MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR

FISCAL YEAR 1974

JOINT HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEES ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

AND THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

UNITED STATES SENATE

NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 11459

AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIAjTIONS FOR MILITARY CON-

STRUCTION FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR

THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1974, AND FOR OTHER

PURPOSES

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

23-751 WASHINGTON : 1973

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

MIKE MANSFIELD, Montana, Chairman

WILLIAM PROXMIRE, Wisconsin RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER, Pennsylvania

JOSEPH M. MONTOYA, New Mexico CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, JR., Maryland

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina HENRY BELLMON, Oklahoma

JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, Arkansas MILTON R. YOUNG, North Dakota

Chairman, Ex Officio Ex Officio

Ex OFFICIO MEMBERS FROM THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri JOHN TOWER, Texas

HOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada

VORLEY Al. REXROAD, Clerk

JOEL E. BoNNER, Minority Staff Member

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri, Chairman

HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington JOHN TOWER, Texas

SAM J. ERVIN, JR., North Carolina STROM THURMOND, South Carolina

HOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada PETER H. DOMINICK, Colorado

HARRY F. BYRD, JR., Virginia

GORDON A. NEASE, Professional Staff Member

SUBCOMMITTEE NOTE

(The hearings in this volume from page 1 through page 305 were

joint hearings of the Subcommittee on Military Construction of the

Committee on Armed Services and Subcommittee on Military Con-

struction of the Committee on Appropriations. Page 307 to the comple-

tion of this volume were additional hearings held by the Subcommittee

on Military Construction of the Committee on Appropriations.)

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION,

FISCAL YEAR 1974

MONDAY, AUGUST 6, 1973

The Military Construction Subcommittee of the Committee on

Armed Services, and the Subcommittee on Military Construction of

the Appropriations Committee, met in joint session, pursuant to notice,

at 10 a.m., in room 212, Richard B. Russell Senate Office Building.

Membership of the Military Construction Subcommittee of the

Committee on Armed Services, is as follows: Senators Symington

(chairman), Jackson, Ervin, Cannon, Byrd, Jr., of Virginia, Tower,

Thurmond, and Dominick.

Membership of the Military Construction Subcommittee of the

Committee on Appropriations, is as follows: Senators Mansfield

(chairman), Proxmire, Montoya, Hollings, Schweiker, Mathias, and

Bellmon.

Present: Subcommittee on Military Construction of the Committee

on Armed Services: Senator Symington (presiding).

Subcommittee on Military Construction of the Committee on Ap-

propriations. None.

Also present: From the Senate Armed Services Committee: Gordon

A. Nease, professional staff member; and Joyce T. Campbell, clerical

assistant.

From the Senate Appropriations Committee: Vorley M. Rexroad,

chief clerk of the subcommittee.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD J. SHERIDAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (INSTALLATIONS AND HOUSING)

(OVERALL PROGRAM); ACCOMPANIED BY PERRY J. FLIAKAS,

DIRECTOR, FACILITIES PLANNING AND PROGRAMING, OFFICE

OF THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (INSTAL-

LATIONS AND HOUSING) (FAMILY HOUSING); EVAN R. HAR-

RINGTON, ACTING DIRECTOR, FACILITIES PROGRAMING, OFFICE

OF THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (INSTAL-

LATIONS AND HOUSING) (RESERVE AND NATIONAL GUARD);

FRANCIS B. ROCHE, DIRECTOR, REAL PROPERTY AND NATURAL

RESOURCES, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY

OF DEFENSE (INSTALLATIONS AND HOUSING) (REAL ESTATE

AND GENERAL PROVISIONS); MAJ. GEN. KENNETH B. COOPER,

U.S. ARMY, DIRECTOR OF INSTALLATIONS, DCS/LOGISTICS, DE-

PARTMENT OF THE ARMY (OVERALL ARMY PROGRAM); REAR

ADM. A. R. MARSCHALL, U.S. NAVY, COMMANDER, NAVAL FACILI-

TIES ENGINEERING COMMAND, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

(OVERALL NAVY PROGRAM); MAJ. GEN. MAURICE R. REILLY,

U.S. ARMY, DIRECTOR OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, DEPARTMENT

OF THE AIR FORCE (OVERALL AIR FORCE PROGRAM); VICE

ADM. WALTER D. GADDIS, U.S. NAVY; REAR ADM. FOSTER M.

LALOR, U.S. NAVY; HARRY E. BERGOLD, DEPUTY ASSISTANT

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (EUROPEAN AND NATO AFFAIRS);

AND REAR ADM. JOHN G. DILLON, U.S. NAVY, DIRECTOR OF CON-

STRUCTION OPERATIONS, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (INSTALLATIONS AND HOUSING)-

CONSTRUCTION MATTERS

Senator SYTlaINGTON. In order that we could complete markup on

the military procurement authorization by the time the Congress comes

back, at the request of the leadership on both sides, some of us are giv-

ing up this part of the recess in order to move along on other legislation

pending before the committee. Barring unforeseen circumstances we

hope to complete the hearings on mihtary construction today. Con-

siderable time has already been devoted to review the bill in its en-

tirety. Mr. Nease has been over it thoroughly and has reported to Mr.

Braswell and to me on it, as well as other members of the committee,

thus we will address ourselves primarily to those items of special in-

terest.

Based upon this review, I have a considerable number of questions

which I will ask you to submit answers to for the record. These ques-

tions will be made available to you by the staff. The printed record will

reflect the complete justification for each individual item making up

the total bill.

To summarize briefly, the bill, as introduced, calls for new authoriza-

tion of $2,970,790,000, and an increase in prior years authority of

$3,620,000, for a total authorization of just under $3 billion. This in-

cludes approximately $1.25 billion for all costs of family housing, in-

cluding 11,688 new units; about $116.2 million for air and water pollu-

tion abatement; and $109.6 million, the largest amount in some years,

for the Reserve components.

Special emphasis has been placed again this year on people related

projects, and about 60 percent of the entire program is devoted to

housing requirements.

Our first witness today will be Mr. Edward J. Sheridan, Deputy

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Installations and Housing, who

will address himself to the overall program. While Mr. Sheridan and

his staff are present, we will also take up title IV, the requirements of

the Defense agencies; title V, which covers family housing and home-

owners assistance; and title VII, the requirements of the Reserve

components. We will then take up the requirements of the military

departments, beginning with the Department of the Army.

I will ask each of you to submit your detailed statement for the

record, and address yourselves to the highlights. You should also call

the committee's attention to any projects you wish to specifically em-

phasize, and any changes in your program from that originally

submitted.

Mr. Sheridan, you may proceed.

Mr. SHERIDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a statement which I would like your permission to submit for

the record, and I will highlight it as you have suggested.

I am pleased to appear before these committees in support of S. 1797,

the military construction authorization request for fiscal year 1974.

It is essential for implementation of the Nixon Doctrine to insure

that our Nation has the most modern and up-to-date base structure

for its military forces. There must be increased efficiency of all sup-

porting activities and greater emphasis must be placed on the readi-

ness and effectiveness of our total forces.

The new authorization request for fiscal year 1974 totals $2,970,790,-

000. Actual enactment in fiscal year 1974 over the revised amount

requested in fiscal year 1973 is due primarily to additional emphasis

on people-related projects such as bachelor and family housing con-

struction, and medical facility replacement and modernization; facili-

ties for the Navy's Trident weapon system, as well as continued

emphasis on the Reserve forces and the pollution abatement program.

The construction proposals contained in the fiscal year 1974 request

are located at approximately 300 named installations and there are

some 680 separate construction projects. In order to conserve time and

avoid duplication in testimony, I have attached summaries of these

projects, grouped in like construction categories to permit ready

comparison.

A comparison of this year's proposed authorization with that

requested and enacted for fiscal year 1973 is on page 3 of my statement.

A large portion of the fiscal year 1974 military construction pro-

gram is directed to improving the attractiveness of military life in

order to maintain an All-Volunteer Force. For example, in this

year's budget we are requesting 11,688 new family housing units,

compared to 11,938 units authorized last year, recognizing that ade-

quate housing is an extremely important morale factor especially in

helping to retain our professional officers and noncommissioned offi-

cers in whom we have invested heavily for specialized training. For

our single personnel the fiscal year 1974 program calls for construct-

ing nearly 39,000 bachelor enlisted spaces and 450 bachelor officers'

spaces. We are also planning to modernize approximately 55,000

bachelor enlisted spaces, converting open bay dormitory facilities into

room-configured spaces that will be semiprivate. We are also planning

to upgrade our obsolete medical plant to modern standards and, with

your support, we should complete programing this major effort over

the next 5 years. In fiscal year 1974 we have included $137 million

for improving our medical facilities.

Finally, we are requesting $91.2 million for community support

facilities such as exchanges, gymnasiums, servicemen's clubs, over-

seas dependent schools, and other morale-related facilities.

We have informed these committees in prior years concerning our

total backlog of construction and as you will recognize this is also

a dynamic and changing index as to the overall construction.

We are proposing in this year's request to devote $868 million to

that portion of our backlog which we term replacement and

modernization.

This year's program includes a number of projects which are re-

quired in the fiscal year 1974 time frame to accommodate relocated

personnel and missions. I will discuss this more in detail in the

statement.

FAMILY AND BACHELOR HOUSING

For our fiscal year 1974 family housing program, we are proposing

$1.25 billion, which includes $424 million for construction. This pro-

gram would provide 11,688 new units of family housing, 1,340 mobile

home spaces, over $62 million for the improvement of existing family

housing, and some minor construction and planning. The bachelor

housing construction program for fiscal year 1974 amounts to $501

million. This program will provide 39,000 new bachelor enlisted spaces.

In addition, $165 million of this request would be utilized primarily

to convert existing sound structures which are presently open-bay

barracks into modernized room-configured bachelor enlisted spaces.

This effort will provide an additional 55,000 adequate bachelor en-

listed spaces.

In the Reserve components, a well-equipped and fully manned

National Guard and Reserve, deployable on short notice, is potentially

the most economical part of our defense system. Their revitalization

over the past several-years, therefore, is encouraging. The Guard and:

Reserves are now relied upon as the initial and primary augmentation

for the Active Forces. Consequently, construction to support these

components is essential in the present timetable. The proposed fiscal

year 1974 authorization bill contains a request for $109.7 million to

provide urgently needed training facilities for the Reserve components

of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force.

The fiscal year 1974 request is the largest Reserve facilities program

proposed to date and represents the third increment of our 10 years'

goal to provide an ongoing and continuing program of adequate train-

ing facilities for the Reserve components. It is expected that this con-

tinuing emphasis, in consonance with corresponding efforts to mod-

ernize equipment and other Reserve improvements, will effect a

significant improvement in the quality of training and the resultant

combat readiness of all Guard and Reserve units. We recognize that

modern training facilities and adequate field exercise areas are a vital.

adjunct of this integrated program for upgrading mobilization capa-

bility. Accordingly, we will continue to emphasize, for the foreseeable

future, a program modernization of National Guard and Reserve train-

ing facilities.

I would like to briefly discuss the status of Vietnam construction, as

I know of the committee's deep interest in this subject in the past.

The cost-plus-award-fee contractor combine of Raymond, Morrison-

Knudsen/Brown and Root & Jones completed the work under its

contract in Vietnam in June 1972. Lump-sum contractors and Viet-

namese Army engineers are completing the remaining projects for

improving the South Vietnamese Armed Forces self-sufficiency, as well

as the balance of the primary highway program and dependent

shelter program. As in 1972 and 1973, no additional appropriations are

sought this year. In fact, a total of $23,800,000 has been recouped from

Vietnam military construction appropriations so far and is included

as a source of financing a portion of the fiscal year 1974 military

construction program.

Senator SYrINGTOu . Before you go any further, what was the total

amount of the contracts that you had with Raymond, Morrison-

Knudsen/Brown and Root & Jones?

Mr. SHERIDAN. $1.9 billion.

Senator SYMINGTON. And what fee did you pay on that ? You say it is

cost-plus.

Admiral LALOR. We will have to provide that for the record.

Senator SYMINGTON. Is there not anybody here that knows the fee

that we paid on a $1.9 billion cost-plus contract ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. It changed.

Senator SYMINoTON. How do you mean changed? Do we not know

what the average fee is ?

Admiral LALOR. The fee over the whole life of the contract was 2.2

percent.

Senator SYMINGTON. 2.2 percent. Is that on cost or on sales?

Admiral LALOR. That is on the value of the facilities produced. So

the 2.2 percent is in the $1.9 billion.

Senator SYMINGTON. That would be about-

Mr. SHERIDAN. $43 million.

Senator SYMINaTON. When I was in Thailand several years ago

some of these companies involved had a contract, and the General

Accounting Office told me that the contract was for $300 million, and

they had lost $140 million out of it, they could not find any records

to justify $140 million. Do you know anything about that?

Admiral LALOR. Yes, sir. I was officer in charge of the construction,

sir, in Thailand for 2 years.

Senator SYMINGTON. This was 1966 or 1967 ?

Admiral LALOR. I was there in 1967, and it could not have been one

of our contracts. We had no $300 million contracts.

Senator SYMINaTON. Will you check it out with the General Ac-

counting Office? It was a private contract.

Admiral LALOR. Yes, sir. The construction contracts, which would

be Mr. Sheridan's area of responsibility here, were one for $123 mil-

lion, the total value, and the other totaled $40 million. So it could

not have been one of those.

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you, Admiral. Any additional infor-

mation you have I will appreciate it.

Admiral LALOR. Aye, aye, sir.

Senator SmINoTON. Let me ask you this questioii. You say ;the

contractor completed the work, arid that the lump-sum contractors

and Vietnamese Army engineers are completing the -remaining proj-

ects. What does that mean ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. That is the completion of the road, the highway

program, and certain minor construction or Vietnamization type of

projects.

Senator SYMINGTON. Was that part of, the Brown-Root contract?

Mr. SHERIDAN. No, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. Then, why do you say you are completing, it ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. We are completing the projects, completing the

program without the combine in there.

Senator SYMINGTON. You say the remaining projects ?

Mr. SHERIDAN, Yes, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. What are the remaining projects?

Mr. SHERIDAN. Mostly highway work. There is hospital in Saigon.

And that is it. We can get a list of that for the record, if you desire.

Senator SYMINGTON. Why was that not under the original contract ?

You say completing.

Mr. SHERIDAN. We wanted to close out the contract preparatory to

the U.S. forces coming out of Vietnam.

Senator SYMINGTON. Why did you want to do that?

Mr. SHERIDAN. Because we did not want to have a large contract

still going on for a minor amount of money.

Senator SYMINGTON. What do you mean by the lump sum contrac-

tors, what does that mean ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. These are not fee contracts; they are paid a lump-

sum amount, like you did in this country.

Senator SYMINGTON. Who would they be? Would they be Ameri-

cans, or Vietnamese, or what ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. They are basically Vietnamese.

Senator SYMNOTON. How much did you pay them?

Mr. SHERIDAN. We take bids on that.

Senator SYMINGTON. How much was it to complete it ?

Admiral LALOR. My guess would be less than $40 million.

Mr. SHERIDAN. Less than $40 million.

Senator SYMINGTON. Will you supply what the figures are for the

record? We are having a very difficult time trying to chase, or trace,

whichever word you would want.to use, the money that is involved

in this Vietnam closeout. And that is the basic thrust of these questions.

[See p. 8.]

Mr. SHERIDAN. In the construction program, Mr. Chairman, we

started to close this contract out almost a year before the Vietnamiza-

tion program.

Senator SYMINGTON. Why did you do that?

Mr. SHERIDAN. First of all, the Naval Facilities Engineering Com-

mand and the OSD agreed that rather than let the $1,900 million

contract be completed before an audit was made by the General

Accounting Office-

Senator SYMINGTON. Will you say that again?

Mr. SHERIDAN. Instead of waiting for the actual completion of all

the construction, which would have dragged on for years, the General

Accounting Office-

Senator SYMINGTON. Why would it drag on for years?

Mr. SHERIDAN. Because, if we did not cut off the program, as 'we

have. And as Admiral Lalor said, about $40 million is still to be

done. That will take quite a bit of time to finish. And for $40 million

you are holding up the closing of the $1,900 million contract. So it is

far better to do it in pieces.

Senator SYMINOTON. My questions are not necessarily critical. I am

just seeking information, we are running out of money and we are

going to have to defend this bill on the floor.

Mr. SHERIDAN. This was helpful to the General Accounting Office.

Senator SYMINGTON. Did they ask you to do it ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. They did not ask, we proposed. Was that not it?

Admiral LALOR. YeS, sir.

Mr. SHERIDAN. And they accepted.

Senator SYMINGTON. Who is the person in the GAO that you deal

with ? Give us the name.

Mr. SHERIDAN. It is under the Director of Defense Facilities.

Senator SYMINOTON. Can anybody give us a name on this?

Mr. SHERIDAN. I know the name, but I cannot think of it right now.

Senator SYMINGTON. Will you supply it for the record ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. Yes, sir.

[The information follows:]

Although GAO's International Division, under the direction of Mr. Oye V.

Stovall, has conducted a number of surveys concerning construction in Vietnam,

it was the Defense Contract Audit Agency under Mr. B. B. Lynn who audited the

completed contract with Raymond, Morrison-Knudsen/Brown & Root and J. A.

Jones.

Senator SYMINGTON. You say: "As well as the balance of the pri-

mary highway upgrade programs and dependent shelter program."

Was that work that was being done under this company?

Mr. SHERIDAN. Most of the work was being done under the combine.

The roadwork and the dependent shelters were a combination of some

contract, very low contract work, but mostly self-help, where the ma-

terials were given to the Vietnamese. Now, the Vietnamese Army en-

gineers have a limited capability.

Senator SYMINGTON. I am sure of all that, but I am trying to

find out how this contract was terminated. You say only $40 million.

When I first came to the Senate $40 million was quite a bit of money.

I realize that now it is not a spit in the ocean and as far as the Defense

Office is concerned. What I would like to know is, regardless of why-

if you say you completed the primary highway upgrade program

and the dependent shelter program, which was work that was to be

done under the contract of this private firm, and you canceled the

contract with the private firm, did you use the money that you were

going to pay the private firm to have it done by the Army Engineers

or by another Defense agency ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. The money was held by OSO to cover the remaining

projects.

Senator SYMINGTON. And how much was that ?

Mr. SHIERIDAN. We will have to furnish that.

[See p. 8.]

Senator SYMINGTON. Does anybody here know about it? You have a

,lot of people here.

Mr. SHERIDAN. We have the data, but we do not have it with us.

Admiral DILLON. The dependent shelter program was primarily

funded on a self-help basis, it was not in the contract.

Senator SYMINOTON. I am just asking how much money was it that

you transferred over from the contract in order to complete the work

that you transferred for the contract. You have a private contractor

that you transferred either to the Vietnamese forces, and I would like

that as, A, or to American forces, and I would like that as B, to com-

plete the contract.

Admiral DILLON. I will have to develop the first for the record, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. Would you do that, sir ?

Admiral DILLON. Yes, sir.

[See below.]

Mr. SHERIDAN. There was none transferred to the American forces.

Senator SYMINTON. So what you did, then, you paid the money

that you got from the Morrison-Knudsen contract, you paid that to

the Vietnamese forces?

Mr. SHERIDAN. That is partially correct.

Senator SYMINGTON. And did we have any inspection of what we

did with the money ?

Admiral DILLON. Yes, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. And who did that ?

Admiral DILLON. We did that through the MAC V forces and

through the architect-engineering contract retained for that purpose.

Senator SYMINGTON. And did you keep a record of how they used

the money ?

Admiral DILLON. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHERIDAN. Yes, sir.

Senator SYIINGTON. And Admiral, what is you position in this?

Admiral DILLON. I am Director of Construction Operations for Mr.

Sheridan.

Senator SYMINGTON. And have you reviewed those records ?

Admiral DILLON. I have in the past, yes.

Senator SYMINGTON. And do you think they are satisfactory and

that they used the money properly ?

Admiral DILLON. Yes, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. But you do not know how much money it was?

Admiral DILON. Not at this moment. But it is readily available.

Senator SYMINGTON. Will you supply it for the record ?

Admiral DILLON. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHERIDAN. Yes, sir.

We feel we have a very good story on it, but I am sorry that we do

not have it with us today.

[The information follows:]

In answer to the question, no funds were taken out of the contract. The

contract accomplished the prescribed work and was closed out on June 30,

1972, according to the plan approved in January 1971.

Since the closeout, $2.83 million of "Southeast Asia Military Construction"

appropriations have been obligated through lump-sum contracts. Also, $2.1 mil-

lion have been obligated by ARVN Engineers on LOC and $1.2 million of con-

struction placed for Dependent Shelters." The current unobligated balance as

of June 1, 1973, is $85.1 million. Of this, $23.8 million is offered as a recoup-

ment to partially finance fiscal year 1974 MCP, and $29.7 is programed to com-

plete the LOC and Vietnamization projects. The $31.6 million remaining is

reserved by OSD for contingencies and possible funding of remaining depend-

ent shelter projects and Vietnamization requirements.

Senator SYMINGTON. I do not mean to be contentious, but I wish

you could have the facts to back up your story. When we ask what did

you do with the money, and how much, we like to get the answers, in-

stead of just a broad statement. We would like to get the facts, because

the facts in this case embrace the money.

What I would like to know is, who is it that you work with in the

General Accounting Office on this matter ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. I know his position. He is in charge of the defense

contract.

Senator SYMINGTON. Here in Washington or out in Saigon ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. Here.

Senator SYMINGTON. We have a story in the press this morning

which makes us look sort of silly, which was that the Army spent tens

of millions of dollars more than the legislative limitation on public

relations. If we are not going to check on this money, then there is

no reason for us to be around here. A broad statement about passing it

over from a private contractor and taking the money you were going

to give an American firm and giving it to the Vietnamese Government

has implications in it that worry me.

Mr. SHERIDAN. This committee was informed on every step we

took on the transfer. But I do not have the exact figures with me.

Senator SYMINGTON. I just want to know how much was involved, be-

cause even today $1,900 million is a lot of money.

Mr. SHERIDAN. It sure is.

Senator SYMINOTON. And we are running out of money very fast.

Mr. SHERIDAN. So is $40 million a lot of money.

Senator SYMINGTON. It is to me, and I am glad to hear it is to you.

Mr. SHERIDAN. It sure is.

Senator SYMINGTON. Now, Mr. Sheridan, where do you want to go

from page 11?

Mr. SHERIDAN. To page 14.

Installation and activity reductions and realinements.

As you know, on April 17th we announced a significant installation

and activity reduction and realinement package with annual recurring

savings of $375 million after one-time costs.

Since 1969, the DOD announced a total of 2,269 installation and

activity reductions, realinement and closure actions worldwide. These

actions reduced over 302,000 military and over 195,000 civilian person-

nel positions and will result in the reduction of annual Defense ex-

peonditures of almost $4.4 billion when completed. Although, most of

the actions have already been completed, some, including those most

recently announced, will not be completed until the end of fiscal year

1974 and a few will take somewhat longer.

TURNKEY CONSTRUCTION

We have proposed revised language in section 604 of the general

provisions of this year's bill in order to clarify the application of our

one-step turnkey procedure.

The proposed language will authorize the use of the one-step turn-

key procedure as an alternative to the use of conventional formal

advertising.

On health care facilities, beginning with this year's program, we

are embarking on a 5-year health facilities modernization program.

The initial year of the program includes a total of $137 million for

medical projects.

The next item of interest is a new generation military hospital proj-

ect, which is under development. This project involves the construc-

tion of a test-bed hospital at Travis Air Force Base, Calif., to study a

wide range of cost-effective innovations leading to reduced overall cost

of providing modern health care services.

The Air Force, as program manager, has just completed require-

ment and criteria studies and concept studies are about to get under-

way. It is proposed to request funds for this 632-bed hospital in the

fiscal year 1975 construction program.

Senator SYMINGTON. How much ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. It is now $100 million.

Senator SYMINGTON. What is in the 1974 budget ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. Nothing.

Senator SYMINGTON. You are just announcing you are going to do it?

Mr. SHERIDAN. We announced last year, but we are further along

now ; yes, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. Further along in what ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. In developing the criteria, getting the preliminary

planning done.

POLLUTION ABATEMENT

This year's budgetary request continues the program for abating

pollution at military installations which was started several years

ago. In keeping with national environmental policies, we have again

programed major funding for this important effort. Included in this

year's program is $116.2 million for 97 projects to assure compliance

with current pollution control standards.

AIR INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE ZONES

A threat to our ability to maintain adequate air strength is urban

encroachment on our airbases. We have begun a policy of establish-

ing compatible use zones in the intensive flying areas.

These zones will be established by many methods, ranging from

local land use zoning to Federal purchase of land. This year, we are

asking $25.9 million in authorization for the Air Force to acquire some

78,605 acres at 13 bases and $5.4 million to acquire all 14,365 acres at

two bases in the Navy program. However, since acquisition by ex-

change of land will be attempted, only $2 million in appropriations

for the Air Force purposes will be sought.

I am most appreciative of the opportunity to appear before you

today to present the military construction request for fiscal year 1974

and to discuss subjects in the installations, construction, an4 housing

areas which are of interest to these committees.

I have with me Perry Fliakas, Director for Facilities Planning and

Programing. Mr. Fliakas, the staff, and I will be available to answer

your questions and we would be pleased to provide such additional

information as you may request.

Thank you.

[Mr. Sheridan's statement follows :1

I am pleased to appear before these Committees in support of S. 1797, the

Military Construction Authorization request for FY 1974. It is indeed a challenge

to participate with members of this Committee and the entire Congress in the

development of a strong military base structure to support the President's strat-

egy for Peace.,As you know, the President's Strategy for Peace contains three

elements: adequate strength, true partnership and a willingness to negotiate.

I would like to dwell on the first element-adequate strength-and relate the

development of the military construction program to achieving that objective.

It is essential for implementation of the Nixon Doctrine to insure that our

nation has the most modern and up-to-date base structure for its military forces.

There must be increased efficiency of all supporting activities and greater em-

phasis must be placed on the readiness and effectiveness of our total forces. The

military construction program for FY 1974 is designed to form the basis on

which to build toward these objectives.

The FY 1974 military construction program has been developed in consonance

with the long-range needs of the active and reserve forces. We have considered

present and future deployment, the total force planning concept, the condition

of existing facilities and the long-range requirements for modernization and re-

placements, overall priorities and specialized needs. Taking all of these factors

into consideration, we are presenting today our total program for the next fiscal

year.

The new authorization request for FY 1974 totals $2,970,790,000. In FY 1973,

the Department of Defense requested $2,686,800,000 after reducing the initial

construction request for SAFEGUARD facilities which was made possible by the

SALT Agreements. Actual enactment in FY 1973 totalled $2,549,525,000. The

increase requested in FY 1974 over the revised amount requested in Fiscal

Year 1973 is due primarily to additional emphasis on people-related projects

such as bachelor and family housing construction, and medical facility replace-

ment and modernization; facilities for the Navy's TRIDENT weapon system,

as well as continued emphasis on the Reserve Forces and the pollution abate-

ment program.

The construction proposals contained in the FY 1974 request are located at

approximately 300 named installations and there are some 080 separate con-

struction projects. In order to conserve time and avoid duplication in testimony,

I have attached summaries of these projects, grouped in like construction cate-

gories to permit ready comparison.

A comparison of this year's proposed Authorization with that requested and

enacted for Fiscal Year 1973 is as follows :

[In millions of dollars]

Fiscal year-

1973 1973 1974

request enacted request

Army.............---------------------------------------------- $593.4 $558.8 $660.1

Navy ----------------------------------------- 540.9 515.7 630. 1

Air Force --------------------------------------------- 341.6 284. 2 303.2

Defense agencies-.............. . 16. 4 15.5 17. 1

Secretary of Defense contingency _............- 30.0 17.5

Family housing..............--------------------------------------- 1,C7.3 1,050.7 1, 250.6

Reserve components ........-------------------------------------- 97.2 107.2 109. 7

Total......------------------------------------------ 2,686.8 2,549.6 2,970. 8

PROGRAMMING

The Five-Year Defense Program (FYDP) is the heart of the planning, pro-

gramming, and budgeting system in the Department of Defense. In construction,

we seek the orderly replacement of obsolete facilities and construction of new

facilities as new weapons systems and changes in manpower and missions impact

our military installations. The steady decline of active forces since the peak of

the United States participation in Vietnam in FY 1968 to a FY 1974 active duty

end strength of 2,233,000 has completed the transition from war to peace. The

FY 1974 military construction program reflects, (1) support of a base line military

strength which is the lowest since the pre-Korean War period in early 1950, (2)

consolidation and realignments of the missions performed by the major installa-

tions, (3) the shift from a draft-dominated force to an all-volunteer force, and,

12

(4) greater reliance on the mobilization readiness of the reserve forces. The

dynamic aspects of this military construction program are a reflection of the

great changes that have occurred and will continue to occur as we move toward

the generation of peace that the President has set as our goal.

A large portion of the FY 1974 military construction program is directed to

improving the attractiveness of military life in order to maintain an all-volunteer

force. For example in this year's budget we are requesting 11,688 new family

housing units, compared to 11,938 units authorized last year, recognizing that

adequate housing is an extremely important morale factor especially in helping

to retain our professional officers and non-commissioned officers in whom we have

invested heavily for specialized training. For our single personnel the FY 1974

program calls for constructing nearly 39,000 bachelor enlisted spaces and 450

bachelor officers' spaces. This compares with the 35,430 new bachelor enlisted

spaces and 905 new officer spaces approved last year. We are also planning to

modernize approximately 55,000 bachelor enlisted spaces, converting open bay

dormitory facilities into room-configured spaces that will be semiprivate and will

be decently furnished. Last year, 72,334 bachelor enlisted spaces were approved

for modernization. Nearly 60 percent of the entire FY 1974 authorization request

is devoted to meeting housing needs, including operations and maintenance of the

existing military family housing inventory and debt payment. In the area of

personnel support, we are also planning to upgrade our obsolete medical plant

to modern standards and, with your support, we should complete programming

this major effort over the next five years. In FY 1974 we have included $137.0

million for improving our medical facilities. Finally, we are requesting $91.2 mil-

lion for community support facilities such as exchanges, gymnasiums, service-

men's clubs, overseas dependent schools, and other morale related facilities.

The FY 1974 program also contains substantial amounts for construction of

facilities for our reserve components as well as the pollution abatement program.

I will discuss these in more detail later in my statement.

We have informed these Committees in prior years concerning our total backlog

of construction and as you will recognize this is also a dynamic and changing in-

dex as to the overall construction needs of the Department of Defense. The most

recent figure would indicate that we have a backlog of $22.5 billion for the active

forces, a $1.4 billion backlog for the reserve forces and $1.4 billion for new family

housing. There has been a drop from the figure furnished last year for the active

forces and this comes about generally from three factors : elimination of facilities

needed for the original 12-site SAFEGUARD program, a reduction in the overall

estimate of construction needed for TRIDENT, and a general screening out by

the military departments of marginal projects, which I might note here, is a con-

tinuing and ongoing review within all the military departments. In the case of

family housing, the nearly $0.9 billion decrease from the estimated deficit of $2.3

billion reported last year results largely from the increase in the pay structure

for the military personnel wherein we have enabled our military personnel to

compete on a more equitable basis within the civilian sector of the economy. We

are pleased in the case of the active forces, for example, that we are proposing

in this year's request to devote $868 million to that portion of our backlog which

we term replacement and modernization. That segment is presently estimated to

be $10.3 billion or nearly 45 percent of the total backlog for the active forces.

Finally, we have had to make some painful, but overdue decisions regarding

our base structure. This year's program includes a number of projects which are

required in the FY 1974 time frame to accommodate relocated personnel and mis-

sions. While certain adjustments have been made in the past to reduce the size

and cost of maintaining military installations, it has become clear that we can

no longer afford to defer decisions regarding closure and realignment of the base

structure, and I will discuss this in more detail later in my statement.

FAMILY AND BACILELOR HOUSING

As we move from a draft-dominated force to an all-volunteer force, increased

emphasis is being placed on programs which will better military life and stabilize

manpower. We plan to continue to improve the quality of life in the military serv-

ices in the environment of the all-volunteer force and with that end in mind, we

have substantially increased the military housing programs during the last few

years. A balanced multifaceted approach to improving the housing situation in

the shortest feasible time has been developed. This includes both provision of new

housing and upgrading the standards of livability of existing on-base housing.

Efforts being directed to the on-post family housing program include:

13

The Air Force, as program manager, has just completed requirement and cri-

teria studies and concept studies are about to get underway. It is proposed to

request funds for this 632-bed hospital in the FY 1975 construction program.

The Department of Health, Education and Welfare and the Veterans Admin-

istration have coordinated on the development of the studies, and the studies

and the benefits derived will be shared with those agencies and the private

sector.

Also in connection with medical facilities, you will recall that last year Con-

gress passed legislation which established the Uniformed Services University

of the Health Sciences. Now for the first time in history, Defense will have the

internal capability for training physicians, which will greatly enhance the all

volunteer Service goal. The Board of Regents has recently been confirmed and

it will establish the necessary policy guidance to permit site studies and de-

velopment of the physical facilities to proceed in an expeditious manner.

POLLUTION ABATEMENT

This year's budgetary request continues the program for abating pollution

at military installations which was started several years ago. In keeping with

national environmental policies, we have again programmed major funding for

this important effort. Included in this year's program is $116.2 million for 97

projects to assure compliance with current pollution control standards.

1. Continuing the high level of new construction.

2. Major modernization of existing housing.

3. Provision of mobile home facilities.

4. Broadening the programming base to include all enlisted personnel in

the E-4 grade when computing housing requirements.

5. As authorized by legislation approved last year, designating marginally

adequate housing as substandard, and renting these units at less than full

forfeiture of BAQ.

In addition to these efforts to improve the family housing situation on-base,

we are also continuing to direct our efforts to securing a greater share of housing

in the civilian community by :

1. Utilizing the Department of Housing and Urban Development programs.

2. Leasing of family housing for recruiting personnel.

3. Continuing the vigorous housing referral programs at all major bases

and installations to assist in securing housing in the civilian community, and

4. At overseas areas, we are proposing to expand the foreign leasing pro-

gram and encourage lease-construct agreements for military housing as a

supplement to our continuing efforts under the rental guaranty program

authority. A viable rental guaranty program in conjunction with an ex-

panded leasing program will considerably assist our housing problems over-

seas at a minimal risk to the United States Government.

For our FY 1974 family housing program, we are proposing 1.25 billion dollars,

which includes 424 million dollars for construction. This program would pro-

vide 11,688 new units of family housing, 1,340 mobile home spaces, over 62 million

dollars for the improvement of existing family housing, and some minor con-

struction and planning. In addition, we are proposing increased livability stand-

ards for family housing and an increased statutory cost limitation on new con-

struction. The program also reflects an administrative limitation on the number of

two bedroom units which may be constructed. The bachelor housing construction

program for FY 1974 amounts to $501 million. This program will provide 39,000

new bachelor enlisted spaces. In addition, 165 million dollars of this request would

be utilized primarily to convert existing sound structures which are presently

open-bay barracks into modernized room-configured bachelor enlisted spaces. The

effort will provide an additional 55,000 adequate bachelor enlisted spaces. We are

pleased to note that the bachelor housing request for this year is about 30 percent

higher than last year's request.

RESERVE COMPONENTS

A well-equipped and fully manned National Guard and Reserve, deployable

on short notice, is potentially the most economical part of our defense system.

Their revitalization over the past several years, therefore, is encouraging. The

Guard and Reserves are now relied upon as the initial and primary augmentation

for the active forces. Consequently, construction to support these components is

essential in the present timetable. The proposed fiscal year 1974 authorization

bill contains a request for $109.7 million to provide urgently needed training

14

facilities for the Reserve components of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air

Force.

The FY 1974 request is the largest Reserve facilities program proposed to date

and represents the third increment of our 10 years goal to provide an ongoing and

continuing program of adequate training facilities for the Reserve Components.

It is expected that this continuing emphasis, in consonance with corresponding

efforts to modernize equipment and other Reserve improvements, will effect a

significant improvement in the quality of training and the resultant combat

readiness of all Guard and Reserve units. We recognize that modern training

facilities and adequate field exercise areas are a vital adjunct of this integrated

program for upgrading mobilization capability. Accordingly, we will continue

to emphasize for the foreseeable future, a program of modernization of National

Guard and Reserve training facilities.

STATUS OF VIETNAM CONSTRUCTION

I would like to briefly discuss the status of Vietnam Construction as I know

of the Committees' deep interest in this subject in the past.

The Cost Plus Award Fee contractor combine of Raymond, Morrison-Knudsen/

Brown and Root & Jones completed the work under its contract in Vietnam last

June. Lump sum contractors and Vietnamese Army engineers are completing

the remaining projects for improving the South Vietnamese Armed Forces self

sufficiency, as well as the balance of the primary highway upgrade program and

dependent shelter program. As in 1.972 and 1973, no additional appropriations

are sought this year. In fact, a total of $23,800,000 has been recouped from Viet-

nam military construction appropriations so far and is included as a source of

financing a portion of the FY 1974 Military Construction Program.

REAL PROPERTY SURVEYS

In February 1970, Executive Order 11508 was promulgated by the President,

assigning responsibility to the General Services Administration (GSA) for

conducting surveys of all Federal properties in order to identify unneeded and

underutilized properties. The order also established the Property Review Board

(PRB) to make recommendations to the President on the highest and best use

to be made of the resulting excess properties.

Closely allied to this program, in February 1971, the President proposed a

new "Legacy of Parks" program to help States and local Governments pro-

vide parks and recreation areas for public use. In discussing the objective of

the "Legacy of Parks" program, the President stated that "among the most

important legacies that we can pass on to future generations is an endowment

of parklands and recreational areas that will enrich leisure opportunities and

make the beauties of the earth and sea accessible to all Americans." As part

of this program, he has directed the PRB to give priority to potential park

and reacreational areas in its search for alternative uses of Federally held

real property determined to be excess.

Since July 1971 and in consonance with EO 11508, the Department of Defense

conducted surveys of Defense installations in addition to those being conducted

by the GSA. The Defense objective in these surveys was to insure that real

property being retained was sufficient and adequate to support current

and long-range requirements and that property no longer needed was re-

ported for disposal. With this purpose in mind the DoD agreed to over

487 separate actions involving the release of approximately 1.2 million

acres of land during the period of January 1970 to June 1973. As part of

surveys was to insure that real property being retained was sufficient and

adequate to support current and long-range requirements and that property no

longer needed was reported for disposal. With this purpose in mind the DoD

agreed to over 487 separate actions involving the release of approximately 1.2

million acres of land during the period of January 1970 to June 1973. As part of

this effort the DoD undertook over 470 installation surveys and special projects

involving over 14.3 million acres of Defense land since July 1971. Since February

1970 the GSA accomplished 200 surveys of Defense installations involving about

5.0 million acres of land. We are proud of our achievements in these areas. We

are also pleased that the President up to the present time has been able to

announce that 325 properties had been transferred to State and local Govern-

ments in the 50 States, Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. as part of the Legacy

of Parks program. These properties consist of about 53,717 acres of land with an

estimated fair market value of $147.9 million. Of the 325 properties, 174 or 54%

15

were formerly DoD properties representing approximately 29,800 acres or 56%

of the total acreage conveyed.

We are pleased with the results of these programs. While a new Executive

Order has replaced E,O. 11508, this change will not affect our efforts. We plan,

therefore, to continue the installation survey effort in 1973.

INSTALLATION AND ACTIVITY REDUCTIONS AND REALIGNMENTS

As you know, on April 17 we announced a significant installation and activity

reduction and realignment package with annual recurring savings of $375 mil-

lion after one time costs. These actions relate to our identification of those mili-

tary installations which should be retained in order to meet our national prior-

ities. Without such installation and activity consolidations, reductions and

closures, it would not be possible for the DoD to remain within budget levels.

In addition, installations and activity consolidations and closures had to follow

the significant reductions in force levels which occurred.

Since 1969, the DoD announced a total of 2,269 installation and activity reduc-

tion, realignment and closure actions world-wide. These actions reduced over

302,000 military and over 195,000 civilian personnel positions and will result in

the reduction of annual Defense expenditures of almost $4.4 billion when com-

pleted. Although most of the actions have already been completed, some, includ-

ing those most recently announced, will not be completed until the end of FY

1974 and a few will take somewhat longer. As part of these actions, the DoD

closed over 400 installations, activities and properties world-wide since January

1969.

TURNKEY CONSTRUCTION

We have proposed revised language in Section 604 of the General provisions of

this year's bill in order to clarify the application of our one step turnkey

procedure.

To review briefly, the turnkey concept involves the use of performance or nar-

rative specification of the facility requirement rather than the use of a definitized

government design, with competing contractors submitting a technical concept

which will satisfy these requirements together with a price for the construction.

We have utilized these procedures most advantageously in our family housing pro-

gram, and during the past year we have completed the development of policy

and guidance directed towards the enhanced and uniform application of the turn-

key procedures by the Military departments.

The proposed language will authorize the use of the one step turnkey procedure

as an alternative to the use of conventional formal advertising.

HEALTH CARE FACILITIES

In the area of health care facilities, there are some important and challenging

developments.

Beginning with this year's program, we are embarking on a five-year Health

Facilities Modernization Program. This program has been initiated to accelerate

the construction of necessary new medical facilities and modernization of exist-

ing hospitals to provide modern and efficient medical care. Also, the provision

of these improved facilities at an early date will permit better utilizal ion of

scarce professional talent and reduce requirements for health personnel. As I

indicated earlier, this initial year of the program includes a total of $137.0

million for medical projects. This compares to an average of $90 million over

the past 5 years. It is anticipated that funding for this important program will

increase over the next four years to assure that the needed medical facilities

are constructed.

The next item of interest is a New Generation Military Hospital Project, which

is under development. This project involves the construction of a test-bed

hospital at Travis Air Force Base, California, to study a wide range of cost

effective innovations leading to reduced overall cost of providing modern health

care services. The features to be tested in this hospital were the product of

two comprehensive systems analysis studies conducted by private industrial

management consortiums.

With respect to our present standards, we have turned the corner in our

pollution abatement effort. This is reflected in the fact that funds being requested

this year represent a decrease of 33% over our last year's request. However, it is

important to note that the comprehensive Water Pollution Control Act, passed

in October 1972, will result in more stringent standards which will be reflected

in future programs.

23-751-73- 2

16

Basically, the program proposes projects to provide proper treatment for

sanitary and industrial water borne wastes. Included in this effort is a con-

tinuation of the program initiated last year to provide on-shore treatment of

wastes from Naval vessels. The air pollution program provides funds for heating

plant projects to eliminate sulfur and fly ash, facilities for processing industrial

exhausts and the construction of incinerators and sanitary land fills.

As in the past, all air and water pollution projects in the FY 1974 program

have been coordinated with the Environmental Protection Agency. We very much

appreciate the support which these Committees have given to this program in

previous years and we trust that this year's projects will similarly receive your

favorable consideration.

AIR INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE ZONES

A threat to our ability to maintain adequate air strength is urban encroach-

ment on our air bases. To protect the hard-core bases, we have begun a policy

of establishing compatible use zones in the intensive flying areas. A Draft

Environmental Impact Statement covering this action has been prepared in

accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.

These zones will be established by many methods, ranging from local land

use zoning to Federal purchase of land. Development in the zones will not

be prohibited, but will be directed along lines compatible with the characteristics

of airport operation. Typically, residential development would be discouraged

as would development that would create flight hazards. Light industry, open

space recreation, and commercial uses insensitive to noise would be encouraged.

The amount of land involved will vary with the base and the type of mission

supported. This year, we are asking $25.9 million in authorization for the Air

Force to acquire some 78,605 acres at 13 bases and $5.4 million to acquire

all 14,365 acres at 2 bases in the Navy program. However, since acquisition

by exchange of land will be attempted, only $2 million in appropriations for

the Air Force purposes will be sought. The Congress can expect to receive

future requests for similar purposes as further encroachment on military

airfields becomes evident.

I am most appreciative of the opportunity to appear before you today to

present the military construction request for FY 74 and to discuss subjects

in the installations, construction and housing areas which are of interest to

these Committees. I have attempted to provide you with some measure of our

efforts to achieve a strong base structure in line with the President's policy

of "adequate strength" and we are hopeful that these efforts will continue

for many years to come. We have been extremely fortunate to have had the

support of these Committees over the years and for that, we are sincerely

grateful.

I have with me Perry Fliakas, Director for Facilities Planning and Pro-

gramming. Mr. Fliakas, the staff and I will be available to answer your ques-

tions and we would be pleased to provide such additional information as you

may request.

Thank you.

Enclosures:

1. Summary of fiscal year 1974 military construction authorization program.

2. Addendum-Proposed construction of major facilities categories.

3. Proposed family housing program.

FISCAL YEAR 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM

[In millions of dollars

Facility class Army Navy Air Force Total

Operational and training....--------------------------- 102.3 123.5 60.4 286.2

Maintenance and production---------- ----------------................ 16.4 130.7 36.9 184.0

R. & D. facilities-------... --------------------------........ .. 11.2 26.8 10.0 48.0

Supply facilities_.................... 8.1 2.1 11.7 21.9

Hospital and medical------------------------------ 35.0 65.3 36.7 137.0

Administrative facilities ----------------------------- 2.8 17.6 31.1 51.5

Housing and community ..------.....--------------------- 453.4 104.0 68.1 625.5

Utilities and ground improvement..... -------------------- 28.2 152.9 22.0 203.1

Real estate ---....-.. .... . . 2.7 7.2 26. 3 36.2

Subtotal..........--------------------------------- 660.1 630. 1 303.2 1,593.4

Defense agencies---------$---------------------------------------- 17. 1

Family housing-------------------------------------------------1, 250. 6

Reserve forces---------------------------------------------------- 109. 7

Subtotal -------------------------------------------------- 1, 377. 4

Grand total-----------------------------------------------2, 970. 8

Enclosure 1.

ADDENDUM TO STATEMENT BY EDWARD J. SHERIDAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY

OF DEFENSE (INSTALLATIONS AND HOUSING) BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERV-

ICES COMMITTEE AND SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION IN MAJOR CATEGORIES OF FACILITIES

Active forces (titles I, II, III, and IV)

The Active Forces portion of the Military Construction Authorization Pro-

gram for FY 1974 totals $1,610.5 million for the three Departments and Defense

Agencies. This portion of the program is related to the regular military estab-

lishment and provides for facilities and installations necessary to meet opera-

tional, logistical and other mission requirements of the three Military Depart-

ments and the Defense Agencies, other than family housing. For purposes of

easy summation, we have grouped the total request into nine standard Depart-

ment of Defense construction categories. I would like to describe the principal

items contained in each of these categories for the individual Services. I will omit

reference to the Defense Agencies in these descriptions, inasmuch as I will sum-

marize their requirements separately at the end of this presentation. The first

of the categories is:

Operational and training $286.2 million

The operational facilities contains essential airbase, fleet operations support,

communications, security, command and control, and other operational facilities

necessary to support the combat readiness capability of the Services. Under

training facilities we seek to provide the instructional and training facilities nec-

essary to the development of not only the basic soldier, seaman, airman and

marine, but also the technical and professional specialists required to operate,

maintain and repair the complex tools of modern war.

Within the above total, the requests for such facilities are :

Million

Army .- ..----------------------------------------------------------$102.3

Navy ------------------------------------------------------------ 123.5

Air Force-------------------------------------------------------- 60. 4

The most significant portion of the Army's request, which totals $102.3 million,

involves $80.0 million of authorization for the U.S. share of the NATO Infrastruc-

ture Program; additionally the program provides $7.2 million for aircraft facili-

ties at Fort Hood, Texas; $1.6 million for helicopter facilities at Fort Belvoir,

Virginia; $7.6 million for academic and school facilities at Fort McClellan, Ala-

bama, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, Fort Meade, Maryland, and Fort Sheridan.

Illinois; $0.9 million for Petroleum-Oil-Lubricants (POL) facilities in Korea; and

various operational and training facilities at 5 other installations for a total of

$5.0 million.

