------.... ........ .. 3,020 ............ ........

West Indies..... -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1, 145

Navy.- ---------------------------------------------------------- 1,145 ...........

Naval Facility, Grand Turk.........----.... --------------------------1,145 .................------------------..

Various locations... . -------------------------------------------------- 104, 493

Army -r -.- -- - - 99, 418 -

USAREUR, infrastructure............ ... 95650 ..........--------------

Army Security Agency-...- ----........... --.. - . 1, 434 .

STRATCOM -------------------------------------............ . ..34 ..---------------------.......

Navy..... ..... ------------------------------ ----------------------------3,995 ..

Water pollution abatement.------------------------------- 3,995 ..------ ------------

Air Force... o m ----------------------------------------- 1, 080 ...........

Water pollution abatement...........____ .. 750 ...---------------

Technical control facilities--......----...................... 330 ........................

56

STATE LIST

SUMMARY OF THE PROGRAM APPROVED IN THE BILL (EXCLUSIVE OF FAMILY

HOUSING AND POLLUTION ABATEMENT)-Continued

Total (in thousands of dollars)

State/Service/Installation Installation Service State

OTHER ITEMS

Planning..................---------------------------------------------------------------------.. 115,800

Army --------------------------------------------------------.. 39,000 ..........

Navy..........-------------------------------------------------------- 57,800 .........

Trident------------------------..------- -------... 10,800 ...........................

Other----....... ............ ......----------------------------------------. 47 000 ...........

Air Force.........................---------------------------------------------......................---------- 1, 000 ..........

OSD............................. ....... ... ......-----------------------------------------------------------.. 1,000 ............

Minor construction......................---------------------------------------...........................----------------------- 46, 000

Army---...............................................-------------------------------------------------------... 15,000 ..........

Navy--------------------------------------------------------------- 15,000 -------

Air Force...................................................-----------------------------------------------............... 15, 000 ............

Air Force......... ........................... ... ........... ......... 1., 000 .........

OSD.....................----------------------------------------------------------- 1,000 ..........

Access roads--..................................---------------------------------------------------------------- 1,000

Navy---------..............--...---... ----------------.. .... ...--------------------------- 1,000 .......

Emergency construction-----....--..............................----------------------------------------------------. 30, 000

OSD----------------------------------------------------------....................................................................... 30, 000 .........

AIR POLLUTION

Total (in thousands of dollars)

State/Service/Installation Installation Service State

Alabama.........................--------------------------..........................................---------------------- $115

Air Force.... ............. ... ... ... .. ... ... .. ... $115 ..---- ------

Maxwell AFB, Montgomery..........---------------------.........-----. $115 .................-----------------

Alaska.....................------------------------------------------------...........--............. 5,827

Army.... ................... 3, 227 ---... . .

Fort Wainwright............------------------..--...................-----------------.. 3, 227 ........

Air Force..... ...........................------------------------------... .....------ 2,600 ..

Eielson AFB.............-----------------------............ ... .. 2,600 -

California--.............--------------------------------------------................-------------------.... 13,891

N avy ...-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13,891 ..---- ------

Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Long Beach----..--............- 4, 152 .- 13,91---------.

Naval Air Station, North Island-- ...................... 227 ..

Navy Public Works Center, San Diego.....-................. 684

Navy Supply Center, Oakland.....-..................... 300 ...............

Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo................. ....... 6,121

Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton.-.......-............ .. 365 ..

Marine Corps Air Station, El Toro ... ------................ . 1,698 ..

Marine Corps Air Station, Santa Ana......................... 344 ..-.....-..532....... .

Florida.............. ................. .. ..... 532

Air Force.... -........... .. -.. ........ . ....... ......... .. .. .. 532 ..

Lynn Haven Retail Distribution Station, Lynn Haven........... 532 ..

Hawaii..............................................................................---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1,527

Navy..-----------------................................................-----------------------------------. 1,302 .......-..

Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, Pearl Harbor.........-........ 1,302 .....................

Air Force....------------............ .. --------------------------------------------- 225 -........

Hickam AFB, Honolulu............. .... 225 ........ .......

Louisiana ........ ..........................-..-.......... .. . .- ....... 350

Army........................... ..... .. ...................... 350 ..

Fort Polk ....................... ................ 350 ..

Navada............................. ....... ...... ...... . . ..... ... 98

Air Force-----------------................................------------------------------------- 98 .......

Nellis AFB, Las Vegas.....----------.. ------------------------- 98 ..................-------------------

New Jersey.....................................................---------------------- 170

Navy....------------............----..................................----------------------------------------- 170 ..........