Of the $123.5 million included in this category for Navy, $72.3 million is for

operational facilities and $51.2 million for training facilities. Of the $72.3 mil-

lion for operational facilities, $9.9 million will provide improvements and addi-

tions to airfield pavements at six Navy installations; $5.7 million for communica-

tion facilities at eight Navy installations; $3.5 million for aircraft operations

facilities at seven installations; $21.8 million for waterfront facilities at three

Navy instailsitions; and $31.3 million for a wharf and dredging in support of

'TRIDENT at Patrick AFB, Florida. The Navy's training facilities request in-

cludes $6.0 million for academic instruction facilities at Annapolis, Dam Neck,

and San Diego; and $45.2 million for urgently needed enlisted training facilities

at 18 Navy installations.

The Air Force program for operational and training facilities totals $60.4 mil-

lion, of which $52.6 million is for operational facilities and $7.8 million for

training facilities. Significant items within the operational facilities portion

include $13.5 million for facilities for the newly approved airborne command

18

post to support national command authorities at Andrews Air Force Base, Mary-

land; $11.0 million for an addition to the Technical Intelligence Operations

Facility at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio; $7.9 million for communica-

tions facilities, navigational aids and airfield lighting; $4.1 million for airfield

payments; $5.4 million for a composite support facility at Cape Newenham

Air Force Station, Alaska; $4.5 million for an air freight terminal at Hickam

Air Force Base, Hawaii; $4.7 million for operations buildings and a fire station;

and $1.5 million for miscellaneous facilities. The training facilities include $2.8

million for a base maintenance training facility at Sheppard AFB, Texas; $2.8

million for a flight simulator training facility at Reese AFB, Texas; and $2.2

million for four miscellaneous training facilities.

Maintenance and production facilities $184.0 million

This category includes all types of facilities necessary for the production,

maintenance and repair of military hardware, including field and depot mainte-

nance shops and hangars, shore-based marine maintenance facilities for the

fleet, and production, assembly and maintenance facilities for rockets, guided

missiles and various types of conventional ammunition.

The totals of the Services' requests for such facilities are:

Million

Army ----------------------------------------------------- $16.4

Navy 1----------------------------------------130. 7

Air Force-------- ------------------36. 9

Within the Army's portion of their total request, the authorization would

provide $16.0 million for various shop and maintenance facilities at four major

bases in the U. S. Approximately $8.4 million of the request entails construction

of Phase III of an airfield complex to support an Airmobile Division at Fort

Campbell, Kentucky; $3.8 million would finance vehicle repair and processing

facilities at Anniston Army Depot, Alabama; $2.7 million is required for tactical

equipment shops at Fort Bragg, North Carolina'; $1.1 million for turbine engine

test cells at the Aeronautical Maintenance Center, Texas; and $0.4 million for

medical equipment maintenance facilities at Defense Depot, Memphis, Tenn.

Significant items included in the Navy request for maintenance and production

facilities include $20.7 million related to aircraft maintenance at 12 air stations;

$12.1 million for ships maintenance facilities at five installations; $1.0 million

for a vehicle maintenance facility; $6.5 million for ammunition maintenance

facilities at three installations; $90.1 million for the first phase of the TRIDENT

Refit Complex at Bangor Annex, Washington; and $0.4 million for three miscel-

laneous projects.

The authorization requested for the Air Force in this category will provide

the necessary facilities to support the maintenance of new weapons systems

and will provide for increased Air Force missions, changes in missions, and

safety of operations. Significant amounts entered in the category are $22.9 mil-

lion for various aircraft maintenance shops including among the major items, a

depot aircraft engine fuel system overhaul and test facility at Kelly AFB,

Texas, $3.2 million; alteration of a depot aircraft overhaul facility at Robins

AFB, Georgia, $1.4 million; a depot aircraft landing gear overhaul facility at

Hill AFB, Utah, $6.9 million: a weapons system components plate shop at

McClellan AFB, California, $2.5 million; a depot aircraft electronics system

overhaul and test facility at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, $3.3 million; and 10 mis-

cellaneous aircraft maintenance shops at six locations. 5.6 million. In addition,

this category includes 5 aircraft corrosion control facilities at 5 locations, $1.9

million; 3 precision measurement equipment facilities at 3 locations, $2.3 million';

a base civil engineer maintenance complex at Dover AFB, Delaware, $0.8 million

and at Peterson Field, Colorado, $1.8 million; short-range attack missile main-

tenance support facilities at 2 locations, $1.0 million; communications and elec-

tronics shops at 3 locations, $1.1 million; and 7 miscellaneous maintenance

facilities at 7 locations, $5.1 million.

Research and development facilities $48.0

This portion of the authorization program is necessary to sustain our search

for new and improved weapons systems. Despite its modest size, the Department

considers the projects included herein to be of high essentiality and vital to

the maintenance of U.S. leadership in the development and testing of new

defense systems.

The total of the Services' requests for R & D facilities are:

Million

Army ------------------------------------------------------------____ $11.2

Navy ----.----------___ __-___-__ -_____ -___ 26.8

Air Force--------------------------------------------------------- 10. 0

The Army's request involves $11.2 million with $3.0 million required for a

human factors engineering laboratory at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland;

$2.7 million for an explosives laboratory at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey;

and $2.7 million to provide improvements to test range facilities at Yuma Prov-

ing Ground, Arizona. Additionally, $2.8 million is requested to provide for vari-

ous laboratories and support facilities at six locations in the United States and

instrument test facilities at Kwajalein Island.

For the Navy, 12 research and development facilities total $26.8 million, and

includes $6.4 million for the second phase of an environmental health effects

laboratory at Bethesda, Md.; $4.7 million for an integrated electromagnetic

test and analysis laboratory at NRL Washington, D.C.; $3.6 million for an

engineering building at New London, Conn.; $3.5 million for an electronic devel-

opment and test laboratory increment at San Diego, California; 3.5 million for

facilities at the Naval Coastal Systems Laboratory at Panama City, Florida;

$3.8 million for facilities at Patrick AFB, Florida, in support of the TRIDENT

missile development; and $1.3 million for miscellaneous facilities at three Navy

installations.

The Air Force program for RDT&E facilities contains the following significant

items: $4.9 million for aircraft fuels and lubricants laboratory and $1.9 million

for alterations to an aircraft engine components and research laboratory at

Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio; $0.9 million for alterations to a rocket propulsion

research laboratory at Edwards AFB, California; $0.9 million for a weapons

guidance test facility at Holloman AFB, New Mexico; and $1.4 million for

5 miscellaneous projects at five locations.

Supply facilities $21.9 million

This category includes various supply facilities, including fuel storage, am-

munition storage, cold storage, depot and arsenal warehouses and open storage

facilities.

The total of the Services' requests for such facilities are:

Million

Army ----------------------------------------------------------- $8. 1

Navy__ -------------------------------------------------------------- 2.1

Air Force------------------------------------------------------- 11. 7

The Army's request includes a container transfer and marshaling facility

at Sunny Point Terminal, N.C., $1.6 million; a multi-unit supply operations

and storage building at the Aeronautical Maintenance Center, Texas, $5.2

million; a logistics and storage facility at Cold Regions Laboratory, N.H., in the

amount of $0.6 million; and a supply and administrative facility at Fort Eustis,

Virginia, for $0.7 million.

The Navy's request includes two warehouse facilities and one cold storage

facility totaling $2.1 million. The $11.7 million requested for supply facilities

for the Air Force will provide $5.4 million for a logistical materials storage

facility at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma; $1.0 million for a base supply facility at

Reese AFB, Texas; $3.0 million for a ballistic missile processing support facility

at Hill AFB, Utah; and $2.3 million for five miscellaneous storage facilities.

Hospital and medical $137.0 million

Replacement and improvement of our outmoded and absolescent medical

plant continues as one of our urgent priorities. A great portion of our hospital

and medical facilities were constructed from 25 to 50 years ago, and over the

years have become increasingly inadequate to the needs of modern medicine.

In FY 1974, we have included a substantial increment to continue the replace-

ment of the most inadequate of such facilities.

The total of the Service's requests for such facilities are:

Million

Army ------------------------------------------------------------ $35. 0

Navy_ ------------------------------------------------------------- 65.3

Air Force------------------------------------------------------- 36. 7

Army's request for hospital and medical facilities includes a new hospital

at the U. S. Military Academy, $25.0 million; an addition at Fort Lee, Virginia,

for $5.3 million; three dental clinics at Fort Carson, Colorado, Fort Lewis,

Washington and-Fort Monmouth, N.J., for $3.5 million; and a medical-dental

clinic at Fort Shafter, Hawaii, for $1.2million.

Significant items included in the Navy request for health and medical facilities

include the $22.3 million, 310-bed hospital at Orlando, Fla.; $3.4 million, 150-bed

addition to the hospital at New Orleans, La.; and $39.6 million for dispensaries,

dental clinics and upgrading of medical facilities at 20 Navy installations.

Within the Department of the Air Force, the $36.7 million requested for hos-

pital and medical facilities will provide for the following: additions and/or. alter-

ations to the composite medical facilities at Maxwell AFB, Alabama, $4.9 mil-

lion; Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, $3.9 million; and Richards-Gebaur AF, Missouri,

$3.8 million; new composite medical facilities at RAF Upper Heyford, United

Kingdom, $5.5 million; Laughlin AFB, Texas, $4.6 million; and F. E. Warren

AFB, Wyoming, $5.8 million; aeromedical staging facilities at Andrews AFB,

Maryland, $1.7 million, and Scott AFB, Illinois, $2.0 million; and dental clinics

at Keesler AFB, Mississippi, $1.7 million; Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, $1.2 mil-

lion; and Shaw AFB, South Carolina, $1.1 million; and a medical clinic at Lack-

land AFB, Texas, $0.5 million.

Administrative facilities $51.5 million

This category includes various administrative facilities, including headquar-

ters, squadron operations and similar facilities. The total of the Services' request

for such facilities are:

Million

Army $2. 8

Navy -------------------------------------------------------------17. 6

Air Force--------------------------------------------------------- 31. 1

Army's request for administrative facilities is relatively minimal in nature

and is comprised of only six projects. These include alterations to an existing

structure at Fort McClellan, Alabama, for an addition to WAC Headquarters in

the amount of $0.3 million; conversion of buildings at Fort Monmouth, New

Jersey, for $1.2 million; conversion of existing structures at Fort Dix, New Jer-

sey and Fort Knox, Kentucky, totalling $0.6 million; and construction of an

administration building at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, for $0.7 million.

The Navy's $17.6 million request for administrative facilities includes $1.8

million for relocation of the Military Sealift Command from Brooklyn to Bay-

onne, New Jersey; $9.8 million for administrative facilities at New Orleans,

Louisiana; $5.2 million for administrative facilities at Albany, Georgia; $0.2

million for a computer support facility at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and a $0.7

million administrative facility at Meridian, Mississippi.

The Air Force program provides $31.1 million which includes $20.4 million

for the Air Force Accounting and Finance Center at Lowry AFB,-Colorado;

$4.0 million for an Armament Development Test Center Headquarters at

Eglin AFB, Florida; $3.6 million for base personnel offices at Nellis AFB, Nevada

(81.9 million) and at Mather AFB, California ($1.7 million) ; $1.5 million for

a Data Processing Plant at Randolph AFB, Texas; $0.9 million for alterations

to a Command Headquarters Facility at Howard AFB. Canal Zone; and $0.7

million for air conditioning administrative facilities at two locations.

Housing and community facilities $625.5 million

Troop housing is one of the most important and vital requirements in our con-

struction program. We recognize the importance of this item in persuading

personnel to stay in the military service as a career, and we believe implicitly

that improved housing will provide both immediate and long-range benefits

through increased re-enlistment, heighten morale, and reduced recruitment costs.

The Service programs in FY 1974 are:

Million

Army ----------------------------------------------------------- $453.4

Navy ------------------------------------------------------------ 104.0

A ir F orce .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . 68.1

Air Force---------------------------------------------------------- 68.1

The Army's request for troop housing and community facilities, represents a

continuation of last year's reorientation of construction priorities with major

emphasis being placed on "peoples projects" designed to improve the conditions

under which Service personnel and their families work and live. The request

includes construction of 24,553 bachelor enlisted spaces and support facilities

at $287.7 million; modernization of 46,896 existing bachelor enlisted spaces at

$143.6 million; construction of 285 bachelor officer quarters at $4.9 million;

odernization of 528 existing bachelor officer spaces at $2.7 million: a bachelor

enlisted complex support facility at $2.6 million; and three projects for con-

solidated dining facilities and centralized food preparaton plants at $13.7 million.

Additionally, the program includes 22 community facilities at $48.2 million.

These provide two new dependent schools in Germany, as well as urgently

needed additions to existing inadequate facilities at $12.1 million; two confine-

ment facilities in the U.S. at $10.7 million; and various chapels, commissaries,

libraries, gymnasiums and similar facilities at 16 other CONUS bases in the

amount of $25.4 million.

The Navy's programming for this category will provide 9,368 new bachelor

enlisted spaces at a cost of $58.4 million; 2,719 modernized bachelor enlisted

spaces for $8.6 million ; 103 new bachelor officer quarters at a cost of $3.3 million ;

126 modernized bachelor officer spaces for $1.4 million; enlisted dining facilities

at a cost of $8.2 million; community support items totaling $14.6 million; and

completion of the naval home facility at Gulfport, Mississippi, for $9.4 million.

The Air Force program for this category provides $39.7 million for troop

housing facilities and $28.4 million for community facilities. The $39.7 million

will provide 4,768 bachelor enlisted spaces at a cost of $25.6 million; moderniza-

tion of existing bachelor enlisted quarters to provide 4,757 spaces at a cost of

$11.3 million; 60 bachelor officer quarters for $1.2 million; $0.6 million for

construction of an airmen dining hall at Webb AFB, Texas; and $1.0 million

for modernizing a dining hall at Lackland AFB, Texas. The $28.4 million for

community facilities will provide for additions and alterations to three chapel

centers, $1.0 million; three commissaries, $7.4 milllion; three gymnasiums,

$2.7 million; two high schools and one intermediate school, $7.4 million; two air-

men open messes, $2.0 million; four noncommissioned officer open messes, $5.4

million; one officers open mess, $1.1 million; and four miscellaneous community

projects, $1.4 million.

Utilities and grounds improvements $203.1 million

This portion of the program provides for expansions and additions to utility

systems and road nets at various U.S. and overseas locations. A significant

element of this year's, as in last year's program is directed toward further imple-

menting the national policies for controlling water and air pollution. The Military

Department totals in the category of utilities and ground improvements are as

follows :

Million

Army ----------------------------------------------------------- $28.2

Navy ________________ ------------------------------------------------------------152.9

Air Force 2-------------------------------------------------------- 2. 0

In compliance with federal, state and local air and water pollution control

regulations and Executive Order 11507 (4 Feb. 1970), there is included a total

of $116.2 million for 97 pollution abatement projects as a continuation of the

program begun five years ago to eliminate pollution at our military installations.

All of these projects have been coordinated with the Environmental Protection

Agency.

The pollution abatement projects in each of the Service programs are sum-

marized as follows:

[Dollar amounts in millions]

Air pollution abatement Water pollution abatement

Amount Projects Installations Amount Projects Installations

Army....------------------ $7.3 7 7 $6.8 6 5

Navy.------------------ 27.6 18 15 64.7 45 39

AirForce.......--------------- 3.7 6 6 , 6.1 15 15

Total------------............ 38. 6 31 28 77.6 66 59

The Army's request includes $14.1 million for pollution abatement ; $14.1 mil-

lion for utilities systems including $8.3 million for electrical distribution or

augmentation of power facilities; $0.3 million for a gas generating plant; and

$5.5 million for miscellaneous utility extension items at the U.S. Military Acad-

emy, N.Y., Atlanta Army Depot, Georgia, Fort Polk, Louisiana, and Fort

McClellan, Alabama.

Significant items included in the Navy request for utilities include $92.3

million for pollution abatement, $42.8 million for electrical power distribution

improvements at 26 installations; $8.3 million for heating plant and distribution

system improvements at four installations; $3.1 million for water supply and

distribution improvements at three installations; and $6.4 million for miscel-

laneous utilities and ground improvements at nine installations.

This portion of the Air Force FY 1974 Military Construction Program will

provide expansion and additions to existing utility systems world-wide. Signifi-

cant items included in this category are $9.8 million for 21 pollution abatement

projects; $3.5 million for electric power distribution lines, emergency power and

substations at four locations; $3.3 million for power and air conditioning im-

provements at six locations; $3.9 million for expansion of base utility systems

.at two locations; and $1.5 million for three miscellaneous utilities projects.

Real estate $36.2 million

This portion of the program provides for real estate acquisitions and is by far

the smallest category in the FY 1974 request. The Services' requests are as

follows :

Million

Army -------------------------------------------------------------$2. 7

Navy 7. 2

avy------------------------------------------------------ ------ 7. 2

Air Force-------------------------------------------- 26. 3

The Army's request of $2.7 million provides for acquisition of 71,159 acres of

privately-owned land located within the boundaries of the White Sands Missile

Range, New Mexico.

The Navy's request includes $2.2 million to acquire approximately 365 acres

of land at Jacksonville, Florida, to provide a buffer between the community and

the noise generated by Navy aircraft; $3.8 million to acquire approximately 129

acres of land for an aircraft missile storage and build-up facility and 14,000

acres of restrictive and sound easements both at the Marine Corps Air Station,

Yuma, Arizona; and $1.2 million to acquire 1,700 acres of land at Sabana Seca,

Puerto Rico, to provide a buffer zone for the Navy's antenna system.. The Navy

intends to acquire most of the above land interests through the exchange process.

Approximately $5.1 million is included under the TRIDENT Refit Complex to

acquire land at the Bangor Annex, Naval Torpedo Station, Keyport, Washington.

The Air Force request for real estate totals $26.3 million. Of this amount, $25.9

million is the estimated cost of a second increment to acquire land and restric-

tive easements at 13 locations in support of the Air Installation Compatible Use

Zones program, and $0.4 million is for the exchange of other government-owned

land of equal value for fee title to approximately 187 acres of land adjacent to

Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma.

Defense Agencies (title IV) $171 million

The request for activities of the Defense Agencies contains $17.1 million for

new construction and rehabilitation of existing facilities at 12 installations. The

$17.1 million program is divided as follows:

Defense Nuclear Agency ($0.6 million) to provide for a Advance Research

Electromagnet Pulse Simulator (ARES) Support Building at Kirtland Air Force

Base, Albuquerque, New Mexico; and a DNA Administration Building at the

Atomic Energy Commission Nevada Test Site, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Defense Supply Agency ($8.4 million) to provide for an improved electrical

distribution system, and a truck entrance and control facility at the Defense

Construction Supply Center, Columbus, Ohio; medical materiel climatic con-

trolled storage, upgrade restroom and lunchroom facilities and a troop subsist-

ence support facility at the Defense Depot, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania; venti-

lation of warehouses at the Defense Depot, Memphis, Tennessee; upgrade rest-

room facilities at the Defense Depot, Ogden, Utah; an operational equipment

maintenance facility, fire station and improvement and modernization of the

water system at the Defense Depot, Tracy, California; a photographic materiel

storage facility and a Defense Fuel Supply Center at the Defense General Supply

Center, Richmond, Virginia; a parking lot at the Defense Logistics Service Cen-

ter, Battle Creek, Michigan; quality control laboratory improvements at the

Defense Personnel Support Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ; and facility im-

provements at the Regional Office, Defense Contract Administration Services,

Chicago, Illinois.

National Security Agency ($8.1 million) to provide for relocation of shop facili-

ties, logistics support facility, modernization of bachelor enlisted quarters, and

an automated waste collection system at NSA Headquarters, Fort George G.

Meade, Maryland.

23

ADDENDUM TO STATEMENT BY EDWARD J. SHERIDAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY

OF DEFENSE (INSTALLATIONS AND HOUSING) BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES

COMMITTEE AND SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE

The FY 1974, Family Housing Program contains a request for 11,688 new units

and a total authorization request of $1,250,567,000 for the following functions:

Construction of new housing (11,688 units) :

Army (6,135 units) ------------------------------------------$178, 208

Navy (3,741 units) -------------------------------------------117, 675

Air Force (1,800 units) ----- ---------------------------55, 501

Defense Intelligence Agency (12 units) ------------------------ 520

Total ----------------------------------------------------- 351, 904

Construction of mobile home facilities (1,340 spaces) --------------- 5, 700

Acquisition of utility system-------------------------------------- 240

Improvements to existing quarters-------------------------------- 62, 510

Minor construction----------------------------------------------- 2, 720

Planning -------------------------------------------------------- 700

Total authorization request, construction------------- -------423, 774

Operating expenses ---------------------------------------------- 334, 210

Leasing ------------------------------------------------------- 44, 703

Maintenance of real property------------------------------------- 294, 419

Debt payment-principal---------------- 103, 585

Debt payment-interest and other expense-------------- ----------- 58, 408

Mortgage insurance premiums-Capehart & Wherry---------------- 2, 206

Serviceman's mortgage insurance premiums------------------------ 3, 780

Total O. & M. and debt payment----------------------------- 841, 311

Less: Anticipated reimbursements and amounts available from prior

years ----------------------------------------------------- 14, 518

Authorization request, 0. & M, and debt payment-------------- 826, 793

Total authorization request-------------------------------- 1, 250. 567

Enclosure 3.

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Sheridan.

Again let me emphasize that I am not being critical in my question-

ing. I just want to know what the facts are. I came up through audit-

ing in private business, and we cannot seem to get a handle on this

money aspect incident to military operations in Indochina, which

has cost us already about $150 billion.

Mr. SHERIDAN. I hope I did not give the impression that I did not

feel a little embarrassed that I could not give you the exact answers.

But we do have them.

NATO

Senator SYMINGTON. OK. Let's get them, and let's understand what

we are talking about.

Mr. SHERIDAN. Yes, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. I am going to ask some questions about Ger-

many. We understand that in the last 2 years tle dollar has dropped

55 percent in relation to its value to the mark.

How has that affected your plans for spending money in Europe ?

Mr. SHIERIDAN. I have a representative of the Assistant Secretary

of Defense, ISA, here.

Mr. BEROLD. I am Harry Bergold, Deputy Assistant Secretary of

Defense. ISA, for Europe and NATO.

Mr. Chairman, we are at just the threshold now of beginning talks

with the Germans on the offset.

Senator SYmINGTON. I know all about that. But I am just wonder-

ing, what are you doing in the construction field? If the pay that

we give the GI or an officer in the lower grades is cut over half in

its purchasing power, that must reflect itself in the construction.

Mr. SHERIDAN. Mr. HIarrington from my office will attempt to

answer that.

Senator S YMINGTON. I know we have been negotiating with the

countries of Europe ever since 1950 in order to get a more equitable

adjustment of the situation over there, but I am only interested this

morning in how the devaluation has affected your construction costs.

Mr. HARRINGTON. With respect to fiscal year 1974, Mr. Chairmain,

recently the military services testified before the House Appropria-

tions Committee with respect to the impact of both the 1971, the

October 1971, devaluation, and the February 12, 1973, devaluation.

At that time the aggregate impact estimated against the 1974 pro-

gram-and I must emphasize that-was roughly about $21 to $22

million.

Senator SYMINGTON. I cannot put it in money, but I do know

the Federal Reserve Board told us that the drop in 2 years has been

55 percent.

So with that premise, how does that affect your construction?

Mr. HARRINGTON. Obviously, sir, it makes it just about twice as ex-

pensive for us to build over there. In the NATO area where we have

made obligations previously, and we are liquidating those obligations

by payments against those existing contracts, we are having to pay

more money, and we have to have more authorization for this.

Senator SYMINaTON. Are you asking us for more money, or are you

cutting down your commitments ?

Mr. HARRINGTON. No, sir, we are asking for more money. And this

year we did not in the fiscal year 1974 budget reflect the full value

of the February 12 devaluation. We did reflect the value of the Oc-

tober 1971 devaluation as we saw it at the time of the budget

submission.

Senator SYMINoTON. So that what you are saying is that the first

devaluation is reflected in these figures and the second devaluation

is not ?

Mr. HARRINGTON. That is correct, sir.

Senator SYMTNOTON. How much money do you need for the second

devaluation, which was a good many months ago?

Mr. I-HRRTNGTON. The total amount is $13 million for both devalu-

ations. And the breakout is roughly $20 million for the first one, and

$23 million for the second one.

Senator S rINGTON. What percent is that of the total you are

requesting ?

Mr. HARRTNGTON. That would be against both fiscal years, and it

was $58 million last year and $80 million this year. So it would be

ronuhly $138 million. Our impact is about 33 percent, sir.

I will correct that for the record if necessary, sir.

Senator Sr-MIXOTON. Then the total amount that you are requesting

is not the 55 percent difference that I referred to, but considerably less

than that?

Mr. HARTRNGTON. Yes, sir.

Senator SYMiNGTON. Why is that ? Is there any cooperation that the

German Government is giving you, for example, that it did not give

you before in the way of putting up some of the money.

Mr. HARRINGTON. I would not be able to respond to that, because

I am not privy to the initial discussions on the offset agreement. I

know that our position is that we are going to seek German financing

of certain facilities which up to this point we have borne the burden

on.

How successful we will be, sir, I cannot tell you.

Senator SYMINGTON. If it gives us any impetus, in case you are one

of the negotiators-if not, I wish you would tell them-we have been

negotiating that way for 23 years, and I have yet to see any major

change in the general situation.

Mr. HARRINGTON. I appreciate the validity of that remark, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. I thank you very much for saying that, be-

cause we are running out of money.

Incidentally, I heard only last week that in the last year or so 22

countries have gone off the dollar as representing their currency.

Even though they have these fixed rates of exchange formally, the

person who has just come to Europe and goes in the store over there,

the rates are a great deal worse from his standpoint than the fixed

rates, unless he goes to the bank.

Mr. HARRINGTON. My reports are that if you go into a store or some

other place other than an exchange or a bank, you lose at least 10 to

25 percent over there.

Senator SYMINCTON. Over the formal rate ?

Mr. HARRINGTON. Over the formal rate.

OFFSET AGREEMENT

Senator SYMINcTON. I should now like to ask about the status of the

offset agreement in Germany. As I recall, in December 1971, the Fed-

eral Republic of Germany agreed to provide 600 million deutsche

marks, what then amounted to about $183 million, for barracks re-

habilitation in Germany. Last year you estimated that there would

still be an unfunded requirement of about $40 million for the Army,

and some $9.6 million for the Air Force.

What is the status of this program, and what effect has the devalua-

tion of the dollar had on the program, particularly insofar as your un.

funded requirement is concerned?

Mr. SHERIDAN. The offset agreement, as you pointed out, provided

600 million deutsche marks for the barracks rehabilitation; 183 million

deutsche marks remain to be obligated out of that 600 million. That

covers 26 kaserenes. The projects at all 26 kaserenes have been adver-

tised, and contract awards are expected in the next 3 months.

Senator SYMINarTON. Where are those kaserenes located ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. They are scattered through the country.

Senator SYMINOTON. If you have received this money. and if there

has been this heavy reduction in the value of the dollar, then you need

more money, do you not ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. These are deutsche marks. And not being an econ-

omist, I cannot answer that.

Mr. HARRINGTON. That is right, sir. The agreement was for the ex.

penditure in deutsche marks, so that the exchange rate was not affected.

Mr. SHERIDAN. We use their money.

Senator SYMINGTON. So in spite of the further fall in the value of

the dollar, we do not need any additional money because they agreed

to do it at the whole price out of the contract; is that right?

Mr. HARRINGTON. That is right, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you.

Mr. SHERIDAN. We will need more to complete the program, that

covers two-thirds of the total program, so we will need one-third more.

So that would involve further negotiations.

Senator SYMINGTON. You mean the 183 million ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. The 600 million; 183 remains to be obligated.

Senator SYMINGTON. Does that mean that it remains to be

negotiated ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. NO, that has been negotiated. That is 183 of the 600

million deutsche marks in the current offset agreement. That will cover

about two-thirds of the total facilities needed. So what would be nego-

tiated would cover the other one-third of the kaserenes.

Senator SYMINGTON. So you have an additional 300 million to

negotiate ?

Mr. FLIAKAS. It is about $117 million, or 382 million deutsche marks.

Senator SYMINGTON. 382 million deutsche marks, or $117 million

that remains to be negotiated ?

Mr. FLIAKAS. To complete the barracks program. We hope to get it

in the next offset agreement.

Senator SYMINGTON. What is the status of that negotiation? When

do you expect to complete it ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. It will take about 90 days, sometime in the winter,

in early calendar 1974.

There have been preliminary discussions, but nothing formal.

Senator SYMINGTON. When did those negotiations start, roughly?

Mr. SHERIDAN. Those discusions started early this year.

Senator SYMINoTON. The longer the negotiations go on the more it

is going to cost American taxpayers; is that a fair statement ?

Admiral DILLON. NO, sir.

Mr. SHERIDAN. Not if they are deutsche marks, because we do not

buy the deutsche marks; if we bought the deutsche marks it would.

Senator SYMINGTON. As I understand it, you have a previous agree-

ment that, regardless of the value of the dollar, they are going to

produce certain things for you?

Mr. SHERIDAN. They had agreed to provide a specific amount of

deutche marks for barracks rehabilitation at a number of kaserenes.

Senator SYMINGTON. And they are going to do it regardless of any

relationship of their currency to our currency ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. Yes sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. If you make that commitment, then, what are

the negotiations about?

Mr. SHERIDAN. I cannot guarantee that the Germans will agree to

do it all, that is what I am saying.

Senator SYMINGTON. I am only saying that if you and I bought two

cars, and we are going to buy a third, and in the meantime currency

has fallen, if you say that it does not make any difference what the

value of what I have is as against what you have for the third car, you

already have a deal, then what are you negotiating ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. What I am trying to explain is that the Germans may

want to put their emphasis to support offset in another area.

Senator SYMINoTON. How do you mean ?

Mr. SIIERIDAN. Other than the rehabilitation of barracks.

Senator SYMINGTON. Do we leave it up to them where they are going

to spend the money ?

Mr. SIERIDAN. No.

Senator SYMINGTON. Then how can they do it ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. We still try to work out an agreement.

Senator SYMINGTON. Where else would they put their money ? If it

was not in construction, would they put it in something else?

Mr. SHERIDAN. They could.

Mr. HARRINGTON. Mr. Chairman, the outline of the negotiations in-

cludes a very large area for procurement in the United States as an

offset. So this is another area where they might wish to put more em-

phasis rather than construction.

Senator SYMINGTON. Will you repeat that, please ?

Mr. HARRINGTON. I say, within the framework of the negotiations,

there are various elements to be negotiated within the total deutsche

mark package. One of the areas is procurement, and it is a rather large

area in terms of total deutsche mark value.

So what Mr. Sheridan is saying is that in the negotiations the Ger-

mans may wish to put more procurement, put more of the total dollar

package against procurement rather than construction. And this will

be one of the subjects of the negotiation.

Senator SYMINGTON. I see. In other words, as far as this large third

is concerned, they may say we want to buy more tanks ?

Mr. HARRINGTON. That is correct, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. Instead of more housing; is that it ?

Mr. IHARRINGTON. Right, sir.

Senator SYMINoTON. So you are not sure yet whether you are going

to get this money for the housing at all?

Mr. HARRINGTON. NO, sir. This is one of our objectives.

Mr. SHERIDAN. We are hopeful, but we are not positive at this stage.

Mr. HARRINGTON. This promises to be a tough negotiation from what

they tell us.

Senator SYMINGTON. Have they given you any idea that makes you

think that they may want to change to some formal procurement '

Mr. IARRINGTON. Not me, sir. I am not that close to it. Perhaps Mr.

Bergold can respond to that more definitely.

Senator SYMINGTON. From their standpoint, you would rather buy a

tank presumably, but from our standpoint you would rather have

better military housing.

I have seen some of that housing over there, and it is still horrible.

Mr. BERGOLD. I think they are still pretty much making up their

mind, Mr. Chairman, and they are looking at both of these things.

Until we get a Cabinet decision from the Federal Republic sometime

in September on this, we probably will not know just what their

decision is.

Senator SYMINGTON. For the record, what is that decision going

to be?

Mr. BEnoROLD. A negotiating position for the Federal Republic so

that we can begin negotiations, and we can then get an outline of what

their preference is. So far as we know now, they continue to aim at the

kaserenes program.

I think what these gentlemen are saying is that the possibility exists

that they may divert into procurement, which is also an area of interest

to them.

Senator SYINGTON. Would procurement involve what they did

previously; namely, purchase American bonds?

Mr. BERGOLD. That is another area, sir, which we are looking at very

closely. And purchasing long-term securities is another area. I think

when we talk about procurements we are talking more about material

and equipment.

Senator SYMINGTON. And those bonds would bear interest, would

they not ?

Mr. BERGOLD. Yes.

Senator SYMINGTON. As Senator Mansfield said in his speech, we

would be paying them in order to defend them, would we not, if they

buy our bonds ?

Mr. BERGOLD. There are certainly arguments on both sides on that

proposal. But we have not formulated what our proposal is going to

be exactly on the securities, either in terms of interest rates or duration.

Senator SYMINGTON. Nor do we know what their response to our

proposal will be, do we ?

Mr. BERGOLD. Definitely not.

Senator SY'MINGTON. So from the standpoint of the way this has

gone in the past, we might as well write off this until we know more

facts?

Mr. BERGOLD. I would have to leave that to Mr. Sheridan.

Senator SYMINGTON. Is that not correct, Mr. Sheridan?

Mr. SIIERIDAN. Yes; I would think so. That is why I say we are not

positive we are going to get it.

Senator SYMINGTON. Has any effort been made by the Department

of Defense or the State Department to get the Federal Republic of

Germany to further implement this program?

I would imagine, based on our discussion, that the answer would

be yes.

Mr. SHERIDAN. Yes, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. But we have no concrete answer yet, is that

correct ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. That is right.

Senator SYMINGTON. Last year Congress granted the authority but

denied the funds for about $5.5 million for repairs to family quarters

in Germany. This committee felt that these repairs should be made by

the Germans under an offset agreement. Has progress been made along

this line ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. Mr. Fliakas is in charge of our housing.

Mr. FLIAKAs. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that you are referring to

certain boiler conversions in family housing in Germany. We are

still continuing to maintain and operate the housing as best we can,

but without the boiler conversions.

There is, as a result of the devaluation, as mentioned earlier, an

estimate of some $18 to $19 million that will have to be absorbed out.

of our maintenance program because of devaluation.

In addition we are proposing, for the new offset agreement, that

there be additional housing approved, because we have a sizable defi-

cit.in Germany. We are proposing that the FRG sponsor additional

housing as part of the offset agreement.

Senator SYMINGTON. You say "sizable deficit." Sizable deficit of

what ?

Mr. FLIAKAS. Of housing for eligible personnel in Germany. This

is for Army family housing, sir, as opposed to the bachelor housing

that we were discussing earlier.

Senator SYMINGTO . And you propose that we get better housing

in order to defend the country with better quarters for our troops,

is that right?

Mr. FLIAKAS. In this case, sir, it is for dependents ?

Senator SYMINGTON. For dependents ?

Mr. FLIAKAS. That is correct.

Senator SYMINGTON. And what is their answer to that ?

Mr. FLIAKAs. This is another part of the offset agreement that we

hope will be considered.

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you.

GERMAN REAL ESTATE TAXES

In 1966, the State Department and the Department of Defense

concluded that the United States was legally obligated to pay local

German real estate taxes on off-base military family housing. Now

I understand the FRG is attempting to apply this to property and

for nonappropriated fund activities such as officer and NCO clubs,

base exchanges, et cetera.

Is that correct ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Senator SYMINGTON. What justification do they give you for addi-

tional taxes on the soldiers that are over there, the sailors and the

airmen, to defend them; what is their argument ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. Their argument is based on German court decisions,

which find that under German law the United States is liable for local

land tax on that type of installation. We recognize no such obligation,

and the administration feels that there is a strong legal case that the

U.S. Government is not obligated to pay or reimburse the FRG.

So we are at an impasse on that at the present time.

Senator SYMINGTON. We are at an impasse, but we are over there

and they are not over here, right ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. Yes, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. The German court, I would imagine, would

be sympathetic to the Germans.

Mr. SHERIDAN. I would think so. They have been in the past. Their

decisions have shown that.

Senator SYMINGTON. I would say so. I know of some matters that

had to do with NATO along these lines.

What do these taxes amount to, anyway ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. Do you have any idea?

Mr. HARRINGTON. No, sir; I do not. I think they are relatively mini-

mal-I hesitate to use that word, but I think they are less than sev-

eral million dollars to us.

Mr. FLIAKAs. The tax, sir, for family housing that we have been

paying is $2.9 million per annum.

Senator SYMIINGTON. You see, you add up these relatively little

amounts $8 million and $75 million, and $40 million, and then you look

at our balance-of-payments situation, which is deteriorating very

rapidly, and it sort of makes you wonder what the purpose of it is.

When I was in Germany 2 years ago we found that American GI's

could not get a job on the base, our base, for their wives, because the

Germans demanded the right to have all those jobs go to German

women. The way I found out was, a young GI from Missouri came up

to me and told me about it. He said. "I came over here to defend this

country, I am drafted, I did not want to come, I have no children and

I have no money. My wife is with me and she cannot get a job."

So I asked the general in command of the base, and he said, well,

we pay a little more than the Germans do, and they want everything

they can get.

We had six million unemployed in this country, and they were im-

porting people from all over the place, including from behind the Iron

Curtain, to work in Germany.

So it was hard for me to understand that. I checked it out and

found it was also characteristic of the whole base structure in Ger-

many. It seems like we have the same kind of a problem here, too.

Incidentally, the next day in the paper over there I read a lecture

from the German Finance Minister as to how we were handling our

economy; that we were not handling it too well, we were spending

too much money, and so forth and so on.

So that is some of the thrust of these questions.

I would just like to know what we are going to do as the value of

the dollar continues to drop, as anybody living in this country knows

only too well, and even more so if they live over there.

Will you supply for the record, then, if you do not know, what these

taxes amount to annually ?

Mr. SIERIDAN. Yes, sir.

[The information follows:]

Although the local (land) governments of the Federal Republic of Germany

have sought to levy taxes on U.S. off-base properties operated as community

support activities, i.e.; commissaries, post exchanges, clubs, etc., the United States

has argued in positions taken with the Federal Government that we are not

legally obligated for such taxes, and has resisted payment. At the present time

the only such local taxes which the U.S. is currently paying are those levied

against U.S. dependent family housing and these are estimated at approximately

$2.7 million yearly.

Senator SYrINOTON. Also, what steps have you taken in detail to seek

relief from this year's claim on the part of these local people?

I presume there are local governments involved.

Mr. SHERIDAN. Yes, sir.

Senator SYMIN TON. For the Army and the Air Force, you are

asking for about $18.4 million for Germany this year, including two

or three new schools or additions to existing ones. Would it not be

prudent to defer some of these projects pending that outcome of the

talks soon to start between the United States and Russia with a view

to reducing troop strengths in Europe?

Mr. SHERIDAN. There was some thought given to that. But the de-

cision was made within Defense that since this $18.4 million for new

schools is needed right now for dependents who are there with inade-

quate, crowded schools, it was decided that this should be a portion of

the 1974 military construction authorization. Then when we have

definite knowledge of these types of facilities, we feel the authoriza-

tion should be retained as part of the military construction 1974 bill.

Senator SYMINGTON. I would not argue about that.

Mr. SHERIDAN. I have seen the schools, and they are terrible.

Senator SYMINnTON. I would point out that each year, for the last

8 years, the argument against pulling any troops out of Germany has

been that we were in the process of negotiating a new balanced force

reduction.

NATO INFRASTRUCTURE

This year you are asking $80 million for NATO infrastructure, as

opposed to $58 million granted last year. You told us recently that you

had run out of authority and that devaluation of the dollar had resulted

in a $43 million deficit.

Is the increase in your request this year the result of this ?

Mr. SHERIDAN, When the 1974 budget was prepared last fall, the

NATO infrastructure obligation of the United States was estimated

at $60 million for 1974. The additional $20 million to reach the

$80 million was to provide sufficient balance of unfunded authorization

to cover the first few months of fiscal year 1975, pending the enact-

ment of fiscal year 1975 legislation.

This cannot be considered the case now, because the U.S. fund re-

quirements have been increased, as Mr. Harrington said, by $42

million, as the result of the two recent dollar devaluations. The addi-

tional $42 million requirement is being partly met by the recent $20.6

million reprograming, action for fiscal year 1973, plus the deferral of

$12 million in projects-

Senator SYMINGTON. Mr. Sheridan, will you file that for the record-

whatever it is you are reading from ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. Yes, sir.

[The information follows:]

At the time of preparation of the President's FY 1974 budget last Fall U.S.

obligations for NATO Infrastructure were estimated at $60 million in FY 1974.

The additional $20 million requested-to reach $80 million authorization-was to

provide sufficient balance' of unfunded authorization to cover the first few

months of FY 1975, pending enactment of FY 1975 legislation. This can no

longer be considered the case, however, since U.S. fund requirements have been

increased by some $43 million as a result of the two recent dollar devalautions.

This additional $43 million requirement is being partly met on an immediate

basis by the recent $20.6 million reprogramming action for FY 1973, plus deferral

of some $12 million in projects from FY 1973 to FY 1974, and a concerted effort

to squeeze as much unutilized authorization as possible out of existing balances

of unliquidated prior obligations.

Senator SYMINGTON. And now would you answer my question yes or

no.

I will repeat the question.

You told us recently that you had run out of authority and that the

devaluation of the dollar had resulted in a $42 million deficit. Is the

increase in your request this year the result of that ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. Partly.

Senator SYMINOTON. Then will you file for the record what part of

the addition-as I have it here, you say 60, I have 58, but whatever it is,

what part is due to devaluation ?

20-507-73--3

Mr. SHERIDAN. Projects of $12 million have been deferred. So it

would be the difference between $20 and $12, $8 million.

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you.

As we recall, the U.S. contribution to NATO is a little over 29

percent. Here we are over there, with all our problems over here, and

all our problems in the Far East, and all our bases all over the world,

and we are still putting up 30 percent of this money, even though.

with the possible exception of Japan, these countries of Europe are

the most prosperous countries today in the world.

What steps, if any, are being taken to reduce the amount of the U.S.

contribution to NATO ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. It is the intention in the next 5-year period to seek

a reduction from the just under 30 percent level to approximately 20

percent.

Senator SYMINGTON. Why do we not just do it ? They are our troops,

and it is our money.

Mr. SHERIDAN. It is still covered by negotiations, and our Govern-

ment does not come to a conclusion and arbitrarily tell the other

government what our position is flatly; they try to negotiate. And

that is a field I wish you would not get me into, Mr. Chairman,

because I am not very knowledgeable in State Department negotia-

tions with foreign countries.

I do not know if we have someone with us who can answer that.

Senator SYMINGTON. Who can answer ?

Mr. BERGOLD. I think the answer, Mr. Chairman, is that we are

talking about in this case a multilateral NATO negotiation instead

of a bilateral situation.

Senator SYMINGTON. We have been talking about it for 15 years

to my certain knowledge, and I think for all of the 21 years I have

been on this committee we have been talking about it.

Mr. BERGOLD. But we have to negotiate again for the new agree-

ment, which would begin in 1975, with all of the NATO allies, to

work out the proportional share of each member. As Mr. Sheridan

said, our intention is to seek a substantial reduction of the U.S. con-

tribution at that time.

Senator SYMINGTON. It is our money, is it not ?

Mr. BERGOLD. Yes, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. Why do we not say, we have made you very

rich in the 25 years since we were fighting, and we just cannot

afford to pay you 29 percent. It is your country you are defending;

why do we not just say that ?

Mr. BERGOLD. It is our intention to say that, Mr. Chairman, but

we are obligated to the present levels unless it is an agreement.

Senator SYMINGTON. We are going to substantially reduce this

amount, are we not ?

Mr. BERGOLD. We are going to make that position very clear.

Senator SYMINGTON. What do you mean, make it very clear?

Mr. BERGOLD. We are going to make our position very clear that we

intend to seek a reduction.

Senator SYMINGTON. Are you saying that we intend to reduce it,

or that we intend to try to reduce it ? Because we have been intend-

ing to try to reduce it for 15 years.

Mr. BERGOLD. We intend to try to reduce it substantially. I cannot

guarantee the results of the negotiations.

Mr. SHERIDAN. The U.S. basis for negotiation is being developed,

and it is going to be presented to the Armed Services Committee

shortly.

Mr. HARRINGTON. Mr. Chairman, you would make a very able

negotiator for our side.

Senator SYmINGTON. I would say this, Mr. Harrington: If the

negotiator can negotiate like the average private businessman does,

maybe we would have better results. I do not understand this, and I

have been trying to understand it.

I have nothing but sympathy for everybody in the world, but per-

haps a little more for our people, as we watch the dollar go down the

drain. And a sound economy and a sound dollar is just as important

to national security as the latest weapons system. I know you will

agree to that.

Mr. SHERIDAN. Yes, sir.

GREECE-IIOME PORT

Senator SYMTNGTON. We have some other questions here I would

like to ask on Greece; we had an interesting development on Greece.

I am on the Foreign Relations Committee, and we decided that we

would not give any more foreign aid to Greece. And that went

through. Them all of a sudden the Defense Department said that in

order to maintain morale in the fleet in the Eastern Mediterranean

they have to have a home port in the East Mediterranean-I believe I

am stating it correctly. If I am not I will correct the record.

So they recommended that we establish a base at Athens.

So we asked them if they needed any money to do this. They as-

sured us that, no, there was no money involved, and that there were

facilities there erectable and so on. It is all on the record. They were

adequate facilities and very little, if any, money would be needed. So

on that basis, after the aid program was turned down in one commit-

tee, in effect it was granted through the heavy addition of money

through this other transaction incident to the base in Athens. We

would like to ask a few questions about the home porting of this carrier

task force in Greece.

Let me first run down what we have spent thus far in carrying out

this program, and what additional cost we may expect.

Last year we were advised that the one-time cost would not exceed

$14.4 million, and the annual recurring cost would be no more than

$13.7 million. Where do we stand on that ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. I would like to ask Admiral Gaddis.

Admiral GADDIS. I am Vice Admiral Gaddis of the Navy, sir.

That is precisely correct, as to our estimate. Our current projection

with revised estimates in the same program is that our initial cost we

now estimate at $13.7 million vice $14.4, sir. The annual recurring cost

is now $11.3 million vice the $13.4 that was testified to a year ago, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you, Admiral.

Under date of July 16, the committee received a notification from

Assistant Secretary of the Navy Bowers that the Navy proposed to

34

use emergency construction authority to reprogram funds to provide

aircraft support facilities at Elevsis, Greece, at a cost of $1,948 mil-

lion. I advised both Secretary Bowers and Admiral Zumwalt that we

considered this procedure wrong, and that this project should be con-

sidered by this subcommittee at any other military construction

project.

I consider this matter of sufficient importance to take up now, rather

than when Navy line items are heard.

Would you let us know just what are the justifications for this proj-

ect, what is the urgency, and what kind of an arrangement do we have

with the Greek Government for use of an airfield ?

Admiral GADis. We have a letter from the Greek Government certi-

fying their agreement in principle for our use of the airfield. We

would have to install this $1.948 million military construction on the

airfield, sir.

The specific facilities I would like to put a little of in the record. It

consists principally of a preengineered hanger plus such things as

hard stand, fuel, and support for some 16 personnel at the airbase.

The proposal we felt was justified as a reprograming action, but

we have absolutely no objection, Mr. Chairman, to its being

incorporated in the 1974 military construction program. This would

represent a minor delay in start time, and it would be manageable, as

we envision the program, sir.