Naval Ammunition Depot, Earle-.--..... 70................. 170

North Dakota ----------------------------------------.... ...---------------------------- 119

Air Force .....------------..................................--------------------------------------------... 119

Minot AFB, Minot .. ...... ......... .. ........... 119 ...................

Pennsylvania . ....------------------------------------------------------------------- 1,539

Navy-....... -- --..-.. .----------------------- --------- 1, 1,539------

Naval Shipyard, Phdadelphia.._ - - - - - - - - --... 1,539 _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Charleston Naval Shipyard, Charleston_.. .. ._.... . ... 351 ... . . . .. . . . .. . .

Tennessee ....---------------------------------------------------------------------- 730

Army------...---------..........................-------------------------------------------- 730 ........

Holston Army Ammunition Plant. ..........- - - -.... 730 -.................. . .

Texas .. 800

Army-------.............................------------------------------------- 800 ......

Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant.. - - - --.... . .. ....- --. 800 ............... . .....

Virginia.... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 5,101

Army- - --........... . . . . .. ............. 730 ..... ........

Army.~---------------------------------------------------------73

Radford Army Ammunition Plant.__......................... 730 ...............

Navy......... .......-------------------------------------------------------- 4,371 ..

Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth ....... ..... 3, 621 ...................

Marine Corps Development and Education Command, Quantico. 750 ........ ........------------

Washington------------------------------....----------------- --------------- 6,012

Navy ... - --------------------------------- - 6,012 --------------

Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton-----..-.... ...- - 6,012 ......... ... Z :---- --

Various locations....--------- --- --- --- --- - -- - 1, 063

Army........................ ........... . 1,063 ..

Various------........----------............--------------------------- 1,063 ........................

(57)

WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT

Total (in thousands of dollars)

State/Service/Installation Installation Service State

INSIDE THE UNITED STATES

Alabama ------------------- -------------------------------------------------- $2,229

Army -- --.... -------------------------------------------------- $2,229 ...

Anniston Army Depot.................---------------------------------... $2,229 .......... .........

Alaska........------------------------------------------------------------------------ 300

Army-- 300 -........--.

Fort Richardson ..................... 300 -.....-..... ..........

Arkansas.............----------------------------------................................---------------------.........---------------.. 276

Air Force...........----------------------....................................... -----------------------------------276 ..............

Blytheville AFB, Blytheville............................... 276 ....................

California ...........-------------------------------------------------------------------- 12,925

Navy.............. ------------------------------------------------------- 10,947 .........

Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Long Beach...-......-...... 3, 242 .....................

Naval Supply Center, San Diego ......----------------------------- 113 .........................

Naval Station, San Diego....... - - --.-..-................. 5,945 .... -............... .

Naval Air Station, Alameda___.._............ ............ - 527 ....................

Naval Supply Center, Oakland....-.................... 578 -...-.. --.. . . --... ........

Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton-......-...... ....... 542 ....................

Air Force------------------.......-------------------------------------- 1,978 ............

Beale AFB, Marysville .-------------.........-----.................---------------- 1,978 ..................

Connecticut -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1,524

Navy....................------------------------------------..........................---------------------- 1,524 ..........

Naval Submarine Base, New London__ ...-........ - -.... -. 1,524 ......................

District of Columbia . . .............. 444

Navy........................--------------------------------------- 444 .....---------------......

Commandant, Naval District, Washington -..---.... --...... . 444 .- --...-...... ---...---...

Florida ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 5,182

Navy.....---------------------------------------------------------- 4,323 ............

Naval Fuel Depot, Jacksonville. ...... ---------------------------- 4,095 .......................

Navy Public Works Center, Pensacola ....................._ 228 ............ .....

Air Force... -----------......... ------------- 859 ..........

Eglin AFB, Valparaiso......--------.............-------------------------- 859 .--------------------..

Georgia.---------------------------------------- 988

Army ..... --............. ..... 175 ............

Military Ocean Terminal, Kings Bay ........-----..... ... 175 ...............-------------

Navy --------------------------------------------------------449 .............

Marine Corps Supply Center, Albany.... ------...-..... . ... 449 ... .................

Air Force.-- -------------------------------------------------------- 364 .............

Robins AFB, Warner Robins-...-......-.................. 364 ............... .....

Hawaii ---- -........ 7,973

Navy-------------------- -------------------------------------- 7,693 ----------..........

Naval Air Station, Barbers Point-.------~............. . 500 ............--------------------

Navy Ammunition Depot, Oahu.--- -----.................. . 351 ... .................