[The information follows:]

The scope and estimated cost of the airfield facilities at Elevsis are as follows:

Facility Scope Estimated cost

Nose hangar (4 aircraft)--------------... .--------- ...- 9,000 square feet.............. $180, 000

Maintenance shops and administration..---....-------------- - 16,000 square feet ....___... 285, 000

POL storage (JP-5) -..-----.......... ....------------------------ 94,000 gallons .-..-.......... 176, 000

Aircraft parking apron-----------------....-------------. 27,500 square yards......-----------. 220, 000

Aircraft washrack.-. --.-...... ... ..... 1,000 square yards.... ....... 65 000

Compass calibration pad-......-......-..-.................. 5,000 square yards-- - - - - --.... 45,000

High-power turnup pad with deflector------------------- .. --- 2,000 square yards ....... 21,000

Bachelor enlisted quarters (16 men)------... ... -__ - --... . . . . . .. 2,400 square feet - ... ..------. 72, 000

Optical landing system hardstand-.__..---....-.-.. --....... 1 each- -_ ...... - - --____ 26, 000

Liquid oxygen storage --........... 1,000 gallons ....-...... ... 25,000

Mobile maintenance facility hardstands .---.. ..----------..... 8 each ..-.-... ........-... 10,000

E-28 arresting gear---........---------------------- ---------........... .. 1 each._...__.. . 65,000

Water supply and storage_---...-. --..-.-.-...-...... . .... 100,000 gallons........---------------- 175,000

Electrical distribution lines .................. 9,000 linear feet ...--------- - 350, 000

Roads, security fencing, lighting, draining and site improvements..... LS.._....--. ---.----- 233,000

Total... ............---------------------------------------------------------------- 1, 948, 000

Naval construction force labor (non-add) .....---- ------------------------------------------ 1,700,000

Senator SYMINGTON. We have a letter dated April 6, 1973, from

Major General Papavassiliou of the Hellenic Air Force Command to

Major General Ryder, CHJUSMAAG, Athens, Greece.

DEAR GENERAL:

1. In reply to your oral inquiry about utilization of Elefsis Airfield by USN

carrier-based aircraft during CV RAV periods, I have to inform you as follows:

a. In principle, Elefsis Air field will be made available to satisfy aforemen-

tioned requirements.

b. Utilization of Elefsis Airfield has to be considered in conjunction with

Phase II of Sixth Fleet homeporting. Consequently, although preparatory work

may start at an earlier stage, the Technical Agreement on utilization of Elevsis

Airfield cannot be signed before Phase II Homeporting Technical Arrangemeilts

is signed.

c. In due time you will be notified to inviting authorized officers of the USN

who will participate in the appropriate discussons.

2. I hope that this letter answers, for the time being, your questions on the

availability of Elevsis Airfield within the framework of Phase II Homeporting

Technical Arrangements.

Do you know that letter ?

Admiral GADDIS. Yes, sir.

It was the one I.was referring to, sir. And I would note that the

technical agreement for phase I involving the escorts for the carrier,

between the Greek and U.S. Governments, was signed at the Navy level.

It is expected that the phase II agreement will be written as an

amendment to the existing arrangement.

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you.

I have a letter of August 3 from Assistant Secretary of the Navy

Bowers which I ask unanimous consent be placed at this point in the

record.

[The letter of August 3 follows:]

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,

Washington, D.C., August 3, 1975.

Hon. STUART SYMINGTON,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Construction, Senate Armed Services Com-

mittee, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In response to your letter of July 24, 1973 to the Chief

of Naval Operations, I will provide the information requested.

The Navy thoroughly agrees that the homeporting of a task force in Greece

is a very important matter that should be reviewed and acted upon by the Com-

mittee as a whole. The Navy is ready to provide fact sheets and briefings for the

Committee members as desired. It is further understood that the requirement

for homeporting of a task force in Greece will be addressed during the forth-

coming hearings on the FY 1974 Military Construction Program.

To clarify the aspect of costs are discussed in our prior correspondence, reduced

to its essence the Navy initially estimated and presented to the Congress the

costs of homeporting as $14.4 million in initial costs and $13.4 million in re-

curring costs. Under an identical cost technique, our current estimates of these

same costs, refined by reason of our experience of the last year, are $13.7 mil-

lion and $11.3 million, respectively, including the aircraft support facilities proj-

ect of $1.948 million. The above does not include the cost of a carrier pier with

a preliminary estimate of $13 million. Our firm plan is that this pier, when pro-

grammed, will be requested under the NATO Infrastructure program. A detailed

breakdown of the current estimate for initial and recurring costs is provided by

enclosure (1). The benefits received from homeporting a carrier in Greece,

even in a total cost/benefit analysis, are heavily weighted on the side of the

benefits, which are an improvement to the Navy's worldwide readiness posture

and its ability to carry out NATO commitments. Although not readily quanti-

fiable, we are positive the costs of homeporting in Greece will be returned in

a short time through improved retention.

The arrangements with the Greek government are reflected in a letter received

from the Hellenic Air Force of April 7. 1973 which approved "in principle" the

Navy use of the Elefsis Airfield and implied that details will be worked out after

Congressional approval 'of the project. A copy of this letter is provided as en-

closure (2).

I trust the above data satisfactorily answers all the questions of fact, but if

not, my staff is ready to provide any other information desired.

Sincerely yours,

JACK L. BOWERs,

Assistant Secretary of the Navy

(Installations and Logistics).

COMPARISON OF NAVY ESTIMATES

[In millions of dollars]

Recurring costs Nonrecurring costs

Original Current Original Current

1. Additional PCS_ -_----------------------- 3.5 4.093 3.0 ...

2. Dependent support ship ____-------.. - - --...-_ _ 2.5 .914 10. 8 10.650

3. Expansion and operatin of USAF facilities .......... 2.8 3.015 .2 .296

4. Port operations, charter, hire and pier costs ....... 3.0 1.182 ___ ____ .050

5. Logistics costs ........_ ..___ _. _ _ .... . 1.7 2. 700 - - .714

6. Transportation/vehicle maintenance........ ....__ .. (1) (2)

7. Leased transient berthing _ ----- _............... (.) -- -- -..............

8. Airfield operations.. . _ __ 1.0 .400 .4 1.948

Subtotal ...... _... 14. 5 12. 304 14.4 13. 658

Savings from reduced transits ...--..... - --. . .. 1.1 1.000 _

Total ____-- - - - -_ 13.4 11.304 .............

I Costs are insignificant.

2 Included in logistics costs.

Senator SYMTNOTON. That letter has a sentence, "The above does

not include the cost of a carrier pier with a preliminary estimate of

$13 million."

Do you have any thoughts on that ?

Admiral GADDIS. It has been for a number of years one of our

desires to, sometime in the future, build a carrier pier in the Mediter-

ranean so that the carriers assigned in the Mediterranean, normally

two at a time, would be able to go cold iron during the time that they

are in port to do maintenance on their engineering plant and various

areas of the ship that you cannot work on when you are steaming.

Obviously if we are to homeport a carrier task group in Athens,

Athens becomes a prime candidate spot for the development of such a

NATO infrastructure project. That project has not been submitted as

of this date, and it is not anticipated in the immediate future. But

it is something that we would like to work into the NATO construc-

tion program at a later time.

Senator SYMINOTON. Even though the rapid developments in mis-

silery-air to sea, sea to sea, and perhaps above all, land to sea, because

most all of the northern littoral of Africa is not in the hands of coun-

tries that are either Conmml is+ or sympathetic to communism, there

is no change in the position of the Navy with respect to carriers in

the Mediterranea n.

Admiral GADDIS. We still arve the firm commitment to maintain

two carriers task groups in the Mediterranean.

Senator SYMTNGTON. Commitments to whom?

Admiral GADDIS. It is a matter of national policy and commitments

to NATO, sir.

Senator SYmINGTOo. Can't we use those commitments to NATO to

get a little better deal in Germany, as we were discussing a few

minutes ago ?

Admiral GADDtS. I would like the gentleman from ISA possibly

to handle that. My personal estimation is that we have been reasonably

successful in the past in our negotiations with Germany. Obviously

we would like to do better than we have.

Senator Si'MT(GTO . But you say the negotiations to date have been

quite successful?

Admiral GADDIS. I say we have been reasonably successful, I think,

personally.

Senator SYMINGTON. Reasonably successful?

Admiral GADDIS. Yes, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you.

Last year when the Navy was asked to submit their estimate on the

cost of the homeporting, they gave a figure of $400,000 for aircraft

support facilities. How do you reconcile that with your current

estimate?

Admiral GADDIS. At the time that that estimate was made sir, it was

based on the hope-we did not have any specifics-on the hope that we

would be able to use Greek facilities. The survey which has since been

conducted indicates that there are no excess facilities available, that

those facilities that would support the maintenance of aircraft of the

homeported air wing would have to be built from the ground up. This

proposal of $1.948 million is what we consider a fairly austere total

facility utilizing preengineered buildings and performing the con-

struction with Seabee labor.

Senator SYMINGTON. It was $400,000 and it is now a million nine ?

Admiral GADDIS. It was $400,000 based on the use of Greek facili-

ties rather than in this case now, one time MILCON cost of $1.948

million, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. I don't mean to quibble about this, but I was

in on this when it started; and I know what happened in the other

committee.

I warned that the facility in Greece was bound to cost more, but I

didn't get very far.

Admiral GADDIs. We have made reductions at various places in the

program that, even though this is a single increase, provide decreases

to offset this increase so that our expenditures are still within our pro-

jected totals.

Senator SYMINGToN. Of $13.7 million ?

Admiral GADDIS. Yes, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. Admiral Zumwalt, in a letter to me, stated that

the Navy was evaluating cost estimates to arrive at a more precise

estimate, and preliminary data indicate costs may be reduced to $5.4

million initial, including airfield construction costs, and $10 million

recurring. Yet we were earlier advised that $13,700,000 had already

been spent on one-time costs, including the airfield construction, and

$11.300,000 on annual costs.

How do you reconcile this, particularly when your estimate to con-

vert the ship Sanctuary as a personnel support facility was $10.8

million?

Admiral GADDIS. The reason for Admiral Zumwalt's revised figures

involves the question of the categorization of the figures. In the $13.7

million one-time and $11.3 million recurring costs of which he speaks

we have, we feel, been most hard on ourselves in including all costs that

anyone could attribute to Athens. In the letter he detailed that portion

of those costs which we are prepared to stand behind which are strictly

assignable to Athens.

For example, take Sanctuary. He feels that strictly attributable to

*Athens should be only those reconfiguration actions on Sanctuary

that were aimed specifically at that assignment, and that the total

cost of rehabilitation, which was $10.65 million, the balance of those

costs should be assignable to the general Navy programs just as costs

involving any other ships that go into commission is assigned.

In other words, it is a matter of emphasis rather than a change-

in the total cost.

- Senator SYMINGTON. You are in the process of leasing a pier for

the use of the Sanctuary and the destroyers now in Greece, for around

$1 million per year.

What are your intentions insofar as providing a pier for the carrier ?

How will it be funded ?

Admiral GADDIS. The plan for the carrier, sir, is for it to anchor

off, as all carriers, in the Mediterranean, do now all over the Medi-

terranean. As we discussed earlier, there is the possibility in the future

of asking for a Mediterranean carrier pier in NATO infrastructure.

We have no intention of unilaterally attempting to build a carrier

pier at Athens.

Senator SYMINGTON. Have any steps been taken to enlarge or in-

crease existing Air Force facilities in Athens to accommodate Navy

dependents ?

Admiral GADDIS. Yes, sir.

We have an interservice support agreement with the Air Force

through which we have provided them in fiscal year 1973 some

$644,000, and in 1974, an estimated $1.634 million, for lease costs,

civilian salaries, and operating costs, which are the result of the use

by Air Force facilities of Navy dependents.

Senator SYMINGTON. Have those costs been considered a part of

this homeporting?

Admiral GADDIS. Yes, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. What part will Souda Bay, Crete, play in this

homeporting ?

Admiral GADDIs. The only thing involved in Souda Bay, Crete, is

if and when the carrier is homeported at Athens. During those peri-

ods when she is in port for restricted availability, and therefore the

air wing cannot fly for-maintenance of proficiency from the carrier,

we would. conduct proficiency flying in the Souda Bay area which

is an extremely fine area for all of the kinds of training that the

carrier air wing would require. We would commute to Souda Bay

from the Elevsis Airfield for that proficiency flying. This would be

for two 30-day periods and two 21-day periods a year while the

carrier was homeported, sir.

Senator SYMINOTON. Thank you.

ICELAND

The Navy and the Air Force together are requesting about $13.5

million for operational facilities, troop housing, and 150 units of

family housing for the NAS Keflavik, Iceland. Isn't it true that a.

new agreement must be worked out with the Icelandic Government

quite soon, and that there is some doubt that we will be permitted to

remain in Iceland ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. We are hopeful that the new agreement will be

satisfactory. It is true that it is being worked out right now.

Senator SYMINGTON. Shouldn't we defer this construction expense

pending the outcome of the new agreement?

Mr. SHERIDAN. We wouldn't proceed with the construction until

the agreement was negotiated safely.

Senator SYMINGTON. So the construction is dependent upon the

agreement, is that right?

Mr. SHERIDAN. Yes, sir.

BASE CLOSURES

Senator SYMINGTON. How much are you requesting in this bill for

projects resulting from the base closures announced in April?

Mr. SHERIDAN. $53,158,000. That is $4,504,000 for the Army; for

the Navy $45,499,000; for the Air Force, $3,155,000.

Senator SYMINGTON. How much more do you contemplate?

Mr. SHERIDAN. None, in fiscal year 1974.

Senator SYMINGTON. Do you want to comment on that, Admiral?

Admiral GADDIS. I would note that in the Navy we have the need

for additional military construction in the 1975 program, obviously

not programed to date, of approximately $30 million.

Senator SYMINGTO' . Would you all get together and get this

straightened out?

Admiral GADDIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHERIDAN. IS that in the 1975 program?

Admiral GADDIS. We are hopeful of submitting it for the 1975

program.

Senator SYMINGTON. After you do get that straightened out will

you supply us a figure for the record?

Mr. SHERIDAN. Yes, sir.

[The information follows:]

The Navy FY 1975 Military Construction Program is not yet firmly formulated.

It is probable that some $30 million in base closure-related items will be included

in the final program to be submitted to Congress. However, this is not yet

determined.

Senator SYINGTON. Will you supply for the record a list of proj.

ects showing what closure realinements generated the requirement

Mr. SHERIDAN. Yes, sir.

[The information follows:]

List of projects included in the fiscal year 1971 military construction program

that are associated with base closures

Installation, State, and item

Army: Cost

Fort Rucker, Ala.: Upgrade airfield facilities________------___ $534, 000

Fort Wainwright, Alaska:

Relocation of activities to south post_____------------- 1, 965, 000

BOQ modernization ------------------------------------ 750, 000

Atlanta Army Depot, Georgia: Security fencing--------------- 119, 000

Memphis Defense Depot, Tennessee: Medical equipment, main-

tenance facility ------------------------------------------- 456, 000

Fort Eustis, Va.: Supply and administrative facilities__________ 680, 000

Total ----------------- ----------------------------- 4, 504, 000

1 It

Navy :

NSA, Brooklyn, N.Y.: Cost

BEEQ modernization $ 6--------------------- $1, 056, 000

Relocate teletype switchboard---------------------------- 75, 000

NSY, Philadelphia, Pa.:

Computer support facility-------------------------------- 180, 000

Electronics equipment facility--------------------------- 735, 000

NAS, Norfolk, Va.: Helicopter maintenance hangar ------------2, 525, 000

NS, Norfolk, Va.:

Relocation of flight landing------------------------------ 803, 000

Dredge southside pier 2 --------------------------------314, 000

Vehicle parking area------------------------------------ 310, 000

Applied instruction building----------------------------- 3, 950, 000

FCDSTC, Dam Neck, Va.: Applied instruction building--- 5, 959, 000

MCSC, Albany, Ga.: Administrative building----- ------------ 5, 204, 000

NAS, Cecil Field, Fla.:

Intermediate maintenance building-----------------------2, 845, 000

Weapons system training facility------------------------- 791, 000

NAS, Jacksonville, Fla.:

BOQ modernization--------------------- '850, 000

Bachelor enlisted quarters------------------------------ 1, 494, 000

NAS, Memphis, Tenn.: Applied instruction building---------- 4, 478, 000

NS, San Diego, Calif.: Berthing pier------------------------10, 000, 000

NAS, Miramar, Calif.:

Avionics shop addition----------------------------------331, 000

Applied instruction building---------------------------- 1, 123, 000

NAS, North Island, Calif.: Applied instruction building------- 476, 000

NSY, Hunters Point, Calif.: Dry dock support facility ---------- 250, 000

NSY, Mare Island, Calif.: Electronic shop alterations---------- 200, 000

NAS, Moffett Field, Calif.:

BEQ modernization------------------------------------- 500, 000

Parking apron------------------------------------------750, 000

Fuel storage-------------------------------------------- 300, 000

Total ---------------------------------------------- 45, 499, 000

Air Force

Little Rock AFB, Ark.: Aircraft maintenance docks---------------- 1,165, 000

Keesler AFB, Miss. :

Alter aircraft operational apron____------------------------------ 865, 000

Add to and alter maintenance hangars---------------------- 1, 125, 000

Total --------------------------------------------------- 3, 155,000

April 17, 1973, base realinement list

Service and installation Relocation plan

Army:

Fort Wainwright (north portion)

Fairbanks, Alaska.

Valley Forge General Hospital,

Pennsylvania.

Charleston Army Depot, Charles-

ton, S.C.

Fort Wolters, Mineral Wells, Tex__

Consolidate on southern portion of

post.

To Fort Detrick, Md., and other Army

hospitals. To be determined.

Contingency supply packages and petro-

leum stock missions to Anniston

Army Depot, Ala., and rail stock stor-

age mission to New Cumberland

Army Depot. Pa.

Helicopter training to Fort Rucker.

Ala.

41

April 17, 1978, base realinement list-Continued

Service and installation--Con.

Navy :

Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point,

San Francisco, Calif.

Naval Station, Long Beach, Calif__

Naval Undersea Center, Pasadena,

Calif.

Torrance Annex, Naval Supply

Center, Long Beach, Calif.

Naval Station, Key West, Fla ----

Naval Air Station, Albany, Ga....

Naval Air Station, Glynco, Bruns-

wick, Ga.

Boston Naval Shipyard, Boston,

Mass.

Chelsea Naval Hospital, Chelsea,

Mass.

Naval Support Activity, Boston,

Mass.

Naval Support Activity, Fort

Omaha, Nebr.

Naval Hospital, St. Albans, N.Y___

Marine Corps Supply Activity.

Philadelphia, Pa.

Naval Air Station, Quonset Point,

R.I.

Naval Communications Station,

Newport, R.I.

Naval Public Works Center, New-

port, R.I.

Naval Station, Newport, R.I_.....

Naval Supply Center, Newport,

R.I .. ............

Relocation plan-Continued

Relocate portions to Naval Shipyard,

Long Beach, Calif.; Naval Shipyard,

Mare Island, Calif.; Naval Support

Activity, Vallejo, Calif.; and to Naval

Shipyard, Norfolk, Va.

Relocate portions to Naval Station, San

Diego, Calif.; Bremerton, Wash.;

Charleston, S.C.

To Naval Underwater Center, San

Diego, Calif.

Disestablish.

Relocate portions to Naval Air Station,

Key West, Fla.; DSRON-18 to May-

port, Fla.; Fleet Sonar School to Nor-

folk, Va.; Underwater Swimmers

School to San Diego, Calif.; ASR Det,

ASR-16 and 1 SS to Norfolk, Va.,

and 1 AR Det and 1 SS to Charleston,

S.C.

Flying units and selected other units

relocate to Naval Air Station, Key

West, Fla.

Relocate portions to Naval Air Station,

Pensacola, Fla.; Dam Neck, Va.; and

Naval Air Station, Memphis, Tenn.

Portions to Naval Shipyard, Philadel-

phia, Pa.; Naval Supply Center, Nor-

folk, Va.; Naval Supply Center,

Charleston, S.C. ; and Naval Shipyard,

Norfolk, Va.

To various other naval hospitals.

Disestablish.

Disestablished.

Portions to Navy Hospital, Portsmouth,

Va.; Naval Hospital, Philadelphia,

Pa., and Naval Hospital, Charleston,

S.C.

Marine Corps construction and other

to Marine Corps Supply Center, Al-

bany. Ga. ; 4th Marine Corps District

elsewhere in Philadelphia.

Relocate units to Naval Air Station,

South Weymouth, Mass.: Naval Air

Station, Jacksonville. Fla.: Naval

Air Station, Cecil Field. Fla.; and

Naval Construction Battalion Cen-

ter, Davisville, R.I.

Portion to Naval Schools Command,

Newport, R.I.

Do.

Do.

42

April 17, 1978, base realinement list-Continued

Service and installation--Con.

Air Force:

Hamilton Air Force Base, Novata,

Calif.

McCoy Air Force Base, Fla__ _

Forbes Air

Kans.

Force Base, Pauline,

L. G. Hanscom Field, Mass ___-.

Otis Air Force Base, Mass__. ....

Westover Air Force Base, Chicopee

Falls, Mass.

Ramey Air Force Base, Aguadilla,

P.R.

Laredo Air Force Base, Laredo,

Tex.

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you.

Relocation plan--Continued

Fighter Interceptor Squadron to Cas-

tle AFB, Merced, Calif.; Aerospace

and Recovery Squadron to McClel-

lan AFB, Sacramento, Calif.; and

Aircraft Delivery Group to Mather

AFB, Sacramento. Calif.

Elements of Refueling. Squadron to

McConnell AFB, Wichita, Kans., and

Lockbourne AFB, Ohio; Detachment

of Airborne Early Warning Control

Squadron to Homestead AFB, Fla.;

and Air Division to Blytheville AFB.

Ark.

1 C-130 squadron to Dyess AFB, Abi-

lene, Tex.; 1 C-130 squadron to Little

Rock AFB, Jacksonville, Ark.; MAC

Aerial Cartographic and Geodetic

Squadron to Keesler AFB, Biloxi,

Miss.; and School Squadron to Kirt-

land AFB, N. Mex.

Relocate portion to Kirtland AFB, N.

Mex., and other to Westover AFB,

Mass.

Inactivate SAC satellite activity. Civil-

ianize communications and weather

facilities.

Refueling Squadron to Plattsburgh

AFB, N.Y. and Pease AFB, N.H.;

Defense Systems Evaluation Squad-

ron to Dover AFB, Del., and Civil

Engineer Squadron to McConnell

AFB, Kans.

Weather Recon Group to Keesler AFB,

Miss.

No unit relocations.

CUZ

Under your program to protect certain airbases from encroach-

ment we granted you $52.4 million in authority last year, and you

are asking for another $31.3 million this year. While I realize you are

asking funding for only a small portion of this, I would like to see

:a reduction in the authority granted.

What has been your experience over the past year in working out

zoning arrangements with local authorities? In other words, how

much of the authority thus far granted has been used?

Mr. SHERIDAN. I would like to ask Mr. Roche from our real estate

office in OSD to respond to that, Mr. Chairman, if I may.

Mr. RocHE. Mr. Chairman, presently we have authorizations to

protect the approaches to the Marine Corps Air Stations at El Toro

and Santa Ana. Calif. Additionally we have the authority in last

year's nroaram to insure compatible use at the Air Force bases at

Altus, Okla.; Tinker, Okla.; and Williams, Ariz. To date no money

has been expended against any of these. The acquisition for the

Marine stations was to be strictly by exchange. On the Air Force

program, $2 million was funded against the authorization.

r.~:-iiii;

Senator SYMINGTON. You haven't spent any money yet, why can't

we defer this? We needed $52.4 million last year, and you haven't

spent any of that $52.4 million. Why do you need $31.3 million?

Mr. ROCHE. As far as the Marine Corps Air Stations are concerned,

the Department of the Navy attempted to negotiate with the two major

land owners, Irvine and Rossmoor. The Rossmoor property has just

been the subject of a suit by Rossmoor against the United States.

And a claim awarded for an allegedly unjust taking through zoning.

As far as the Air Force is concerned, they have been working very

strenuously on zoning, and we think we may have a solution to the

problem there.

Senator SYMINGTON. We will give you E for effort, but if you

haven't spent any money yet and you had $52 million, why would

you need any more money in this budget ?

Mr. ROCHE. The $52 million authorization, which included $2 million

appropriation, was earmarked for five specific installations: MCAS

El Toro and Santa Ana and the three Air Force bases just mentioned:

Altus, Tinker, and Williams. These authorizations, if not used or

funds obligated against them, will expire under the repealer provision

of section 705b Public Law 9'2-545 on January 25, 1974. The repealer

provision with regard to El Toro and Santa Ana has already been

extended once. It is our interpretation that the specific authorizations

in last year's act cannot be applied to the 13 new Air Force installa-

tions for which compatible use protection is sought in this year's bill.

Senator SYMINGTON. How much is that total, roughly ?

Mr. ROCHE. I believe it is about $26 million worth.

Senator SYMINGTON. Would you supply that figure for the record ?

Mr. ROCHE. Yes, sir.

[The information follows:]

The Air Force authorization in the FY 1973 Act is $12,000,000 of which

$2,000,000 is funded. New authorizations in the amount of $26,300,000 with an

appropriation of $2,000,000 are being requested for the Air Force in the FY 74

bill.

BOLLING/ANACOSTIA COMPLEX

Senator SYMINGTON. Now I want to inquire about the status of con-

struction at Bolling AFB here in the District of Columbia. Over the

past couple of years the Congress has authorized and appropriated for

around $34 million in construction for this site, which includes over

1,000 units of badly needed family housing. You are asking another

$1.5 million this year, yet I understand little, if any, of this construc-

tion has been placed under contract due to either the objections or pro-

crastination of the National Capital Planning Commission. This is

not the first time this group has caused costly delays in construction

approved by Congress.

Will you comment on this ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. It is not the first time that we have been held up at

Bolling, Anacostia, with our authorized program. But the National

Capital Planning Commission does have the legal authority over our

plans pursuant to Public Law 684, dated June 20. 1938. We have filed

a final environmental impact statement with the Council on Environ-

mental Quality on July 26.

We can proceed with about $6 million any of that $34 million of

construction, Mr. Chairman; for the rest we would have to have relief,

congressional relief from the authority that the NCPC has now to hold

up on it.

Senator SYMINGTON. You have Andrews, and Patuxent, and Dulles,

and National, and a lot of problems with space.

Why do you need Bolling?

Mr. SHERIDAN. The main purpose of Bolling at the present time is

for a defense center for the three services. That plan was presented to

the Congress in June 1972. And we felt that the plan would provide

the most logical development at one central location. Andrews doesn't

have the space for further development at the present time.

Senator SYMINGTON. You know how crowded we are for land around

here, and I get complaints from all these various congressional com-

mittees interested in the District of Columbia development, and the

Defense Department has so many places.

Couldn't we put this somewhere else, with all the; bases we have?

I am not suggesting putting it abroad. But I don't see why, especially

since we are closing so many bases over here, if we can take $250 million

the other day out of the payroll of the smallest State in the Union, and

naturally that has upset the people that live up there, especially some

of them that worked up there for generations on this work, and defense

work, why can't we put this somewhere else, why do we have to have

that at Bolling?

Mr. SHERIDAN. The plan that was presented in 1972 went into all the

alternatives of other locations. It is really a support activity, basically,

for troops that are stationed in this area. So long as they are stationed

here--

Senator SYMINGTON. How do you mean a support activity for troops

stationed in this area ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. The family housing and the barracks and facilities

of that type.

Senator SYINGTON. How many troops have you got stationed

around it ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. I will have to furnish that for the record.

Senator SYMINGTON. Will you furnish that for the record ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. Yes, sir.

[The information follows:]

As of June 30, 1972, there were 41,882 enlisted personnel stationed in the

National Capital Region.

Senator SYMINGTON. And how many officers have you stationed

there?

Mr. SHERIDAN. I will have to furnish that at the same time.

Senator SYMINGTON. Furnish that for the record.

We are getting awfully crowded around here. You can tell that by

how many miles you travel in the metropolitan area when you go into

Maryland and Virginia.

Mr. SHERIDAN. That is right.

[The information follows:]

As of June 30, 1973, there were 30,339 officers stationed in the National Capital

Region.

Senator SYMINOTON. Is there some way we could work this out? I

have had a lot of letters of complaint from various people about it.,

There are no further plans except what you have told us, is that

correct?

45

Mr. SHERIDAN. That is correct, sir.

Senator SYMINCTON. Thank you, Mr. Sheridan.

DEFENSE AGENCIES---TITLE IV

Title IV, the requirements for the defense agency.

Will you summarize that for us?

Mr. SHERIDAN. Yes, sir.

I have statements which I would like to have your permission to

place in the record by the Director of each one of the agencies.

Senator SYMINCTON. Without objection.

[The statements referred to follow:]

OPENING REMARKS, MR. EDWARD J. SHERIDAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF

DEFENSE (INSTALLATIONS AND HOUSING)

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, the request for activities of the

defense agencies totals $17.1 million for new construction and rehabilitation of

existing facilities at 12 installations. The proposed construction for the Defense

Agencies is as follows :

1. Defense Nuclear Agency ($0.6 million) to provide for a Advanced Research

Electromagnetic Pulse Simulator (ARES) Support Building at Kirtland Air

Force Base, Albuquerque, New Mexico; and a DNA Administration Building at

the Atomic Energy Commission Nevada Test Site, Las Vegas, Nevada.

2. Defense Supply Agency ($8.4 million) to provide for an improved electrical

distribution system, and a truck entrance and control facility at the Defense Con-

struction Supply Center, Columbus, Ohio; medical material climatic controlled

storage, upgrade restroom and lunchroom facilities and a troop subsistence sup-

port facility at the Defense Depot, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania; ventilation of

warehouses at the Defense Depot, Memphis, Tennessee; upgrade restroom facili-

ties at the Defense Depot, Ogden, Utah; an operational equipment maintenance

facility, fire station and improvement and modernization of the water system at

the Defense Depot, Tracy California; a photographic materiel storag facility and

a Defense Fuel Supply Center, Richmond, Virginia; a parking lot at the Defense

Logistics Services Center, Battle Creek, Michigan; quality control laboratory im-

provements at the Defense Personnel Support Center, Philadelphia, Pennsyl-

vania; and facility improvements at the Regional Office, Defense Contract Ad-

ministration Services, Chicago, Ill.

3. National Security Agency ($8.1 million) to provide for relocation of shop

facilities, logistics support facility, modernization of bachelor enlisted quarters,

and an automated waste collection system at NSA Headquarters, Fort George G.

Meade, Maryland.

Witnesses for the Defense Agencies are present and prepared to provide de.

tails as required in support of the projects for which authorization is requested.

We appreciate this opportunity to appear before you.

DEFENSE AGENCIES

BRIG. GEN. THOMAS B. WOOD, USAF, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR INSTALLATIONS

AND LOGISTICS, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear before

you today to present the National Security Agency Construction Budget for Fiscal

Year 1974. We request approval in that year for four projects at Fort Meade,

Maryland at an estimated cost of $8,156,000.00.

A principal mission of the National Security Agency is the organization,

Operation and management of certain activities and facilities for the production

of intelligence information. The successful conduct of these vital activities

requires facilities meeting the specialized needs of our missions. Our FY 1974

Construction Program includes one project for the improvement of troop

facilities and three projects responsive to mission requirements.

I The first project is for the Relocation of Shop Facilities at a cost of $742,000.00.

Space requirements for computers, a principal item of concern to NSA, have re-

sulted in extensive consolidation and relocation of attendant activities. Now

the machine space in our Operations Building is virtually depleted and we

also have a potentially hazardous condition from a safety standpoint. Shops

which have toxic and explosive characteristics are adjacent to the computer

complex. The FY 1974 construction project proposes to relocate these shop ac-

tivities from the Operations Building to another building, which will not only

remove the hazard but also will provide needed space for computers.

The second project, is for the construction of a Logistics Support Facility at

a cost of $3,529,000.00. The National Security Agency's logistics activities are

decentralized, and therefore more costly to operate and maintain, because of

the present lack of suitable facilities. The closure of Fort Holabird will elim-

inate marginal storage facilities which have been used by the Agency.. Last

year, the extra vehicle and manhour costs resulting from the decentralized

operations at Fort Holabird and other locations are estimated at nearly $100,.

000.00. Our FY,74 construction project will consolidate at Fort Meade these dis-

persed activities in a facility specifically designed for this purpose. Additionally,

it will give us a capability for direct rail deliveries to reduce double handling of

paper stock and will permit NSA to make better use of GPO bulk purchasing

procedures which will achieve further savings by taking advantage of industry's

season price fluctuations.

The third project is for the Modernization of Bachelor Enlisted Quarters at

a cost of $1,945,000.00. This barracks was built in the early 1950s to accommodate

abdut 500 men in large open bay areas and is now substandard by current

criteria. The military personnel at NSA work around-the-clock shifts. Men as-

signed to one shift are trying to sleep while those on other shifts may be coming

and going on other personal or official matters. The result is a constant turmoil

which jeopardizes the productivity of the troops and renders the quarters unac-

ceptable for modern military forces. This project will alter the existing facilities

into one-man rooms with private baths and two and three-man rooms with shared

bath to provide the privacy and quiet needed for the men. The project will also

isolate all troop command and recreational functions in the converted unit mess

area.

The fourth project is for the construction of an Automated Waste Collection

System at a cost of $1,940,000.00. The disposable classified material generated by

NSA and associated Defense components is currently between 34 to 40 tons daily.

Increasing amounts of material requiring disposal and the rising costs for

labor and security control measures to handle its disposal has resulted in a

significant problem for the Agency. The resolution of this problem requires the

implementation of new and ingenious techniques. The system proposed by NSA

in this FY 1974 construction project will automatically transport this material

from pick-up points to the collection facility under a high degree of security

and will eliminate nearly all of the manpower assigned to transporting and se-

curity control. The expected reduction in operating costs will amortize the

proposed system in five years.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, this is our FY 1974 Construction Program for

which we are requesting $8,156,000.00. I will be pleased to answer any questions

you may have concerning these projects.

FAMILY HOUSING

BRIG. GEN. THOMAS B. WOOD, USAF, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR INSTALLATIONS AND

LOGISTICS, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am pleased to appear before

you today. This Agency's request for Family Housing, Defense Appropriation in

FY 1974 totals $965,000.00. This budget includes $304,000.00 for operating and

maintenance expenses of 91 sets of family quarters located on an installation

operated by this Agency at a classified location overseas. The remainder of

$661,000.00 is to cover costs of 172 leased units occupied by Agency personnel.

Two of these leases are used by our senior representatives at London, England

and seven others by our representatives at various other locations. They re-

quire suitably located quarters for the accomplishment of their assigned func- -;

tions. The remaining 163 leases are used by the personnel located at the afore-

mentioned overesas installation because the number of family quarters on,

station is inadequate to handle the assigned Agency work force. j

t

The FY 1974 budget request of $965,000.00 for NSA family housing require-

ments reflects an increase of $225,000.00 from the FY 1973 funding level. This

results primarily from rising costs of leased quarters and also increased utility

and labor rates applicable to the maintenance and operation of both leased and

government owned quarters. The FY 1974 budget also contains funds for a

major maintenance project involving the replacement of exterior siding on 33

on-Post units. The siding on these units has been severely damaged by the

weather and presents a safety hazard to the occupants. The rest of the FY 1974

increase results from inclusion of this project.

NSA does not have a budget request for the construction of family housing

in FY 1974.

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. DARRIE H. RICHARDS, U.S. ARMY DEPUTY DIRECTOR,

DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY

I am appearing today in support of the agency's fiscal year 1974 military con-

struction program to request approval of 15 projects for nine defense supply

agency installations at a total cost of $8,370,000. I will now highlight the urgency

of the various line items.

Two of the projects are at Columbus, Ohio. One of them (on page 15) pro-

vides for the conversion and improvement of an unsafe substandard primary

electrical distribution system. Approval of this project will alleviate prevailing

hazardous conditions and ensure the continuity of essential supply center

operations.

The other project (on page 16) at Columbus provides for the construction of

a new truck entrance and control facility. The existing truck entrance, located

in an urban sector of the community, creates traffic congestion and presents

safety hazards. Execution of the project is in consonance with road and high-

way developments being performed by the city of Whitehall and the Federal

Highway Administration and will resolve traffic problems and improve safety.

Three of the projects are at Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. The first on these

(on page 18) provides for a controlled temperature facility for medical materiel

storage. Medical materiel requiring chill and freeze facilities is presently stored

in sixteen (16) refer type units located in three (3) buildings. The current opera-

tion involving medical stock necessitates manhandling and therefore is costly

and inefficient. Approval of this project will facilitate operational efficiency

through the use of forklifts and consolidation of location.

The second project (on page 19) at Mechanicsburg, provides for the upgrading

of restroom and lunchroom facilities. Present facilities, constructed during

World War II, do not meet present health and quality standards. Approval of

this project is needed to improve morale and working conditions for 1,050 em-

ployees in twenty three (23) buildings.

The third project (on page 20) at Mechanicsburg, provides for facility ex-

pansion to accommodate the increased mission and workload assigned to de-

fense depot Mechanicsburg for overseas direct troop subsistence and commissary

support. Approval of this project will permit consolidation and mechanization

of operations under one roof and result in savings that will amortize the project

in less than four (4) years.

Next is a project (on page 22) which provides for the ventilation of six

warehouses at Memphis, Tennessee. Approximately 600 personnel employed in

these warehouses are being subjected to noxious fumes from MHE and other

equipment due to inadequate ventilation. This project is to eliminate an environ-

mental health hazard, improve the morale of 600 people and increase operational

efficiency and effectiveness.

The next project (on page 24) provides for upgrading or restroom facilities at

Ogden, Utah. Existing facilities constructed during World War II have become

substandard. In addition, building use changes and the gradual increasing em-

ployment of women have generated additional facility requirements. Approval

of this project will result in the modernization of twenty (20) restrooms and

the construction of eleven (11) additional units for the benefit of 3,200 men and

women employees.

There are three projects at Tracy, California. The first (on page 26) provides

for construction of an operational equipment maintenance facility. Equipment

maintenance is presently performed in six (6) buildings, five (5) of which are

temporary structures, unsafe and deteriorated beyond economic repair. Approval

ti , 20-X507-73-4

48

of this project will improve maintenance operations, eliminate excessive costs,

improve safety and consolidate the maintenance functions into two buildings.

The second project at Tracy (on page 27) provides for the replacement of

an inadequate fire station. The present fire station is housed in a temporary

wood frame building constructed in 1943. This building is structurally unsound

and is beyond economical repair. This project is to provide an efficiently de-

signed facility and eliminate the need for continually maintaining an obsolete,

deteriorated, unsafe structure.

The third project (on page 28) at Tracy provides for improvement of existing

water and sewage facilities. Present systems are deficient to the extent that

potential health hazards exist and continued uninterruptible service is question-

able. Approval of this project will correct deficiencies, eliminate health hazards

and restore water and sewage system reliability.

The first of two projects (on page 30) at Richmond, Virginia, provides for a

photographic materiel storage facility. Currently, the photographic storage

mission is being performed in an unreliable, obsolete cold storage plant located

15 miles from the supply center. Approval of this project will provide for a

modern refrigerated facility at the supply center, ensure continued mission

capability, avoid $100,000 repair expenditures, reduce operating costs by $85,-

000 annually, and result in project amortization within two (2) years.

The other project (on page 31) at Richmond provides for construction of

office space to house the Defense Fuel Supply Center, presently located at Cam-

eron Station, Alexandria, Virginia. The operations of this activity are such

that location within the national capital region is not required. Approval of

this project will provide a new facility for the Defense Fuel Supply Center and

permit DSA to comply with the Department of Defense plan to reduce activities

in the national capital region.

There is a project (on page 33) which provides for improvement of a parking

lot at Battle Creek, Michigan. The existing condition of this parking lot, which

is utilized on a 24-hour, seven day per week basis, is totally substandard, haz-

ardous and subjected to numerous incidents of theft and vandalism. Approval

of this project will permit the upgrading of an existing facility for approximately

390 vehicles, reduce vandalism and theft, improve the safety and morale of men

and women employees and permit full utilization of the parking lot during

inclement weather.

There is also a project (on page 35) to provide for quality control laboratory

improvements at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. At present approximately 85 per-

sonnel are required to perform laboratory tests on clothing and textiles under

adverse environmental conditions in a poorly lighted, inadequately ventilated

facility. Approval of this project will provide for the installation of proper

climatic controls, new lighting and freight elevator to ensure a safe and efficient

work environment.

The last project (on page 37) provides for improvement of office and restroom

facilities in Chicago, Illinois. At present defense contract administration per-

sonnel are required to perform office type functions in an inadequately lighted

and ventilated facility. Approval of this project will permit the renovation of

restrooms, provide for additional air conditioning and other building alterations

to upgrade working conditioning and improve the morale of 750 personnel.

OPENING STATEMENT, FISCAL YEAR 1974 DEFENSE NUCLEAR AGENCY MILITARY

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. Chairman: I am Earl L. Eagles, Director of Logistics, Defense Nuclear

Agency. I am pleased to appear before this Committee to present that Agency's

Fiscal Year 1974 Military Construction.

For our Fiscal Year 1974 program, we request $574,000 for two projects as

follows :

At Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, N. Mex. ARES support

building----------------------------------------------------- $374,000

At Atomic Energy Commission, Nevada Test Site, Las Vegas, Nev. DNA

administration building ---------------------------------------- 200, 000

Total request ----------------------------------- ---- 574, 000

The DNA Advanced Research Electromagnetic Pulse Simulator (ARES) has

the capability to produce electromagnetic pulses similar to those resulting from

nuclear explosions. This permits testing of the vulnerability of strategic weapons

systems and their components. This project provides an equipment and instru.

ment checkout laboratory, data processing and administrative space needed for

efficient operation of the ARES facility. The activities to be housed in this

building are currently carried on in corridors, trailers and improvised space

which results in increased security problems, loss of data due to poor shielding

and overcrowded conditions.

The Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Defense carry out

an extensive underground test program at the Nevada Test Site. This under-

ground testing program was implemented as one of the safeguards imposed for

our national security subsequent to ratification of the Limited Test Ban Treaty.

A DNA administration building is required at the Nevada Test Site to replace

six small quonset huts which have outlined their usefulness and provide sub-

standard accommodations with inadequate latrine and water facilities as well

as security and interoffice communication problems created by the functional

division of the space into small isolated parcels. The standard of accommoda-

tions provided by these DOD buildings is now that provided other activities

at the Test Site.

I am prepared to discuss any of the above projects, if you desire.

Mr. SHERIDAN. The total request for the activities of defense agencies

total $17.1 million for new construction and rehabilitation of existing

facilities at 12 installations. And the statement explains in detail

what the requirements are. And we are available to answer any ques-

tions you may have on that.

PREPARED QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR SYMINGTON

Senator SYMINGTON. If we have any we will supply them for the

record.

Mr. SHERIDAN. Yes, sir.

[Questions submitted by Senator Symington. Answers supplied by Depart-

ment of Defense.]

Question. With respect to the Defense Agencies Justification book on page 6,

Defense Nuclear Agency, Kirtland AFB, New Mexico, ARES Support Building.

Would you explain to us just what the Advanced Research Electromagnetic

Pulse Simulator program is all about.

Answer. The Advanced Research Electromagnetic Pulse Simulator (ARES)

simulates the electromagnetic pulse (EMP) produced by a high altitude nuclear

burst. Therefore, the ARES facility provides to the Department of Defense

(DOD) the capability of testing strategic systems such as missiles, small aircraft

and satellites to the effects of high altitude EMP. Before going further into the

ARES program it is appropriate at this time to define why this testing capability

is required. Although EMP is one of many nuclear weapons effects produced .by

a nuclear explosion, it is unique in that it can disable electronic circuits at

distances where other nuclear weapons effects cause no damage. The damage to

electronics is caused by the ElMP transferring its energy to the missile, aircraft

or satellite and therefore generating undesired electrical signals throughout

components of the system. The potential result of this is that mission effective-

ness is reduced or destroyed. Specifically, missile systems can go out of control,

aircraft guidance and communications systems can become non-operational,

and satellites can go silent or become unresponsive to commands. Due to these

potential hazards it is necessary to harden our strategic systems to EMP and

then test to verify that the system can survive. In addition, the information gained

from testing is then applied to the design and fabrication of future systems.

The ARES program has supported the DOD needs for EMP hardness by con-

ducting, over the past three years, tests of the SPRINT, SPARTAN and Minute-

man missile systems. In February 1974 testing of the Air Force's FB-111 bomber

will begin, followed by various satellite systems commencing with the Navy's

Fleet Communications Satellite in early 1975.

Question. Turning to page 30 of the book, Defense Supply Agency, Defense

General Supply Center, Richmond, Virginia. I notice that this project for the

Defense Fuel Supply Center will permit you to remove certain activities from

Cameron Sta.tion to Richmond in consonance with the Department of Defense's

long-range plan to reduce the number of military activities in the National Capital

Region. I agree that this is a good move, but isn't there some kind of existing

quarters these people might use in Richmond rather than building a new build-

ing; perhaps through a leasing arrangement?

Answer. There are no existing facilities which would adequately meet this

requirement.

An economic analysis was developed by the Defense Supply Agency for the

purpose of evaluating the various options for relocating the Defense Fuel Supply

Center to Richmond, Virginia. The Analysis considered:

1. Renovation of an existing warehouse building.

2. Use of leased space.

3. The construction of a new structure.

The analysis indicated that construction of a new building at the Defense

General Supply Center, Richmond, would be the most economical alternative.

Question. On page 39 in the book, National Security Agency, Logistics Support

Facility, Fort Meade, Maryland. What kind of equipment and supplies are stored

here? What type of storage space is now being used? Why must the cafeteria

be furnished?

Answer. NSA will store electronic equipments, spare parts, sensitive crypto-

logic materials and standard supply items. Additionally the building will be used

to consolidate the NSA logistics maintenance, support and procurement func-

tions at one location for greater efficiency of operation.

NSA is currently using 17 wooden WW II buildings constructed originally

for Army use at widely dispersed locations on Fort Meade. Additionally NSA

has interim use of a WW II substandard warehouse at Fort Holabird.

Since the Logistics Support Facility will be located in the industrial section

of the NSA Complex at Fort Meade, it will be isolated from dining facilities

located in the Headquarters and Operations Buildings. The cafeteria included

in this project will provide food service for approximately 500 persons assined

in the Logistics Support Facility and other buildings located in the same area.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Senator SYMINGTON. Now we go to general provisions, title VI,

Mr. Sheridan.

Will you comment on that ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. The general provisions follow the pattern of the

previous years of the necessary language changes that are made each

year to complete the development of the bill. But we have two provi-

sions in this year's bill on the acquisition of land interests.

Mr. Roche, would you comment on that, please ?

These are new provisions.

Mr. RocIE. Mr. Chairman, the first proposal would amend section

2676 of title 10 of the United States Code to permit us to exchange

property through GSA, in those limited number of cases where it

would be feasible and desirable to do so.

Section 2676 of title 10 now says that no military department may

acquire real property without specific authority. While we have been

able to use the GSA authority for those properties now in their in-

ventory, we cannot ask them to go out and acquire title to new prop-

erties.

The second provision would amend section 2672 of title 10 to pro-

vide the Secretary of Defense with a flexibility to respond to unfore-

seen encroachment problems. In essence it would be a type of contin-

gency authorization.

Senator SYMINGTON. Since none of these seem to be controversial,we

will provide you a list of questions relating to the proposed changes

and ask that you answer them for the record.

Mr. SHERIDAN. Yes, sir.

[The questions are as follows:]

51

Question, Section 604: This section relates to the execution and award of

construction contracts. This year you propose a change to accommodate the

selected use of one-step competitive negotiation procedures (Turnkey) as an

acceptable alternative to competitive award based upon the lowest responsible

bidder.

Will you explain the reason for this proposed change, and what advantages

might accrue to the government as a result? This committee has long urged the

use of Turnkey procurement particularly in the area of family housing.

Answer. The reason for the change is that the general provisions in their

present form require that contracts be awarded insofar as practicable on a com-

petitive basis to the low bidder. Under our one-step procedure we do receive com-

petitive price proposals or bids, but the award is made to the bidder whose

combination of price and technical proposal offers the maximum advantage to

the government. Award may thus be made to other than the low bidder when

advantageous. We believe it desirable to clarify the language of the general pro-

visions to authorize the controlled use of one-step procedures as an alternative

to conventional competitive bidding.

We feel that one-step procedures offer significant advantages in procurements

for which standard designs or products used in the private sector will satisfy

our requirement. As an example, consider a project for industrial lighting. Rather

than designing the project, under one-step we would outline our performance

requirements (lighting intensity, minimum bulb life, etc.) and allow contractors

to use standard designs and select fixtures and other components which are

commercially available as a basis for their proposals and bids. One-step pro-

cedures offer a means for increased direct participation by industry with poten-

tial advantages of reduced cost and improved functional solutions.

Question. Section 605: This section has the effect of repealing all unused con-

struction authorization outstanding after a period of approximately two years,

including family housing. Heretofore family housing has been treated separately,

and the repeal date has been 15 months after the enactment of the authority.

While I know of no good reason why family housing should not be treated

the same as other construction authority, I am wondering why the change is

requested at this time, and why family housing has been treated differently in

the past?

Answer. In the past, most family housing projects were formally bid based

on Government prepared plans and specifications. Because of the availability of

advance planning funds, most projects were ready for advertisement upon en-

actment of appropriations. Even if unacceptable bids were received, and a project

bad to be rebid, with or without design changes, the 15-month authorization

life was generally adequate. Recently two factors have resulted in the 15-month

period being inadequate in many cases; namely, the trend toward turnkey pro-

curement, and the requirement to delay contract award until 30 days after the

filing of the final environmental impact statement. In cases where the initial

effort to obtain satisfactory responses to the turnkey request for proposals were

not satisfactory, extended delays have been involved in either generating ade-

quate interest or developing plans and specifications for formal advertising.

Question. Section 606: This section places a cost limitation on bachelor hous-

ing. You are asking for a little over a 5 per cent increase this year. The current

square foot limitation is $27 for permanent barracks, and $29 for bachelor of-

ficer quarters. You propose to increase each of these by $1.50 per square foot.

Only last year we permitted you to estimate your cost on a square foot basis,

as opposed to a cost per man basis, in order to give you more flexibility.

Why is the increase proposed this year necessary?

Have you had diffOculty in placing any of last year's projects under contract

at the current price?

-How much does this increased cost add to this year's budget request?

If we grant a new limitation it will, of course, apply to previously authorized

projects not yet placed under contract. How many such contracts are outstand-

ing, and what does the dollar volume amount to?

Answer. The increase in the statutory limit of about 5 percent for bachelor

housing is being requested to reflect the cost escalation in construction which

has been experienced the past years. As of the present, the Engineering News

Record building cost index has increased about 8 percent over the past 12

months.

We have had some difficulty in placing some of last year's projects under

contract under current cost limitations. As of the present, it has been necessary

to waive the statutory cost limitation for three fiscal year 1973 barracks projects

The proposed increase of $1.50 per square foot to the current statutory limita-

tions for bachelor housing projects inside the, United States adds about $10

million to'the budget request. Anticipating the enactment of this new limitation

on October 1, 1973, we will have outstanding at that time 17 projects for perma-

nent barracks at an estimated cost of $37,374,000 and,3 projects for bachelor

officers' quarters at an estimated cost of $3,671,000. Although the new limitation

provides a higher statutory ceiling for the living quarters, the total authorization

for each project remains unchanged.

Question. Section 607: I understand that this section is in the nature of a

technical amendment to permit the granting of utility and power ,line easements

at Camp Pendleton, Calif.

Would you explain the need for this?

Answer. Section 708 of Public Law 92-545 restored to the Secretary of the

Navy his authorities to grant leases, licenses or easements on Camp Pendleton

pursuant to his authority in chapter 159 of title 10 United States Code. This

authority had been cancelled earlier by section 709 of Public Law 92-145 when

the requirement was enacted that no land constituting Camp Pendleton would be

sold, transferred or disposed of unless authorized by law. In the restoration

of the Secretary of the Navy's ability to make outgrants under section 708 of

Public Law 92-545 his authority to issue easements under other authorities

such as powerline easements pursuant to 43 U.S.C. 961 was inadvertently over-

looked through the limited reference to chapter 159 of title 10 of the United

States Code. Section 607 of of this year's bill would restore to the Secretary of

the Navy all of his outgranting authorities.

Question. Section 608: This section is entirely new and falls into three parts.

As I understand paragraph 1, it is designed to permit you to report to the Con-

gress all minor construction projects annually, rather than semi-annually as in

the past. I see no objection to this, and it will undoubtedly result in some man-

power savings.

Paragraph 2, as I understand it, will give the Department authority to accept

real property acquired by the General Services Administration pursuant to the

Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949. This may be done

without specific authorization by the Congress.

Why do you feel you need this authority, and what do you expect to gain if it

is granted?

Answer. Under the provisions of the Federal Property and Administrative

Services Act of 1949, the General Services Administration is authorized to ob-

tain privately-owned real property interests in exchange for Government-owned

real property interests and transfer such interests to other Government depart-

ments. Because of the Provision of 10 U.S.C. 2676 which states: "No military

department may acquire real property not owned by the United States unless

the acquisition is expressly authorized by law," there exists a serious question

as to whether the military departments may acquire from GSA any real prop-

erty interest obtained by GSA via their exchange authority without separate, ex-

press statutory authority to do so. This proposed amendment to 10 U.S.C. 2676

would make clear that the military departments would not need separate acquisi-

tion authority in those cases where it would be feasible and desirable to accept

certain real property interests acquired under the GSA "exchange" authority.

This would be in such cases as boundary or encroachment adjustments over

$50,000 in value, conversion of interior leaseholds to fee estate, etc. Any pro-

posed acquisition over $50,000 under this amendment would be reported by the

military department concerned to the Armed Services Committees 30 days in

advance under 10 U.S.C. 2662. In addition, if the Government-owned real prop-

erty exchanged by GSA had been obtained by it by virtue of the property being

declared excess by a military department for this purpose or otherwise, such

excess declaration over $50,000 would have been first made known to the Armed

Services Committees. Further, any such exchange of real property interests ac-

complished by GSA would continue to be under the surveillance of the Govern-

ment Operations Committees of the House and Senate pursuant to Section 203

of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended..

In this manner, close scrutiny by the Congress of such arrangements would'be

assured.

Question. What safeguard will the Congress have to be certain you are not

acquiring unneeded real property through this procedure?

Answer. Section 2662 of title 10, United States Code, states among other things,

that the Secretary of a military department may not acquire fee title to any

real property if the estimated price is more than $50,000 until after the expira-

tion of 30 days from the date upon which a report of the facts concerning the

acquisition is submitted to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate

and House of Representatives. Through this reporting requirement, we believe

that the Congress would be fully informed and could express its judgment if it

thought the authority was being abused or that unneeded real property was

being acquired.

Question. If approved, it would give you broad general authority to acquire

land regardless of cost if the Secretary of Defense deemed it in the interest of

national security, and without specific authorization by the Congress. Under

Title 10, USC-2672, the Secretary of a Military Department can now do this

if the cost does not exceed $50,000. Also, under Title 10, 2677, the Secretary of

a Military Department can acquire options on land prior to specific authorization.

I described earlier, sufficient to protect the government's interest?

Why do you need this additional authority? Isn't the existing authority, which

I described earlier, sufficient to protect the government's interest?

Answer. The authority in Section 2672 of Title 10 U.S. Code does give us a

flexibility to respond to the small encroachment but is limited to $50,000. With

escalating land values, the threats of encroachment from large land owners could

far surpass this amount. Section 2677 of Title 10 is also a good tool in that it

permits us to acquire options in advance of authorization and funding to pur-

chase. Its application is limited, however, to the willingness of the land owner to

negotiate. You cannot acquire an option, per se, by eminent domain action. The

flexibility of the new paragraph 3 would allow us to respond quickly to unfore-

seen threats to our multi-million dollar installations. We would expect to use

this authority judiciously and only for imminent threats which could not await

orderly MILCON programming.

Question. Give us examples where you feel this additional authority might be

helpful.

Answer. This contingency type authority would provide the Secretary of De-

fense with a flexibility to respond to unforeseen encroachment threats to mili-

tary installations resulting from such things as capricious changes in the zoning

of land areas around these installations or expanded development to more inten-

sive use of already improved areas. Under present practices, the acquisition

of minimum land interests to assure compatible use must be included in a mili-

tary construction program, the timing of which could run from 9 to 15 months.

In the interim, construction incompatible with operational requirements of an

installation could be initiated. The amendment would provide a contingency au-

thority in the Secretary of Defense to acquire those minimum land interests,

the need for which were not anticipated and which cannot wait orderly pro-

gramming action. As an example, we are now faced within an unanticipated

change in the zoning of the agricultural land at one end of the Jacksonville,

Florida Naval Air Station to highrise condominium and apartment use. Another

situation could arise where a highrise office building which would penetrate the

Aircraft Glide Plane is scheduled to replace a one story bowling alley or some

other similar low profile commercial or industrial structure. The proliferation

of master TV antennae or other communication towers is another situation

facing us as urban encroachment expands.

Question. We have given you considerable authority the past couple of years

to acquire land under your "Air Installation Compatible Use Zone" program. For

example, last year the Air Force was granted $12 million for this purpose, most

of which I understand has not been used; and this year the Air Force is request-

ing about $26 million more.

If this amendment is approved, shouldn't the last sentence include the words

exchangee of land owned by the United States"? I should think this might be

particularly pertinent under your "Air Installation Compatible Use Zone"

program.

Answer. We would agree that while "exchange of land owned by the United

States" could be implied in the phrase "or otherwise" its addition to this sentence

does make it more specific. We would caution. however, that our use of the new

authority requested in paragraph (3) of Section 608 is intended to be used only

in unforeseen or contingency situations and that we would continue to program

54

in increments through the Annual Military Construction Program those foreseen

Air Installation Compatible Use Zone land requirements.

Senator S rNGrToN. At this point I should like to submit for the

record a statement from Senator Mansfield.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE MANSFIELD (D.-MONTANA)

Mr. Chairman: It is a pleasure to appear before the Committee this morning

to discuss a matter of great importance to a number of my constituents in Mon-

tana and to provide additional information pursuant to my letter' to you of

July 27, 1973.

During construction of the ABM complex near Conrad, Montana, a water

supply and transmission system was built to serve the proposed missile facili-

ties. When the SALT agreements halted further construction of the Montana

project, the water line was 100% complete. Recognition by state officials and

people within the local community that the line would probably become surplus

to Government needs and may even be dismantled resulted in a study to deter-

mine the feasibility of conversion to a rural water system. The proposed system

would use the existing ABM water line which was designed to take water out

of the Tiber Reservoir and pump it 3.8 miles to the new abandoned PAR site.

There it is filtered, chlorinated, and placed in underground storage reservoirs.

The water is then pumped southwesterly, a distance of 23.3 miles, to the MSR

site. Using the ABM main line pump stations and reservoir as a backbone, a

complete system of mains has been designed to serve all dry land farm homes

in the area.

'Some confusion may have resulted concerning the dismantlement implications

of the ABM Treaty. In order to assure myself that the pipeline proposal is com-

patible with the SALT agreements, I asked the Secretary of State on June 28

whether the ABM Treaty could in any way be interpreted as prohibiting civilian

utilization of the Tiber Reservoir pipeline. I would like to submit a letter dated

July 31 from Marshall Wright, Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional

Relations. The Committee will note that it is the Department's view that the

pipeline proposal is not incompatible with the provisions of the Treaty.

Serious attention has been given to seeking a "balance in economics" in the

conversion of this system to civilian utilization. The area to be served is essen-

tially arid, non-irrigated wheat and livestock production land with limited

access to badly needed subsurface water. The initial thrust in the conversion I

have discussed is to provide water for ranch buildings and livestock use. It

may be possible in future years with improved technology and installation of

additional equipment to provide limited irrigation water via this system.

In comparing this proposed rural water system to systems which have been

built in other states such as Kansas and the Dakotas, it is necessary to recog-

nize the difference between the rolling terrain around Conrad and the table flat-

land of the other states. This contributes to a per mile cost which is significantly

higher than that encountered elsewhere.

We know that the Federal aid situation relative to financing of rural water

systems is in a state of flux now. Most rural water projects which have been

constructed in the past few years have relied on outright grants from the Farm-

ers Home Administration and other agencies of the Federal government..

With the current reduction in the availability of Federal dollars the grant

process for application to this project is impossible. The Farmers Home Admin-

istration can, however, make long-term loans for the construction of rural water

systems. The Montana group interested in the Tiber line is currently discussing,

with the Farmers Home Administration the possibility of 50% financing.

I appear today to ask the Committee's favorable consideration of a proposed

new Section to the Military Construction Authorization Bill for FY 1974 to

assist in securing a direct Federal fund allocation which will bring the local

costs for conversion of this surplus line down to a financially feasible level.

The 269 ranchers who would be served by this system have indicated a ready

willingness to assume encumbrance of one half of the project cost.

I am sure the Committee will recall that at the time the Administration

requested authorization for ABM construction that the citizens of Montana in

general opposed the selection of the State as a site. However, once the decision

was made, Montanans accepted their responsibility to again make a contribution

to the national defense. The abrupt closing down of the ABM missile project

55

in the Conrad area has resulted in a severe financial impact. In recognition of

this problem, the Committee last year approved Section 610 which, I might add,

has been of great assistance to my constituents in adjusting to the situation in

which they find themselves.

The Tiber water line has cost the government to date in excess of $4 million.

I have been advised by the Department of Defense that it has no further military

application, No other Federal agency has indicated an interest in the line.

Unless the proposed conversion takes place, the expenditures to date will result

in a total and tragic loss of taxpayers' dollars. The economic realities confront-

ing my constituents make it imperative that Federal assistance be provided to

make the project feasible. The need for adequate quantities and qualities of

water in this five county area is real.

The firm of Hurlburt, Kersich, and McCullough of Billings, Montana has pre-

pared a preliminary study and report for this proposed Tiber water users system.

This report acecompanied my letter of July 27, 1973.

In summary, the new Section I seek will allow the release of previously appro-

priated Section 610 monies to provide through direct grant 50% of the cost of

system conversion. Release of these funds should, of course, be contingent upon

a firm commitment from appropriate Federal agencies for financing of the

remaining fifty percent.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, D.C. July 31, 1973.

Hon. MIRE MANSFIELD,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MANSFIELD: As I indicated in my letter of July 25, Department

officials have been looking into the question you raised in your letter of June 28,

1973, as to whether the provisions of the ABM Treaty could be interpreted as

prohibiting civilian utilization of the water pipeline from the Tiber Reservoir

to the former Malmstrom ABM site. We have now concluded that implementa-

tion of the Treaty should not in any way interfere with such use of the pipeline.

The ABM Treaty deals with the question of dismantling in rather general

terms. Article VIII provides that

ABM systems or their components in excess of the numbers or outside

the areas specified in this Treaty, as well as ABM systems or their com-

ponents prohibited by this Treaty, shall be destroyed or dismantled under

agreed procedures within the shortest possible agreed period of time.

The Treaty itself makes no reference to the Malmstrom site. However, Common

Understanding B indicates that the one ABM site that the United States will

elect to maintain under the ABM Treaty for defense of ICBM silo launchers

"will be centered in the Grand Forks ICBM silo launcher deployment area."

Therefore, ABM systems and components situated at the Malmstrom site are

required to be destroyed or dismantled pursuant to Article VIII of the ABM

Treaty.

Article XIII(e) of the ABM Treaty provides for the establishment of a

Standing Consultative Commission within the framework of which the parties

will

agree upon procedures and dates for destruction or dismantling of the

ABM systems or their components in cases provided for by the provisions

of this Treaty.

Article II of the ABM Treaty lists the current components of ABM systems as

"ABM interceptor missiles . . . ABM launchers . . . and ABM radars." It is

clear, therefore, that the pipeline to which you have referred is not itself a

component of an ABM system.

The question, rather, is whether the components at the Malmstrom site can

be said to be fully dismantled if the pipeline is allowed to remain in place and

fully functional. The Treaty does not, of course, attempt to specify the meas-

ures which must be taken with respect to all structures and equipment at fixed

installations at which components are to be destroyed or dismantled. Rather,

the Treaty provisions quoted above leave to the Standing Consultative Commis-

sion the task of developing procedures which will ensure effective dismantling

of all components in excess of those permitted under the Treaty. This process is

already well underway in the Commission.

1 While the specific provisions of the Treaty thus provide no direct answer

to the question you have raised, the requirement of dismantling and destruction

must be read in light of the basic purpose of the Treaty. The Office of the Legal

Adviser is of the opinion that no reasonable interpretation could require the

56

dismantling of so peripheral a part of the ABM installation at Malmstrom as the

pipeline from the Tiber Reservoir. This view is fully consistent with the discus-

sions to date in the Standing Consultative Commission with respect to proce-

dures for dismantling and destruction of ABM components in accordance with

Article VIII of the Treaty.

The only modifications in the pipeline which might conceivably be required

in order to carry out any necessary dismantling or destruction of the presently

existing structures for the actual ABM components would be the cutting off and

sealing of the immediate connections between the pipeline and certain of the

building sites. As we understand it, this would in no way interfere with the

civilian uses which are contemplated for the pipeline itself.

I hope this reply will be adequate to your purposes but that you will not

hesitate to call on me for any further assistance which may be necessary.

Sincerely,

MARSHALL WRIGHT,

Assistant Secretary for

Congressional Relations.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION BILL

viz: At the appropriate place in the bill insert a new section as follows:

Sec.-. The Secretary of Defense is authorized to use any unobligated funds,

not in excess of $1,500,000, heretofor appropriated to carry out the provisions

of section. 610 of the Military Construction Authorization Act, 1971 (84 Stat.

1224) for the purpose of assisting communities near Malmstrom Air Force Base,

Great Falls, Montana, to pay their respective shares of the cost under any Fed-

eral program providing assistance for the adoption, to the needs and uses of

such communities, of the water system, and appurtenances thereto, installed to

support the Safeguard Anti-ballistic Missile site near such air force base.

Senator SYMIINGTON. Very well, Mr. Fliakas will now talk about

family housing.

FAMILY HOUSING

Mr. FLIAKAS. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I will submit

my total statement for the record and very briefly highlight it this

morning.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to appear before these committees to

present the military family housing program for fiscal year 1974

as reflected in S. 1797. The programs included in the budget request

before you reflect a continuing emphasis being placed by the Depart-

ment of Defense on the maintenance of our forces and the welfare of

our individual servicemen. As stated by the Secretary of Defense,

adequate housing is a moral factor of prime importance.

We are pleased to be able to report continued and significant prog-

ress in providing more adequate housing on base for upgrading

the condition of our existing inventory, and in securing suitable quar-

ters offbase in the community for our military families. These improve-

ments and program increases have been built up by gradually increas-

ing annual increments in our defense programs beginning with fiscal

year 1970, and continuing in each successive annual program since

then. The authorization request for fiscal year 1974 for the account

"Family Housing, Defense" amounts to $1,250,567,000.

A comparison of this year's proposed authorization with pertinent

element breakouts for a 5-year span is shown on page 2 of my

statement.

You will note that the trend and growth pattern are significant.

The fiscal year 1974 authorization request of $1,250.6 million com-

pares with $1,050.7 million for fiscal year 1973, an increase of $199.9

million, or approximately 19 percent. One of the principal features is

the proposed construction of 11,688 family housing units. The number

of units for new construction in the fiscal year 1974 program continues

the high level attained in the previous 3 years.

Other important elements in this year's construction program are

mobile home spaces to provide safe, sanitary, and reasonably priced

accommodations for those servicemen who own mobile homes, and a

total of $62.5 million in the improvement and alteration of existing

public quarters to modernize and renovate older and deteriorated units.

The balance of the fiscal year 1974 request covers minor construction

and planning as well as annual costs for leasing, operation and main-

tenance, and debt payment. The total authorization requested is $423,-

747,000 for construction requirements, and $826,793,000 for the O. & M.

and debt payment portion, or a total of $1,250,567,000.

In my prepared statement, sir, there is considerable detail regarding

our programing policy, our request for higher space standards and

costs, and the leasing and rental guarantee programs. I will not go

into detail on those, but I would like to say that these programs repre-

sent our efforts to achieve a balanced program of providing adequate

housing for our military servicemen and their families.

I would like to skip, sir, to page 13 of my statement to talk about

the amendments to the program.

We are proposing three new amendments to, the fiscal year 1974

military construction authorization bill. Those amendments did not

receive clearance in time to be included in the committee print before

you. The first proposal concerns the conveyance of approximately 57

acres of land and improvements at the Fort Ruger Military Reserva-

tion, Hawaii, to the State of Hawaii.

This proposed legislation would replace the original act and would

permit the conveyance of this property to the State of Hawaii, and

would further permit the value of the Fort Ruger property to be

credited to the development costs of a Defense housing complex at

the Defense-owned Aliamanu Crater in Hawaii.

HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Next, sir, I would like to discuss the homeowners assistance pro-

gram. The second proposal would authorize an additional $7 million

to be appropriated for the homeowners assistance program.

Analysis of the April 17, 1973, base realinement announcement in-

dicates that current authorization and appropriations carried over in

the Homeowners Assistance Fund are insufficient to indemnify in fis-

cal year 1974 military and civilian personnel for losses sustained in

disposing of their homes.

The third proposal would provide for a modest expansion of the

homeowners assistance program to cover personnel currently not eligi-

ble for assistance at some installations. These are individuals who are

assigned or employed at or near an installation which is being re-

alined, but are not themselves involved in that realinement, and

who will relocate because of normal reassignment or routine transfer.

I have touched very briefly, sir, on the main elements of this year's

military family housing program. The Department of Defense is

58

deeply committed to the housing needs of the serviceman, and we will

continue tor develop and recommend programs to meet these needs.

In summary, I would say that the DOD military family housing

program reflects a balanced approach to achieving our objective of

decent and adequate housing for all servicemen and their families.

I would like, sir, to express my appreciation for your continuing

support for the Department of Defense- family housing program.

And I am available to answer any questions that you may have, sir.

[Mr..Fliakas' statement follows:]

Messrs. Chairman and Members of the Committees: I am pleased to appear

before these Committees to present the Military Family Housing Program for Fis-

cal Year 1974 as reflected in S. 1797. The programs included in the budget request

between you reflect the continuing emphasis being placed by the Department of

Defense' on the maintenance of our forces and the welfare of our individual

servicemen. As stated by the Secretary of Defense, adequate housing is a morale

factor of prime importance. The principal objective of this program therefore,

is to assure that married members of the Armed Forces have suitable housing.

To this end, the objectives of the military family housing program are closely

aligned and dovetail with the objectives of the zero draft and the all-volunteer

force.

We are pleased to be able to report continued and significant progress in pro-

viding more adequate housing on base, for upgrading the condition of our exist-

ing inventory, and in securing suitable quarters off-base in the community for

our military families. These improvements and program increases have been

built up by gradually increasing annual increments in our Defense programs

beginning with FY 1970, and continuing in each successive annual program

since then. The authorization request for FY 1974 for the account, Family

Housing, Defense, amounts to $1,250,567,000.

A comparison of this year's proposed authorization with pertinent element

breakouts for a 5-year span is shown below. You will note that the trend and

growth pattern are significant:

FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE-SUMMARY OF SELECTED AUTHORIZED AMOUNTS

[Dollars in thousands[

Enacted (fiscal year) Request

fiscal year

1970 1971 1972 1973 1974

New construction__ - ........ ......... $105, 507 $194, 833 1 $255, 740 $270, 987 $351, 904

(Number of units) ............._ . (4, 800) (8, 000) 1 (9, 862) 2 (11,938) (11, 688)

Mobile home facilities ....-..-...0.. . 0 1, 200 7, 280 5,387 5,700

(Number of spaces) ... _(0) (439) (2, 350) (1,403) (1,340)

Improvements_......--....-.-. . . . 11,540 19, 196 31,668 39, 498 62, 510

Leasing --..-... __-.....-... . ...... 23,658 28, 684 33, 589 37, 643 44,703

(Number of leases, end year).. (9, 669) (11,466) (13, 482) (13, 964) (17,262)

Operation and maintenance _-----3..73, 219 395,686 440, 706 535, 842 622, 913

Total authorization .....---------- 688, 476 806, 464 1 915, 201 11,050,741 1, 250,567

1 Includes 430 units for $11,070,000 for Safeguard sites enacted in the DOD Appropriations Act, Public Law 92-204.

2 Includes 218 units for Safeguard site authorized in Public Law 92-436, but which are to be financed from savings

and for which no appropriation was made.

The FY 1974 authorization request of $1,250.6 Million compares with $1,050.7

Million for FY 1973, an increase of $199.9 Million or approximately 19 percent.

One of the principal features is the proposed construction of 11,688 family

housing units. The number of units for new construction in the FY 1974 program

as reflected in Section 501, continues the high level attained in the previous

three years and is nearly six times as many new units as were in the program

just five years ago. This significant growth has been realized only with the

complete support of these Committees without whose cooperation there could

not have been the same measure of progress.

Other important elements in this year's construction program are mobile

home spaces to provide safe, sanitary and reasonably priced accommodations

59

for those servicemen who own mobile homes and a total of $62.5 Million in

the improvement and alteration of existing public quarters to modernize and

renovate older and deteriorated units. The military departments have estimated

a backlog of over $700 Million in necessary improvements to upgrade our

inventory. I know of no program that will pay quicker dividends and provide

such substantial benefits in terms of increased morale to the military families

who occupy on-base housing as well as provide increased life and livability to

the structures themselves.

The balance of the FY 1974 request covers minor construction and planning

as well as annual costs for leasing, operation and maintenance, and debt pay-

ment. Total authorization requested is $423,774,000 for the construction re-

quirements and $826,793,000 for the O&M and debt payment portion or a total

of $1,250,567,000.

Now I would like to discuss briefly, some of the features of this year's

program and to highlight the subjects that are of particular interest to this

Committee.

PROGRAMMING

DoD policy with respect to housing our married military servicemen is

to rely on the local civilian housing market in communities near military

installations as the primary source of family housing. Only when community

support is limited or inadequate as to cost, distance, or quality, do we seek

authority to construct on-base housing. Particular care has been taken in the

programming review to assure that our request for new construction reflects

requirements only at hardcore installations. Because of this concentration on

hardcore bases, coupled with the recent 5-year buildup of new construction and

continued reliance on the local community, our programmable deficit is now

estimated to be about 60,000 units. This compares with prior estimates in recent

years of 90,000 to 110,000. The reasons for the reduction of the deficit to what

is now considered to be a manageable level, are the declining force structure,

the contraction of our base establishment and the cumulative effect of recent

military pay raises, particularly in the lower grades, which put more community

housing within the economic means of our servicemen. As in previous years,

we continue to place the most attention of the on-base construction to enlisted

and junior officer units. This year's program includes about 11,000 units or

94% of the total program for these categories.

CONSTRAINT ON PROGRAMMING 2-BEDROOM UNITS

Now I would like to say a few words about the bedroom composition of our

program requested. Each year, a substantial part of our program has been con-

centrated on the new construction of 2-bedroom units. This was based on pro-

gramming calculations using actual surveys at individual bases that show

statistically, a need for 2-bedroom units. The military departments have recom-

mended that the proliferation of this size unit in the inventory be controlled and

the Congress also has questioned this requirement. In the FY 1974 program, you

will see therefore, a programming policy applied to the makeup of the program,

which limits the number of 2-bedroom units at any one bas to 30% of the enlisted

and junior officer inventory at that base. Our rationale for this is as follows:

First-the 2-bedroom unit is the predominate size found in the local community.

The 3- and 4-bedroom units are scarce and those available are normally priced

beyond the serviceman's ability to pay.

Second--a military controlled 3-bedroom unit on-base offers more flexibility

for assignment purposes. This policy will enhance maximum utilization and flexi-

bility of assignment on post.

Third--as we move toward an all-volunteer force, we expect the troop compo-

sition to stabilize. Our statistics based on experience to date, have been largely

draft driven. As we develop a more permanent force, more stability in terms of

marital rates and consequently, more children will result. ,So we think that we

can look for an increase in bedroom requirements as our force matures and

becomes more permanent.

Our conclusion therefore, is to establish a general programming policy that

puts a constraint on the number of 2-bedroom units to be normally constructed

at any one base. We have established a 30% factor as being realistic and respon-

sive to this concept. We will, of course, look at each installation on a case

basis to determine the application of this policy.

60

INCREASED SPACE LIMITATIONS-SECTION 509

Now I would like to turn to a discussion of the construction standards for the

maximum square foot limitation on floor area prescribed for military family

housing by the United States Code. As you know, we are constrained by specific

maximum limits on size by rank or grade of the military occupant. These limi-

tations have not been upgraded in years with the result that today, we are build-

ing to standards that no longer meet the lifestyle of modern day living. Research

on civilian housing design trends and a survey of information and opinions of

our own military servicemen and their wives as to the adequacy of military

housing, indicate a critical need for additional floor area to accommodate con-

temporary living habits and requirements. As a result of these surveys and analy-

sis of current statutory net area limitations, we are requesting changes which

will allow appropriate increases in dining areas, secondary bedrooms, and the

bathroom area and the appropriate circulation and storage space to support

the enlarged areas. The total impact of the requested increases will be improved

overall livability.

We have worked very closely with the military departments on the review

of space requirements and have been very selective on the application of

increases. A comparison chart showing the current statutory limits and the

proposed changes is attached to my statement. The increases range from zero

to 11%. For example, we are seeking no change in space criteria for general

officers but an increase of 120 square feet or 11% for a 3-bedroom enlisted unit.

Another increase is for 50 square feet or 4% for a 4-bedroom company grade

officer unit. In addition, we are proposing that the maximum space limitations

for senior enlisted personnel in the grades E-7 through E-9 be the same as those

for junior officers. The military departments were unanimous in their recom-

mendation that senior enlisted personnel be accorded this benefit commensurate

with their extended service. Also a benefit will accrue to the base management

of the inventory by affording greater flexibility in assignment of housing between

junior officers and senior NCO's. However, due to budget considerations the

number of enlisted units proposed for construction in the FY 1974 program at the

higher senior enlisted standards have been held to only 30%.

COST LIMITATIONS-SECTION 502

Next, I would like to discuss the statutory average unit cost limitation on the

construction of military family housing and where we stand with respect to the

adequacy of the current CONUS limit. As you know, the Department of Defense

did not seek a cost increase last year so that the FY 1972 limit of $24 000 applies

also to 1973. This appeared appropriate at the time because of judgments and

cost growth projections that proved now to have been understated. For example,

it was believed that a normal cost growth during this period would be offset by

the content and geographic location of our 1973 program-that is, more enlisted

and junior officer units including a liberal number of 2-bedroom units, in lower

cost regions of the country. Also, certain exclusions from the average unit cost

were requested but were not favorably considered by the Congress. These were

the exclusion of land acquisition and off-site development costs.

These considerations have now been overtaken by events, namely the spiraling.

costs of construction. Consequently, the military departments have been required

to take an increasing amount of deductive alternatives in order to make contract

awards within available funds for those projects being competitively bid; and

for turnkey projects, a reduction in quality and/or desired scope is being realized

because of the current fiscal constraints. Sufficient experience is not available as

yet for the FY 1973 program but, based on the actual cost growth of 8.5% for FY

1972 it is expected that we will have difficulty with a majority of the projects

which can only result in penalizing the resultant housing and its occupants

because of quality deficiencies.

Based on the above, the proposed FY 1974 program average cost of $27,500 for

units constructed in the United States exclusive of Alaska and Hawaii reflects the

updating of the FY 1973 average unit cost to eliminate quality deficiencies.

In addition a cost growth factor of 6% is included. Authoritative construc-

tion cost indices such as reported by Engineering News Record had predicted

a 7% cost growth for building construction for CY 1972. The actual increase

however amounted to 8.5%. This experience reflected a sharp rise especially in

the cost of plywood and lumber. We now believe this to be conservative because as

of this date, the increasing trend has not shown any sign of leveling off.

We understand that the proposal before you is ambitious. But we believe

firmly that this is the proper direction, that is, to upgrade our standards and to

establish realistic goals and prices accordingly. If spiraling costs are not halted

then we may not be able to accomplish all we have set forth in this request. But.

these standards should be established as a target to shoot for in order to get the

most house for the dollar and for the occupant within reasonable limits.

DOMESTIC LEASING (SEC. 507), FOREIGN LEASING, AND RENTAL GUARANTY (SEC. 508)

PROGRAMS

The domestic leasing program authorizes under specific criteria and cost lim-

itations, the lease of housing in the civilian community in the United States,

Puerto Rico, and Guam for assignment to military personnel as public quarters.

The statutory limitation on the number of domestic leases is 10,000. All of these

have been allocated to the military departments and approximately 87% are

currently under lease. About 3,000 leases are allocated to the recruiting com-

mands. We plan to continue this, program as an important supplement to our

balanced program for the acquisition of adequate housing both in the community

and on-base. No charges are proposed in the FY 1974 program.

Foreign leasing of family housing is authorized under the general authority of

10 USC 2675. A limited number of units have been leased under this authority

primarily for persons occuping special command type positions or to alleviate

undue hardship cases. However, it is believe that leasing, particularly lease-

construct agreements in selected overseas locations, represents a viable potential

for producing additional housing for military families in foreign countries with

limited risk for the U.S. Government. Accordingly, the FY 74 program request

reflects an expanded foreign leasing program for 7,262 units and $19.9 million, an

increase of 3,298 units and $6.8 million.

Another method of acquiring military family housing in overseas locations is

the rental guarantee program. By Public Law 88-174 as amended, the Secretary

of Defense is authorized to enter into agreements guaranteeing the builders of

such housing a return equivalent to a specified portion of the annual rental in-

come which would be received if the housing were fully occupied. These projects

are privately financed, and constructed and maintained by the sponsor for occu-

pancy by U.S. military personnel on a rental basis. The guarantee period is lim-

ited to 10 years under existing legislation. A total of 2,415 rental guarantee units

are under contract in Spain, the United Kingdom, Germany and Korea. We are ex-

ploring the feasibility of obtaining additional rental guarantee projects but do not

consider it possible without an increase in the average guaranteed rental ceiling.

The present ceiling of $225 per unit per month was authorized last year. How-

ever, the international economic situation, compounded by increased construction

costs in foreign countries, has made this ceiling obsolete. For example, the

Deutschemark was revalued upward, and this was followed by the recent devalua.

tion of the dollar. Meanwhile, construction costs have increased substantially.

Consequently, we are requesting in Section 508 that the average guaranteed

rental be increased to $275 per unit per month to permit the continued effective

use of this program.

We believe that these programs, administered wisely in selected locations,

will provide suitable family housing for our military servicemen at a minimum

risk to the U.S. Government, especially in areas where U.S. military tenure could

be subject to change.

BASE CLOSURE IMPACT ON FAMILY HOUSING

On April 17, 1973 the Secretary of Defense announced 274 actions to consoli-

date, reduce, realign, or close military activities. There are 15,500 family housing

units affected at locations scheduled for closure or reduction. Of these, only

4,471 units or 28% have been built with appropriated funds and most of them

were constructed prior to 1966. The balance are Capehart, Wherry, and other

public quarters, including about 1,350 inadequates. The Military Departments

have completed their review of housing requirements at affected installations to

provide data as a basis to determine how many of the units can be retained by

the owning service, how many can be used by another Military Service, and how

many may be excess to Department of Defense requirements. Based on screen-

ing to date, 5,658 units are to be retained within DoD, 304 units are to be trans-

ferred to the Coast Guard, and 7,980 units are to be declared excess. The excess

+housing will be reported to the General Services Administration, in the usual

manner, where it will be screened for other Government use, and disposed of by

sale or otherwise if no use is found. Every precaution will be taken to minimize

any possible adverse economic impact on surrounding communities. There are

1,558 units still under review to determine what action is to be taken.

AMENDMENTS

We are proposing three new amendments to the FY 1974 Military Construction

Authorization Bill. These amendments did not receive clearance in time to be

included in the Committee Print before you.

FORT RUGER EXCHANGE

The first proposal concerns the conveyance of approximately 57 acres of land

and improvements at the Fort Ruger Military Reservation, Hawai, to the State

of Hawaii. Public Law 91-564, authorized the Secretary of the Army to convey

these lands and improvements to the State of Hawaii in exchange for the convey-

ance by the State to the United States of approximately 259 acres of land ad-

jacent to the Tripler Army Hospital Reservation. The land adjacent to Tripler

Hospital was to be used as a site for additional military family housing. TheAct

also provided for the State to make certain site preparations on the land to be

transferred to the United States, which will equal in cost the dollar difference

between the fair market values of the properties being exchanged. Subsequent

evaluation by the Army of the 259 acres adjacent to Tripler Hospital revealed

however, that only 45 acres were usable as family housing sites, thus making

its potential development too costly for military housing.

The proposed legislation would replace the original Act and would permit the

conveyance of the Fort Ruger property to the State of Hawaii. It would further

permit the value of the Fort Ruger property to be credited to the development

costs of a Defense housing complex at the Defense-owned Aliamanu Grater,

Hawaii.

HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

The second proposal would authorize an additional $7 million to be appro-

priated for the Homeowner's Assistance Program. The Homeowners Assistance

Program, authorized by Section 1013 of Public Law 89-754, provides assistance

to military and civilian employee homeowners by reducing their losses incident

to the disposal of their homes when the military installations at which they are

serving are ordered to be closed in whole or in part or the scope of operations

is reduced. Analysis of the April 17, 1973 Base Realignment Announcement in-

dicates that current authorization and appropriations carried over in the Home-

owners Assistance Fund are insufficient to indemnify in FY 1974 military and

civilian personnel for losses sustained in disposing of their homes.

The third proposal would provide for a modest expansion of the Homeowner's

Assistance Program to cover personnel currently not eligible for assistance at

some installations because of a lack of a causal relationship between the loss

sustained in disposing of their homes and the installation realignment. These are

individuals who are assigned or employed at or near an installation which is

being realigned, but are not themselves involved in that realignment, and who

will relocate because of normal reassignment or routine transfer. These per-

sonnel can sustain the same losses as personnel covered by the Program at the

realigned installations. The expansion of the Program in the United States is

the same as the expansion authorized by the Congress last year for overseas

areas.

CONCLUSION

I have touched briefly on the main elements of this year's military family

housing program. The Department of Defense is deeply committed to the hous-

ing needs of the serviceman and we will continue to develop and recommend

programs to meet those needs. In summary, I would say that the DoD Military

Family Housing Program reflects a balanced approach to achieving our objective

of decent and adequate housing for all servicemen and their families, by con-

tinuing a prudent and moderate on-base construction and improvement program

coupled with an aggressive policy for obtaining suitable off-base housing in the

civilian communities near our military installations.

I would like to express my appreciation for your continuing support of the

Department of Defense family housing program. My staff and I are available to

63

answer your questions and would be pleased to provide such additional infor-

mation as you may request.

Thank you.

Enclosure: Proposed FY 1974 Space Criteria.

PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 1974 SPACE CRITERIA

Current stat. Legislative Percent increase

limit net proposal stat. limit net

General officers........---------------..--------------------------........................... 2,100 2,100 0

Senior grade.....---..---------------------------------------....................................... 1, 670 1, 700 2

Field grade:

3-BR.........-------------------------------------------- 1,400 1,400 0

4-BR.... --------------------------------------------- 1,400 1,550 11

Company grade: I

2-BR........ --------------------------------------------- 2950 950 0

3-BR-----....----------------... ....... .......------------------------ 1,250 1,350 8

4-BR....----..----------------------------------------- 1,400 1,450 4

5-BR.......--------------------------------------------........................................ 1,400 1,550 11

Enlisted: s

2-BR.......---..------------------------------------------ 950 950 0

3-BR....------........---------------------------------------- 1,080 1,200 11

4-BR..-------------------..-------......... ---------------- 1,250 1,350 8

5-BR............----------------------------------------- 1, 400 1,550 8

1 Includes senior NCO's.

2 Administrative control.

a E-6's and below.

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you.

Certainly, one thing that we have to consider is decent housing for

the people who serve in our military.

This year you are requesting authority for 11,688 new units of family

housing, at a cost of about $352 million. We do not intend to go into

each individual project, but there are three projects in the Navy pro-

gram I would like to ask about.

(a) There are seven units for Thrumont, Md., which, I believe, is the

Presidential retreat at Camp David. Am I correct in my understand-

ing that this project is no longer valid ?

Mr. FLIAKAS. That is correct, sir. If I may correct your statement,

it is a 6-unit project in the bill, and because of a reevaluation of require-

ments, the Department of Defense has no objection to removing this

project from consideration.

Senator SYMINGTON. What were these units going to be used for

before?'

Mr. FLIAKAS. As I understood it, sir, it was to support additional

enlisted personnel assigned to Camp David.

'Senator SYMINGTON. What is the definition of a unit ?

Mit. FLIAKAS. Family housing unit.

Senator SYMINGTON. A family housing unit ?

Mr. FLIARAS. Yes, sir.

KEFLAVIK

Senator SYMINGTON. The Navy has also requested 150 units for

Keflavik, Iceland. Is it not true that a new base agreement must be

worked out with the Icelandic Government within the next few

months?

' Mr. FLIAKAS. Yes, sir. But I might add, sir, that one of the negoti-

ating points is to remove approximately 400 families that are now

living off base from the community and have them billeted on the base.

20-507-73- 5

Senator SYMINGToN. It is your understanding that you will not pro-

ceed with that until negotiations are completed ?

Mr. FLIAKAS. With the construction, that is correct, sir. We feel

that we should seek the authorization because it is a negotiating point.

NAVAL TRAINING CENTER, ORLANDO, FLA.

Senator SYMINGTON. The Navy is also requesting 300 units for the

Naval Training Center, Orlando, Fla. With the closing of the McCoy

Air Force Base at Orlando, which has, I believe, some 668 units of

housing, will this not adequately take care of the Navy needs, thus

eliminating this requirement ?

Mr. FLIAKAS. NO, sir. At the time this project was considered for in-

clusion in this bill we were aware of the possible closing of McCoy

and considered those available assets, some 668 units. After considera-

tion of these units in the program, there still will be a deficit of some

300 units in that area.

Senator SYMINGTON. You are asking for 300 units, and you are clos-

ing 668, and there still will be a deficit. Does that mean you are not

going to use the 668?

Mr. FLIAKAS. No, sir. We are using the 668, and we have a total of

604 units either under construction or requested.

:Senator SYMINOTON. You have an overall major deficit all over the

country, as I understand it, in your figures.

Mr. Fr.IAKAs. That is correct.

Senator SYMINGTON. That will be my next question. But on the

other hand, we are tight on money, and if you are closing 668 units

and you want 300, can you not use the 668 for a while and not ask for

the 300 ?

Mr. FLIAKAS. We will definitely use the 668 units. As you know, sir,

this is a resort area. The advent of Disney World in that part of

the country has caused prices and rentals to skyrocket. It is a definite

hardship on our career people to be stationed there.

Senator SYMINGTON. Why do we not put the naval training center

somewhere else?

They just closed a lot of bases up in Newport, R.I., a quarter of a

billion payroll you took out of this little State. Why do you not put

this up there?

Mr. FLIAKAS. I can only say, sir, that this facility obviously was

considered from the standpoint of the investment and the physical

characteristics of the facilities. It is considered a hard core base: It

is a new training center that has been established.

Senator SYMINOTON. You have not completed it yet, have you?

Mr. FLIAKAS. NO, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. When I was with the Air Force I found that

everybody wanted to move south as fast as they could. But from the

standpoint of a tax base, which is something that you ought to conl

sider as these costs mount up, and you see this increasing resistance, I

think you ought to consider utilizing the things that you are giving up

as against asking for a new addition to the base. I understand this

base is not completed yet.

Mr. FLIAKAS. No, sir, it is a relatively new base, that is -correct.

There has been a substantial investment in this base over the last

few years.

Senator SYMINGTON. How much?

Mr. FLIAKAs. I would have to furnish that for the record in terms

f the total military construction.

Mr. SHERIDAN. $50 or $60 million.

Mr. FLIAKAS. Yes, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. $50 or $60 million ?

Mr. SHERIDAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. FLIAKAs. At least that much, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. Would you supply the figure for the record ?

Mr. FIAAS. I will, sir.

[The information follows:]

Total military construction authorization since fiscal year 1967 for the

Naval Training Center at Orlando, Florida, was $71,656,000, which included

family housing.

Senator SYMINGTON. And you cannot use it anywhere else, you could

'not shift it anywhere else, you have got to have 300 units, is that

right ?

Mr. FLIAKAS. Yes, sir, because we will still have an outstanding

deficit.

BASE CLOSURES-HOUSING

'Senator SYMINGTON. What are you going to do with the excess

family units as a result of closing of those bases in Rhode Island,

give them back to the State or city or what?

Mr. FLIAKAS. Some of them will be retained by the Navy.

Senator SYMINGTON. What percentage?

Mr, FLIYKAs. I can furnish that.

To answer your question generally, we go through a regular screen-

iig, process to establish what military requirements there are for

available housing that are surplus as a result of base closures.

Senator ,SX'Ni ,ATON. You see, we are running out of money, and

we are running out, of it fast.. And at the same time, you are closing

all these naval bases you have got a program that will cost over $123

million. That is a fact, is it not?

Mr. FLiArAs. A planned investment, yes, sir.

To answer your question, sir, in Rhode Island out of a total of 2,095

'units at Newport the Navy will declare excess 735 units that are no

toinr required. These will be given over for disposition to GSA. Since

,306 of them are units that are encumbered, they will be sold, and the

proceedss will then be provided back to this account for debt retire-

ment purposes.

Senator S'rINGTON. VWhat are you going to do with the remaining

1,400, roughly ?

Mr, FLIAKAS. There will still be ,the Naval War College and other

activities that will remain at Newport which will require some housing.

Senator SYINOTON:. And your operations in Massachusetts, what

did.Y l close up there in the way of family housing?

Mr. FLQKAs, At Westover Air Force Base there are 1,568 units that

are affected. The Air Force will retain 324 Capeharts and 5 MCA

houses. The remaining number of units will be declared excess.

Senator SYINOTON. What is the Air Force going to do with those

.,bases?

Mr. FLTAI _ L . Some of these will be put in caretaker status. Others

will just be completely excessed. For example, Laredo, Tex., to give

an example out of the Northeast area, as I understand it, will bede-

clared surplus, and turned over to whatever civilian use can be made

out of it. I can furnish for the record the plans for the Northeastern

bases in Massachusetts. Some of them will be retained for Reserve and

Guard flying, and I do not have the details here.

[The information follows:]

The installations in the northeast area of the country affected by the April

17, 1973 realignment and their status or planned usages are as follows:

(a) Boston Naval Shipyard Complex, Massachusetts. Report the Charlestown

Navy Yard and the greater portion of the South Boston Annex as excess to the

General Services Administration (GSA) for disposal. A small portion of the

South Boston Annex (former Boston Army Base) will be retained pending a

determination of replacement facilities for the U.S. Army Reserves, Armed

Forces Examining, and Entrance Station and the Defense Contract Administra-

tion Services Region.

(b) Chelsea, Massachusetts Naval Hospital. Report as excess to GSA for

disposal.

(c) Naval Support Activity, Boston, Massachusetts. Retain greater portion

pending a determination on need for Fargo Building to accommodate Navy and

Marine Reserves as well as activities now in former Boston Army Base (see

above).

(d) L. G. Hanscom Field, Massachusetts. Transfer Air Force Reserve flying

activities to Westover AFB, MA and return airfield to the Massachusetts Port

Authority.

(e) Otis Air Force Base, Massachusetts. Responsibility for the base will be

transferred to the Massachusetts Air National Guard. U.S. Army Reserves train-

ing activities on the Camp Edwards portion of Otis AFB will not be affected.

Approximately 108 acres of land with 304 family housing units and other im-

provements will be reassigned to the U.S. Coast Guard. Any excess land will be

returned to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

(f) Westover Air Force Base, Massachusetts. This base will be closed by June

1974 except for Air Force Reserve activities which will relocate from L. G. Hans-

com Field (see above) and some limited active Air Force requirements. Disposal

of excess real estate is expected to be in two increments with 2,102 acres in fee,

168 acres in easements plus improvements scheduled to be reported to GSA for

disposal by early fall 1973. Out of a total of 1,568 family housing units, 329 units

will be retained for residual Air Force requirements.