Naval Station, Pearl Harbor.--.....--..-.-.-- -- - ---. . 6, 389 .........-------------------

Navy Public Works Center, Pearl Harbor..----............ . 453 -....-...........------ ----

Air Force....----------------------------------------------------- 280 .............

Wheeler AFB, Oahu. .. ------------ 280--------------------

Indiana -------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- 972

Navy -- ----------------972 . -............

Naval Ammunition Depot, Crane ......................._ 972 ..................----_---

Kansas ... . . . . . . . . . . .178

Army .--- 178 ----------

Fort Leavenworth .... ...-------------------------------------- 178

Louisiana. 717

Army- - t"l-k- --...... ---- ------ 717----------

Fart Palk---------------------------------------------- 71713

Maine 136

Air Force

Air For e . . . . .. ... ... . --- --- --- . .. 1-1 1-1 11 --- 1-i -i . 136... ---"-.... ... ..

Charleston AFS, Charleston--- ---- -- --- 136 ..---- - - --

Maryland . 304

Air Force---- 304 -- .....---

Andrews AFB, Camp Springs--- -----------..-.--- - ---- 304 ................- ...

Michigan. 229

Air Force-- --------------- 229 ......----------...

K. I. Sawyer AFB, Marquette-----------------------. --- --- 229-

M ississippi - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 276

Navy ---276-------2 ---

Naval Air Station, Meridian .... 276 ---------.............-----

Nebraska . ... 82

Air Force Omaha-------------------------------------- 82 ...----------........

Offutt AFB, Omaha......... 82 .......5......)...

(58)

59

WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT-Continued

Total (in thousands of dollars)

State/Service/Installation Installation Service State

INSIDE THE UNITED STATES-Continued

Navy $.~. $4,955 -.--------

Naval Ammunition Depot, Hawthorne..-....-......... . $4, 955 -------

New Hampshire...........................------------------------------------------------------------------- 197

Air Force. .. 197

Pease AFB, Portsmouth..----..------.....--------- --------------- 197 ..

North Carolina.........-------------............................................-----------------------------------------...................... 1, 198

Navy.................. .................................. , 198

Nvy Station, Cherry--------------

Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point.._......... ....._ 1,198 _

Rhode Island .................. ..........------------..-..42..5..... ......... ... 425

Navy ................. ........................... 425 ..........

Navy Public Works Center, New port. ...... ..... ......... .. 425 ... 425.. .....- - -

South Carolina.................................................................-------------------------------------------------------------------- 864

Navy ...... - -. --... ... ... . --. .. .. . .. ...-... .. .. ... .... . . . . . 447 - - -

Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island.-.---------------- 116 - - 4----

Naval Supply Center, Charleston..... ... ......._ ... 331 -.-....... .

Air Force.. - -.. .... ...... . . . ...... ..... .-.. . 417 .........

Myrtle Beach AFB, Myrtle Beach...... . __.. 417 _

Tennessee...............-------------...........------..------------..........-----------...........-----------------..... 107

Navy- .1..07.....-.............- - --.... .. .- 107 --- -------

Naval Air Station, Memphis_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 107 ... 107 .___ _ _ _ _ _ _

Texas....- - - --........ ..-... ..........- - - --.. .. ...... ..... -... .... ............ ...... 66

Air Force------------................--------------------------------.......................-------------- 66 ---------..

Kelly AFB, San Antonio----------...... ----------------........................... 66

Virginia..................... ..------------------------------------------------- ---.. 11,423

Navy----..--...........------------...............................----------------------------------------. 11,423 ..

Naval Weapons Laboratory, Dahlgren ..... . . . ... ... 221 ..--------... .........--- ...

Fleet Combat Direction System Training Center, Atlantic, Dam

Neck..................-------------------------------------- 600 .....-...........

Naval Amphibious Base, Little Creek_-----------------. 433 .-.-....-.......-.... .. -

Naval Air Station, Norfolk___........ 268 .

Naval Communication Station, Norfolk_. - ... .-- 620 ---

N av a l S tatio n , N o rfo lk - ... ... . . -.-.. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 1 ,9 7 7 - - - -

Naval Supply Center, Norfolk ................... ......... - 1,777 ._..................

Navy Public Works Center, Norfolk__-............ .......-. 325 -

Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth _-._-_....... --.. ... . . 3, 114 .......... ....... ....

Marine Corps Development and Education Command, Quantico. 2,088 _......................

Washington -------------------------------.... 6, ----------------------------------- 122

Navy --------------------------------------------------....------- 5,929 .............

Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton_..............-... 5,291 ....... .... ........ .

Naval Supply Center, Bremerton ---....--.~....-..-. ... 204 ...