(g) Naval Air Station, Quonset Point, Rhode Island. The Naval Air Rework

Facility at NAS Quonset Point will be disestablished by June 1974. Approxi-

mately 1,847 acres of land with improvements have been identified by excessing

to GSA with more probable as the requirements of the contiguous Construction

Battalion Center, Davisville are refined. The Adjutant General, State of Rhode

Island has indicated a possible use of a portion of the Air Station for consolida-

tion of all National Guard activities.

(h) Naval Communications Station, Newport, Rhode Island. In line with the

reduction in scope of operations, approximately 50 acres of unimproved land will

be reported as excess to GSA for disposal.

(i) Naval Public Works Center, Newport, Rhode Island. Approximately 130

acres of the 566 acres comprising the Naval Public Works Center have been

identified for excessing to GSA for disposal. The balance of the property, pri-

marily housing, will be reassigned to the Naval Schools Command, Newport.

(j) Naval Station, Newport, Rhode Island. Approximately 658 acres with im-

provements of the 839 acres of land comprising this installation will be reported

as excess to GSA for disposal by early fall 1973. The remaining real property

will be reassigned to the Naval Schools Command, Newport.

(k) Naval Supply Center, Newport, Rhode Island. The requirements for all or

a portion of this fuel storage complex are under review by the Office of the Secre-

tary of Defense. In view of the changing energy situation, retention may be nec-

essary to provide needed flexibility in meeting emergency requirements and coping

with current and prospective military supply problems.

PREPARED QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR SYMINGTON

Senator SYMINGTON. I have quite a few more questions here, and if

you do not have details on some of them, instead of going over them

now, I will submit them to you for the record.

Mr. FLIAuAS. All right, sir.

67

[Questions submitted by Senator Symington. Answers supplied by Department

of Defense.]

Question. What is your estimated deficit of family housing this year if this

year's program is approved?

Answer. The programmable deficit for eligible personnel reported by the mili-

tary departments based on FY 1974 housing surveys is 59,782. Should the FY 1974

program be approved, the deficit would then amount to 48,094.

Question. How many units of housing will you lose as a result of the base

closures and realignments announced last April? What kind are they, and what

is the balance of the outstanding mortgages relating thereto?

Answer. The number of houses involved in the recent base closure announce-

ment totals 15,670. Of these, 5,997 will be retained within DoD; 304 will be trans-

ferred to the Coast Guard; 7,837 will be declared excess; and 1,532 are still under

review. The latter units are located at Ramey AFB, Puerto Rico, some of which

will probably be retained for Naval use.

A summary of the kind of units determined excess up to this date is as follows:

Appropriated Fund--- --------------------------------------- 2, 396

Capehart ---- ---------------------------------------------- 1,445

Wherry --------------- ------------------------------------2, 648

Inadequate ----- -------------------------------------------- 1, 348

Total ---- -------------------------------------------- 7, 837

A summary of outstanding mortgage balances on the excess Capehart and

Wherry units is as follows:

Mortgage

Number of units amounts

outstanding,

Capehart Wherry July 1, 1973

Army: Hunter Army Airfield, Ga-. ... ---.. --..-......-.. --...-.-...-. - - 500 $2, 318, 537

Navy:

NAS, Albany, Ga..-------........................................-------------------------------------------. 270 899, 290

NAS, Glynco, Ga --------------------------------------- 225 .......---------------- 2,493,107

NTC Bainbridge, Md........-- ..... ...................... ---------------505 3,301,551

NPWC, Newport, R.I...-..-.....-........................................ 306 1,706,225

Total, Navy...---.-...-..--.-----.----.- ------- 225 1,081 8, 400, 173

Air Force:

Forbes AFB, Kans___ ____..-----.. --._---------- 1,054 ................ 9,458,336

Westover, AFB, Maine-----------------------........... 166 --------------. 1,708,809

1,067 5,302,630

Total, Air Force ............. ..................... - 1,220 1,067 16, 469, 775

Total, DOD._..-..-........................ .......... 1,445 2, 648 27, 188, 485

Question. How will these mortgaged houses be disposed of; that is, will who-

ever acquires them be required to assume the mortgage?

Answer. Disposition procedure is generally the same for both encumbered and

unencumbered housing. Immediately following a base closure announcement, all

military family housing involved is screened by the other Military Departments

and Defense Agencies to determine possible use. Houses required by another

Military Department or Defense Agency are transferred as required. After this

screening, the remaining houses are declared excess via the usual procedures,

with notification to Congressional committees, and turned over to GSA for dis-

posal under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949. The

latter then screens the houses with other Government agencies to determine

potential use. Houses not required for other Governmental use are then de-

clared surplus by GSA and sold at fair market value, except in some instances

where the houses are turned over to a non-profit organization at a discount.

Mortgaged houses are excluded from this provision.

Buyers of mortgaged houses do not assume the mortgages. The mortgagee re-

leases the mortgage in return for application of all net proceeds received from

either a cash or credit sale and assurance that the residual note, if any, repre

sents a full faith and credit obligation of the United States Government. Any

balgneeis.then paid off by DoD in regular installments.

* Question. I understand there are some 1,350 units of housing authorized in fis-

cal years 1972 and 1973 that 'will not be built as a result of the realignment pro-

68

gram. The estimated cost of these units is $33.2 million. If this is true, why should

we not reduce the amount you are requesting for new construction by this

amount?

Answer. The $33.2 million does not take into account the funding of,certain

reprogramming actions which have been authorized by the Committees and

which are now in process. Considering these reprogramming actions, we esti-

mate that about $32 million in net savings will accrue from projects not built

because of base closures.

Question. Section 502 of the bill places certain unit cost limitations on family,

housing. You are proposing substantial increases. As a matter of fact, you are

requesting 32 units less than were authorized last year, but at an estimated cost

of $81 million more. Current limitations were established in fiscal year 1972. The

cost growth for mid-calendar year 1972 to mid-calendar year 1978 is estimated at

about 6 percent, yet you propose a substantially higher increase. For example,

you would increase the average unit cost within the United States, other than

Alaska and Hawaii, from $24,000 to $27,500, which is about a '14.6 percent in-

crease; and you would increase the maximum unit cost from $42,000 to $45,000,

for an increase of over seven percent.

Outside the United States, and in Alaska and Hawaii, you are asking that

the average unit cost be increased from $38,500 to $38,000 and the maximum from

$42,000 to $45,000.

I wish you would state for the record what factors, in your opinion, justify

these increases.

Answer. Based on the recommendations of the Military Departments and an

evaluation of surveys from family housing occupants regarding desirable ameni-

ties, the following factors are involved in our requested increases:

Eliminate quality deficiencies expected in the development of the fiscal year

1973 program (deductive alternates 2.2%) to enable award within budgeted

amounts.

Cost growth from mid calendar year 1972 to mid calendar year 1973 (estimated

to be 6% at the time of budget preparation, but was actually 9%).

Proposed reduction in magnitude of two-bedroom units normally planned to be

constructed (1.5%).

Proposed new space standards and the programming of 30% of the enlisted

units to be constructed for senior NCO's (4.2%).

Question. In section 503, you provide for alterations, et cetera, to existing

public quarters. You are asking about $62.5 million this year as opposed to

$43.6 million last year. This is over a 43 percent increase. How do you account

for this, and just what is your backlog of deferred maintenace of this type?

Answer. The increased emphasis on the improvements program reflects our

recognition of the growing need to bring much of our older family housing in-

ventory up to today's standards of adequacy. The $62.5 million requested is only

8 percent of the backlog of needed improvements as of June 30, 1973, which is

shown below by Military Service. Thus, a continuing annual effort at the $62.5

million level would require over 12 years just to clear up deficiencies we know

about now, with no provision whatever made for any which develop hereafter.

Backlog of required family housing improvements, June 80, 1978 (estimated)

In nlmons

of dollars

Army ------------ ---------------------------------------- 278

Navy --------..------ ------------------------------------- 147

Air Force ...----. ---------...------------------------. 824

Marine Corps....----------.......-------..-...._.__ _ 36

Total --------------------....._____------------------------------------- 785

Question. If section 504 is approved, it would permit any unit cost increase we

mWight grant this year to apply to any previously authorized projects not yet

placed under contract. How many units authorized in prior years have not y69

been placed under contract, and what will this amount to dollarwise? Basically,

I think any housing project authorized at a particular unit cost prevailing at the

time should be built for that amount.

Answer. There has been legal determination that the provisions of section 504

are applicable to any project for which a construction contract had not been

69

awarded for the housing units. (Authorization for several fiscal year 1972 projects

has been saved by the award of miscellaneous contracts for work other than the

housing units. In the past, based on Defense administrative policy, the date of

such awards determined what program year average cost was applicable.) Ac-

ceptance of this legal interpretation and assuming that fiscal year 1974 authoriza-

tion and appropriation legislation will be enacted by October 1, 1973, it is

estimated that 7,878 units would become eligible for the increased costs per-

mitted by section 504. Theoretically, this would permit a maximum increase

of $3,500 per unit for 6,138 CONUS units and $4,500 per unit for 1,748 overseas

units. However, program year total dollar authorizations (usually in section

501) cannot be exceeded and any increase in a particular project must be offset

by a corresponding decrease in one or more other projects authorized in the

same Act. Therefore, the application of section 504 to previous year projects

would not result in any increase in authorized program year costs in the absence

of increases in prior year total dollar authorizations.

Question. In section 505, you are requesting 12 units of housing in foreign

countries at a cost of $520,000, or approximately $4/3,334 per unit. I understand

these are for Defense Intelhgence Agency personnel assigned to various

embassies.

(a) Where do you propose to build or acquire these units, and what are the

estimated costs by countries?

(b) What grade of personnel are generally assigned to these quarters?

(c) Why do you now ask for a $60,000 maximum limitation on these quarters

when, in section 502, you request a maximum ceiling of $45,000 elsewhere outside

the United States? It seems to me this type of personnel should be treated the

same as any other.

Answer. We propose to build housing for Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)

personnel as follows:

Location Units Maximum cost

Canberra, Australia------..........--------.............---------------------------------------5 $210, 000

The Hague, Netherlands.......----------------..---.....--....................... -------------------------------4 175,000

Lima, Peru............................-------------------------------...................................--------------------------- 3 135,000

These units, as well as those normally provided for DIA personnel, are for

occupancy by field grade officers and senior noncommissioned officers. The $60,-

000 maximum limitation requested does not arise from the need to provide quar-

ters different from those provided other personnel of equivalent rank. The in-

creased cost results from the need to purchase land and higher costs associated

with the acquisition of housing in such small quantities, or for the acquisition

of condominium apartments. In each of the countries involved, there is rapidly

escalating inflation, and it is in the U.S. Government's best interests to own

permanent quarters rather than try to lease in such an economy. The estimated

costs are based on U.S. State Department advice and experience.

Question. In Section 506 you propose to increase from $10,000 to $15,000 the

amount you may spend on any one set of quarters without specific congressional

approval. You are asking for five diffrent projects in excess of $15,000 per unit,

ranging up to $40,074 on one set of quarters at Fort McNair. This seems like

a lot to spend for repairs on any set of quarters.

Just how many sets of quarters are in this bill where you expect to spend

more than the current $10,000 limitation?

Answer. In addition to the five projects in excess of $15,000 per unit, there

are seven projects consisting of 1,510 sets of quarters for which we propose to

spend in excess of the current $10,000 per unit limitation. These seven projects

include such work features as enlargement; modernization of interiors includ-

ing mechanical, plumbing and electrical systems; provision of central air con-

ditioning where authorized and accomplishment of essential repairs. These

projects are considered to be economically sound when consideration is given

to the alternative of scheduling replacement housing in the future. The cited

example of $40,074 for one set of quarters at Fort McNair involves a unit con-

taining in excess of 9,000 square feet of area. Therefore, the estimated cost

of less than $4.50 per square foot for improvements is considered acceptable.

Question. Section 507 extends the domestic leasing program for another year.

This year we are considering extending this provision to include foreign leasing.

At the present time there is no statutory limitation on the number of over-

seas leases. Back in FY 1968 this Committee did request that foreign leases

be held to a maximum of 4,525 units. Now in fact this year you asked for and

was granted authority to increase your overseas leasing by 500 to take care of

a certain emergency situation.

(a) Will you explain the need for additional overseas leases, and how many

have you budgeted for this year?

(b) What would you consider to be a minimum average cost and a maximum

cost for any one unit overseas?

(c) Considering you have budgeted this year for 7,262 houses, what do you

feel is an adequate unit limitation for overseas comparable to the $10,000 for

the United States?

(d) I understand that the Department of Defense presently has under lease

overseas some 276 units of housing costing in excess of $500 per month. A review

of these leases revealed they range, including operation and maintenance costs,

from a little over $6,000 per year to as high as $38,665 per annum.

(1) Just how will these be handled if we decide to establish a reasonable aver-

age rental cost?

(2) Frankly, this program overseas seems to be out of hand, and prompt steps

should be taken to reduce the number of these expensive leases. We all recog-

nize the need for a certain number of representational quarters, and the lack

of adequate suitable housing in other high cost areas, but some of these leases

seem to be completely out of line.

(3) The Defense Intelligence Agency seems to be the worst offenders, and

have 154 of the total 276 high-cost leases, many of which are occupied by junior

grade officers and enlisted men. Will you comment on this?

(4) I would like for you to submit for the record a list of these leases by

Services.

(5) I will ask you to work with the staff to prepare the necessary provision

to set the proper limitation on overseas leasing. I want the provision liberal

enough to care for your legitimate needs, but firm enough to eliminate, in a

proper manner, the excessive number of high-cost leases.

Answer. (a) Foreign leasing of family housing is authorized under 10 USC

2675. Until recently units were leased primarily for persons occupying repre-

sentational type positions or to alleviate undue hardship cases. It has now been

determined that leasing, and particularly lease-construction agreements in se-

lected overseas locations, represents a viable potential for producing adequate

housing for military families in foreign countries with limited risk for the

United 'States Government. Accordingly, the Military Departments in budget-

ing for 7,262 units of foreign leased family housing in the FY 1974 program

identified several locations where there currently is an opportunity to lease

housing in existence or under construction or there is an opportunity for a

favorable lease-construction arrangement. This expanded leasing program would

produce housing primarily for enlisted personnel and junior officers.

(b) Excluding certain high cost leases for representational positions, foreign

leases in general should require on the average no more than $325 per month;

in any event, none should exceed an individual cost of $625 per month.

(c) A numerical ceiling on foreign leases at 8,000 would afford us the flexi-

bility required for the program. This would include about 300 units for repre-

sentational positions, and cases of undue hardship.

(d) (1) As we discussed above, we could except about 300 units from the gen-

eral cost limitations in order not to distort a general picture of normal foreign

leasing with the inclusion of high cost leases for incumbents of representational

positions, and hardship cases.

(2) and (3) It is true that we have in existence 272 leases which are esti-

mated to cost more than $6,000 per year. Most of these are representational po-

sitions or are located in areas of the world where the cost of housing is ex-

tremely high. However, in the latter case, even though the units are occupied

by junior officers or enlisted men, the quarters so leased are not considered

ostentatious but the minimum needed to obtain suitable housing commensurate

with the grade of the incumbent.

(4) A listing of foreign leases exceeding $6.000 per annum is attached.

(5) We will be happy to work with the Committee staff to establish meaning-

ful statutory controls on the program.

Attachment.

71

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FAMILY HOUSING FOREIGN LEASING PROGRAM-LEASES WITH TOTAL COST OF

$6,000 OR MORE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1974

Annual

Country and grade Service of Annual 0. & M. Total

of occupant occupant Position of occupant rent cost cost

Argentina:

0-7_-.......... Army........ Commander, U.S. Military Group............ $10, 200 $800 $11,000

0-6............. Air Force ..- . Chief, Air Force Section ...------------ - 8,100 800 8,900

0-6 -......... - Navy ........ Chief, Navy Section ------...... --- -9, 240 650 9, 90

0-6... ----------......... Army. - Chief, Army Section.................... 7,680 450 8,130

0-6_............ Air Force..... Air Attach....-------------------------- 8,400 3,000 11,400

0-6...- Army ....... Army Attacht--------.... ---- 8,640 2,640 11,280

Australia: GS-15..... Civilian...... Senior U.S. Liaison Officer, Melbourne..... 7,000 1,500 58,00

Bahrain: 0-8......... Navy......... Commander, Mid East Forces_.............. 6,700 4,300 11,000

Belgium:

0-9.-------------....do.o--. . Deputy Chairman, NATO Military Committee.. 24, 369 14, 296 38, 665

0-9 ---------... Army........ Deputy Director, NATO Integrated Communi-

cations Management Agency----..~.... - . 13,109 5,594 18, 703

0-10 ........... Air Force..... U.S. Representative Military Committee,

NATO.. 15,954 5,530 21,484

0-8. ----------. Navy......... Deputy Defense Adviser, U.S. Mission to 14,598 8,263 22, 861

NATO.

0-8.-..-... ......... do....... Deputy Chief of Staff, U.S. Representative 15,423 5,126 20,549

NATO Military Committee.

GS-18........... Civilian--...... Defense Adviser, U.S. Mission to NATO..... 19,175 10,000 29,175

0-6-......... . A--rmy........ Commander, NATO Support Activity...--------6,999 1,287 8, 286

0-10-........... Air Force..... Chief of Staff, SHAPE_ 13,908 18, 298 32,206

0-8. ---------. Navy-........ Deputy Assistant Chief of. Staff (Plans and 6,779 2,834 9,613

Programs SHAPE.

0-8............. Air Force..... Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff (Operations) 6,682 7,469 14,151

SHAPE.

0-7 -...- ..-..- . Army.-..... Chief, Nuclear Activity, SHAPE ..........-- . 5,397 3,930 9,327

0-6-- .---........ ....do.... Commander, 196th Station Hospital ----------5,487 1,000 6,487

0-8. ----------. Air Force..... Special Projects Officer, SHAPE. ...------- - 7,077 8,389 15,466

0-7------..........L.--do....... DepHuty Assistant Chief of Staff (Live Oak) 7,775 5,492 13,267

SHAPE.

Brazil:

0-6... --------. Navy......... Deputy Chief, Navy Section................. 8,640 960 9,600

0-6-.......-......... ..... ----Adviser, National War College, Brazil -_.... 10, 200 720 10, 920

0-5 -........... Army....... Project Director, Inter-American Geodetic. 8,580 960 9,540

Survey (IAGS).

0-6. ----------. Air Force..... Deputy Chief, Air Force Section............. 7, 800 720 8, 520

0-7-....-...-........do....... Chief, Air Force Section .... ..........----------------- 16,560 1,200 17,760

0-6 ......-...... Army........ Deputy Chief, Army Section -----~.~....--- - 11,376 960 12,336

0-9 ......- ....Navy .......Chief, Navy Section --..-.... -------------- 16,200 960 17,160

0-8....-....... Army .......-- Commander, U.S. Military Group ----....- -. 13, 800 1,200 15,000

0-5...............----do...... Engineer Adviser .._...------------------ - 6,475 1,200 7,675

0-5.....-....... Marine....... Senior Marine Officer -..------... --...... -6,564 1,800 8,364

0-5.---------. Army........ Military Adviser..-..................---.. - 8,911 1,600 10,511

E-7..-................do...... Administrative Noncommissioned Officer 4,400 1,600 6,000

(NCO).

0-6............. Air Force .... Chief, Joint Section, Joint Brazil-U.S. Military 7,776 1,600 9,376

Committee.

E--............. Army --.... Administrative NCO ......... ......------- 4,754 1,400 6,154

E-7... ...---------- Navy ..---..-------......do.....----------------------------. 6,000 1,100 7,100

E-7--------- ------------do--------------------------------- 6,000 1,100 7,100

E-7 ----------- Air Force&.... Staff personnel, DIA-.--.... -----.--.-- 6,573 2,500 9,073

0-6 ---........ Navy ......... Navy Attach.......------------------------. 7,704 2,400 10, 104

E-7 ...........- . Air Force.... Staff personnel, DIA--------------------7,206 2,500 9,706

E-7..---..---..-------...........do---------............do-------------------------. 7,080 2,000 9,080

Burma:

W-4--------.--... Army .-------.........---do....---------------------------- 4,050 4, 000 8,050

E-7----.... ..------ Navy..............do ----------------------------- 4, 200 4,600 8,800

Chad:

W-2---..---.. ----... Army .-------.......--do__ ----------------------------- 9,796 9,026 18,822

E-5 ... ..---------- Air Force --.......do----------------------------- 7,347 9,026 16,373

E-5.......-------------.. do--------- do ---------------------------- 12, 734 7,958 20, 692

0-3.....------------- do...... Assistant Air Attach ..------------------- 7,837 7,970 15,807

E-6...................do ...... Staff personnel, DIA-........-.... . . 6,707 9,026 15,733

0-4.-...-........-... do ......Air Attach . .---------.. ----------------- 4, 725 8, 894 13, 619

Chile:

0-6 ......... Army _ ..... Chief, Army Section _... - 6,600 1,200 7,800

0-5.. ---------- do-_ Officer in Charge, IAGS Project Officer ..... 6,000 1,200 7, 200

0-6-__..---- Air Force .... Chief, Air Force Section. ___.-_... .......... 6,600 1,200 7,800

0-6 ........--- - Navy..-. . Commander, U.S. Military Group. -- - 6,000 1,200 7,200

0-6 ..... ...--.. Army ....... Army Attach .---------.------------ 7,200 2,566 9,766

0-5.....------- . Air Force... . Air Attach-... ...------------------------- 5,300 2,566 7,866

0-6............. Navy____ .... Navy Attach..---------------------- 7,200 2,568 9,768

Colombia;

0-6--....-.............do-- Chief, Navy Section __.-------------------- 5, 434 800 6, 234

0-6............. Army ...... Commander, U.S. Military Group .....----- - 5,242 800 6, 042

Czechoslovakia:

0-6............. Air Force .... Air Attach ..--------...----------------- 15, 048 3,900 18, 948

0-6 ...-.... .... Army........ Army Attach-.......--------------------. 12, 516 3,900 16,416

72

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FAMILY HOUSING FOREIGN LEASING PROGRAM--LEASES WITH TOTAL COST OF

$6,000 OR MORE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1974-Continued

Annual

Country and grade Service of Annual 0. & M. Total

of occupant occupant Position of occupant rent cost cost

Dominican Republic:

0-5.. ...---------- Navy--........ Navy Attach .....----------------.. $5,400 $2,784 $8,184

04----------. Army ....- Army Attache. ------4, 800 2,784 7,584

0-5. ---------. . Air Force..... Air Attach6.~ --------------------- - 4,800 2,784 7,584

Ecuador:

0-5............. Army .....- . Project Director, IAGS...............----- ...... -------------5,820 600 6,420

0-6------------- ..................do--....... Army Attache_ ------------------------5,400 2,360 7,760

England:

FSO-2-----............ ........ Political Advisor to CINCUSNAVEUR, London_. 6, 060 3, 440 9, 500

GS-17-.......... Civilian_ -___ Senior U.S. Liaison Officer (SUSLO), London.. 5, 092 1,050 6,142

0-7-............ Navy... .. Chief of Staff, CINCUSNAVEUR.........---. 4,810 4,030 8,840

0-7-..................do-..... Deputy Chief of Staff, Plans and operations, 5,033 3,825 8,858

NAVEUR.

GS-15 .......... Civilian-- .... Operations Officer, SUSLO..---------------................ 6, 125 1,150 7,275

0-6 ............. Navy -...- . Assistant Navy Attach__ ------------------ 5,420 2,300 7,720

Ethiopia:

GS-15--..............-do- -N ....Naval Medical Research Unit No........... 4,750 1,840 6,590

E-6...-------....------.......do--------- .........---do................................... 4,450 1,840 6,290

E-7........-------------... do---------do ----------------------------- 4,560 1,670 6,230

0-4---------------do----------- do------------------------------- 4,160 1,840 6,000

0-3-------------..do------.......--....do................---------------------------- 4, 160 1,840 6,000

E-8......-------------.. do --------- do -----------------------------4,160 1,840 6,000

E-6..--------------....... do--------do. -----------------------------4,160 1, 840 ,000

0-5............. Air Force -.. Air Attach6_...... ..........-------------- 5,607 3,250 8,857

E-7-...................do-... Staff personnel, DIA-----------.. ......... --.. 4,030 2,900 6,930

E-6........ . .d-------------o .....do----..........-----------------------------------.. 4, 293 2,850 7,143

0-6 ..-------. Army. - - Army Attach6-......... ......... - -7,506 3,000 10, 506

E-8 ............. Air Force .-.. Staff personnel, DIA.--.................... 4,614 3,000 7,614

Germany:

0-7 -........-.. Army ..-.... Assistant Division Comander, 1st Armed 5,901 5,154 11,055

Division.

0-6.......-........... do .-- . Commander, 56th Artillery Group............ 5,912 8,302 14,214

0-9.--.... ....-.......do...... Commander, U.S. Theater Army Support 10,755 7,090 17,845

Commander, Europe.

0-8.---................do..... Deputy Commander, U.S. Theater Army Sup- 9,036 6,388 15, 424

port Command, Europe (area support).

0-7--....------..-----.. .....do...... Deputy Commander, U.S. Theater Army Sup- 9, 036 6, 974 16,010

port Command, Europe (tactical support).

Ghana:

E-7.................. do .-- Staff personnel, DIA......................------------------ 3,320 3,200 6,520

0-6 ....------------- - do- . Army Attach.........------------------------ 5,798 3,650 9,448

W-1-------------..do-........ Staff personnel, DIA.....-------------------- 4,532 3,300 7,932

Greece:

0-7.............. Navy ...- .... Commander, Carrier Division No. 2, Athens... 10,350 1,750 12,100

0-6 ........-.. Air Force_ .. USAF 7206 Commander, Athens ............. 4,000 2,189 6,198

0-5 -------..... Army ....-.. USA 558 Artillery Commander .........---- 4, 483 1,530 6,013

Guatemala:

0-6......-.......... do.o-. Commander, U.S. Military Group............ 7, 200 720 7,920

0-6 ---....-- - Air Force .__ Chief, Air Force Section ..........---..5,700 720 6,420

0-5 . ...---------- Navy -...... Chief, Navy Section----........ -----------------5,400 800 6,200

0-6 ---... -.. Army Army Attach6-----.................. 4, 800 2, 064 6, 864

Honduras:

0-6.....-- -...- ......do....... Commander, U.S. Military Group............----------- 6,480 500 6,980

0-5 ............ Air Force- .. Air Attach-...--------------------------.. 3,600 2,764 6,364

Hong Kong:

0-6 ---------- Army -.. Army Attach.....------------------------ 10, 800 2,635 13, 435

0-6 ...----------. Navy-....... Navy Attach6-...------------------------ 12,000 2,690 14,690

0-6 ...----------... Air Force- Air Attachd ..------------------------- 11,500 2,875 14,375

E-5 .....--.....----- do....... Staff personnel, DIA---- ------------- - 5,760 2,387 8,147

0-4 .-........- - Army........ Assistant Army Attach----... ----... 9,780 2,363 12,143

E-7 . ...--------- Navy......... Staff personnel, DIA .----. ...........---- 7,680 2,450 10,13D

W-2------.......---.... Army---------...........--do....----------------------------- 7,630 2,450 10,080

E-5----------.......... Air Force..........do-------------.....---------------- 7,920 2,350 10,270

E-5-------------...................do--------............do....--------- _--_-----------------.. 6,720 2,350 9,070

0-5-.................do....... Assistant Air Attach---- --- -......... 9, 600 2, 452 12,052

E-5...................do....... Staff personnel, DIA--------6,000 2,350 8,35

0-4 .-....-..... Navy_ --..... Assistant Navy Attach..--------.......... 9,120 2,550 11,670

E-8...................do....... Staff personnel, DIA----...............-.. 7,630 2,450 10,080

0-5 ...- -....... Marine....... Assistant Navy Attach-..----------------. . 8,640 2, 650 11,290

0-4 ........... Army-..... Assistant Army Attach6..----.------------- 8,160 2,550 10,710

Hungary: W-2............ do....... Staff personnel, DIA...---------......... 5,314 2,568 7,882

India:

0-4----------..................do....... Assistant Army Attach... .. ------------2,842 3,700 6, 542

0-4_ ----------- Navy......... Assistant Navy Attach6-------.............. 3,158 3,300 6,458

W-2-.......-- - do....... Staff personnel, DIA.---................. 2, 842 3,700 6,542

0-4.--..-.... Army ........ Assistant Army Attach.....------------........ 3,316 3,400 6,716

0-4------.... --..----.......--do.....--------.... do............-------- 3,947 3,500 7,447

{PARTMENT OF DEFENSE FAMILY HOUSING FOREIGN LEASING RPROGAM-LEASES WITH TOTAL COST OF

$6,000 OR MORE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1974-Continued

Annual

Country and grade Service of Annual 0. & M. Total

of occupant occupant Position of occupant rent cost cost

Indonesia:

E-7----------............. Navy......... Naval Intelligence Command ............... $7,000 (') $7,000

E-7...................do....... Naval Medical Research Unit No. 2....---------- 4,170 $2, 830 7,000

E-5--..----...............--------do......---------. do............----------------------------- 4,170 2,830 7, 000

0-6------.....---...........---do---------...........do----------------------------3, 600 3, 000 6, 600

-3---.................---------do---------............do....----------------------------- 3,600 3,000 6, 600

E-7...--------------... do--------- do..........................----------------------------.. 3,600 3 6,

W-3................do .......Staff personnel, DIA........-------------------- 4, 500 2,000 6,500

-7........----------..... Mrine ---------.... ...do.. ....--------------------------- 4,500 2,000 6,500

E-7...-----------. Navy.......-----------..-.-...do..--------------------- . 4,500 2,000 6,500

E-7------------------ do--------- do---------------------------------- 4,500 2,000 6,500

0-5 ----------- Air Force -... Assistant Air Attach6 ......------------------- 5,500 2,000 7,500

0-4.....---------....... Army-...... Assistant Army Attache- -----....... ------- 5,500 2,000 7,500

0-6 ... ...--------- do-....... Army Attach--........---------------------- 8,400 2,000 10,40

0-4............. Navy......... Assistant Navy Attach............------ 4,800 2,000 6,800

0-3------. do .---------do.......-------.------- 4,500 2,000 6,500

0-3.---------- Marine.--------do----- ------------------------ 4, 800 2,000 6,00

0-6--..--.......---------.. do Navy Attach................------------------------ 7,000 2,000 9,000

0-4------ -..-.. Army .-.. . Assistant Army Attach6 ....-------------- - 5,000 2,000 7,000

0-6........----------.. Ar Force Air Attach..........--- -.... . ...-- 8,000 2 000 10, 000

Israel: 0-4--------- ..... Navy ..-..... Assistant Navy Attach6 -...--.......... - 6,000 2,700 0,700

italy:

0-9---------..............do.. ..... Commander, Sixth Fleet Gaeta .... 6,300 10,400 16 700

0-9............. Army........ Chief of Staff, CINCSOUTH, Naples...... ... 6,780 6,060 12 840

0-7..------.. ----........ Navy......... Commander, Submarine Flotilla No. , 6,500 6,020 12,520

Naples.

0-8-............-....do....... Commander, Fleet Air Medical Naples....... 6,500 5, 860 12, 360

0-7---------...... ----.......... do....... Deputy Commander and Chief of Staff, 9,440 2,710 12,150

ASWFOR 6th, Naples.

-9............. Air Force..... Commander, Air South, Naples.............. 6,780 4,970 11,750

0-7-------............. Army........ Assistant Chief of Staff (P. & 0.) CINCSOUTH, 8, 500 3,230 11,730

Naples.

0-6--...--------......... Navy......... Commander Officer, Naval Support Act, 6,970 4,310 11,280

Naples.

0-7.........--- .....-- ..----- do....... Deputy Commander NATO Defense College, 8,680 2,320 11,000

Rome.

0-7..-..............do....... Assistant Chief of Staff, Logistics, CINC- 7,500 3,200 10,700

SOUTH, Naples.

0-7......-------....---....--- do....... Deputy Commander, STRIKE Forces South, 5,850 3,650 9,500

Naples.

0-8............. Air Force..... Chief of Staff, Commander AirSouth, Naples.. 6,200 2,400 8 600

0-6 ................do....... USAF 49th Group Commander, Aviano........ 4, 950 2,370 7, 320

Italy:

Q-6-..--....-.... . ---- do-..... Assistant Army Attach( ~............ 7,025 2,300 9,325

0-6 ..-------..--. Navy..-----...... Navy Attach.... .. ....-------------- 7,280 2, 300 9, 580

0-6 ---... ...... Air Force..... Air Attach.... ....................-. 7,280 2,300 9,580

0-6 ........ . Army ........ Army Attach ... ...............--------------- 7280 2,300 9,580

Ivory Coast:

0-6--..-------............--- do---.....------ do.............----------------------------10,617 5,477 16, 094

0-5--... -------........Air Force.....Air Attach ........... ................. 8,000 5,477 13, 477

Japan:

0-6-----.......--------........do ..... ..--------- do..-----------------------------.. 9, 000 4, 700 13, 700

0-6-............ Army ........ Army Attach6- ............-------------- . 11,000 4,000 15, 000

E-7----------... Navy .-..... Staff personnel, DIA---. --..-........... . - 9,100 3,750 12,850

0-.5-...-..-..-...- do- Assistant Navy Attach6..... .... - 10, 000 3,500 13, 500

E-6--....-...--....- ...do...... Staff personnel, DIA .. ...,------------- - ,000 3,100 11,100

0-4 ............. Army ..... Assistant Army Attach6...------------. 12, 000 4,200 16, 200

Jordan:

W-1------------- ~.... do.-. Staff personnel, DIA..........-------------------- 3, 882 3,550 7,432

0-4-----.. --------..............do .... Assistant Army Attach .......--------... . 3,106 3, 650 6,756

0-6.....-------------..-....... Army Attach............------------------------ 7,454 4,200 11,654

Liberia:

0-5.......----------.. Navy-...... Navy Attach............------------------------- 5,500 5, 96 11,396

0-3 .----------.. Air Force ... Air Attach.............-------------------------- 4,400 4,540 8,940

E-7 ------------Navy ---------Staff personnel, CIA--------------------4,300 4,948 9,24

E-8---------------do------ ----------------------------------- 3,700 4,460 8,068

E-6 -------------do---------do-----------------------------4,300 4,324 8,624

Malu 5_______i__ Air Force ----Air Attach ---------------------------6,600 4,340 10, 940

Q-4---------------- do---- Assistant Air Attache3--------------------- 5,335 4,200 9,535

E-5--------......... ......do- . Staff personnel, DIA ......-------------------- 4,280 3,670 7,950

E .6-------------. do --------- do ..---------------------.--------4,540 3,670 8,21

-5-------------no---------do -----------------------------4,280 3,670 7,950

E-6............-------------... do --------- do -----------------------------4,280 3,670 7,950

Malawi:

-7------------- Army ..----------.. do-------------.. . ..---------------- 4,110 1,926 0,036

0-5.......-------------.. do - Army Attach-- .....----------------------5,75 2,108 8,063

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FAMILY HOUSING FOREIGN LEASING PROGRAM-LEASES WITH TOTAL COST OF

$6,000 OR MORE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1974-Continued

Annual

Country and grade Service of Annual O. & M. Total

of occupant occupant Position of occupant rent cost cost

Malaysia: '

E-6 .................do....... Staff personnel, DIA...................... $4,000 $3,610 $7,610

0-6 ................. do ....... A rm y Attach -........................... 5, 500 4, 120 9,620

E-6 -.................. do....... Staff personnel, DIA. -................ ... . 3,5 00 3,610 7,110

0-6. ... . ..... Air Force_--... Air Attach - - - . . . . . .......... . 7,000 4,700 11,700

Mexico: 0-7. .. .... Army.... .. Army Attach.... ......... ............ 6,900 4, 500 11,400

Morocco:

0-6 ............. Navy ....... _ Navy Attach8_.. __._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 9, 318 2, 846 - 12,164

E-7 . ...... ....-- _---do--..... Staff pAhersonnel, DIA ------------------- 5,083 2,384 7,467

Nepal:

0- ..N..p.a.ol . Army -...... Army Attach-.._..................... 4,300 2,400 6,700

E-7--- __ ---------- - do...... Staff personnel, DAI ............ ....... 3,390 3,100 6,490

Nicaragua:

0-5_............. Air Force .... Chief, Air Force Section.. -..- .... ..- 8, 400 940 9,340

0-5 ............ Army -.... Chief, Army Section ............... . 6,600 940 7,540

0-4.................. do.__-- .- MP Advisor ...--. ........ . ..... 6,000 900 6,900

0-4................. do....... Engineer Advisor ---....-......... . ....... 6,000 900 6,900

Nigeria:

E-6 - ..... -............ do ....... Staff personnel, DIA 5,710 2,900 8,610

0-4................ do___- ... Assistant Army, Attach6..-... . . ._- -12280 3,200 15,480

E-8.............._ do....... Staffpersonnel, DIA..............._ 5,833 3,200 9,033'

0-6 ... ..... -....... do ..-- Army Attach8 ----------------------....-- 9, 210 4,100 13,310

Norway: 0-8 ..... _ Air Force ... Deputy Chief, Air Force North, Oslo ........ 5,500 1,500 7,000

Pakistan:

0-4 .......... Army ....... Assistant Army Attach6.................... 2,909 3,600 6,509

0-6. . ...... 'Air Force .... Air Attach- - -- -............._.__ _ _ . 3,394 3; 900 7,294

0-6 ........... Army.... ._ . Army Attach6............. 3,394 4,000 7,394

0-6 ............ Navy ....... Navy Attach6............--- 3,636 3,800 7,436

Panama: 0-6 ........ Army ...... Commander, U.S. Military Group - ......_.. 8,580 840 9,420

Paraguay:

0-5 .................do ..... Project Director, IAGS ....... - 4, 200 1,900 6,100

0-5 -_.... . Air Force .... Chief, Air Force Section ...-...........- 4,400 1,900 6, 300

0-6 ........------ Army . .... Commander, U.S. Military Group...... 6,600 1,900 8,500

0-5 ............. - _do .... Chief, Army Section -.................. 4,200 1,900 6,100

Peru:

0-6 .......... Navy...... Navy Attach----.. ......... 6,916 2,700 9,616

0-6 ........... Army .-... Army Attach.6---..- ._....... 6,000 2,700 8,700

0-6 ..-........ Air Force .... Air Attach6__ ........ ___............... 6,000 2,700- 8,700

Poland:

W-2 .......... Army . .... Staff personnel, DIA______________ ...... 4,195 2,600 6,795

E-6................... do - .........do------------ -4,445 2,600 7,045

Romania:

0-6.................. do ...... Army Attach6...---- _. . ..... 10, 188 1,200 11, 388

0-5 ..-... .... Air Force .... Air Attach ... .... .... ... .... .. . 11,747 1,275 13,022

Saudi Arabia:

0-5 . _.......... Army ...... _Army Attach.----...................... 4,820 6,350 11170

E-6.................. do .... Staff personnel, DIA----_ .......-.. . ._._ 4,685 4,000 8685

E--6 -......-......... _do..........do-.................... . - 4, 820 4, 000 8,820

Senegal: 0-5._...... Navy......___ Navy Attach6i_......._............___. 8,685 4,950- 1 635

Singapore:

0-5 ............. Air Force ..... Air Attach6---.............. . --- --- 12,500 2, 650 15, 150

0-6 ............. Army ....... Army Attach6....... .__--_ _"_"-_--"- 9,500 2,300 11,800

E-6 .......... Navy.._____... Staff personnel, DIA.....-----------.. . .. 6,000 2,000 8,000

0-4 _............... do....... Assistant Navy Attach6---. .............. 9,000 2,000 11',000

E-7................do....... Staff personnel, DIA.................------- 6,500 1, 800 8,300

E-6- .......... Army..... ....do.._.. ......._. 6,000 1,800 7,800

South Africa:

0-4 ............. AirForce ..... Assistant Air Attach6 ...............___ 3,408 2,700 6,108

0-6 -.......... Army ...... Army Attach6- --~......_............ ..... 41,260 2,700 6,960

Sweden:

0-6- -........... do....... Army Attach6............... 6,689 1 250 7,939

0-5 ........... Air Force .... Assistant Air Attach- ................. 5, 351 1; 250 - 6,601

0-4 _ - . ...... Navy ....... Assistant Navy Attach------...... 5,909 1,200 7, 109

0-6 ..-..............do- .... Navy Attach6---............... 7,492 700 8,192

0-4 ........... Army ...- Assistant Army Attach..----.............. 6, 154 1,600 7,754

Taiwan:

0-8 ........... Air Force .... 327th Air Division Commander. _------ 6,000 1,500 7,500

0-7..................do....... ChiefofStaff----. 5,500 1,500 7,000

0-5 .............. do.. .. Assistant Air Attache.-.__-- _----__ -_- 3,526 2,500 6,026

0-6------- - Navy......... Navy Attach6..-----------------------. 3,789 2608 6397

0-6 ............ AirForce .....--- Air Attach---- .............. . - 5, 053 2 352 7405

0-6....-.---- Army........ Army Attach-------------_- ---- 5,053 2404 7457

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FAMILY HOUSING FOREIGN LEASING PROGRAM-LEASES WITH TOTAL COST OF

$6,000 OR MORE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1974-Continued

Annual

Country and grade Service of Annual 0. & M. Total

of occupant occupant Position of occupant rent cost cost

Thailand:

0-10...... ---------Air Force..... Commander, U.S. Support Advisory Group.... $10, 660 $3, 900 $14, 560

0-8-...--------- Army ........ Deputy Commander, U.S. Support Advisory 6,260 1,200 7,460

Group.

0-7...........----------.. Air Force..... Assistant Chief of Staff, J-2 (Intelligence) 10,600 2,710 13,370

U.S. Support Advisory Group.

0-7....---------- Army-..-. Assistant Chief of Staff, J-4 (Logistics) U.S. 9, 950 1,870 11,820

Support Advisory Group.

0-6-------------..................do ...... U.S. Army Support Group.... ---------- 6, 800 2,730 9,530

0-7 -----...... Unassigned... U.S. Support Advisory Group. -------------- 9,230 2,480 11,710

0-7..................do--------- ...........do-----------------------------................................... 6,430 2,210 8,640

Turkey:

0-8..----..---........ Air Force..... Commanding General, The U.S. Logistics 4,143 2,107 6,250

Group (TUSLOG).

0-6-......- .......------ do .... TUSLOG Vice Chief Ankara --...... .... 4,143 2,107 6,250

0-6.... ------............do....... USAF Detachment 26 Commander, Ankara.... 4,142 2,107 6, 249

0-7----------............. Army .-.... Chief of Staff, LANDSOUTHEAST--------- ..........--- 4,285 5,500 9,785

0-6 ........----------.. Air Force ..... Air Attach6 ...................--------------------------. 5,929 3,200 9,129

0-6............. Navy......... Navy Attach ...........------------ 6, 667 2, 800 9, 467

0-6............. Army........ Army Attach....-----------------------.. 6, 800 2, 800 9, 600

Uruguay:

0-5----------........... Navy ........ Chief, Navy Section.......................- 6,600 1, 200 7,800

0-5.............Air Force..... Chief, Air Force Section ................... 6,000 1,200 7,200

0-6............. Army..-..... Commander, U.S. Military Group ....------ - 6,600 1,200 7,800

0-5.............. ..---------do . Chief, Army Section ---... _-----------.... 6,600 1,200 7,800

0-6............. Navy......... Navy Attach6...........----------------- - 7,200 3,000 10,200

Venezuela:

0-6 ..-------.......--.. Army .._-.. Commander, U.S. Military Group............ 6,696 900 7,596

0-6------.. --.....--..... Navy ...-.... Chief, Navy Section .__........ ..---------- 8, 200 880 9, 080

0-6 ............ ----------Air Force ..... Chief Air Force Section .----------------- 8,768 1,100 9,868

0-6----------............. Army........ Chief, Army Section...........-------------------- 8,360 800 9,160

Yugoslavia:

0-5 ............ Navy ........ Navy Attach6B-------... -----------...--. 6, 500 3, 000 9, 500

0-6....------..----... Army........ Army Attach6..---...-........---. --..... 5,100 3,000 8,100

Zaire:

E-7...........-.. Air Force .... Staff personnel, DIA-....... ..... ----------3, 674 3, 200 6, 874

0-5 .................do....... Air Attach--.............------------ -5,816 4,200 10, 016

0-3..----------. Army-..--. Assistant Army Attach-...-..............- 6,123 4,200 10, 323

0-3......-------------... do---------do-- .......---------------------------... 6,024 4,200 10, 224

0-6..-------------.-......... Army Attach.............------------------------ 4, 800 4,200 9,000

Classified location: Civilian. .- National Security Agency/Central Security 6,000 1,000 7,000

GS-15. Service Europe Representative.

Question. Section 508 will extend the rental guaranty program another year,

but will increase the maximum rental from $225 to $275 per month.

(a) What success are you having with this program at the present time?

(b) Why do you feel you need to increase the average rental cost?

(c) Does this rental figure include the cost of maintenance and operation of

these units-the amount seems inconsistent with the $325 monthly average you

are requesting under the foreign leasing program?

Answer. The present ceiling of $225 was authorized last year, based in a DoD

request to raise the ceiling to $275 based on construction cost increases and dollar

revaluations through 1971. Inflationary trends and currency revaluations during

1972 and early 1973 indicate that the $275 figure is the minimum needed if

the program is to remain viable. Recent experience by the Army in attempting to

place an 1,800 unit plus project under contract met with no success. Potential

!bidders indicated to Army that average rental would have to be between $275

and $320 per month; this data was made known to us subsequent to introduction

of the bill now under consideration by the Committee. Overall costs of the leasing

and rental guarantee programs are comparable. Rental guarantee monthly cost

limitations are somewhat lower inasmuch as cost of utilities are not part of the

dollar limitation as is the case in costs associated with foreign leasing.

Question. Section 509. You propose under this section to increase the maximum

imitation on space allowances from the lowest enlisted personnel (E-1) through

the ranlo of colonel. No proposal is made for increasing the space allowance of

general officers.

(a) What is your objective in increasing the space allowance? Is ii m s yitm

to provide larger rooms, or does it provide for additional rooms?

(b) Can you give us some specific examples? For instance, you would increase

the space for a colonel by 30 square feet, and in the aese of a three-bedroom.shouse

for enlisted men grades E-7 through E-9, the increase would .b 270 square feet

Just what will these increases provided .-

(c) Will you submit for the record a chart showing a comparison of the space

allowance and what you are proposing?

(d) What does this mean dollarwise insofar as your program is concerned,

as well as your projection for the future?

(e) What is your order of priority-increased space or more units of housing?

Answer. The information follows in the same order as the -subparagraphs

above:

(a) The objective is to provide improved overall livability in military family

housing by appropirately increasing the sizes of various spaces to eliminate prob-

lem areas found as a result of the recently completed survey of occupants and tri-

service analysis of existing space. The proposed increases are intended to pro-

vide for larger rooms and improved circulation.

(b) In the case of the colonel's unit, the adidtional 30 square feet requested

will be used to improve circulation by providing the opportunity to slightly in-

crease hallway, entry foyers, and stair widths. Such increases to permit easier

access to prime living areas and provide more convenient moving of furniture on

change of occupancy. The incerase proposed for enlisted-grades E-7 through E-9

will provide the same size units for company grade officers and senior enlisted per-

sonnel and larger size rooms commensurate with needs of these grades. While

the primary aim of this change is to improve the living environment -of these key

personnel, it offers the additional advantage of providing a greater degree of

standardization in housing types and flexibility in assignment of the com-

pany grade inventory. Changes requested will provide for appropriate increases

in the size of dining rooms, secondary bedrooms and the bathroom area to per-

mit two full baths on the second floor of three-bedroom, two-story units in

lieu of one and one-half now permitted, the appropriate circulation space re-

,quired to support the enlarged areas and additional interior storage.

(c) Proposed FY 1974 Space Criteria Floor Areas by Grade Cerrent .Versus

Proposed

Percent

Current incrreaie

statutory limit OSD statutory limit

net proposed net potentt)

General officers -----.. ----..-.....---...................................------ 2,100

Senior grade ---...--..--........--..---------------------------------- 1, 670 1,700 2

i-ldgrade:

3-BR--........................................---------------------------------------..---.. 1,400 (9 ------

4-BR----..---.. -----------------------................................................. 1,400 1,550

Company grade: 2

2-BR.......------------------------------------------------............ 8950 90 ... ..- .

3-BR ------.. ------.... ------------ -----------., 250 1, 350

4-BR-----------........................------------------------------------ 1,400 1, 450

5-BR..----------------------------------------------- 1,400 1,550 1l

Enlisted':

2-BR................----------------------------- ....------------------- s950 950 .----....--...

3-OR-------------- ---------------------------------- 1,080 1,"200 11

4---R1.--- --------------------------------------------- 1,250 1,350

-BR----......------.. -----------------------------------.., 400 ,550 l

I5o change.

2 To indlude senior NCOO's.

8 Administrative control.

STo be limited to E-6's and below.

(d) The dollar impact on the FY 1974 program of the proposed space increase

and the new standards for senior enlisted units is estimated to be $12.9 million.

Assuming that future programs are at the same program level, it is -expected

that this dollar value will increase only by the cost growth in the apjpictable

program .year.

(e) The proposed new space standards take priority over more units at this

time. However, if we have difficulty in implementing these across the board

77

because of more cost growth than predicted, we will build the senior NCO units

to the new standards for other enlisted personnel.

Question. Section 510 authorizes the Secretary of the Air Force to settle a claim

in the amount of $41,221.92, resulting from certain repairs and improvements to

family quarters at the F. E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming. Will you submit

for the record the details concerning this matter?

Answer. The details are as follows :

Background.-Francis E. Warren AFB, Wyoming, has 156 historically signifi-

cant family housing units built between 1880 and 1933. The units vary in size,

amenities, construction details, and materials. The Air Force decided in 1963 to

rehabilitate these units through repair and improvements. The feasibility study

and design work for all 156 units were accomplished and cost estimates were

prepared. Limited resources dictated funding the construction work in three fiscal

year increments. Work on the first 42 units was done as part of the 1965 program.

This Project.-Plans and specifications were revised to reflect experience, the

second project for 62 units was advertised, and 11 bids were received. Globe Con-

struction Company of Aurora, Colorado, was the low acceptable bidder and was

awarded the contract on July 21, 1967. Contract completion was scheduled for

August 18, 1968. In general, Globe's performance was considered unsatisfactory

in a number of ways. On three separate occasions "show cause" letters were given

Globe, and on May 14, 1968 the contract was terminated for default at about 56%

job completion. The base, with Contractor's Surety, secured a completion con-

tractor and the work was completed on September 25, 1968.

The Claims.-Globe then filed 27 claims with the Armed Services Board of

Contract Appeals (ASBCA). These included 7 for ordered changes, 5 for ordered

extra work, 10 for discovered changed conditions, 4 for time extensions and 1

for impact and disruption or excess performance costs. ASBCA Decision No.

13316 of September 10, 1971 changed the cause of termination from default

to convenience of the Government, approved 25 of the 27 claims and remanded

the case to the Contracting Officer to determine and negotiate the amounts due

Globe on a total cost basis, including unpaid subcontractor claims then pending

in U.S. District Court, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

The Scttlement.-Settlement was delegated to a Defense Supply Agency Ter-

mination Contracting Officer (TCO). Total costs incurred by Globe were verified

by the Defense Contract Audit Agency and the TCO then negotiated the total

amount due Globe. The final settlement agreement was reached on December

19, 1972 in the gross amount of $934,516.71. Globe had previously received

:$378,910.68 leaving a balance of $555,606.03 due. On January 15, 1973, Globe was

paid $514,384.11, the maximum legally payable without violating the applicable

$20,000 per unit limit on rehabilitation in Section 609, Public Law 87-57. Pay-

ment of the $41,221.92 balance due Globe awaits enactment of the proposed

waiver included in the Military Construction Authorization request for 1974.

A summary of pertinent financial data is attached.

Discussion.-Before settlement on December 19, 1972, project costs were well

within all applicable legal limits. The project current working estimate (CWE)

based on the settlement agreement totaled $1,225,436.02, including $17,580.99 in

design costs and $157,933 in settlement costs. Analysis of the balance, $1,049,-

922.03, by type of housing using proration based on the contract bidding schedule

indicates four instances in which rehabilitation costs exceeded the applicable

limit on new construction, requiring notification of both Armed Services Com-

mittees before rehabilitation, and two instances in which rehabilitation costs

exceeded the absolute limit of $20,000 for rehabilitation of any one unit. Applica-

ble limits are in Section 609 of P.L. 87-57.

Rehabilitation work was complete before the extremely high costs were known.

'Trial date of the subcontractors' claims against Globe had been set for January

15, 1973 and the Court would not grant further delay. In view of these facts, on

advice of Counsel, the January 1973 payment noted above was made to avoid

'increased settlement costs, because the law permits payment of costs exceeding

new construction costs, and compliance with the pre-conditional notification was

impossible. Globe paid the subcontractors, thus cancelling the pending trial.

The Air Force intended to comply with all legal requirements, but ASBCA

action could not be controlled by Air Force. The decision to change cause of

termination allowed Globe to claim costs not permitted if default has been

sustained.

FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE, IMPROVE AND REPAIR 62 UNITS-F. E. WARREN AFB, WYO., COMPARATIVE FINANCIAL

SUMMARY

Contract Job comple- Settlement

award CWE tion CWE CWE

Feb. 21, 1967 Sept. 25, 1968 Dec. 19, 1972 Paid to date Due

Improvements.-....-.............. - $334,866 $334,866 $633,952.42 $609,280.02 $24,672.40

Repairs- ---....-..... --... - --.- - 205, 549 205, 549 389, 135.61 372, 586.09 16, 549.52

Subtotal, contract----....---------........... 540, 415 540, 415 1,023, 088. 03 981, 866.11 41, 221.92

Contingency.------------------------- 6, 412 ........-...........................

Supervision and inspection-...--..- - 9,862 26, 834 26, 834. 00 26, 834.00 -..........

Subtotal, construction costs I..... 556, 689 567, 249 1, 049, 922.03 1, 008, 700.11 41,221.92

Design............................... 17, 581 17, 581 17,580.99 17,580.99 ..........

Settlement costs--.-. ----..--..-.....-..... . . ....... .. 157,933.00 157,933.00 ...

Total cost...................... 574, 270 584, 830 1, 225,436.02 1,184, 214. 10 41, 221.92

1 See analysis by type of unit below.

Note: CWE-Current working estimate.

Average Limit

Number of units Improvements Repair Total cost on new

(type and description) cost cost cost per unit construction

Contract award CWE, July 21, 1967:

I-6-4BR SG0......------------ - $46,001.00 $29,262.00 $75,263.00 $12,543.83 $19, 800

IV-6-4BR FGO ......______. ..... 44,914.00 28,914.00 73,828.00 12,304.66 17,600

V-14-3BR FGO........ ....... 83, 177.00 50,363.00 133,540.00 9,538.57 17, 600

VI-10-SBR FGO_................ 62,385.00 27,972.00 90,357.00 9,035.70 17, 600

XX-22-3BR airmen .... . ------- 89,904.00 58,361.00 148,265.00 6,739.31 13,200

XXV--4-2BR airmen .......-- .... 24,759.00 10,677.00 35,436.00 8,859.00 13,200

Total-...-..-- - --..- 351,140.00 205,549.00 556,689.00 -.......... -_-_.........

Job completion CWE, Sept. 25, 1968:

1--6-4BR SGO ......------- - 47,384.00 29,262.00 76,646.00 12, 774. 33 19,800

IV-6-4BR FGO_---....------- - 46,264.00 28,914.00 75,178.00 12,529.66 17,600

V-14-3BR FGO_.......------ -.... 85,679.00 50,363.00 136,042.00 9,717.28 17,600

VI-10-S5BR FGO ....... ...... - -64,260.00 27,972.00 92,232.00 9,223.20 17, 600

XX-22-3BR airmen............... 92,609.00 58,361.00 150,970.00 6,862.27 13,200

XXV-4-28R airmen ............. 25,504.00 10,677.00 36,181.00 9,045.25 13,200

Total_....................... 361,700.00 205,549.00 567,249.00 ...................

Settlement CWE, Dec. 19, 1972:

1-6-4BR SG0_ 86,566.09 55,397.43 141,963.52 1 23,660.58 19, 800

IV-6-4BR FGO__.......... 84,519.79 54,738.61 139,258.40 123,209.73 .17,600

V-14-3BR FGO ............-.... 156, 525. 00 95, 344.84 251,869.84 2 17, 990.70 17,600

VI-10-5BR FGO___ . ......... . 117,396.71 52,955.26 170, 351.97 17,035.20 17,600

XX-22-3BRairmen .- -......... 169,185.60 110,486.28 279,671.88 12,712.36 13,200

XXV-4-2BR airmen .--........ --46,593.23 20,213.19 66,806.42 216,701.61 13,200

Total_..._ _-- - - - - --......... 660,786.42 389, 135.61 1, 049,922. 03 . -............. ..

I Exceed limits on new construction and absolute limit of $20,000.

2 Exceed limits on new construction.

Note: SGO-senior grade officer; FGO-field grade officer.

Question. In December 1970, at the request of the Army, the Congress passed

a bill (P.L. 91-564) authorizing the Secretary of the Army to convey to the State,

of Hawaii approximately 57 acres of land, comprising a part of the Fort Ruger

Military Reservation in exchange for approximately 259 acres of land to be

acquired by the State adjacent to the Tripler Army Hospital.

The Fort Ruger property we estimated to be worth between $01/2 and five

million, as compared to about $1 million for the land adjacent to the Tripler

Hospital. The difference was to be made up by the State in preparing the site

to be occupied by the Army suitable for family housing construction.

It subsequently developed that the Tripler site was not suitable for family

housing and the Army is desirous of still conveying the Fort Ruger property to

the State of Hawaii and using the proceeds for site preparation work in the

Aliamonu Crater, which property is owned by the Army. It is understood that

the Aliamonu property can accommodate several hundred units of housing.

Rather than amending P.L. 91-564 by separate legislation, it has been suggested

79

that the necessary language may be included in the military construction author-

ization bill.

Will you comment on this, please?

Answer. Section 512 repeals P.L. 91-564 which authorized the Secretary of the

Army to convey approximately 57 acres of land and improvements at the Fort

Ruger Military Reservation, Hawaii, to that State in exchange for the convey-

ance by the State of Hawaii to the United States of approximately 259 acres

of land adjacent to the Tripler Army Hospital. The land adjacent to the Tripler

Hospital was to be used as a site for additional family housing. Because of the

difference in land values of parcels involved in the exchange, the Act also pro-

vided for the State to do certain site preparations on the land to be conveyed to

the United States.

Subsequent evaluations determined that development of land to be conveyed

to the United States was too costly for military housing; therefore, Section 512

as proposed would continue to permit the Secretary of the Army to convey the

Fort Ruger properties to the State of Hawaii, but in lieu of the State conveying

land to the United States as heretofore provided, the State would provide for,

convey or pay to the United States, either in facilities and services or money, or

a combination thereof, a sum equal to the appraised fair market value of the

Fort Ruger property to be available for site preparation for military family

housing at the Defense-owned Aliamanu Military Reservation, Oahu. The cost

of the site preparation, roads and streets, utilities and other support facilities

borne by the State would not be considered in arriving at the average cost of

any family housing units or the cost of any single family housing unit to be

constructed within the boundaries of the Aliamanu Military Reservation, Oahu,

Hawaii.

Because the military family housing development at the Aliamanu Military

Reservation is to be for tri-service utilization and will provide 2500 to 3000 family

housing units, the Office of the Secretary of Defense will insure that the appli-

cation of the funds from the State of Hawaii will be equitable and appropriately

utilized in the proposed housing development.

Question. Since the bill was submitted to the Congress you have proposed two

amendments affecting the homeowners assistance program.

(a) First, you ask for additional authorization of $7 million for the purpose

of aiding both military and civilian employees who were affected by the base

closures, in the disposal of their homes. Will you explain why this is needed,

and the magnitude of this program; that is, how many families are affected, et

cetera?

(b) Secondly, you have proposed an amendment to include certain personnel

not now covered by the program, but who will be affected by the base closures.

Will you explain the need for this provision and the scope of it?

Answer. (a) An additional authorization of $7 million for the Homeowners

Assistance Program is needed in Fiscal Year 1974 because the funds in the

Program available from the previous year and revenue anticipated in Fiscal

Year 1974 will be insufficient to provide for the continuing needs of the Program

and especially for the considerable impact from the April 17, 1973 Base Realign-

ment Announcement. It is estimated that a program of $46.4 million is necessary

in FY 1974 to provide assistance payments of $13.7 to 2,800 affected homeowners,

for the assumption of 1,775 mortgages of affected homeowners in the amount of

$27.2 million, and for operating costs of $5.5 million for the United States Army

Corps of Engineers, the Executive Agency for the Program, and especially for

the Federal Housing Administration which maintains and disposes of the homes

acquired under the Program.

(b) There is a need for a limited expansion of the Homeowners Assistance

Program to cover otherwise eligible personnel currently not assisted by the

Program, who are assigned or employed at or near an installation which is being

realigned but are in an organization not directly involved in the realignment, and

who will relocate because of normal reassignment or routine transfer. They are

not currently eligible for the Program since the existing statute, applicable to

the United States, requires that a causal relationship exist between the termina-

tion of assignment or employment and a realignment action. Nevertheless, they

can sustain the same losses in disposing of their homes as the personnel covered

by the Program at the realigned installation.

The limited expansion applies to the 50 States and the District of Columbia

"because a similar limited expansion of the Program for areas other than the 50

20-507-73- 6

States and the District of Columbia was provided for 'by Section 601 of Pubie

Law 92-545, October 25, 1972.

It is estimated that 170 applications will be received under the expanded

Program and benefits in the amount of $750,000 will be paid. It is anticipated

that the major portion of the funds will be expended in FY 1974.

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Fliakas. You always

give us a lot of information. But this business of building very expen-

sive new units and scrapping older units, especially considering the

very limited reduction of bases allowed, is not just going over very well

with a lot of Members of Congress.

Mr. SHERIDAN. I realize that.

Senator SYMINGTON. Including me.

Mr. SHERIDAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. FLIAKAS. For the record, sir, with respect to family housing, I

do not believe our record has been so bad. Of the 15,000 units or so

that are affected, more than half of them will be retained either by the

using service or by another service, the Coast Guard, for example, is

interested in some. And I think it also speaks well that of those to be

excessed, less than a thousand of them have been built within the last

10 years.

Senator SY INGTON. You could have come in and asked for a lot

more bases, a lot more family housing. How many are you short in this

country today ?

Mr. FLIAKAS. We have a deficit of some 60,000 units for eligible

personnel.

Senator SYMINGTON. And yet, you do not feel that inasmuch as you

have that heavy deficit that you could pass over these thousands of

units that you in turn are passing over to GSA or the local com-

munity ?

Mr. FLIAKAS. It is also a question of distribution, sir, location.

Senator SYMINOTON. Thank you.

Mr. FLIAKAS. Thank you, sir.

Senator Sa6INGTON. At this point I will submit for the record a

letter received from the National Association of Home Builders.

[The information follows:]

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS,

Washington, D.C., August 15, 1973.

Hon. JOHN C. STENNIS,

Chairman, Armed Services Committee,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : On behalf of the National Association of Home Builders,

I should like to request that this letter be included in the Committee's hearing

record on military construction authorization.

The National Association of Home Builders is the trade association of the

home building industry. Its membership totals more than seventy-one thousand

throughout the fifty states and Puerto Rico.

Our Association believes that the private home building industry is capable

of supplying the housing needs of military families more efficiently and at a

lower cost to the Federal Government than if such housing is built by direct

Federal funding. I am attaching resolutions adopted by NAHB's Board of Di-

rectors last October and in January of this year. These elaborate our position

that, with a realistic quarters allowance system, the home building industry,

operating in a highly competitive field, is the best instrument for meeting the

needs of our service families in the most economical manner.

Current housing allowances are not realistic in many parts of the country in

terms of present economic conditions, in that they do not bear a realistic rela-

tionship to the average rentals prevailing in the community. Nor do they bear

81

any relation to the actual cost to the government of directly funded construction

and maintenance. We urge the Committee to deplore the relationship of housing

allowances to the actual cost of land acquisition and construction. We believe

that such an investigation would show that, with an economically realistic housing

allowance and private industry constructing the housing, housing our military

families would be far less costly, in the long run, than the present system.

Another aspect of the present method of providing military family housing

is that it fails to utilize most effectively the one industry best equipped and de-

veloped to produce housing. As a general rule, only very large general contractors

.are employed by the services to produce on-base housing and such contractors

do not ordinarily have the experience or expertise to produce this housing at the

lowest possible cost. They are more accustomed to constructing commercial and in-

-dustrial type installations.

Two factors operate to exclude the average home builder from competing with

the general contractor in an area the home builder knows best. One is that mili-

.tary housing construction contracts generally require various types of bonds

which only the large contractor has the financial capacity to obtain. Another

is that the larger contractor is able to outbid the smaller employer for the avail-

able labor, with resultant unrealistic higher wage rates which often have damag-

ing effects on the local labor market. Thus, incentives to the larger contractor to

keep costs as low as possible are frequently absent.

I should like to urge the Committee also to consider the economic multiplier

-effect on local economies of privately owned housing. Such housing pays full

taxes and bears a full share of the costs of various municipal services as com-

pared with directly funded housing situated on government-owned land, whose

occupants nevertheless enjoy the benefits of such municipal services. Impact aid

for federally connected school children does not begin to replace the tax revenues

:and other monies cities would receive if military family housing was privately

built and owned.

We respectfully urge the Committee's consideration of these factors as it con-

siders the Defense Department's request for authorization and funding of its

military family housing operations.

Sincerely,

GEORGE C. MARTIN,

President.

Enclosures.

NAHB RESOLUTION

HOUSTON, TEX., January 7, 1973.

THE NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL

MILITARY HOUSING

Whereas, the President of the United States is conducting an economy move to

-eliminate waste in government and to hold spending to $250 billion in fiscal year

1973, and

Whereas, there is a great deal of waste and unnecessary spending in military

housing programs which could be eliminated in achieving the President's goal.

Now, therefore, be it resolved that NAHB reaffirm its position that there be

developed a realistic system of quarters allowances that recognizes actual costs

or rentals of housing developed by private developers and that it urge that the

military housing program be immediately recast in this time of financial strin-

gency to effectuate this more efficient private enterprise system of meeting the

:housing needs of our military families at a much lower total cost to the Federal

'Government.

NAHB RESOLUTION

PORTLAND, OREG., October 9, 197.

HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF VIRGINIA

MILITARY HOUSING

Whereas, the military is engaging in construction and development of apart-

ments and housing throughout the United States and operating them in competi-

tion with private industry, and

Whereas, private industry is and always has been capable of providing neces-

;sary housing for the military. and

Whereas, the basic problem is the fact that the quarters allowances for mili

tary personnel in the lower grades or rankings are too low and becoming inade.

quate because of inflationary conditions, and

Whereas, an increase in quarters allowance would be more than offset by the-

savings in construction and maintenance costs incurred by the military when it

is in competition with private industry.

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the appropriate committees in Congress con-

duct an investigation and study of quarters allowances with the aim of develop-

ing a realistic system that recognizes actual costs or rentals of housing developed

by private developers in the locations in which the housing is sought.

RESERVE COMPONENTS

Senator SYMINGTON. Next, we would like Mr. Harrington.

You are the Acting Director on the Reserve components ?

Mr. HARRINGTON. Yes, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. Do you have a statement ?

Mr. HARRINGTON. Yes, sir, I have.

Senator SYMINGTON. Will you present it ?

Mr. HARRINGTON. I have a one-page summary of that three-page-

statement.

Mr. Chairman, for fiscal year 1974 the Department of Defense is.

requesting a total of $109,658,000 in authorization of training facilities-

for the Reserve components.

Within the total requested, and in accordance with the usual lump

sum authorization procedures, specific projects within the total request

can only be tentatively identified at this time. However, current indica-

tions are that $39,031,000 would be used to construct or expand 69-

Army Reserve centers and Army National Guard armories, and $26,-

769,000 would be used for 59 projects to provide aviation support,

vehicle maintenance, and miscellaneous summer training and other

non-armory facilities. Similarly, $8,971,000 would be required for-

seven joint-use Reserve centers for Naval and Marine Corps reservists,

and $9,887,000 for aviation maintenance facilities, personnel support,.

berthing and storage facilities. The remaining proposed authorization

for the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve would provide

$11,100,000 for .aviation operational facilities; $9,900,000 for main-

tenance projects; $3,300,000 for training facilities, and $700,000 for

general support facilities and real estate acquisition.

We will be pleased to attempt to answer any questions you may have

on the facility programs or the Reserve components generally.

[Mr. Harrington's statement follows:]

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee: I am pleased and honored to

again have the privilege of appearing before this Committee to present the

Reserve Forces Facilities Program of the Department of Defense for Fiscal'

Year 1974.

This is my fourth appearance before this distinguished Committee in support

of a continuing program which, in my opinion, is one of the most essential within,

the Department of Defense in contributing toward a strong and credible National

Defense posture.

During the last three years, and due largely to the sustained interest and

support of this and other Committees of the Congress, we have seen the Reserve

Facilities Program grow steadily as a reflection of the joint Congressional and,

83

Department of Defense concern that our Guard and Reserve Forces be brought

to a maximum readiness capability.

During previous testimony by the 'Secretary of Defense, he emphasized the

Departments current policy and intent that the Guard and Reserve Forces be

considered the primary source of Active Force augmentation in lieu of the now

expired draft. This policy, which as never before brings the Reserve Components

into a full partnership with the Active Forces, requires a common sharing of

many military missions if the Total Force Concept is to succeed. Similarly, this

policy not only reflects the high regard which characterizes the Departments

.appreciation of the Guard and Reserve Capabilities, but also the realistic assess-

ment that if we are to be successful in maintaining a strong Defense posture

within the constraints of increasing pressure for lower Defense budgets, we must

achieve maximum use of our relatively low cost Guard and Reserve potential.

The increased responsibilities of the Reserve Components carries with it a

corollary requirement that we make every effort to insure that the Reserves and

'Guard are so trained and equipped that they will in every sense, fully merit the

title of Minutemen in their capability for quick mobilization and deployment.

'One of the key elements in the matrix of total equipment and training needs is

the provision of modern and effective Training Centers and Armories, and the

Weekend Training sites for field training of individuals and units. The program

we propose in FY 1974 is a substantial step toward achieving an adequate annual

increment of these requirements.

For FY 1974 the Department of Defense is requesting a total of $109,658,000

in authorization of training facilities for the Reserve Components. This amount

would be divided as follows:

Army National Guard $----- ---------------------------$29, 900, 000

Army Reserve..-- ----------------------------------------35, 900, 000

Naval and Marine Corps Reserve-------------------------- 18, 858, 000

Air National Guard -----------------------------------16, 000, 000

Air Force Reserve---------------------------------------- 9, 000, 000

Total------------------------------------------- 109, 658, 000

This year's request compares favorably with prior years and represents an

increase of approximately 13 percent over the $97.3 million requested in FY

1973, and some 37 percent higher than the $80.3 million requested in FY 1972.

Within the total requested, and in accordance with the usual lump sum

authorization procedures, specific projects within the request can only be ten-

tatively identified at this time. However, current indications are that $39,031,000

would be used to construct or expand 69 Army Reserve Centers and Army Na-

tional Guard Armories, and $26,769,000 would be used for 59 projects to provide

aviation support, vehicle maintenance, and miscellaneous summer training and

other non-armory facilities. Similarly, $8,971,000 would be required for seven

joint-use Reserve Centers for Naval and Marine Corps reservists, and $9,887,000

aviation maintenance facilities, personnel support, berthing and storage fa-

cilities. The remaining proposed authorization for the Air National Guard and

Air Force Reserve would provide $11,100,000 for aviation operational facilities;

$9,900,000 for maintenance projects; $3,300,000 for training facilities, and

$700,000 for general support facilities and real estate acquisition.

Mr. Chairman, I have with me representatives of the Military Departments

who are prepared to discuss their individual Reserve facilities programs in more

detail if the Committee so desires. We will pleased to attempt to answer any

questions you may have on the facility programs or the Reserve Components

generally.

Senator SYMINGTON. Mr. Harrington, would you put your State

list in the record ?

Mr.'HARRINGTON. I will be happy to do so, sir.

[The State list follows :]

84

RESERVE FORCES, TENTATIVE FISCAL YEAR 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

[Thousands of dollars]

State ARNG USAR N&MCR ANG AFR Total

Alabama........------------------------ 1,244 1,651 ------------ 950 ......------------ 3, 84

Alaska------------------------- 2,975 ----------------------------------------- 2,975

Arizona---------------------------------- 572 ----------------------- 181 753

Arkansas............------------------------- 85 792 .........----------. --1,162 ............ ------------2, 8

California..................-----------------------.... 1, 55 1,435...... .----------------------------- 29,50

olorado...........................---------------------------------------------------- 20 ----------- 230

Connecticut-........................ 133 798 ............- 170 ........... 1,101

Delaware......... 442 291 ....................................-------------------------------- 733

District of Columbia----.-----.--_ 517 ........ ----------- 1350 , 97

Florida---------------------------- 824 148 ----------------------- -1954

Georgia-------------- ----------------------- 529 984 296 1,809

Hawaii---..-------------------...................... 816 2,754 .---------------------.. . .---- 3,570,

Idaho------------------------......................... 325 219 ........-------------------- 4

Illinois.......................... 530 ............ 2,036 725 1,08 4,879'

Indiana_------------ - 594 2, 552 923 ---------- -10 4, 179

Iowa .........................----------------------------. 128 ...............--------------------------------

Kansas .... ..------------------.....-------- .... 5 --------- ------------610 ---- 1,605

Kentucky ........------------------------- 344 695 --- ......... ,03

Louisiana..........------------------------- 469 436 ...............----------------------------------- 90

Maine.......---------------------------- 63 ----------------------------------63,

Mryland.......................... 19 1,466- "14 2 734'

esacusetts................---------------------- 676 523 .... 300 ........-----------------... 498

Michigan .. ------------------------ 1,048 474 518 ---------- - 935 975

Minnesota------..-----..----.....---------........795 -----------------------465 .......------------1. 26

Mississippi................ ......... 714 1, 005 -------- - 1,334 375. 3428

Missouri..............-------------------------- 377 ------- 350 518 1, 24

Motana.....------...........--------------------------- 950 ---------------- 5

Nebraska .....--..................--------------------- 138 701 --311-- 1,

Nevada.........-------------------------- 238 ------------------------ 410 ----- ------ 648t

New Hampshire-------.......... ...... ----------- 162 ...-------------------------------------------

New Jersey------------------------ 326 ------------------------ 350 ----------- 6$

Ne Meico.-----------------------........... 169 ....... ,-------------------------------------------..

New York .... ----------------------- 1, 68 ------------ 481 926 170 10, 28

North Carolina..-.--..-....__ ._ 866 1, 965 ----------- 1,200 --------- 4, 031

North Dakota.......----------------------- 61 537 --------------------------------- 598.

Ohio..........--------------------------- 1,209 .....----------- "-------_------------- - 1,209,

Oklahoma -----------------------. 1,616 1,230 ............ 882 199 3,927

Oregon--------------------------- 267 ------------------------------------------- 267

Pennsylvania- -............ ..... 826 7, 249 2, 820 352 1, 927 13, 174

Puerto Rico---........................ -------------------- 619 120 -----------------73

Rhode Island-----------------------.60 1,195 2,039 140 --- --------- 3,434

South Carolina.......----------------------.... 266 .......... ------------------------------------------- 266

South Dakota........-----....... 364 213 ......--------------------.------- 577

nnessee.....--------------------... 655 ....- 605 .------------ 1,260

Texas_.--------------------- - 553 386 9, 212 922 1, 751 12,824'

Utah..........----------------------------.. 286 2,027 ------------------------ 135 2,448

Vermont e. r0...... .. -a -----b----ho ---ar -a --a --t ----ce --u --

-50 i .6 - o 6

Virginia ------------------------- 1,542 1,816 __---------------------------------__ 33......

Washington------------------------ 75------------------------ 675------------ 1,4

West Virginia----------------------- 156 ----------------------- 325 ------------ 481

Wisconsin-------------------------- 373 705 -- ------------------------- 22 1549

Wyoming------------------------- 226 - --22

Various Locations ...............------------------- -------------------------- 1,572---------- 1,572

Subtotal--Oakl---- 0- - 29, 900 35, 900 18, 858 16, 000 9, 000 109, 65

Minor construction __--. - --.--.. . 3,300 2, 508 300 2,000 200 8,300

Planning and design ....a.-...... 2,000 2, 300 1,142 2,000 800 8,242

Total---------------------_ 35, 200 40, 700 20, 300. 20, 000 10,000 126, 200

1 Andrews AFB, Md.

TENTATIVE FISCAL YEAR 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM, ARMY RESERVE

Location, project, and cost

Alabama: Tousoamatl

Huntsville-300-man center with 2-bay shop and area maintenance

support activity---------------------------------------------- $730

Montgomery--400-man center with 3-bay shop, area maintenance sup-

port activity, and fuel system supply point training facility-------- 921

Arizona, Phoenix-Expand 450-man center with 3-bay shop to 600-man

center with 4-bay shop---------------------------------------------572

Arkansas, Fort Chaffe-Annual training facilities_----------------------- 792

California, Oakland-600-man center with 4-bay shop------------------- 1,435

Connecticut, West Hartford-Expand 750-man center for command and

control facility and medical addition------------------------------- $798

85

TENTATIVE FISCAL YEAR 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM, ARMY

RESERVE-Continued

Location, project, -and cost

Thousands

Delaware, Dover-Expand 150-man center to 300-man center_--------- $291

Florida, Lakeland--Alter existing 200-man center with 2-bay shop-------- 148

Hawaii, Fort Shafter-1,000-man center with 5-bay DS/GS shop-----....- 2, 754

Idaho, Idaho Falls--Expand 50-man center to 100-man center---------- ......219

Indiana :

East Chicago--300-man center with 2-bay shop---------------------- 841

Evansville (J-t. with Navy)-Expand 300-man center to 400-man center

with DS/GS shop.----------------------------------------- 507

North Judson-Expand 50-man center to 100-man center ..........-------------. 249

Rushville-Expand 50-man center with 1-bay shop to 150-man center

with 2-bay shop------------------------------------------ 469

Scottsburg--Expand 50-man center with 1-bay shop to 150-man center

with 2-bay shop----------------------------------------- 486

Kansas, Wichita-Expand 750-man center to 1,000-man center with com-

mand and control facility and medical addition..............---------------------- 995

Kentucky, Ashland-150-man center with 2-bay shop-------------6-----95

Louisiana, Bogalusa-Expand 50-man center with 1-bay shop to 150-man

center with 2-bay shop--------------------------------------- 436

Maryland, Fort Meade--600-man center with 4-bay shop and command and

control addition------------------------------------------- 1, 466

Massachusetts, Taunton-Expand 300-man center to 400-man center with

medical addition------------- ....-------------------------------- 523

Michigan, Battle Creek-Expand 150-man center to 300-man center with

DS/GS shop ..------ ---------------------------------------- 474

Mississippi :

Laurel-200-man center with 2-bay shop and area maintenance sup-

port activity------------------------------------------- 620

Pascagoula-100-man center with 1-bay shop3--------------------- 85

Montana :

Great -Falls-Expand 150-man center to 200-man center with area

maintenance support facility------------------------------- 267

Kalispell-Expand 50-man center to 100-man center---------------- 224

Lewistown-100-man center with 1-bay shop---------------------- 459

Nebraska, Fremont (Jt. with Navy)--200-man center with 2-bay shop .---- 701

North Carolina :

Fort Bragg-400-man center with 3-bay shop and parachute packing

and repair facility.---- ------------------------------- 1, 023

Raleigh (No. 2)-200-man -center with 2-bay shop----------------- 563

Wilson-100-man -center with 1-bay shop--------------------------- 379

North Dakota, Minot-100-man center with 1-bay shop------------------ 537

Oklahoma, Norman-Aircraft maintenance hangar---------------------- 1, 230

Pennsylvania :

Altoona-Expand 150-man center to 300-man center with DS/GS shop 521

Edgemont-1,000-man center with 5-bay shop and DS/GS shop-..... 2, 376

Indiana-Expand 50-man center with 1-bay shop to 150-man center

with 2-bay shop- ------------------ ----------------- 471

I diantown Gap Military Reservation-Annual training facilities___ 989

Willow Grove-600-man center with 4-bay shop and command and con-

trol addition.....------- -------------------------------- 1, 749

Aircraft maintenance hangar.......------------------------------- 1, 143

Puerto Rico, Puerto Nuevo-Expand military parking area-------------- 120

Rhode Island, Providence (Jt. w/Navy)-600-man center with 4-bay shop

and medical facilities------....----------------------------------- 1, 195

South Dakota, Aberdeen--Expand 50-man center to 100-man center------- 213

Texas, Paris-Expand 50-man center with 1-bay shop to 150-man center

with 2-bay shop........---------------------------------------------- 386

Utah :

Ogden-600-man center with 4-bay shop and area maintenance sup-

port activty---------........--- ------------------------------- 1, 527

Pleasant Grove--Expand 50-man center .to 100-man center.----------- 249

Provo--Expand 150-man center with 2-bay shop to 200-man center with

2-bay .shop------------------------------------------------- 251

86

TENTATIVE FISCAL YEAR 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM, ARMY

REsERvE--Continued

Location, .project, and cost

Virginia: Thousands

Camp A. P. Hill-Annual training facilities ------------------------ $909

Camp Pickett-Annual training facilities--------------------------- 907

Wisconsin, Camp McCoy-Airfield improvements..-------------------- -- 348

Aircraft maintenance and storage facility_ ---------------------- _ 357

Subtotal -------------..............-------------------------------------35, 900

Minor construction_--------------------------- 2, 500

Planning and design----------- ---- ............. ................. 2, 300

Total ------------------------------------------------------40, 700

TENTATIVE FISCAL YEAR 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM, NAVAL AND

MARINE CORPS RESERVES

L location , project, and cost

Thousands

Georgia, NAS Atlanta-Bachelor enlisted quarters ..-------------------- $529

Illinois :

Peoria-Naval and Marine Corps Reserves center_--------------- . 1,.445

Quincy-Naval Reserve addition to existing Army Reserve center-- 501

Indiana, Evansville-Naval and Marine Corps Reserve. center----- --- 923

Massachusetts, NAS South Weymouth-Aircraft corrosion control fa-

cility --------_,---_--,--- --- --- ----------------------... .. 300

Michigan :

NAF Detroit-Taxiway extension---------.__________- 345

(Selfridge ANG Base)-Ground support equipment shop ----------- 173

New York, N&MCRC Brooklyn (Floyd Bennett Field)-Berthing fa;

cilities ..--....--- .......------- ..- ---------------------..------ 481

Pennsylvania :

Allentown-Naval Reserve center----__ _______-____ _____________ 1, 138

NAS Willow Grove-Bachelor enlisted quarters____- .-_________- 1, 214

Warehouse ------------------------------------------------ 468

Rhode.Island, Providence (Jt. with/Army Res.)-Armed Forces Reserve

center ----------------------------- ----------------------- --- 2, 039

Texas:

Austin-Naval and Marine Corps Reserve center-_-- -___________ 1, 058

NAS Dallas-Naval and Marine Corps Reserve center ____________- 1, 777

Aircraft parking apron --______________________-- - - - - __ 1, 982

Maintenance hangar--------------------------------------- 4, 395

Subtotal ---------------------------------------------- 18, 858

Minor construction-----__-___________________ 300

Planning and design_--_----..-.---_ ____________________---- . 1,142

Total ----------------------------------------------------- 20, 300

TENTATIVE FISCAL YEAR 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM Am NATIONAL

GUARD

Location, project, and cost

Alabama: Thousand

Dannelly Field-Composite squadron operations facility____________ $600

Martin ANG Station-Reserve Forces communications/electronics

training facility_ ----------------------------------------------- 350

Arkansas:

Fort Smith-Composite squadron operations facility_______________ 527

Little Rock-Avionics shop, Aircraft engine inspection and repair

shop -------------------------------------------------------__ 275

Colorado, Greeley ANG Station-Automotive maintenance shop/aerospace

ground equipment shop--------------------------_---------------- 230

Connecticut, Orange ANG Station-Aerospace ground equipment shop__--- 170

District of. Columbia, Andrews AFB (ANG)--Avionics shop ---------- 350

Georgia, Dobbins AFB (ANG)-Conversion of hangar__________________ 984

87

TENTATIVE FISCAL YEAR 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM AIR NATIONAL

GUARD-Continued

Location, project, and cost

Thousands

Illinois, Capitol MAP-Composite squadron operations facility---------- $725

Kansas, McConnell AFB (ANG)--Composite squadron operations facility_ 610

Minnesota, Duluth ANG Base-Aircraft engine inspection and repair shop_ 330

Avionics/weapons system shop (addition/alteration) --------------- 135

Mississippi:

Key Field-Reserve Forces communications/electronics training

facility .---------__ ---------------------------------------- 514

Avionics/nondestructive inspection shop ------------------------ 300

Avionics/nondestructive inspection shop---------------------- 300

Gulfport MAP-Reserve Forces communications/electronics training

facility ------------------------------------------------ 520

Missouri, Lambert Field (St. Louis) -Avionics/nondestructive inspection

shop ----- ------------------------------------------------- 350

Nebraska, Lincoln ANG Base-Convert/alter main hangar leanto to

avionics shop, general purpose shop, squadron and base operations,

and combat operations center---------------------------------- 311

Nevada, Reno MAP-Avionics/nondestructive inspection shop--------- 410

New Jersey, McGuire AFB (ANG)-Aircraft engine inspection and

repair shop -----------------------------------------------350

New York, Schenectady Airport-Composite aircraft maintenance fa-

cility ----------------------------------------------------------- 636

Aircraft engine inspection and repair shop with propellor shop-... 290

North Carolina, Douglas MAP-Composite aircraft maintenance facility_ 800

Taxiway/runway access ----------------------------------------400

Oklahoma, Tulsa MAP-Aircraft engine inspection and repair shop---- 300

Composite maintenance facility--------------------------------- 582

Pennsylvania, NAS Willow Grove--Automotive maintenance shop/re-

fueling vehicle shop--------------------------------------------352

Rhode Island, North Smithfield ANG Station-Automotive maintenance

shop ------------------------------------------------------ 140

Tennessee. Alcoa ANG Station-Add to and alter reserve forces communi-

cations/electronics training facility-------------------------------- 605

Texas, Ellington AFB-Aircraft engine inspection and repair shop------ 307

Automotive maintenance facility--------------------------------- 148

Refueler maintenance/POL operations-------------------------- 62

Avionics shop -------------------------------------------- 405

Washington, Spokane-Composite squadron operations facility--------- 675

West Virginia, Kanawha County Airport-Aviation fuel operating storage

facility ----------------------------------------------------- 325

Various locations :

(5)-Power check pad with suppressor _ ------------------------- 952

(8)-Aircraft arresting systems (BAK-12/14) ------------------- 620

Subtotal --------------- ---------------------------- 16, 000

Minor construction-------------- ----------------------------- 2, 000

Planning and design-------------------------------------------- 2, 000

Total ------ ----------------------------------------- 20, 000

TENTATIVE FISCAL YEAR 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM,

AnIR FORCE RESERVE

Location, project, and cost

Thousands

Arizona, Luke AFB-Parachute and dinghy repair shop---------------$181

Florida, Eglin AFB (Aux No. 3)--Aerospace ground equipment shop-.. 154

Aircraft engine inspection and repair shop------------------------ 278

Aircraft corrosion control ..---------------------------------------- 100

Assault landing strip--------------------------------------- 450

Georgia, Dobbins AFB-Nondestructive inspection shop---------------- 150

Aerospace ground equipment shop------------------------------- 146

Illinois, Chicago-O'Hare LAP-Nondestructive inspection shop..--------...... 149

Fuel system maintenance dock_---------------------------------- 939

Indiana, Grissom AFB-Reserve Forces communications/electronics

training facility......---------------------------------------------- 110

88

TENTATIVE FISCAL YEAR 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM,

AIR FORCE RESERVE-Continued

Location, project, and cost

Th

Maryland, Andrews AFB-Aerospace ground equipment shop

Michigan, Selfridge ANG Base-After fuel system maintenance dock ---

Composite aircraft maintenance shop---------------------------

Mississippi. Keesler AFB-Maintenance hangar (addition)

Missouri, Richards-Gebaur AFB-Alter fuel system maintenance dock_-

Squadron operations...---.---------- .----.-------

New York, Niagara Falls IAP-Alter fuel system maintenance dock....

Oklahoma, Tinker AFB-Power check pad with suppressors----------

Pennsylvania:

ousanda

$174

185

750

375

171

347

175

199

Greater Pittsburgh IAP-Aerial port training facility-------------- 322

Nondestructive inspection shop _____________-------------145

Aerospace ground equipment shop_ __ ----------- ------------ 205

Parachute and dinghy repair shop---------------------------- 200

Willow Grove ARF-Fuel system maintenance dock____________ 939

Reserve Forces communications/electronics training facility--.- 125

Texas, Ellington AFB-Automotive maintenance facility_____________- 882

Extend runway overrun----------------------------------------- 133

Land fee purchase---------------------------------------------- 100

Composite refueler maintenance and petroleum operations building _ 248

Aircraft organizational maintenance shop ___________-_----__--- 86

Perpetual restrictive land easement_______________________________ 352

Utah, Hill AFB-Power check pad with suppressor ________________ 135

Wisconsin, Gen. Billy Mitchell Field-Nondestructive inspection shop-__ 154

Subtotal ---------------------------------------------------- 9, 000

Minor construction-- ___-__________________ 200

Planning and design------------------------------------------------800

Total ------------------------------------------------------- 10,000

Senator SYMINGTON. May I say that as the Volunteer Army problem

becomes increasingly evident, the voluntary military problem, not just

Army, I think we are going to have to depend more on the Reserves'

and the National Guard, and I personally am quite sympathetic with

the request to build this up at this time.

Thank you very much.

Mr. HARRINGTON. If I may, sir, I have with me statements of the

commanding officers of the five Reserve components. I would like to

submit these for the record if the chair will permit.

Senator SYMINGTON. Without objection. We welcome them.

[The statements follow :]

STATEMENT BY MAJOR GENERAL DONALD V. RATTAN, DEPUTY CHIEF, OFFICE. OF

RESERVE COMPONENTS U.S. ARMY

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD, AND MILITARY CONSTRUCTION,

ARMY RESERVE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I appreciate this opportunity to

appear before this committee. I will provide some general remarks on the achieve-

ments and the stated goals of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve Mili-

tary Construction Programs.

Major General Francis S. Greenlief, Chief of the National Guard Bureau, and

Major General . Milnor Roberts, Chief, Army Reserve, are here and' will

follow me to discuss the details of their respective programs.

I have been the- Deputy Chief of the Army Reserve Components for just over

a year. During that period I have had the opportunity of visiting a large number

of Army National- Guard and Army Reserve units. On the whole I have founll

these citizen- soldiers to-be ready, spirited, and dedicated people who want to- suc-

ceed. That they succeed is of primary importance, for the' citizen soldiers of out

Reserve Components make up nearly half (44%) of our total Army force:

89

Facilities do have a significant impact on the effectiveness and readiness of the

Reserve Components.

If the facilities are adequate, the troops have a sense of being provided for-

of being needed and being appreciated of-and the morale, training and readi-

ness are improved, often in direct ratio to the adequacy of available facilities.

Overcrowded and makeshift facilities contribute to a loss of training time,

reduced efficiency, and a concurrent decrease in morale and esprit de corps.

Recognizing this, in 1970, a Reserve Component 10-year, long range construc-

tion plan totalling 628 million dollars was approved. The first increment on this

program was included in the FY 71 annual budget.

The 10-year plan was designed to provide adequate facilities to the Reserve

Components in a sustained, orderly, and economical manner. The plan included

both new facilities and renovations or additions to existing facilities. Because

of cost escalation, this 10-year program currently is more than $800 million.

The military construction authorization requests being presented today will

assist in continuing the progress already made and represent the fourth increment

of the 10-year program. The FY 71 to FY 73 increments provided for 365 projects,

all of which have been completed or are in varying stages of design, contract

award or construction. The authorization requests to be discussed by Generals

Greenlief and Roberts total $55.8 million.

Facilities improvements are concentrated in five specific areas to provide--

Storage space and security for the- large volume of equipment being issued

to Reserve Component units.

Adequate aviation facilities for the greatly expanded air fleet.

Better training areas and facilities.

Intrusion detection devices in all arms rooms.

Modern, adequate armories and centers.

This concludes my formal statement, Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned earlier,

Generals Greenlief and Roberts are here to present details of their respective

programs. I'll be pleased to answer any questions that you may have or provide

additional information, if desired.

STATEMENT BY MAJOR GENERAL J. MILNOR ROBERTS, CHIEF, ARMY RESERVE

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY RESERVE

Honorable Chairmen and Members of the Joint Committees: It is a pleasure to

appear before you to present the Military Construction, Army Reserve Program

for FY-1974.

Readiness programs for the Army Reserve are well underway. Additional

important equipment and improved training and supervision are being provided.

Another important element to improve readiness is the availability of adequate

training facilities and training areas. This Military Construction Authorization

provides for construction of such facilities.

Fiscal Year 1974 will be the fourth year of the approved 10-year Program for

provision of adequate and proper home-station training centers for the Army

Reserve. The actual results of our initial program years FY-71 and FY-72 are for

the most part complete. These modern, efficient centers are tangible proof that the

emphasis on the Army Reserve is real. More and more units throughout the

Nation are receiving improved training in facilities designed for a modern Army

Reserve equipped with required quantities of deployable equipment.

Our Construction Program awards rose from $12 million in FY 1971 to over

$27 Million in FY 1972 and is approximately $24 Million this year. In addition,

$10 Million is now being advertised or negotiated. Another $6 Million is currently

ready for advertisement but will require renotification.

The FY 1974 appropriation request includes $35.9 million for major construc-

tion, $2.5 million for minor construction and $2.3 million for advanced planning.

the FY 1974 authorization request for $35.9 million in major construction in-

Cludes 49 major projects in 30 states.

The FY 1974 Program is well balanced, combining both home-station and train-

ing facilities. It includes 19 new centers, 22 expansions and eight special projects.

This actually provides :

4 modern training centers with unit maintenance shops;

5 direct support/general support maintenance shops ;

4 medical facility additions;

3 command and control facilities;

4 aviation projects ;

90

4 annual training site improvements; and

2 special training facilities.

These projects and the 60 minor construction projects which we will accomplish

will markedly improve our facilities.

I might add that these minor projects are used to expand equipment storage,

areas to accommodate the major equipment issues.

Another aspect of our Construction Program worth highlighting is our Intru-

sion Detection Systems. We have installed IDS in all centers with arms storage.

This has resulted in a major reduction in forced entry weapons thefts. We are,

improving the construction of our arms vaults and using acrylics for windows

throughout the building. This latter item makes it almost impossible to throw

a rock or missile through a window.

Our design effort is well underway with 33 projects currently authorized to

proceed to final design, six other projects are ready to be authorized final

design, and the remaining 10 are in various stages of pre-design. We have ade-

quate real estate to execute the program, and foresee no major problem areas..

The Justification Data Books which you have been furnished provide detailed

information and fully support our Authorization Request. All of these projects

are urgently needed for improved training and readiness.

This concludes my statement. I am prepared to answer any questions the Com-

mittee may have.

STATEMENT BY lMAJ. GEN. FRANCOI S. GREENLIEF, CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU,-

DEPARTMENTS OF THE ARMY AND THE AIR FORCE

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: It is a privilege to appear

before this distinguished committee to present the fiscal year 1974 military con-

struction, Army National Guard budget request.

Today when our active military forces are being reduced, the readiness pos-

ture of the guard has become of even more critical importance. The facilities

needed to assemble and administer our guard units, to store weapons, to main-

tain vehicles and aircraft, and to accomplish our annual and weekend training

assume added importance.