Naval Torpedo Station, Keyport ..........-....-......... 434 ........................----

Air Force--------------------- 193 ..........

Fairchild AFB, Spokane ....---------......----..-------.......-------- 193 .....................

Various locations............----------------------------------------------------------------- 3, 500

Army .....................-.............................. 3.500 ............

various----............. .. .... . ... ... ........ 3, 500 ........ --------........... ------..

OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

Guam...................................----------------------------------------------------------------------- 3,237

Navy.....---------------------------------------------------------- 3,237 ...........

Naval Complex, Guam--.-----.--------------------------- 3,237 .........................

Philippines....---------------------------------------------------------------------- 400

Air Force.................--------------------------------------------------------- 400 -----...------..

Clark AFB-------.................-------------.....--....--------------------... 400 ..-----------.................

Phoenix Islands...........------------------......---.....................--------------------------------------------. 350

Air Force.......................------------------------------------------------------350 -----------

Canton Island.-------...... .......---------------------------------- 350 -----------...

Puerto Rico...............--------------------------------------------------------------------- 758

Navy----............------------------------------------------------------- 758 ...-----------......

N aval C om olex, P uerto R ico- - - - - --..~. .-..... _ __ . ... . .... . 758 - ... -.. ............ ........

Summary of the military family housing new construction approved

State, service, and installation: Number

Arkansas: of unit

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 - .-------- - 300

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

Iceland:

Navy: Naval Station, Keflavik_____________________________... 150

Marianas Islands:

Navy: Naval complex, Guam_______________________________ 510

Air Force: Andersen Air Force Base, Guam______--- ......... 300

Netherlands:

DIA: Defense Attach4 Office, The Hague ..... ..........._-- 4

Peru:

DIA: Defense Attach4 Office, Lima.........________......... 3

10,691

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 of Increase (+)

Agency and item (obligational) new (obligational) or

authority, 1973 authority, 1974 decrease(-)

(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

Military construction, Army___

Military construction, Navy..._...._-_-

Military construction, Air Force .....

Military construction, Defense Agencies __

Transfer, not to exceed-___

Military construction, Army National

Guard-- - - - - - _ _

New budget

(obligational)

authority, fiscal

year 1973

(2)

$413, 955, 000

517, 830, 000

265, 552, 000

36, 704, 000

(20, 000, 000)

40, 000, 000

Budget estimates of

new (obligational)

authority, fiscal

year 1974

(3)

1 $664, 900, 000

685, 400, 000

291, 900, 000

19, 100, 000

(20, 000, 000)

35, 200, 000

New budget (obliga-

tional) authority

recommended

in bill

(4)

$551, 575, 000

587, 641, 000

239, 702, 000

0

(20, 000, 000)

35, 200, 000

Bill compared with-

New budget Budget estimates

(obligational) of new (obligational)

authority, fiscal authority, fiscal

year 1973 year 1974

(5) (6)

+$137, 620, 000 -$113, 325, 000

+69, 811, 000 -97, 759, 000

-25, 850, 000 -52, 198, 000

-36, 704, 000 -19, 100, 000

-4, 800, 000

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 reduction ..

Subtotal, family housing . - .

Homeowners assistance fund, Defense-_---

Grant total, new budget (obliga-

tional) authority............

16, 100, 000

38, 200, 000

20, 500, 000

7, 000, 000

20, 000, 000

40, 700, 000

20, 300, 000

10, 000, 000

20, 000, 000

40, 700, 000

22, 900, 000

10, 000, 000

+-3, 900, 000

+2, 500, 000

+2, 400, 000

+3, 000, 000

+2, 600, 000

1, 355, 841, 000 1, 787, 500, 000 1, 507, 718, 000 +151, 877, 000 -279, 782, 000

1, 064, 046, 000 2 1, 250, 567, 000 1, 194, 539, 000 + 130, 493, 000 -56, 028, 000

-96, 666, 000 --100, 167, 000 -100, 167, 000 -3, 501, 000 _ -------

967, 380, 000 1, 150, 400, 000 1, 094, 372, 000 + 126, 992, 000 -56, 028, 000

3 7, 000, 000 7, 000, 000 +7, 000, 000 ---......----

2, 323, 221, 000

2, 944, 900, 000 2, 609, 090, 000

+285, 869, 000

-335, 810, 000

SDue to lack of authorization, does not include additional $4,300,000 requested in H. Doc. 93-155.

H. Doc. 93-155. a Includes $7,000,000 requested in H. Doc. 93-155.

2 Due to lack of authorization, does not include additional $31,100,000 requested in

0