As a result of the increased reliance placed on the national guard for the de-

fense of our Nation, our units have, and are still receiving, additional and more-

modern equipment. In the last three years the value of our equipment inventory

doubled and is expected to increase another 50% in the next two years. Our

requirements for maintenance and storage facilities for this equipment have

increased proportionately. In addition, training requirements for the guard have

increased so that our units may attain and maintain a high state of combat

readiness. This has created a need for more and better training facilities. Be-

cause of these increased facility requirements, our construction backlog has-

increased from $300 to $354 million.

Today we are requesting an authorization for $29.9 million and appropriations

of $35.2 million for the construction of urgently needed facilities. This budget

level of $35.2 million is a decrease of $4.8 million over the current year, fiscal

year 1973. Reason for this decrease is that in fiscal year 1973 we received addi-

tional funds for "people oriented projects" which were not received in fiscal year

1974. With a $354 million known backlog of construction requirements, the fiscal

year 1974 budget of $35.2 million would allow us to deplete this backlog in about

10 years. This, however, assumes no escalation in construction costs and that we

can foresee all of our requirements for the next 10 years.

The $35.2 million fiscal year 1974 budget plan provides $29.9 million for major

construction and $5.3 million for minor construction and planning. The major con-

struction consists of $9.9 million for armories and $20.0 million for non-armory

projects.

The justification data books which you have been furnished contain detailed

project descriptions which support the construction program. We are proposing

29 armory projects and 50 non-armory projects for a total of 79 projects in 44

States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. All of these projects are ur-

gently needed to support improved training and unit readiness.

Our actual obligations for fiscal year 1972 were $27.6 million which exceeded

our original obligation target by $4 million. This left us a carry-over of $6.3 mil-

lion into fiscal year 1973. Our current fiscal year 1973 budget plan of $40 million

provides an obligation target of $38.2 million. We expect to reach this target;

therefore, we should have a carry-over of $8.1 million into fiscal year 1974. We

91

plan to obligate $35.7 million during fiscal year 1974 which would then give us

7.6 million to carry into fiscal year 1975. A carry-over of about this size will

enable us to distribute our workload throughout the year and in many cases to

take advantage of off-season construction prices. Our obligation figures include

minor construction and planning funds as well as major construction.

I again wish to express my appreciation for your understanding and continuing

support of our efforts to provide adequate facilities for our 400,000-man Army

National Guard force.

Sir, this concludes my prepared statement. If there are any questions, I will be

pleased to furnish any information that you may require.

STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL DAMON W. COOPER, USN, CHIEF OF

NAVAL RESERVE

Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee: I am pleased to appear before

.you today for the purpose of presenting the Naval and Marine Corps Reserve

military construction requirements for fiscal year 1974.

The request, totaling $20.3 million of lump sum authority, provides $18.9 mil-

lion for specific projects and $1.4 million for continuing authority. This is a modest

sum when compared to total requirements, yet it is consistent with budget limi-

tations and the Navy's overall priorities. The projects to be accomplished under

the lump sum authority are urgently needed to enhance the training and mobili-

zation readiness and the recruiting and retention effort of the Naval and Marine

Corps Reserve.

Currently, there are 364 sites throughout the country supporting the Naval

Surface Reserve: the Marine Corps Reserve is co-located with the Navy in 126

of these sites. In addition, the Marine Corps Ground Reserve is located at 44 other

sites separate from the Naval Reserve. In fiscal year 1974, there will be 63 reserve

force ships located at ports convenient to reserve personnel. Additionally, we oper-

ate six Naval Air Stations, one Naval Air Facility and 36 other Naval and Marine

-Corps Air Reserve sites.

We are continuing to emphasize a cost-effective policy of joint utilization.

,Of the 451 naval and marine corps reserve sites currently in use, 259, or over

57%, are jointly utilized with one or more other services-and that percentage

is increasing annually. In the FY 74 NCNR program before you, two projects

are for the construction of naval and marine corps reserve centers, and four

:are for joint construction of armed forces reserve centers. Eight of the remaining

ten projects are on sites which are already jointly utilized, and five of those will

'directly benefit other services. All the projects are designed to improve personnel

support and operating facilities critical to both navy and marine corps mobiliza-

tion objectives. The projects presented are of definite and continuing importance

'in building the readiness and responsiveness of our naval and marine corps

reserve. The program has been carefully screened and contains only projects of

greatest urgency.

The naval reserve has an urgent need for this funding to replace or modernize

obsolescent facilities-particularly in view of the increased emphasis on the

reserve. "We appreciate your past support and earnestly seek it for the urgent

projects included in this year's program.

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I shall be pleased to answer any

questions or provide further information as desired.

STATEMENT BY MAJOR GENERAL FRANCIS S. GREENLIEF, CHIEF, NATIONAL

GUARD BUREAU, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

Mr. Chairman and members of the committees : I deeply appreciate these com-

mittee's action in adding $5.5 million to our FY 73 Budget. Your timely action

has permitted us to provide urgently needed funds to support some of our units

which have converted to newer aircraft. Even so, the funding levels available

for the past few years have not allowed the Air National Guard to keep pace

with its annual requirements.

The Air National Guard Military Construction Appropriation request for fiscal

year 1974 totals $20.0. Of this amount, $4.0 million is proposed for planning and

minor construction. The remaining $16.0 million is avaliable for the construction

of major facilities at both flying and non-flying Air National Guard Bases.

92

As you are aware, the Air National Guard is undergoing a tremendous

modernization program of the flying units with assignment of high performance

aircraft and associated support equipment being received from the Air Force.

Over seventy percent of our Air National Guard flying units will have converted

to later model aircraft by the end of fiscal year 1974. Also, our non-flying units

are being expanded and modernized with newer, more powerful radars, more

complex communications systems and better support equipment.

This modernization program has, and is, creating extensive requirements for

more and more complex support facilities, such as aircraft arresting systems,

power check pads with sound suppressors, avionics shops, flight simulator facil-

ities, weapons release shops, bearing inspection shops, nondestruct inspection

facilities, reconnaissance photographic laboratories, etc. Almost our entire request

is for operational and maintenance type facilities to support the aircraft con-

version program and the expansion of the nonflying mission.

To support the aircraft conversions and expanded mission in the operational

and maintenance areas, alone, we have identified essential facilities requirements

in excess of $100 million. These facilities are required now to enable the con-

verted/new units to achieve a "combat ready" status at the earliest possible date

and to maintain this status.

With our requirements far exceeding available funds, we have been forced to

limit new facilities to those with the most critical and immediate need.

It is to be noted that a great number of Air National Guard units are at present

housed in facilities constructed during or before World War II, and have, or are,

rapidly approaching the end of their economical lives. It is estimated that these

facilities are deteriorating at the annual rate of $11.0 million. Considering an

immediate $54 million deficiency requirement, and a grand total deficiency of

approximately $280 million, an annual level-of-effort of approximately $30 million

is necessary for the next five years to bring the Air National Guard facilities up

to a reasonable level of adequacy.

At this time, the fiscal year 1974 construction program is under design, and

can be awarded upon receipt of enabling legislation. Again, this past year, we

have had several instances where the states served as the construction agency.

Through their services, we were able to incur an average project savings of .ap-

proximately 15% This savings is primarily the result of reduced design and con-

struction supervision costs, along with making maximum use of local area

conditions, materials and labor skills. In light of these construction dollar savings,

we plan, where feasible, to increase this method of operation.

Because construction costs have increased significantly during the past years,

limitations now in effect are no longer realistic. We feel that these committees

should consider increasing the limitation for Reserve Forces Minor Construction,

P 341 funds, from $50,000 to $150,000. This .compares to a limitation of $300,000

approved for the active forces two years ago.

As the Air National Guard continues in its role as a full partner in the Defense

establishment, we will, within the limits of available authorization and funds,

provide facilities to support our new complex aircraft and other equipment.

This concludes my presentation to the Committees in support of the Air

National Guard Military Construction Program for the fiscal year 1974. My Staff

and I are ready to entertain any questions you may have regarding our construc-

tion program.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE RESERVE

STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL WILLIAM J. CRANDALL, DEPUTY TO THE CHIEF

OF AIR FORCE RESERVE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate this opportunity to

meet with you and present our military construction request for Fiscal Year

1974. Our request for new authorization and obligational authority for major

construction totals $9 million.

I would like to take a few moments to give, you a report on our Fiscal Year

1973 program. Of the eighteen projects in our original Fiscal Year 19.73 pro-

gram, fourteen are under contract. The remaining projects will be awarded over

the next few weeks. Our uncommitted balance of Fiscal Year 1973 and ,prior

authorization is $100,000. We consider this a reasonable amount to provide.con-

tingencies for on-going projects and future bid openings.

93

The recently announced Air Force base realignment actions for Westover

AFB, Massachusetts have resulted in some adjustments in our Fiscal Year

1973 and Fiscal Year 1974 programs. The planned transfer of Westover AFB

to the Air Force Reserve will make additional facilities available for our use.

As a result, we have cancelled an Aerial Port Training Facility in our Fiscal

Year 1973 program and the Aeromedical Evacuation Training Facility in our

Fiscal Year 1974 program for Westover. To provide timely obligation of the

Fiscal Year 1973 funds released by the cancellation of the Aerial Port Train-

ing Facility, we have moved four alteration projects for which design was well

advanced from our Fiscal Year 1974 program to the Fiscal Year 1973 program.

The projects involved are the Alter Non-destructive Inspection Shop projects at

Minneapolis-St Paul International Airport, Minnesota; Niagara Falls Interna-

tional Airport, New York; Youngstown Municipal Airport, Ohio, and Willow

Grove Air Reserve Facility, Pennsylvania. To fill the void in the tentative

Fiscal Year 1974 list, we have added an Assault Landing Strip project for Eglin

AFB, Auxiliary Field Number 3, Florida. I have a, revised tentative project

listing for our Fiscal Year 1974 request which I would like to have inserted in

the record.

Our Fiscal Year 1974 request places primary emphasis on maintenance facili-

ties. The revised tentative list includes thirty-two (32) projects at sixteen (16)

locations in fifteen (15) states. The projects in this request are primarily for loca-

tions which have tactical airlift and tactical fighter missions which have expe-

rienced equipment conversions in recent years. One new unit is also involved.

This is a 0C-130 Tactical Airlift unit at Keesler AFB, Mississippi. The detailed

justification for each project and manpower statistics for each unit involved are

included in the 'backup books provided to your committee.

Our Fiscal Year 1974 program is requested under the lump sum funding and

programing procedures utilized since Fiscal Year 1963. Planning and design

actions for our 1974 program are well advanced. Advertising is scheduled for

January and February of Calender Year 1974. My efforts to provide the most

economic facilities to enhance the training capability and operational readiness

of the Air Force Reserve will continue during Fiscal Year 1974.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my general statement in support of the Air

Force Reserve Fiscal Year 1974 Military Construction Program. I appreciate the

consideration and support which our programs receive from your committee. Do

you have any questions ?

Senator SYMINGTON. At this point I will submit for the record a

statement received from the Natinal Guard Association of the United

States.

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MAJOR GENERAL HENRY W. MCMILLAN, PRESIDENT,

NATIONAL GUARD ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: The National Guard Associa-

tion of the United States welcomes the opportunity to file this statement for the

consideration of the Senate Armed Services/Appropriations Joint Subcommittee

on Military Construction.

The NGAUS and ANG is indebted to this Committee for the $5.5M add-on to

the FY '73 MOP which allowed construction of 15 additional projects in ten

states.

I realize that this Committee fully recognizes the intense competition within

the Department of Defense for Defense dollars and that many agencies are

forced by the budgetary process to ask for only those amounts which fall within

restrictive guidance given them. It is basically for this reason that the National

Guard Association of the United States welcomes this occasion to furnish some

thoughts and opinions not bound by the restraints of the budget development

process.

While there are many areas in the National Guard prorgam where we would

like very much to see additional funding which we feel necessary to assure maxi-

mum efficiency, we would like especially to bring to the attention of the Com-

mittee the serious funding deficiency in the Air National Guard construction

program with emphasis on additional funding needed to modernize Air Nationa)

Guard facilities to accommodate the modern aircraft which are being assigned

to Air National Guard units.

94

The Air National Guard role in national defense today is even more important

than in the past. In certain mission areas it is,'and has been, the first line of

defense of our Reserve forces, while at the same time playing a vital role inthe

several States during civil disturbances and disasters.

In this era of competitive military budgets, the National Guard Association of

the United States suggests that proper attention and logic be focused on the

inadequate facilities on a majority of Air National Guard bases. The Air National

Guard, over the years, has fallen behind in construction due to austere funding.

The total Air National Guard deficiency in construction is approximately $280

million; yet, only $10.6 million was programmed for FY '72 and only $16.1 million

was provided for FY '73. Only $20 million is programmed for FY '74. The $20

million for FY '74 is even misleading; actually, it equates to only $16 million for

major construction after planning and minor construction are deducted.

By the end of FY '74, the ANG Force Structure will have changed 70% since

1969. Because only $10.6 million was provided for FY '72 and $16.1 million for

FY '73, the backlog continues to grow. Consequently, the Air National Guard

flying units are receiving modern equipment such as the A-7 and F-106 without

modern facilities needed for operations, training, maintenance, storage, security,

ground safety and flying safety. Also, the ANG non-flying units have received new

computerized Tactical Control systems which require new maintenance and sup-

port facilities.

Many Air National Guard units still have World War II vintage facilities

which are deteriorating at a rate of $11.0 million annually. It is estimated that

$30 million per year will be required over the next six years to provide adequate

facilities.

The final report of an Interservice Audit of Military Construction of Facilities

of Reserve and Guard Forces dated 13 April 1973 stated that the Military Con-

struction Program (MCP) for Air National Guard (ANG) has been underfunded

in relation to the 10-year program approved by OSD in 1970 to bring the deficiency

backlog to a manageable level. Of particular concern was the increase of 12

percent over the backlog concurred in by OSD in 1970.

The constraints placed on the Air National Guard due to lack of construction

appropriations cause delays in attaining combat-readiness of units.

The National Guardsman is much better off today in regard to pay but the

attractiveness of his job is relative. Today's Air National Guardsmen should

not have to train in makeshift facilities.

Specifically, it is our conviction that the related funding in the budget for

ANG Construction is not adequate to attain and maintain the posture of military

readiness expected of the Air National Guard. We therefore, respectfully

request that this Committee act to provide adequate facilities to support our

new modern weapons systems.

Thank you for giving the NGAUS the opportunity to file this statement in

behalf of the Air National Guard.

Senator SYMINOTON. Are the Army representatives here ?

Thank you Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Fliak~s, and Mr. Harrington.

General, we are working against time here. Would' you be good

enough just to supply your statement for the record and let us ask a

few questions ?

General COOPER. Yes, sir.

[Statement follows:]

STATEMENT BY MAJ. GEN. KENNETH B. COOPER, DIRECTOR OF INSTALLATIONS,

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR LOGISTICS, DEPARTMENT OF THE

ARMY

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am Major General Kenneth

B. Cooper, Director of Installations, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logis:

tics, Department of the Army.

It is a privilege to appear before this Committee and to present the Depart-

ment of the Army's portion of the Military Construction Authorization request.

We have structured our budget to reflect the Army reorganization and realign-

ment actions announced in January and April 1973.

For fiscal year 1974, the Army is requesting $660,139,000 in new authorization

for military construction. Also, we are requesting amendments to three prior

authorizations, in the amount of $1,186,000.

95

Of the total request $548,558,000 is for construction with the United States and

$108,581,000 is for construction outside the United States, including NATO

Infrastructure ($80,000,000) and projects in Europe, Korea, Panama, Puerto Rico,

the Marshall Islands, and U.S. Army Security Agency and U.S. Army Strategic

Communications Command sites. We have requested $3,000,000 under section 102.

As the core of this year's program, we are continuing to emphasize facilities

which benefit the soldier : where he lives, where he plays and where we treat him

when he is sick. Over 84 percent of our new authorization request for construc-

tion, excluding NATO, is in these categories. I will discuss this in more detail in

a moment.

The construction planned for the Army outside of the United States, excluding

NATO, is approximately five percent of our program. This overseas program is

similar to fiscal year 1973, providing for only a limited number of operational

facilities and a few projects in support of troop welfare, all at locations where we

expect to stay in our long range planning. Also, as in fiscal year 1973, we are

requesting no authorization or funds for construction in the Republic of Vietnam.

Continuing the procedure established in fiscal year 1968, the fiscal year 1974

program contains $80,000,000 to support the United States' share of Infrastructure

construction for NATO. This is approximately twelve percent of our total pro-

gram. We propose to provide detailed support for this request at a later session.

Our fiscal year 1974 request includes $14,094,000 to provide facilities for air

and water pollution abatement at various Army installations in the United States.

This is lower than in recent years. The fiscal year 1972 and fiscal year 1973 pro-

grams were the peak years and provided nearly $131,300,000 to satisfy the require-

ments of Executive Order 11507 as best we could determine. The fiscal year 1974

program will satisfy newly identified requirements derived from increasingly

more stringent standards and accomplish projects deferred from earlier programs

for technological reasons. We are beginning to learn the magnitude of the require-

ments which will result from the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-

ments of 1972. We feel certain that we will need some sizable dollar amounts for

pollution abatement projects in future MCA reqeusts.

We are not requesting any funds for the SAFEGUARD program.

Before discussing the highlights of our program, I would like to call your

attention to the following tables which give summaries of the program. Table I

shows the distribution of the authorization request of $660,139,000 among major

commands in the United States and overseas.

TABLE I-PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY

ATiTHORIZATION

SECTION 101-INSIDE THE UNITED STATES

Command

U.S. Continental Army Command 1----------------------------

First Army-----------------------------------------

Third Army----------------

Fifth Army------------------

Sixth Army-----------------

Cost

$413, 281, 000

(66, 891, 000)

U.S. Army Materiel Command------------------------------- 58, 649, 000

U.S. Army Security Agency--------------------------------- 287, 000

U.S. Army Strategic Communications Command-------------- 8, 226, 000

United States Military Academy----------------------------- 30, 145, 000

U.S. Army Medical Department ----------------------------- 1, 997, 000

Office Chief of Engineers--------------------------------- --- 597, 000

Military Traffic Management and Terminal Service_2,------------ 113, 000

U.S. Army, Alaska------------------------------------------ 8, 344, 000

U.S. Army, Hawaii--------------------------------------- -- 10, 825, 000

Various locations, air pollution abatement facilities_---------- 7, 295, 000

Various locations, water pollution abatement facilities-------- 6, 799, 000

Total inside the United States------------------------- 548, 558, 000

IReorganized into Forces Command (FORSCOM) and the Training and Doctrine Com-

mand (TRADOC) on 1 July 1973.

s The Army Health Services Command was organized, effective 1 April 1973, to command

medical field activities.

20-507-73- 7

96

SECTION 101-OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

Command Cost

U.S. Army Forces, Southern Command-------------------------- $8, 095, 000

United States Army, Pacific---------------------------------- 1, 568, 000

Puerto Rico -------------------------- --------------------- --- 517, 000

Kwajalein Missile Range------------------------------------- 2, 353, 000

U.S. Army Security Agency------------------------------------ 1, 434, 000

U.S. Army Strategic Communications Command ---------------- 2, 097, 000

U.S. Army, Europe ------------------- --- -------- - 92, 517, 000

Germany -------------------------------------- (12, 517, 000)

NATO Infrastructure-------------------------- (80, 000, 000)

Total outside United States----------------------------- 108, 581, 000

OTHER

Section 102 (classified project) _______------------------------- 3, 000, 000

Total new authorization requested---------------------- 660, 139, 000

Table II shows the construction categories in which the funds are requested

and the percent of the construction dollars in each category. This table illustrates

the emphasis being placed on facilities supporting our soldiers.

TABLE II-PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY

AUTHORIZATION SUMMARY BY CONSTRUCTION CATEGORIES

Percent of total

Total excluding NATO

Operational and training facilities .... ......- ................... ...... $22, 301,000 3.8

Maintenance and production facilities................. . __......... .__.._ . 16, 418, 000 2.8

Research, development, and test facilities ...... ___ _____.._...... 11,183, 000 1.9

Supply facilities .....sl......__............................. ... .... _ 8,101,000 1.4

Hospital and medical facilities-------------------------- ... 34, 977,000 6.0O

Adm inistrative facilities . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . 2,835, 000 0.5

Housing and community facilities .... . . . . . . . . . . ..... . .... ... 543, 391,000 78.2

(Troop housing).............. .... (405, 213,000) (69.9)

(Community facilities)- -.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (48,178,000) (8.3)

Utilities and ground improvements...___.. .__. ___. . ......__..__ 28, 227,000 4.9

(Air pollution abatement facilities) ....... (7, 295, 000) (1.3)

(Water pollution abatement facilities)---....... (6, 799, 000) (1.2)

(Other)---...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (14,133,000) (2.4)

Real estate---- ....--. . . . ..- .... . - -- --- - - 2,706,000 0.5

NATO--- ---- - - 80,000,000 _.....-..

Total new authorization requested . -..... __... __ .__. _. _ ... 660, 139, 000 100.0

PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS

THE ARMY MODERN HOUSING PROGRAM

The priority element of our soldier oriented program this year, as with last year,

is that portion directed to bringing our Army housing to adequate and modern

standards. We first presented the Army's housing program for the Seventies in the

fiscal year 1972 budget. Our program goal is to provide modern housing for all

bachelor soldiers and families. We are controlling both the programing and

execution phases to assure that we get the right type of housing, in the right

place, and at the best design and cost we can manage. Since this presentation

covers our general MCA program which provides for the bachelor housing sup-

port, my remarks will be directed to that portion of the housing program. Subject

to your approval, the family housing portion will be covered within the Depart-

ment of Defense overall family housing presentation.

97

BACHELOR HOUSING

The fiscal year 1974 program provides for construction of 24,553 new enlisted

barracks spaces and 285 bachelor officer spaces in the United States and overseas.

Included in these are 3,935 enlisted and 100 officer spaces for the Women's Army

Corps and 380 enlisted spaces programed for semi-permanent construction over-

seas. In locating this new construction, emphasis has been placed on those troop

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

in the Army's long range planning. We are requesting $242,577,000 for this year's

new construction portion of the bachelor housing program.

In our fiscal year 1974 budget request we are asking for $146,311,000 to

modernize 46,896 enlisted barracks spaces and 528 officer spaces. Of the barracks

spaces, 45,397 are in the United States (including 3,587 for enlisted women) and

1,499 are overseas. All officer spaces are in the United States.

Recent changes in criteria for new construction and modernization have had

a great impact on the Army's barrack assets insofar as their classification into

"adequate" or "substandard" is concerned. Those we now classify as not meeting

current standards may vary from pre-World War I buildings on some of our

older posts, to relatively new barracks from our MCA programs of the 1960's. The

amount of work required to bring these various buildings to current standards

varies widely from a matter of internal partitioning to subdivide the open bays

into rooms for one, two or three men to total renovation required for some of

the older buildings.

I would like to cite some statistics to illustrate the status in adequately hous-

ing all of our soldiers and the size of the task still to be accomplished.

Requirements.-Based on the long-range (FY 1978) strength projection, it is

presently estimated that housing will be required for approximately 497,000

soldiers of whom 60,000 will be trainees. It will also be necessary to house an

estimated 34,000 bachelor officers.

Assets.-Including construction and modernization in progress or already ap-

proved in fiscal year 1973 and earlier programs, the Army has approximately

397,000 permanent barracks spaces and 27,000 bachelor officer spaces world-wide.

Both in the United States and overseas we have a wide variety of permanent

buildings, semi-permanent, and temporary structures being used for troop hous-

ing. As indicated earlier, except for trainee barracks in the United States, recent

changes in housing criteria such as air conditioning where required and semi-

private or private rooms have caused approximately 40 percent of these existing

permanent assets to be classified as inadequate under currently accepted

standards.

Deficits.-Comparison of the assets and requirements indicates that a deficit

exists of approximately 100,000 enlisted barracks spaces and about 7,000 bachelor

officer quarters spaces. This deficit must be met by new construction. Plus, we

must continue to modernize those existing permanent assets, over 158,000 spaces,

that are below standards.

Current bachelor housing standards provide a significant departure from the

open-bay barracks which have been our standard in the past. We are striving for

increased privacy, more comfortable living conditions, and improved security for

the soldier's personal possessions. For the lower grades (E2-E4) we are building

or modernizing to create two or three man rooms at 90 square feet of living space

per man. The new construction will provide a bath with each room as will mod-

ernization projects wherever practical. The middle grades (E5-E6) will nor-

mally have one or two man rooms at 135 square feet of living space per man and

the senior grades (E7-E9) will be authorized a private room with 270 square feet

of living space and a private bath. Air conditioning, increased lighting and elec-

trical outlets, improved furniture, and secure storage areas are inherent features

in our designs.

For lieutenants and warrant officers we are providing 330 square feet of living

space consisting of a private combination living/bedroom, bathroom and pullmhnan

type kitchen. Captains and above will have a private suite of approximately 460

square feet. The accommodations will consist or a living room, bedroom, bathroom

and kitchen.

The Army considers these standards to be both necessary and just not extrava-

gant. They are in keeping with improved living conditions which prevail in the

United States today.

98

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

Also of importance to the soldier are the community functions related to his

and his family's daily needs. Our request for these items is $37,448,000 (ex-

clusive of confinement facilities), which provides for a number of diverse facili-

ties including new commissaries at Forts Campbell, Gordon and Polk, chapel

centers at Aberdeen Proving Ground and Redstone Arsenal, automotive self

help garages at Forts Gordon and Greely, a physical conditioning facility at

Carlisle Barracks, a gymnasium at Fort McClellan, outdoor athletic facilities at

Fort Riley, a patient visitor facility at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, service

clubs at two locations, a post library and gymnasium addition at White Sands

Missile Range, a main post office at Fort Eustis, an NOO Open Mess at Yuma

Proving Ground, and a billeting office, an Officers Open Mess, and a Provost Mar-

shal facility at Fort Wainwright.

We are including in our request $12,091,000 to improve the schools for our de-

pendent children in Germany. We plan to build additions at three locations and

to construct new facilities at two locations to reduce overcrowding and alleviate

substandard conditions. The necessity for improvement of the dependent educa-

tional facilities in Germany has been recognized for several years and these

projects will continue and expand the Army's efforts to improve the dependent

school system.

MEDICAL FACILITIES

Our request for $34,977,000 for medical facilities is about 6 percent of our

program. The largest single project in this category is a $25,000,000 new hospital

at the Military Academy. We have included an addition for the permanent hos-

pital at Fort Lee, new dental clinics at Forts Carson, Lewis and Monmouth, and a

combined medical and dental facility at Fort Shafter.

WOMEN'S ARMY CORPS EXPANSION PROGRAM

An important segment of our request supports the expansion of the Women's

Army Corps which will double the size of the Corps by fiscal year 1978. Over

$47,893,000 are allocated to this portion of the fiscal year 1974 MCA program.

The key projects expand the housing, training, and administrative facilities at

Fort McClellan, the WAC Center. The remaining projects are for housing at

various posts, as noted earlier, to provide adequate quarters for the increased

WAC population.

AVIATION FACILITIES

This year's request contains eight projects totaling $19,195,000, related to Army

aviation activities. These include two projects at Fort Hood, one at Fort Sherman,

Canal Zone, and one in Korea, all in support of Army contingency requirements.

Helicopter landing facilities are planned for Fort Belvoir and runway improve-

ments are requested for Fort Holabird in the interest of safety maintenance,

and operational efficiency. Improvements are also planned for the airfield facili-

ties at Fort Rucker. The third and final phase of the Tactical Airfield Complex at

Fort Campbell is included this year and will complete the project started in fiscal

year 1972.

U.S. MILITARY ACADEMY

This year we are requesting $30,145,000 for three projects; the new hospital

mentioned earlier, utilities expansion, and barracks modernization. These proj-

ects have been recommended for approval by the West Point Planning Advisory

Board as being necessary and in consonance with the USMA expansion plan. The

Board of Visitors to the United States Military Academy, made up of four U.S.

Senators, four U.S. Representatives and six business leaders, strongly indorsed

(with one dissent) the need for prompt construction of the new hospital.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Army's total request in this category is $11,183,000, considerably lower

than the $59,872,000 approved in fiscal year 1973 when we were completing the

construction of two major laboratories. The Human Factors Engineering Labora-

tory at Aberdeen Proving Ground, an addition to the explosive laboratory at

Picatinny Arsenal, and the KOFA Range improvements (phase I) at Yuma

Proving Ground are the major projects of the Research, Development and Test-

ing program this year. There are seven other smaller, but necessary, projects.

99

CONFINEMENT FACI ITIES

The Army is also requesting two new confinement facilities is fiscal year 1974

as a continuation of our long range program for providing modern facilities for

confinement of military personnel accused or convicted of violations of military

law. This long range program is based on the Army's modified correctional sys-

tem. We foresee construction requirements extending into fiscal year 1977, at a

dollar level approximating that of fiscal year 1974, to provide the necessary fa-

cilities support. The new facilities proposed in the fiscal year 1974 MCA pro-

gram will be located at Forts Leonard Wood and Lee at a cost of $10,730,000.

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION ABATEMENT

In support of the national goal of reducing environmental pollution the Army

has included $14,094,000 in the fiscal year 1974 MCA program to improve pollution

abatement capabilities at twenty-six installations in twenty-two states. Of the

total program cost, $7,295,000 is for air pollution abatement and $6,799,000 for

water pollution abatement. Our program includes incinerators for explosives

and contaminated waste disposal, facilities for treatment of industrial wastes,

precipitators on smokestacks, connections to regional sewage systems, air and

water pollution monitoring stations, and the upgrading of existing sewage and

water treatment plants to conform to local and Federal standards. These projects

have been coordinated with other Federal agencies involved in pollution abate-

ment and are in phase with the environmental pollution control program.

As indicated earlier, several of our projects are based on more rigid standards

or on technological advancement in pollution control. We expect future require-

ments to be generated in a similar manner, particularly as the States begin to

implement their programs to achieve the goals established in the Federal

Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.

ELECTRICAL SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION

This year we are again requesting funds to modernize the electrical systems on

a number of our permanent installations, many of which are now inadequate and

approaching unsafe conditions. The continuing rise in the demand for electrical

power due to changes in communications, modern weapons, training techniques

and living standards, especially the desire for air conditioning, has overtaxed the

electrical systems on many Army installations. To rectify this situation approval

is requested to upgrade the electrical utilities at three installations in the United

States at a cost of $4.079,000. We are again requesting improvement of elec-

trical facilities at various strategic communication sites overseas at a cost of

$2,097,000.

KWAJALEIN MISSILE RANGE

The Kwajalein Missile Range in the Marshall Islands is a national range

for testing various types of equipment in the Nation's missile programs. The

continuing development of test facilities in this area and the major testing

programs under way make it necessary to request improvements of a variety

of facilities. We are asking for a total of $2,353,000 for three projects.

SUMMARY

In summary, we have designed the fiscal year 1974 MCA program to enhance

the welfare of the soldier by improving our bachelor housing, primary medical

care facilities, and community facilities. In addition, the Army is continuing

its efforts to control environmental pollution and to improve its operational

capability. We have given careful consideration to insuring that the projects

requested are located at "hard core" installations where the facilities will be

fully utilized.

This concludes my presentation of the Army's fiscal year 1974 Military

Construction Authorization request. The detailed project justifications support-

ing the Army request are contained in the book which has been furnished to

the Committee. The projects are arranged in command and station sequence.

Proposed amendments to prior authorizations are at the end of the book.

I will be pleased to answer any questions the Committee may have or to see

that the answers are provided.

100

Senator SYMWINGTON. First I would like to place in the record, at

the request of former Congressman Celler, some correspondence that

he has sent to me with respect to the Walter Reed Inn. And, without

objection, I will place that in the record and ask you to comment

on it.

General COOPER. Yes, sir.

[The correspondence follows:]

WEISMAN, CELLER, SPETT, MODLIN & WERTHEIMER,

Washington, D.C., August 1, 1973.

Hon. STUART SYMINGTON,

Chairman, Military Construction Authorization Subcommittee,

Senate Committee on Armed Services,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In an effort to meet the exigencies of the Subcommittee's

hearings schedule on S. 1797, a bill authorizing certain construction at military

installations, I respectfully request that this letter and enclosures be accepted

for consideration by Members of the Subcommittee and for inclusion in the

printed hearing record.

Also appended herewith are excerpts from the Report of the House Select

Committee on Small Business, "The Impact of Federal Installations on Small

Business", (H. Report No. 92-943). The findings, conclusions and recommenda-

tions therein underscore the predicament of the owner of the Walter Reed Inn,

Washington, D.C., whom we represent, with respect to the proposed construction

of a new guest house facility at Walter Reed Medical Center.

We believe that the construction proposed by the Government will work ir-

reparable and unnecessary economic injury to the owner of the Walter Reed Inn.

Furthermore, in view of the Inn's proximity to the Medical Center, its history

of accommodating those who attend medical or dentistry classes or who visit

patients at Walter Reed, the Inn's unused capacity as well as its modern and

attractive facilities, a serious question is raised as to whether the additional,

costly construction that is proposed is truly in the best interests of the United

States.

With every good wish,

Sincerely yours,

EMANUEL CELLER.

STATEMENT OF HON. EMANUEL CELLER

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I had hoped to appear and

greet you personally but because I have just returned from abroad, most re-

grettably, I am unable to be in Washington today. I have asked my colleague,

Mr. Benjamin L. Zelenko, to present my statement to you.

I am member of the law firm of Weisman, Celler, Spett, Modlin and Wer-

theimer with local officers at 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., and want to testify

this morning about a project contained in the military construction appropria-

tions request for fiscal year 1974. The project concerns a new 100 unit Patient-

Visitor Facility at the Walter Reed Medical Center calling for an appropria-

tion of $1.997 million.

As I understand it, accommodations at the new Patient-Visitor Facility will

be available only to next of kin of patients at the Walter Reed General Hos-

pital and to outpatients expected to be treated for a short period of time. The

project also contemplates the demolition of an existing visitor facility contain-

ing 28 rooms.

We ask you to carefully review the proposed expenditure and determine

whether it really is justified as being in the best interests of the United States.

We hope that the Subcommittee will have assured itself with respect to the

accuracy of the underlying construction costs and inflation estimates, and as to

the availability and adequacy of existing nearby facilities.

Today I appear on behalf of the owner and operator of the Walter Reed Inn,

located immediately opposite the Walter Reed Medical Center gate at 6825

Georgia Avenue, N.W. The Inn was constructed in 1967 and completed in 1968

and opened its doors in June of that year. It accommodates among others, mili-

tary personnel attending classes on temporary duty assignment at the Institute of

101

Pathology and those pursuing dentistry studies at the Medical Center. It also

provides rooms at a reduced rate to visitors of patients at the Walter Reed Hos-

pital who are unable to obtain accommodations or who do not wish to stay at the

present visitor facility. Thus, the Inn has come to be a dependable, convenient

source of up-to-date accommodations for many of the same persons who would

be accommodated at the proposed new Visitor Facility.

The Walter Reed Inn is a four-story and basement brick motel containing 54

guest rooms, garage parking for 46 cars and restaurant facilities. We believe

that the Inn provides the United States Army with suitable, modern, convenient

facilities at a substantially lower, cost than that proposed in the current budget

for military construction for fiscal year 1974. Furthermore, a purchase or long-

term lease of these premises will result in certain definite savings to the Govern-

ment in view of the numbers of personnel on temporary duty assignment who

regularly use the accommodations at the inn. As I understand it, such temporary

duty personnel would be ineligible to stay at the proposed new patient-visitor

facility.

In an effort to accommodate the interests of the United States Army and the

owner and operator of the Inn, we have offered the premises of the Inn for sale

or long-term lease to the Government. Conversations on the subject occurred

on June 1, 1973, in the offices of Major General Kenneth B. Cooper, Director of

Installations, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics. At that time we

indicated that the construction of the proposed new 100 unit patient-visitor

facility on the grounds of the Medical Center would work a severe economic pen-

alty to the commercial operations of the Walter Reed Inn. In the case of the

Inn which contains 54 guest rooms, the difference between a profitable and a

marginal operation is the occupancy of five to seven rooms a night. Manifestly,

the new visitor facility on the grounds of the Medical Center would drain away

essential clientele from the Inn and impose irreparable economic injury.

Two thorough appraisals were conducted in January 1971 and contain further

detailed descriptions of the facilities and indicate the market value of the inn

at that time at $1.2 million and $1.150 million respectively. Copies of these

appraisal reports were furnished the Department of the Army. On June 28,

1973, representatives of the United States Corps of Engineers made an onsite

inspection of the premises of the Walter Reed Inn and I am advised that they have

now completed their report and appraisal which is being considered, although

no final decision has been made.

Mr. Chairman, we are hopeful that our proposal to sell or lease on a long-term

basis the facilities of the Walter Reed Inn, located immediately opposite the

Georgia Avenue gate of the Medical Center will receive favorable consideration

by the Department of the Army and that arrangements mutually satisfactory can

be consummated. Because of the pendency of this offer and its relationship to

the proposed construction of a patient-visitor facility, we believe that this

subcommittee should be fully informed in the premises. Moreover, we ask this

subcommittee to defer approval of appropriations for the proposed construction

of the new patient-visitor facility at Walter Reed Medical Center until it can

determine that the proposed construction is in the best interests of the United

States.

I shall be pleased to answer any questions which the subcommittee may have.

Thank you for the opportunity 'to present these comments.

Senator SYMINGTON. He is a respected former Member of Congress.

We have some questions here. I have one on that subject.

General Cooper, we understand the Army has under study certain

base realinements that, if carried out, would affect certain items in

this bill. Are you in a position to comment on this at present ?

General COOPER. I can comment to the extent that we are still study-

ing them. The final decisions have not been made. It may affect about

10 percent of the items in the budget.

Senator SYMINGTON. Back to the previous subject. You have in the

bill $1,997,000 for a patient-visitor facility for the Walter Reed Hos-

pital. Just what will this facility be used for ?

General COOPER. This facility will be used primarily for outpatients

that have to come to Walter Reed by referral for treatment or consul-

tation, and also for visitors of seriously ill patients that need to be

there during the time of the operation and during the early convales,

cence. It will replace an existing guesthouse we have which is quite

inadequate.

Senator SYMINGTON. Where do the people you have described now

find accommodations?

General COOPER. Some of them in the existing guesthouse, sir, and

some of them have to go and stay in the nearby motels, including

occasionally the Walter Reed Inn, which you referred to earlier.

Senator SYMINOTON. Now we have been informed that the construc-

tion of this facility will have a serious effect upon a nearby motel, the

Walter Reed Inn and that the owner is willing to sell or lease the

motel to the Army in lieu of building the new facility. Can you com-

ment on this ?

General COOPER. Yes, sir.

The Walter Reed Inn has a total of about 54 rooms, and as such it is

not big enough to accomplish the purpose we want. We have been

examining the possibility of leasing the Walter Reed Inn to take care

of the many people who are there attending courses on temporary

duty, and although we have not finished our study, the preliminary in-

dications show that it may be to the best interests of the Army in the

saving of TDY pay to lease the Walter Reed Inn.

Whether that is going to be feasible or not remains to be seen.

Senator SYMINGTON. Are we having negotiations about it ?

General COOPER. Yes, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. What is your comment on the fact that the

owner now says it will have a serious effect upon his motel?

General COOPER. He makes that comment on the basis that he now

gets some referrals from the existing guesthouse, and that this is the

margin between his being solvent, or having a profitable operation,

and not. He is afraid that with the bigger what we call the patient-

visitor facility, it will put him just below the margin.

We do not believe that is the case, but only time will tell.

We do need a patient-visitor facility which is larger than his motel

can provide. We think the better course of action would be to lease the

whole facility from him that would accommodate mostly people that

are attending courses at Walter Reed on temporary duty, who now

usually stay in motels in Silver Spring.

Senator SYMINGTON. Again this year, the bulk of your construction

program relates to housing and personnel facilities. Is it possible the

Army is overemphasizing this at the expense of operational and train-

ing facilities ?

General COOPER. No, sir, not at this stage of the game. We have

been very far behind in providing adequate bachelor housing for our

troops, and this will be a big leg up. We will still have another year

or so at approximately the same level.

Senator SYMINGTON. All right, General, you may proceed with your

line-items description.

General COOPER. Yes, Senator.

FORT BELVOIR, VA.

Fort Belvoir is located 11 miles southwest of Alexandria, Va. The

installation mission is to command, train, and provide logistical sup-

103

port to engineer troop units and the engineer school; to operate and

maintain the U.S. Army Mobility Equipment Research and Develop-

ment Center; and, to support the Topographic Research and Develop-

ment Laboratory and Davison Army Airfield. The program is for a

helicopter landing facility and parking apron, an enlisted men's bar-

racks without mess for medical personnel and an enlisted men's bar-

racks complex. The request is for $14,403,000.

The helicopter landing facility and parking apron project is to pro-

vide Davison Army Airfield with a taxiway, helipad, hoverlane, an

approach lighting system, and an additional parking apron for UH-1

and OH-type helicopters. Completion of this project will permit the

separation of rotary and fixed wing operations, reduce airfield conges-

tion with the accompanying hazardous conditions and improve the

efficiency of mission accomplishment of Davison Army Airfield. Davi-

son Army Airfield is the only Army airfield in the Washington area

with helicopter capability for supporting contingency operations under

national emergency conditions plus it provides helicopter support to

the White House and U.S. Government officials in the Nation's Capital.

Senator SYMINwTON. This is a rather expensive helicopter landing

facility you are requesting for Fort Belvoir. I notice that you need

space to park some 42 helicopters, and you indicate some support to

the White House and other Government officials. Can you give us a

little more detail as to what these helicopters are actually used for, and

why you need space for parking this many ?

General CoorPER. There are a total of 92 aircraft, 31 fixed wing and

61 helicopters, stationed at Davison U.S. Army Airfield, as follows:

Fixed wing Rotary wing

OH- UH- VH- AH- CH-

Organization T-41 T-42 U-8 U-21 58 1 3 1 47 Total

MDW............................... 10 8 9 2 7 33 --------------------.. 69

Exec fit det . ---....--... ..... .......- - ------..............----- -- 2 2 ------ 2 6

164th med det-------..------------......--------------...............--------------------------------... 2... 2

30th engr bn .... ......................----------------------------------- 2 -------------------- 2

Night vision lab.................. ..-------- .......---------------------- 1 --- 5 ....... ..... 7

District of Columbia National Guard _....-. 1 -----.. 1 4.-------------------- 6

Total---------------------- 10 8 11 2 8 48 2 1 2 92

The 40 helicopters assigned to MDW have the primary mission to

support the evaculation of Washington during a national emergency

and to support contingency plans in times of civil disturbance. The

11 U-8 and U-21 fixed wing aircraft provide priority air transporta-

tion to Army installations. The primary mission of the 18 T-41 and

T-42 aircraft and a secondary mission of all other MDW aircraft is

to support the training of assigned operational Army aviators and

those attached aviators whose combat readiness flying skills must be

maintained. Another secondary mission for assigned helicopters is to

provide transportation to DOD officials on a space required basis.

The executive flight detachment with six assigned helicopters, pro-

vides dedicated helicopter support for the President, Vice President,

and their staffs.

The 164th Medical Detachment and the 30th Engineer Battalion are

table of organization and equipment-TOE-units which are sta-

tioned at Fort Belvoir. Each unit has assigned helicopters organic

to the unit which are required to support their combat mission.

Seven aircraft are assigned to the Aviation Detachment, Night

Vision Support Branch, to support the testing of airborne night vision

devices.

Six aircraft are assigned to the Headquarters, District of Columnbia

National Guard to provide support to the adjutant general and his

staff.

At present there is suitable parking apron, that is, paved and hav-

ing proper aircraft tiedowns, for 14 light helicopters. The remainder

must be parked in less satisfactory expedient areas. Some deficiencies

of these expedient areas are no paving, which generates dust and fly-

ing debris-both a detriment to good maintenance practices and a

safety hazard; expedient tiedowns; and, less than adequate lighting

or lane marking.

The enlisted men's barracks for medical personnel will provide 122

bachelor housing spaces for the DeWitt Army Hospital Medical

Detachment and Dental Company. These personnel are now residing

in temporary barracks constructed in 1940 that are in poor condition,

have never been improved, and have long ago exceeded normal life

expectancy. In addition, the present barracks are a considerable dis-

tance from the worksite.

The barracks complex will furnish adequate living and support

accommodations for 1,054 of the permanent party and student en-

listed men stationed at Fort Belvoir. These personnel are now living

in substandard World War II mobilization-type buildings. Besides

the barracks, the project includes the necessary supporting facilities

to provide a completely functional bachelor enlisted housing complex.

These include unit administration, equipment storage, battalion head-

quarters, classrooms, and dining areas. Present support facilities are

of the same vintage as the old temporary barracks, are in poor condi-

tion and lack adequate plumbing, heating, and lighting.

Senator SYMINGTON. You have numerous barracks projects in this

year's bill, and I notice you are requesting an increase in unit cost this

year from $27 per square foot to $28.50 per square foot. Last year was

the first year we permitted you to estimate barracks space on a square

foot basis. Barracks have not formerly been priced out by cost per

man. This new form of pricing gives you more leeway, and actually

considerably increases the cost per man. I am wondering why you

found it necessary to ask for an increase in the unit price this year.

Here at Fort Belvoir last year we approved a 1,200-man barracks

at a total unit cost of $7,399,000. Yet, this year, you are asking for

$8,385,000 for a 1,054-man barracks, which is about a 20-percent

increase. I notice this applies in several other instances. What is your

explanation for this?

General COOPER. The fiscal year 1972 project costs were estimated

using a gross $3,200 per man. In fiscal year 1973 the estimating basis

was changed to a unit cost factor based on gross area of barracks

space. The fiscal year 1973 project costs were estimated using a statu-

tory limit of $27 per square foot of gross area. The fiscal year 1974

barracks costs were estimated using a proposed statutory limit of

$28.50 per square foot of gross area, the increase being to offset

inflation. In fiscal year 1973 and fiscal year 1974 the living area per

individual was based on grade: 90 square feet for grades E2-E4; 135

square feet for grades E5-E6 ; and 270 square feet for grades E7-E9.

Barracks for trainees, grade El, are designed at 72 square feet per

man on an open-bay concept.

A comparison of the fiscal year 1974 barracks costs, on a per-man

basis, with prior year projects reveals apparent significant cost in-

creases. Several factors have contributed to these increases.

Since mid-1970 improved barracks standards have provided in-

creases in the gross and net barracks area per man and improved living

conditions. The gross area has expanded by 32 percent and the net

living area by 25 percent. Improved living conditions include private

or semiprivate rooms with adjoining bathrooms, air conditioning

where authorized, carpeting and more modern furniture, and better

security for personal possessions. As mentioned earlier, statutory limits

for new barracks construction have been increased in response to

improved standards and construction cost escalation. Since mid-1970

this cost escalation has been 42 percent. Prior to the fiscal year 1974

MCA program the barracks personnel loading on project documenta-

tion has been shown at the maximum capacity as though occupied by

soldiers all in grades E2-E4. In actual practice the barracks are occu-

pied somewhat differently, housing a mix of grades based on the space

criteria discussed in paragraph 3 above, resulting in fewer soldiers

per barracks building. The fiscal year 1974 barracks projects recognize

this fact and the project scopes reflect the intended loading as

planned by field commanders for those types of units programed to

occupy the respective barracks.

The fiscal year 1975 barracks projects also reflect a greater apprecia-

tion of the need for ancillary facilities, in particular, small unit admin-

istrative and storage areas. The projects include these facilities,

where required, planned around the types of units programed to

occupy the particular projects.

Prior year barracks projects essentially ignored these associated

requirements to the detriment of efficient use of the barracks.

The remaining deficiency in enlisted quarters at Fort Belvoir upon

completion of the above barracks projects is 24 percent of the installa-

tion requirement.

CARLISLE BARRACKS, PA.

Carlisle Barracks is located at Carlisle, Pa. The mission of this in-

stallation is to provide administrative and logistical support for the

operation of the Army War College, Army Institute of Advanced

Studies, Army Institute of Land Combat, Dunham Army Hospital,

and other units and activities. The program provides for a physical

conditioning facility for which $2,465,000 is requested.

This project is to ,assure adequate physical conditioning facilities for

the students, staff and faculty, permanent party personnel, and mili-

tary families at the U.S. Army War College. Physical conditioning

activities are now carried out in two widely separated structures. The

existing post gymnasium, Thorpe Hall, was constructed in 1889 as

part of the Carlisle Indian School and is no longer adequate for pres-

ent needs. In addition, if plans are approved by the Advisory Council

on Historic Preservation, Thorpe Hall will be demolished to provide

space for construction of the Gen. Omar Bradley Museum. The

second building now in use is a converted World War II-type tempo-

rary barracks building which is seriously inadequate and will be de-

molished. Adequate physical conditioning facilities for assigned per-

sonnel are necessary since the school environment imposes a need for

regular winter indoor exercising to maintain sound physical condition

and alertness.

Senator SYMINGTON. Here you are asking $2,465,000 for la physical

conditioning facility, which I suppose is a new name for a gymnasium.

This seems to me to be unduly expensive. Will you explain to us just

what this facility consists of, and what it contains.

General CoorER. The Carlisle Barracks gymnasium will serve the

U.S. Army War College and will be the focal point for a very compre-

hensive athletic program for the War College staff and faculty, stu-

dents, and dependents. Included in the facility will be a basketball

floor with running track, a swimming pool, three squash courts and

three handball courts, weight rooms and exercise areas, a steamroom,

a first aid and rubdown room, an indoor rifle range, and locker rooms

for both male and female personnel.

FORT DEVENS, MASS.

Fort Devens is located 2 miles northeast of Ayer, Mass. The mission

of the installation is to provide command, training, administrative,

and logistical support to Active Army units, annual and weekend ac-

tive duty training for Reserve units and individuals of the six New

England States; and to provide logistical support to the U.S. Army

Security Agency Training Center :and School, off-post U.S. Army Air

Defense Command units, Reserve Centers, Reserve Officers Training

Corps units and family housing in the New England States. The re-

quested program is for barracks without dining facilities, for an esti-

mated $2,749,000 to house 350 enlisted women.

This project is to provide adequate permanent quarters for the

Women's Army Corps detachment assigned to this installation and to

support a new mission requirement for training female personnel for

the Army Security Agency. The total of 350 spaces will include 125

spaces for students plus 225 spaces required for personnel assigned to

the Fort Devens garrison and hospital unit. Upon completion of the

new facility, three temporary buildings will be demolished.

Upon approval of this request the remaining deficiency at Fort

Devens in permanent bachelor housing will be 34 percent of the total

installation requirement.

FORT DIX, N.J.

Fort Dix is located 18 miles south of Trenton, N.J. The mission of

this installation is the operation of a personnel center and to support

onpost training of U.S. Army Reserve, National Guard, and Reserve

Officer Training Corps. Fort Dix also provides offpost support to

Aradcom missile sites, USAR centers, ROTC units and recruiting

stations and provides medical care for Fort Dix, McGuire AFB, Lake-

hurst NAS, and for evacuees. The program provides a project to

convert buildings to administrative facilities for which we are request-

ing $339,000.

The conversion work includes partitions, suspended ceilings, modi-

fication to electrical service, lighting and 'heating system to provide

adequate space for an Army Readiness Region Headquarters and an

Army Readiness Group Activity to be located at Fort Dix. These

are new missions at Fort Dix as a result of the Army reorganization.

CAMP DRUM, N.Y.

Camp Drum is located near Watertown, N.Y. The mission of this

installation is to command and to provide administrative, logistical,

and training support for all units and activities assigned to Camp

Drum for such support. During the annual training periods approxi-

mately 105,000 troops per year use these facilities and support. The

requested program is for an enlisted men's barracks with dining facili-

ties for an estimated cost of $1,099,000.

This project is to provide adequate housing, dining, and company

administrative facilities for troops permanently assigned to Camp

Drum. Existing facilities are far below current Army standards.

Present billets are 30-year-old temporary-type wooden structures.

Plumbing and electrical utilities have long ago exceeded their 5-year

design life and are now unreliable and difficult and costly to repair.

A complete replacement of heating plants will be required within the

next 5 years. Upon completion of the requested project enlisted per-

sonnel permanently assigned to Camp Drum will be adequately housed.

Four temporary buildings will be demolished to make room for the

requested consolidated barracks.

Senator SYMINGTON. I do not question the need for a new barracks

for Camp Drum, but your reasoning that men assigned there must

walk 100 yards to the mess hall is not very convincing. This does not

seem to be a great distance to walk even in inclement weather.

How many men are assigned to this camp during the wintertime,

and what are their duties?

General COOPER. There are approximately 650 Regular Army and

civilian personnel permanently stationed at Camp Drum. These people

constitute the garrison complement responsible for operating, secur-

ing, and maintaining the installation. They also support Reserve com-

ponent training activities that take place throughout the year. The

station complement is small and is augmented by additional personnel

during the peak months of Reserve training activity.

FORT EUSTIS, VA.

Fort Eustis, Va. is located about 20 miles northwest of Newport

News, Va. The installation mission is to organize and train Trans-

portation Corps units and individuals. Tenants include the Trans-

portation School, Transportation Engineering Agency, Aviation Ma-

teriel Laboratories, Transportation Agency, and the Computer Sys-

tems Command Support Group, Fort Story, Va., a subinstallation, is

also supported. The requested program consists of projects for bar-

racks modernization, supply and administrative facilities, a main post

office, and alterations to the electrical distribution system for a total

estimated cost of $4,782,000.

The barracks modernization project will continue the upgrading of

existing permanent barracks to provide adequate housing for bachelor

enlisted personnel. At the present time, many bachelor enlisted men are

still housed in open bay squad rooms which have little privacy and few

conveniences. This project will rehabilitate existing squad rooms to

provide semiprivate rooms housing 1,040 soldiers. Following com-

pletion this project, 50 percent of the existing barracks capable of

being economically modernized at Fort Eustis will meet current hous-

ing standards.

The supply and administrative facilities will provide adequate ad-

ministrative, supply and storage for two transportation companies

that will move to this installation from Fort Story as a result of the

Army reorganization.

The Main Post Office project will provide a permanent structure to

replace the existing temporary type building constructed in 1941. The

Post Office workload averages 10,000 pieces daily. The present wooden

structure affords insufficient security and fire protection and the park-

ing area is limited to three patron spaces. The usable postal operations

area is cramped and normal locker and rest areas for postal personnel

are completely lacking.

The requested electrical distribution system alteration project is re-

quired to meet the increase in electrical power requirements that has

developed over the last 10 years. The local utility company has con-

structed a new substation of increased capacity to serve the power de-

mands of Fort Eustis and this project will add the Government elec-

trical power facilities needed for its full utilization. Circuit rearrange-

ments to facilitate maintenance, without disruption to dependent agen-

cies, are also to be provided to improve electrical service continuity,

reliability, and capacity.

CAMP A. P. HILL, VA.

Camp A. P. Hill is located near Fredericksburg, Va. The mission of

this installation is to serve as a maneuver and training area for

Reserve, Active Army, other military services and governmental agen-

cies and to provide logistical and administrative support for these ac-

tivities. The mission also include the provision of repair and utility

services to off-post facilities, including U.S. Army Reserve Centers and

Recruiting Stations in assigned areas of the State of Virginia. The re-

quested program is for an enlisted men's barracks with dining facili-

ties for a cost of $535,000.

This project is to provide a permanent enlisted men's barracks with

dining facilities for the permanent station complement. These troops

are now housed in small sheet metal hutments which do not meet rec-

ognized criteria for adequate housing. These hutments were erected as

expedients and were never intended for permanent housing. Latrine

and shower facilities are some distance from the billets. The remaining

deficit in adequate bachelor housing upon completion of the requested

project is 54 percent of the total requirement at Camp A. P. Hill.

Senator SYMINGTON. Similar to Camp Drum, you are asking for an

enlisted men's barracks with a mess. How many of these projects are

you asking for Reserve training areas, and what are the duties of the

people assigned there?

General CooPER. We are asking for enlisted men's barracks projects,

either new construction or modernization, at four installations consid-

ered Reserve training areas. These are Camp Drum, Camp A. P. Hill,

Indiantown Gap Military Reservation, and Camp Pickett. The bar-

racks requested will be for the Regular Army permanent party. These

personnel are the garrison complement who, along with supporting

training activities, are responsible for operating, securing, and main-

taining the installation.

INDIANTOWN GAP MILITARY RESERVATION, PA.

Indiantown Gap Military Reservation is located near Lebanon, Pa.

The mission of this installation is to serve as a training and maneuver

area for Active Army and Reserve component units and to provide

logistical and administrative support for these activities. The requested

program is for an enlisted men's barracks with dining facilities for a

cost of $1,657,000.

Ths project will provide housing and dining facilities for 151 per-

manently assigned enlisted personnel. These personnel now live in

substandard frame barracks buildings which cannot be economically

upgraded to meet minimum acceptable standards. Upon completion

of this project enlisted personnel permanently assigned to the Indian-

town Gap Military Reservation will be adequately housed.

FORT KNOX, KY.

Fort Knox is located 30 miles south of Louisville, Ky. The mission

of this installation is to provide facilities for the U.S. Army Armor

School, U.S. Army Maintenance Board, U.S. Army Armor Board,

an ROTC Regional Headquarters, and certain medical research ac-

tivities. The installation commands, trains, and supports nondivisional

armor units and a recruit training center and supports reserve com-

ponent summer training. The requested program provides for mod-

ernization of enlisted men's barracks and administrative facilities for

the newly assigned ROTC Regional Headquarters at a total estimated

cost of $7,305,000.

The barracks project will upgrade 2,026 barracks spaces to current

standards and provide associated improvements to troop administra-

tive, storage and the dining space incorporated in the barracks. At

present, many bachelor enlisted men are still housed in open bay squad

rooms without privacy and with few conveniences. Replacement of

existing squad areas with two to four man rooms providing more

privacy, better security for personal property, improved lighting and

air conditioning will upgrade the barracks to an acceptable level of

troop housing. Upon completion of this project 48 percent of the ex-

isting permanent barracks capable of being economically modernized

at Fort Knox will meet minimum housing standards. The remaining

deficit in adequate bachelor housing is approximately 59 percent of

the total requirement at Fort Knox.

The second project will provide administrative families for the

Headquarters, ROTC region II, by converting a portion of an exist-

ing building. Fort Knox, as with many Army installations, is short

suitable administrative space. The ROTC Headquarters is a new mis-

sion assigned to Fort Knox under the 1973 Army reorganization.

FORT LEE, VA.

Fort Lee is located 2 miles east of Petersburg, Va. The mission of

this installation is to command, train, and support units and activities

assigned to the Quartermaster Center, the Quartermaster School, the

Army Logistics Management School and other onpost and satellited

units and activities. The program provides for additions to Kenner

Army Hospital, barracks for enlisted male and female personnel, a

central food preparation facility, bachelor officer quarters, and a con-

finement facility for a total estimated cost of $22,769,000.

The hospital project is required to improve inadequate outpatient

facilities at Kenner Army Hospital. Subsequent to the completion of

Kenner Army Hospital in 1961, changes in the technique of delivering

health care have led to significant increases in the outpatient work-

load. The clinical workload has increased from 361 visits per day in

fiscal year 1961 to 786 daily visits in fiscal year 1972, an increase of

118 percent. The proposed addition to the clinical operational areas

will provide facilities that are either not now available or that are lo-

cated in substandard World War II mobilization-type buildings.

Existing clinical operational areas are over crowded and separated

from the hospital by nearly 1 mile which seriously inconveniences

patients and staff alike. The temporary hospital buildings now in use

have long exceeded their useful life as satisfactory medical treatment

facilities. Heating and electrical systems are inadequate and the build-

ings are in a deteriorated condition. Expansion of the hospital to pro-

vide needed capabilities will require alteration of the existing per-

manent building to accommodate supporting services and clinics not

included in the proposed new addition. Ten temporary buildings will

be demolished.

Senator SYMINGTON. You are asking for an addition to the Kenner

Army Hospital at Fort Lee. When was this hospital originally con-

structed ? I notice that in this instance, and in other similar projects,

you indicate that the outpatient workload has increased considerably,

resulting in a requirement to expand outpatient facilities. What is

this attributable to ?

General COOPER. Kenner Army Hospital, Building P-8130, was

completed in 1961. The hospital is rated at a 100 bed capacity. The

area known as the Kenner Annex consists of typical World War II

temporary type wooden structures constructed during early World

War II. This annex houses most of the clinics associated with Kenner

Hospital and is located nearly 1 mile from the main hospital.

The construction we are requesting in the fiscal year 1974 military

construction Army budget request will provide permanent adequate

clinic facilities contiguous to the main hospital to replace the inade-

quate annex facilities. The techniques of delivering health care services

have changed significantly in recent years. Advances in medical equip-

ment, medicines, and treatment techniques have shifted much of the

health care delivery load from an inpatient to an outpatient basis. Con-

currently, as is the case at Fort Lee, the facilities housing many of our

clinics at numerous hospitals have simply outlived their economic life

and are now extremely expensive and difficult to maintain, are func-

tionally inappropriate under today's standards, and cannot be eco-

nomically modernized.

The proposal for an additional enlisted men's barracks without mess

facilities will provide adequate housing for 422 permanently assigned

enlisted personnel, PCS and TDY students who are now occupying

temporary substandard buildings.

The project for additional enlisted women's barracks is to increase

the adequate housing spaces for Women's Army Corps (WAC) per-

sonnel at Fort Lee. WAC personnel are now living in the temporary

substandard facilities. Recent increases in strength authorization will

result in a total of 211 WAC personnel living in the inadequate billeting

spaces. Four temporary buildings will be demolished in conjunction

with this project.

Upon completion of the requested housing projects approximately 62

percent of the bachelor personnel at Fort Lee will be provided adequate

quarters.

The project for a central food preparation facility (CFPF) is re-

quired to provide a central kitchen, ingredient centers, food storage and

distribution facilities plus the modernization of 10 existing permanent

messhalls which will be used as dining facilities satellited on the cen-

tral food preparation facility. This proposed system for preparing

food in a central kitchen and serving the food in satellite dining facili-

ties located in the troop housing areas is a major element in the Army's

program to improve food service. This CFPF at Fort Lee will be an

opreational facility plus it will be the training and doctrinal develop-

ment center for CFPF management. If this project is not approved the

goal to improve food service operations in support of the Army can-

not be totally realized, and the use of the less effective facilities and

methods with their recognized shortcomings must continue. No build-

ings will be demolished as a result of this project.

The bachelor officer quarters (BOQ) requested are needed to provide

adequate housing for military and civilian students attending the U.S.

Army Quartermaster School and the U.S. Army Logistics Management

Center, and for some permanently assigned bachelor officers. At pres-

ent, Fort Lee, has only 64 percent of its BOQ requirements in adequate

facilities. The remaining BOQ's available are substandard World

War II mobilization type wooden frame buildings. As a consequence,

many personnel elect to live off post in hard-to-find, expensive private

housing. An onpost adequate BOQ, located near the respective schools,

will reduce transportation and traffic problems for the students, pro-

vide more efficient group study possibilities, and help alleviate the

inequitable bachelor housing situation. If this project is not approved,

these personnel will be forced to continue living in substandard bache-

lor officer quarters or costly off post housing.

The confinement project is required to provide adequate facilities

for the custody, control, and correctional treatment of military pris-

oners in accordance with the Army's new correctional system. It will

replace the stockade at Fort Belvoir, Va. The Fort Belvoir facility

consists of seven temporary, substandard World War II barracks and

one permanent building constructed in 1934. These buildings are

wholly inadequate in terms of ability to allow proper control, super-

vision, and the required segregation of prisoners. The buildings are

fire risks, and their age necessitates constant and costly maintenance.

The present facilities will accommodate 276 prisoners at 55 SF per

man in open-bay billeting. This arrangement is not flexible and pre-

sents a severe discipline problem. The proposed Fort Lee project will

provide facilities for confinement of military prisoners apprehended

in 12 counties of West Virginia, the entire State of Virginia, and from

Fort Eustis, Fort Story, Fort Monroe, Camp Pickett, A. P. Hill, and

Langley Air Force Base. The confinement facilities at Fort Belvoir

will be demolished except for maximum security cells (2,005 SF)

*which are located in a permanent building. These will be retained as a

small installation holding point.

20-507-73- 8

FORT GEORGE G. MEADE,: MD.

Fort George G. Meade is located 18 miles south of Baltimore, M1,

The mission of this installation is to train and support strategic

Army forces and post troop units; to support Headquarters, 1st U.S.

Army, National Security Agency, the U.S. Military Academy Pre-

paratory School, Reserve components, and Reserve Officer Training

Corps summer training. The program provides barracks moderniza-

tion for which we are requesting $5,924,000 and a facility for the

USMA Preparatory School costing $1,521,000.

The barracks project will provide modernization of 1,918 housing

spaces to continue the work of upgrading existing permanent bar-

racks to current standards to provide modern housing for bachelor

enlisted personnel. At the present time, many bachelor enlisted men

are housed in open-bay squad rooms with little privacy or conveniences.

Modernizing the barracks to provide semiprivate rooms, air-condi-

tioning, security of personal possessions, and improved lighting and

other convenience will greatly contribute to the health, welfare, and

morale of the individual soldier. Upon completion of this project, 56

percent of the existing permanent barracks capable of being economi-

cally modernized at Fort Meade will have been upgraded. Fort Meade

will still have a deficit in adequate bachelor enlisted housing of 39

percent of the long-range requirement.

The USMA Preparatory School is to be relocated from Fort Bel-

voir to Fort Meade. The project includes alteration of existing per-

manent buildings at Fort Meade to provide classrooms, administrative

facilities, and athletic team locker rooms. The project also provides

for construction of drill and athletic fields.

FORT MONROE, VA

Fort Monroe is located near Hampton, Va. The primary mission

of this installation is to serve as a Headquarters, U.S. Continental

Army Command Training and Doctrine Command (Tradoc). In

addition, this installation provides administrative and logistical sup-

port for U.S. Forces Atlantic; U.S. Conarc Support Element; USA

Garrison; USA Medical Department Activity; USA Security Agency

Detachment; USA Separation Transfer Point; 50th Army Bank;

559th Military Police Company; USA Audiovisual Support Center,

and other Army activities located at Fort Monroe. U.S. Conare has

been the administrative and operational headquarters for the Conus

Armies and becomes Headquarters, Tradoc, under the 1973 Army

reorganization. The program provides barracks modernization for

which we are requesting $867,000.

As at many Army installations, this project is required to continue

the work of upgrading existing permanent barracks to current stand-

ards to provide modern housing for bachelor enlisted personnel. At

the present time, many bachelor enlisted men are housed in open-bay

squad rooms with no privacy and with few conveniences. Replacing

existing squad rooms with two- to four-man rooms and providing new

lighting and convenience outlets will convert the barracks into more

adequate troop housing and contribute to the health, welfare, and

morale of the individual soldier. This project will complete Fort Mon-

roe's requirements for modern housing for bachelor enlisted personnel.

Senator SYMINGToN. Isn't consideration being given to closing this

base ? If so, shouldn't this project be deferred ?

General COOPER. Fort Monroe, along with several Army installa-

tions, is being reviewed in our stationing study now underway. We

would not want to predetermine the results of this study at this time,

but hopefully we will have some firm decisions prior to the commit-

tee's final actions on the construction bill.

CAMP PICKETT, VA.

Camp Pickett is located near Petersburg, Va. The mission of this

installation is to serve as a maneuver and training area for Reserve

components, Active Army units and other military services, and to

provide logistical and administrative support for these activities. The

mission is also to provide repair and utility services to off post facili-

ties, including U.S. Army Reserve Centers and Recruiting Stations

located in assigned areas within Virginia and West Virginia. The pro-

gram consists of an enlisted men's barracks with dining facilities for

which we are requesting $476,000.

This project consists of an enlisted men's barracks and dining facili-

ties for the permanent station complement. The dining area will serve

up to 200 permanent party plus temporary duty officers and enlisted

men attached for duty. Housing is currently provided in temporary

World War II-type buildings constructed in the early 1940's. In the

past, dining requirements have been met by utilizing an existing 100-

man temporary-type facility during the winter months and opening

additional mess buildings during the summer training period. Even

with additional mess buildings, these facilities are overcrowded and

not adequate to accommodate personnel authorized subsistence sup-

port. If this project is not 'approved, permanent party personnel must

continue to utilize inadequate dining facilities and to occupy substand-

ard barracks. The existing buildings will be utilized to house Reserve

and National Guard units assigned for short periods for annual train-

ing. Upon completion of the requested project, enlisted personnel per-

manently assigned to Camp Pickett will be adequately housed.

FORT BENNING, GA.

Fort Benning is located at Columbus, Ga. Its mission is to command,

train, -and provide logistical support for a division, support the in-

fantry school and infantry board, qualify officers and enlisted men

in airborne and ranger techniques and to support summer reserve

component training. The program consists of a barracks moderniza-

tion project, a R'anger training complex (located at Eglin Air Force

Base), a central food preparation facility, and modifications to the

electrical distribution system. The total request is for $15,354,000.

The barracks modernization project will continue the upgrading of

existing permanent barracks to current standards for bachelor enlisted

personnel. Lack of privacy has long been a source, of irritation and

dissatisfaction among enlisted personnel and at present many bachelor

enlisted men are housed in open .bay squad rooms with little privacy

and few conveniences. Replacement of existing squad areas with two-

to four-man semiprivate rooms having modern conveniences will

significantly improve livability of the barracks. Upon completion of

this project 60 percent of the existing barracks capable of being eco-

nomically modernized at Fort Benning will meet minimum housing'

standards.

The project for a Ranger training complex will provide permanent

enlisted barracks and bachelor officer quarters for personnel engaged

in conducting or undergoing the Ranger course of the infantry school

at Eglin Air Force Base. Existing facilities were constructed during

World War II as temporary, woodframe buildings and lack adequate

heating, lighting, and cooling equipment.

Modification of the electrical distribution system is required to pro-

vide two new substations and modernize the system. The additional

electrical capacity will furnish adequate power to the growing Fort

Benning area which has recorded a 30 percent electrical system load

increase in 5 years. This project will complete the third and last incre-

ment of a three-part plan for modernizing the 30-year-old electrical

distribution system. It will also provide a two-way power supply at

44 kilovolt to the two new substations which in turn will improve reli-

ability for continuous service to all areas of the main post proper and

to Lawson Army Airfield. This project will also, install mercury vapor

type street lighting in some heavily built-up areas of the post now with-

out street lighting. Deferral of this project will result in continued use

of circuits without the reliability of alternate service for emergencies,

in insufficient power for planned new construction, and large areas

will remain without adequate street lighting.

The next project is for a central food preparation facility (CFPF).

Similar to the CFPF requested at Fort Lee, this facility will consist

of a central kitchen, ingredient centers, food storage and distribution

facilities, a pastry kitchen, warewashing facilities, and the moderniza-

tion of 25 existing permanent type messhalls for use as satellite dining

facilities. Troops have long voiced dissatisfaction, either real or

imagined, with the quality of food service. The CFPF system, being

introduced with this project at Fort Benning and the companion proj-

ect at Fort Lee, will vastly improve the Army's capability to provide

appealing, wholesome meals.

Senator SYMTNGTON. $5.3 million seems quite high for a central food

preparation facility. Will you describe to us just what such a facility

consists of? I don't recall having seen such a project heretofore.

General COOPER. The central food preparation facility (CFPF) is

the heart of the Army's new concept designed to improve the overall

quality of food service provided to our soldiers. The CFPF requested

for Fort Benning is one of two proposed in our fiscal year 1974 budget

request. The second facility is planned for Fort Lee. These are the first-

facilities of this type we have requested and they are the beginning of

a program tentatively planned to develop 24 such facilities. Basically

the CFPF is where wholesome meals will be prepared on a large

vohune basis using the latest in modern food processing equipment.

The CFPF will support several satellite dining facilities which will

have some supplemental modern equipment and offer the food for

dining in attractive, familiar surroundings. Examples of the equip-

ment utilized in the CFPF are mechanized vegetable cleaners, con-

tinuous belt deep-fat fryers, quick chill and flash-freeze vaults, con-

tinuous cookers for pasta and rice, automatic warewashing and sort-

ing equipment, high-speed ovens, laboratory, and insulated equipment

for transporting food to the satellite facilities.

FORT BRAGG, N.C.

Fort Bragg is located 10 miles northwest of Fayetteville, N.C. The

mission of this installation is to command, train, and support an

airborne division and other airborne units, to test airborne equipment

and techniques, to support a ROTC regional headquarters and an

Army readiness region group, and to support the U.S. Army John F.

Kennedy Center for military assistance. The program being presented

provides for additional tactical equipment shops and facilities, ad-

ministrative facilities, enlisted women's barracks with mess facilities,

an enlisted men's barracks complex, a service club for enlisted person-

nel and for modernization of existing enlisted men's barracks. For this

program we are requesting $33,471,000.

Tactical equipment shops are required to provide additional orga-

nizational level maintenance facilities for the 3,072 wheeled vehicles

and 862 portable generators, compressors, and pumps assigned to the

XVIII Airborne Corps Artillery, 313th Army Security Agency Bat-

talion, 600th and 612th Quartermaster Companies, and the 35th Signal

Group. These organizations occupy a permanent barracks complex

completed in February 1971. Their vehicle repair is accomplished in

seven temporary shops located at distances varying from 1.9 to 4.7

miles from the new barracks. These existing shops will be supple-

mented by the two 500-vehicle shops proposed in this project to pro-

vide a design support capacity 1,875 vehicles. This increase in capacity

will provide but 59 percent of the total Fort Bragg requirement and

continued use of the temporary shops will be required to carry out

the maintenance support mission. Wide separation of troops from their

vehicles and shops will continue to contribute to administrative and

transportation problems until the total deficit is overcome.

The project for administrative facilities is required to provide ade-

quate permanent type space for Headquarters, ROTC Region I and

for an Army readiness group. These organizations are new missions

assigned to Fort Bragg in the 1973 Army reorganization.

The enlisted women's barracks with mess facilities are required to

provide adequate quarters for the enlisted women at Fort Bragg. The

current strength for enlisted women stationed at Fort Bragg is being

increased to 400. Existing barracks are not of a size, appropriately lo-

cated, or suitable for alteration to provide the necessary enlisted wom-

en's billets, administration and mess in one location. The Women's

Army Corps company is presently housed in temporary World War

II mobilization barracks and must continue to occupy such housing

until adequate quarters can be provided. Upon completion of this proj-

ec:t, 23 temporary buildings with an aggregate area of 74,329 square

feet will be demolished.

Senator SYMINGTON. Here you are requesting a barracks with a mess

for enlisted women. I notice that you carry as a separate item admin-

istration storage space. Why is this not considered a part of the unit

cost of the barracks as is done by the other two services ?

General COOPER. During the late 1950's, Congress agreed to accept

that the statutory limit-unit cost-for barracks would apply only to

troop housing, as differentiated from messing, supply, and administra-

tion. Troop housing spaces relate to those only in direct support of

'the living space. These items do include some personal storage and

minor administration space. However, the administration and storage

building programed as a separate item supports the entire enlisted

women's company composed of its officer and troop unit personnel

housed within this project and those offsite, family housing, officer

housing, and offsite personnel. Therefore, this building is not consid-

ered or programed as part of the statutory limitation-unit cost-of

the barracks. This is also the case with the other services. Troop unit

administration and storage buildings in all services are programed as

separate items.

The modernization of enlisted men's barracks will continue the

Army plan to bring existing permanent barracks to current housing

standards for bachelor enlisted personnel. Lack of privacy has long

been a source of irritation and dissatisfaction among bachelor en-

listed personnel and many are presently housed in open bay squad

rooms without privacy and with few conveniences. Replacement of

existing squad areas with two- to four-man rooms providing new light-

ing and convenience outlets, air conditioning, carpeting, and security

for possessions will upgrade the barracks to a more acceptable level

of troop housing. Upon completion of this project 48 percent of the

existing permanent 'barracks capable of being economically modern-

ized at Fort Bragg will meet the current housing standards.

The enlisted men's barracks complex is required to provide ade-

quate housing and supporting facilities for bachelor enlisted men of

the 1st Corps Support Command. These men are now housed in World

War II mobilization-type barracks constructed in 1941. Living condi-

tions afforded by these facilities are far below current standards with a

detrimental effect on morale and efficiency. Deferment of this request

will necessitate the continued use of substandard facilities.

Upon completion of the housing projects discussed above the re-

maining deficit in bachelor enlisted housing at Fort Bragg will be

10 percent of the total installation requirement.

The final project is to provide service club facilities for 5,000 men

in the permanent barracks area. The only service club now in this area

is a 7,750 square foot converted bowling alley which can handle ap-

proximately 1,200 men or about 8 percent of the 15,000 troops living

nearby. The nearest other clubs are located 1.6 and 2.6 miles away, are

located in old World War II temporary-type structures, and are fully

utilized by troops living in their immediate area. Counting the tem-

porary assets, Fort Bragg has only 49 percent of its required service

club facilities. Consequently, many soldiers are denied opportunity for

participation in the social and entertainment activities normally avail-

able in a home or civilian community.

FORT CAMPBELL, KY.

Fort Campbell is located 8 miles northwest of Clarksville, Tenn.

The mission of this installation is to provide for the support and train-

ine of an airmobile division and other nondivisional combat units.

This request provides for the third phase of an airfield complex at

Campbell Army Airfield. It also includes barracks modernization, an

enlisted men's barracks complex, and a commissary. New funding au-

thorization for an estimated cost of $51,881.000 is requested.

The airfield project is the final phase of a three-phase program re-

quired to provide adequate aircraft operations and maintenance facil-

ities for the 439 aircraft authorized at Fort Campbell in support of

the -aviation elements of an airmobile division and other supporting

units. Present facilities include those authorized under phase I-MCA

fiscal year 1972-for support of 118 aircraft, and those authorized

under phase II-MCA fiscal year 1973-for support of an additional

178 helicopters. This project provides parking and maintenance facili-

ties for 143 attack utility helicopters assigned to two divisional assault

helicopter battalions and the support company of the aviation group,

a control tower, storage facilities for JP-4 fuel and a fire and rescue

station needed for the expanded mission and flight operations. Until

this project is 'approved and constructed, available facilities will not

adequately support the total complement of 439 helicopters authorized.

Senator SYMINGTON. Here you are asking $8.4 million for phase 3 of

your tactical airfield complex. Are the first two phases previously au-

thorized completed ? It seems to me that you are attempting to place

an unusual amount of construction under contract in this area at one

time. Do you think that you can get this project under contract dur-

ing this fiscal year ?

General COOPER. The fiscal year 1972 MCA program provided

$9,996,000 for construction of airfield facilities-phase 1-at Fort

Campbell. The phase 1 items, with one minor exception, were placed

under contract in March 1972, and are now 85 percent complete. Com-

pletion of the work is scheduled for November 1973.

The fiscal year 1973 MCA program provided $6,948,000 for construc-

tion of additional airfield facilities-phase 2-at Fort Campbell. A

construction contract for this work was awarded in June 1973. Cur-

rently, the contractor is mobilizing equipment and supplies for an

August 1973, start. Completion of this project is scheduled for January

1975.

Concerning the possibility of awarding the fiscal year 1974 MCA

project-phase 3/$8,420,000-during the current fiscal year, it is antic-

iated that this project will be ready for bidding by January 1974.

It is realized that the large construction program at Fort Campbell

will place heavy demands on all available construction crafts within

commuting distance of the base; however, it is believed that the con-

tractor effort in this area is sufficient to support the program and that

the bidding competition will be adequate.

The barracks modernization project will continue the upgrading of

existing permanent barracks similar to modernization projects pro-

posed for several other posts. Upon completion of this project 71 per-

cent of the existing permanent barracks capable of being economically

modernized at Fort Campbell will meet current housing standards. All

existing facilities will continue in use and no demolition will result

from this project.

Fort Campbell has a long range requirement to support a combat

division and supporting units, with a net barracks requirement of

11,764 spaces. Existing permanent barracks, once modernized plus

approved projects will satisfy approximately 69 percent of this re-

quirement. The balance of the troops must occupy World War II

mobilization barracks which require excessive maintenance and no

longer meet even minimum requirements for standard troop housing.

This request for a new 3,300-man barracks complex will greatly reduce

the permanent barracks deficit for Fort Campbell, one of the Army's

key division installations. Upon completion of this construction, 155

temporary buildings with a total area of 822,450 square feet will be

demolished.

The last item at Fort Campbell is a request for permanent commis-

sary facilities. The existing commissary presently serves over 13,500

military families in the area and operations are carried out under very

congested conditions. Dollar volume of sales for the first half of fiscal

year 1973 averaged over $975,000 per month. Sales have increased each

year since 1966 with fiscal year 1972 showing a 15.3 percent jump over

fiscal year 1971. Projections for fiscal year 1974 based on the above

factors indicate that sales at the main commissary store will increase

to $1,350,000 per month with service to 17,000 families, including re-

tired service personnel. Backup. storage space is limited which contrib-

utes to double-handling of merchandise and a requirement for addi-

tional operating manpower and vehicles. It is not feasible to expand

the temporary building now in use as a commissary store due to its

location, the age of the building, and its poor physical condition. The

main store currently maintains a 54 hour-per-week operating schedule

while three annexes are open a total of 98 hours per week. Despite this

schedule many authorized military customers are not able to patronize

the commissary outlets because of excessive shopping times required,

thus sacrificing a privilege which is considered in the establishment

of military pay levels. Recent annual cost comparison surveys indi-

cate that personnel shopping at commercial food stores must pay in

excess of 30 percent above commissary price levels.

FORT GORDON, GA.

Fort Gordon is located 12 miles southwest of Augusta, Ga. The in-

stallation mission is to support the U.S. Army Signal School, a U.S.

Army general hospital and assigned strategic Army force units. The

program will provide an enlisted men's barracks complex, barracks

modernization for enlisted women, a commissary, and an automotive

self-help garage. The request is for $23,780,000.

The first project will provide permanent barrack spaces and ancil-

lary support facilities for enlisted personnel assigned to advanced

individual training. Personnel now live in temporary mobilization

buildings built in 1941 and semipermanent facilities constructed in

1967. These temporary structures require continual maintenance, are

expensive to heat and -are not air conditioned. Such substandard quar-

ters are not conducive to retention of personnel. The existing deficit

at Fort Gordon for permanent bachelor enlisted housing upon com-

pletion of this project will be 28.5 percent of the total installation

requirement.

The barracks modernization project will continue the work of up-

grading existing permanent barracks 'to current standards for female

enlisted personnel. The WAC population at Fort Gordon is being in-

creased due to the expansion of the Women's Corps and the opening

up of many additional job categories to women. Upon completion of

this project 10 percent of the existing permanent barracks capable of

being economically modernized at Fort Gordon will meet minimum

housing standards. All existing facilities will continue in use and no

demolition will result from this project.

The third project is to provide permanent operating facilities for

the commissary sales store which has a daily average customer work-

load during peak periods of over 2,700 people. Average monthly sales

of $890,470 for fiscal year 1972 showed a continuing increase in vol-

ume, advancing 14 percent over the monthly volume in 1971. Projected

monthly sales in fiscal year 1974 will average $1,150,000. The present

commissary store is a converted mobilization type warehouse build-

ing constructed in 1941. Floor space for sales area is limited and areas

for installation of adequate display shelving are not available. Vol-

ume quantities of replenishment stock must be transported from re-

mote locations and rehandled. The physical structure of the building

has so deteriorated as to preclude the maintenance of food sanitary

standards. There were no existing facilities which can satisfy this re-

quirement. Annual projected savings on completion of the project are

estimated at $66,000.

The final project is to provide a permanent automotive self-help

garage. The existing temporary buildings now in use were constructed

in 1942 and are not designed to meet the requirements of an automo-

tive garage. Space and equipment are inadequate and insufficient

security exists for vehicles left overnight. Due to the high cost of auto-

mobile repairs and maintenance, the auto self-help garage is a very

popular, well-used facility and is a valuable asset. This project will

provide a modern, well-equipped facility to support the mission of

the Army crafts program.

Senator SYMINGTON. $626,000 seems to be an excessive amount for

what might be termed a hobby shop. It is noted that this is to be a per-

manent structure. Cannot prefabricated buildings be used for this

purpose in order to have a little money?

General COOPER. The unit is most in line with the approved criteria

for this type of structure. Contributing to this unit cost are the many

large doors opening to the working stalls and other installed equip-

ment; for example, a compressed air system, exhaust expulsion ap-

paratus, and auto hoists.

The automotive self-help garage is designed for conventional con-

struction; that is, masonry and steel frame, and the design is 100 per-

cent complete. Pre-engineered structures were considered as an alter-

native design for the facility. A life cycle cost analysis of the alterna-

tives indicated the conventional masonry construction would realize

approximately a 15-percent savings over a 15-year life span.

Other considerations influencing the choice of masonry construction

were:

(a) The automotive self-help garage would be compatible with

nearby existing or planned structures of masonry construction.

(b) The majority of structures used for similar purposes in the

communities near Fort Gordon are of masonry construction. This

indicates a viable market source for required materials plus the

local construction contractors are experienced in this type of con-

struction thereby creating a competitive atmosphere for procur-

ing this type of structure.

(c) A design using the concept of entering all working bays di-

rectly from the exterior of the building provides the maximum

number of bays within gross space allowances. A key feature of

this design is that the side walls consist primarily of large doors

and the more rigid masonry construction is particularly well

suited for this design. An alternative concept would be to have a

common center aisle for access to the working bays. This design

is often used in large commercial garages where an auto being

repaired would be moved to several different bays, each equipped

only for specialized work. In the auto self-help garage the work

is usually less sophisticated and all accomplished in the same bay

so the center aisle would consume space better used as working

area to accommodate more customers.

FORT JACKSON, S.C.

Fort Jackson is located at Columbia, S.C. The mission of the in-

stallation is to command, train, and support an Army training center.

It also supports a U.S. Army reception station and reserve components

summer training. This project is for construction of an enlisted

women's barracks with mess facilities. We are requesting $2,902,000.

This project is to provide a permanent barracks for enlisted women

stationed at Fort Jackson. Permanent enlisted women housing facili-

ties are not available at present. To provide a temporary solution, one

existing permanent building is being modified to house approximately

244 WAC. This has required displacement of male trainees to World

War II-type temporary barracks until the permanent WAC barracks

are constructed. Also, until this is completed other enlisted women

must continue to occupy temporary buildings which were constructed

in 1941 and have had no major renovations or modifications. Accom-

plishment of this essential housing project will satisfy the housing

requirement for enlisted women assigned to Fort Jackson, however

an overall Post deficit of more than 10,000 spaces will still. exist.

Senator SYMINoTOw. Here again you propose an enlisted women's

barracks with a mess, at a cost of almost $3 million. It is noted that

the barracks and administrative and storage space combined amounts

to over $6,100 per man. Isn't this excessive when only 2 years ago

there was a limitation of $3,200 per man ?

General COOPER. This is explained by the application of the statu-

tory limitation. The troop housing and only those spaces in direct

support of the living space are applicable to statutory limitation. This

was agreed upon by Congress in the late 1950's. Therefore, this limi-

tation only applies to the barracks. In turn, the barracks have been

programed as a separate item differentiated from the administration

and supply and the mess facilities. In fiscal year 1974 the proposed

statutory limitation is $28.50 per square foot. At 165 gross square

feet per man this equates to $4,700 per man. As compared with fiscal

year 1972, the statutory limitation was $3,200, at 150 square feet per

E-2 to E-4. The increase in statutory limitation is reflected in the

programing of adequate space for upper grade enlisted men, the

growth of construction costs, and the increased gross area per man to

provide the privacy required by our enlisted men. It should be noted

that additional barracks area listed on the DD form 1391 is for me-

chanical utility requirements.

FORT M'CLELLAN, ALA.

Fort McClellan is located 7 miles northeast of Anniston, Ala. The

mission of the installation is to support the Women's Army Corps

Center and School. The WAC Center and WAC School conduct basic

training and officer candidate courses. The installation also supports

the 3d Army NCO Academy, the U.S. Army Police School, and Noble

Army Hospital.

Senator SYMINGTON. Here at Fort McClelland you are proposing a

$19.5 million construction program. Isn't some consideration being

given to closing this base ? If so, shouldn't this proposed program be

deferred?

General CooPER. Fort McClellan is one of the installations being

reviewed in the Army's stationing study now in progress. However no

decisions have been made at this time. We hope to have made our

determinations prior to the committee's final action on the construc-

tion bill.

The program is for alterations to training facilities, additions to

academic buildings, a gymnasium, alterations and additions to WAC

Headquarters, barracks modernization, additional barracks for en-

listed women, housing and training facilities for the Women's Army

Corps Band, a WAC reception and processing building, WAC bache-

lor officers quarters and an expansion of utilities capabilities. The

request is for $19,505,000.

The first project is required to provide adequate classroom facilities

for the Military Police School moving to Fort McClellan under the

1973 Army realinement. Training facilities previously structured to

meet the specialized needs of the Army Chemical School will be

altered to more standard classrooms.

The second project is to provide academic facilities for three WAC

basic training battalions. Present buildings were designed and built

in 1954 to accommodate a training strength of approximately 500

women but planned WAC expansion will increase the training

strength to 2,430. Thirty-two additional classrooms and two perform-

ance training rooms are required to support this additional workload.

The next project will provide a gymnasium for personnel assigned

or attached to the WAC Center/School. The existing facility was

designed in 1954 to support a total population of 1,060 WAC person-

nel. Today the average daily population is 2,680 and the indoor

physical training program has had to be curtailed contrary to Army

policy. Under the WAC expansion program, the average daily basic

trainee population will increase significantly and the present gym-

nasium will no longer support basic training or permanent party

requirements. If this building is not constructed, an adequate training

program cannot be supported. The existing facility will revert to a

badly needed classroom.

Senator SYMINGTON. Here at Fort McClellan you are requesting a

gymnasium to serve approximately 3,300 personnel, at a cost of $1,-

261,000-whereas the one we previously discussed at Carlisle Barracks

costs twice as much and serves a far less number of people. What is

your explanation for this ?

General CooPER. The estimated unit costs for the Carlisle Barracks

and Fort McClellan gynasiums are $44.6 per square foot and $35.6

per square foot, respectively. The geographical construction cost index

is 19 percent higher in the Carlisle area than at Fort McClellan ac-

counting for approximately 75 percent of the apparent cost difference

The remainder is attributed to differences in the design as dictated by

the planned utilization.

The Fort McClellan gymnasium will be designed primarily for

female personnel as a training facility used for WAC basic training.

As a result, it will be somewhat less sophisticated in features and

accommodations than the gymnasium planned for Carlisle Barracks.

The Fort McClellan facility will provide a basketball floor, a handball

and a squash court, a sauna and a swimming pool. This will provide

an indoor exercise area for the WAC training program plus individual

and some unit sports competition. There will be only limited accommo-

dations; for example, restrooms, for spectators or male personnel.

As mentioned earlier, the gymnasium planned for Carlisle Bar-

racks will offer a much more comprehensive program to both male and

female personnel and it contains several facilities not incorporated

in the Fort McClellan gymnasium.

The fourth project is needed to provide adequate administrative

space to support the WAC expansion program. The present WAC

Headquarters was designed to support an 8-company operation but

the planned expansion will require administrative support and audi-

torium space for 16 companies. The present headquarters building

does not provide either the space or the configuration necessary to sup-

port operations at this level of activity. The existing auditorium does

not have sufficient seating capability for present requirements and with

increased trainee loads the auditorium will be even more inadequate.

If this project is not approved, prevailing operating constrictions must

continue.

The barracks modernization project is required to continue the

upgrading of existing permanent barracks to current standards for

enlisted female personnel. Upon completion of this project, 80 percent

of the existing barracks capable of being economically modernized at

Fort McClellan will meet current housing standards.

The barracks construction project is required to accommodate an

increased number of basic trainees as a result of the WAC expansion.

The 10 WAC trainee barracks now available provide a total of 2,150

spaces. Of these, 150 are cadre spaces leaving 2,000 spaces to house

trainees. The accelerated WAC expansion program will require the

housing of 16 companies with 3,120 billet spaces (2,940 trainees plus

180 cadre), or a deficit of 970 spaces. This project will provide 645

of those spaces. If this project is not approved, new WAC trainees

will be required to live in inadequate, semipermanent barracks designed

strictly for male personnel and remote to the WAC training area.

The next project is required to provide permanent housing and

training facilities for the only all-women's band in the Armed Forces.

This band presently works and lives in a building designed for enlisted

housing. Band members spend their entire military career at Fort

McClellan and are required to live and train in quarters designed to.

house lower ranking enlisted personnel regardless of their promotions

to higher enlisted status. The present building does not provide sep-

arated training rooms. The only areas available for individual or small

group training are stairwells, latrines, kitchens, and open cubicles in

the living areas which are not acoustically treated. Individual and

group training are hampered by the lack of acoustically engineered

training areas since intonation, articulation, rhythm, tone and ac-

curacy cannot be detected properly as a result of the intermix of

resonance and sound when band members are rehearsing or under-

going proficiency tests.

If this project is not approved, bachelor officers at this station must

continue to live in inadequate facilities.

The final project is required to provide for utilities expansion neces-

sitated by planned new construction to support the Women's Army

Corps expansion program. This project provides for conversion of 4-

kVA lines to 12 kVA to provide adequate electric power to support

the proposed construction. Two existing boilerplants, one at 1,200 and

one at 600 boiler horsepower (BHP), will be expanded to 1,500 and

1,000 BHP respectively, to provide additional heating capacity and

capacity for steam absorption type chillers. Chilled water distribution

piping is required to transport chilled water from plants to buildings

to support air-condition requirements. Existing systems cannot sup-

port the construction planned under the expansion program.

The next project will provide critically needed recruit housing and

facilities for processing incoming officer and enlisted personnel for

the Women's Army Corps. During the 5-year WAC expansion plan,

programed input of enlistees will increase from a current annual

level of 6,000 to a total of 12,000. The space presently being used for

administrative processing includes the second floor of a building

originally designed to provide classrooms and two barracks buildings

intended for housing. The location and arrangement of these facili-

ties do not meet minimum requirements for the conduct of tests and

initial classification processing. The programed increase will require

the release of all classrooms and barracks for use as originally designed

and the reception area will be lost. If the requested reception facili-

ties are not constructed, the present facilities will, of necessity, con-

tinue to be used; thus, hampering the proper use of existing assets

and causing severe inefficiencies in processing incoming WAC

personnel.

The next project will provide adequate bachelor officer quarters at

this station for both commissioned officer students and permanent

party. There are 160 permanent BOQ spaces now available compared

to the present bachelor officer population requirement for 410 spaces.

Excluding the 160 spaces onpost and 25 adequate spaces off post, the

result is a net deficit of 225 spaces required for onpost bachelor

officer housing. Present housing needs are met by assigning two officers

to each one-man room which requires four officers to use a common

bathroom facility. This project will provide 100 bachelor officer quar-

ters against the total requirements.

FORT M'PHERSON, GA.

Fort McPherson is located near Atlanta, Ga. The mission of this

installation is to provide support for activities of Headquarters, U.S.

Army Forces Command. The requested program consists of a bar-

racks modernization project for an estimated cost of $1,804,000.

This project is to continue the upgrading of existing permanent

barracks to current housing standards for bachelor enlisted persona

nel. Upon completion of this project 100 percent of the existing per-

manent barracks capable of being economically modernized at Fort

McPherson will meet current housing standards. All existing facili-

ties will continue in use and no demolition will result from this project.

Senator SYMINGTON. Aren't you considering closing Fort McPher-

son, and shouldn't this project be deferred ?

General CooKE. Fort McPherson is another of the installations un-

der review in the Army's stationing study now being conducted. We

are looking very carefully at single mission, high cost posts. However,

to defer the project at this time would be to prejudge the' study re-

sults. Hopefully, we will have made some firm decisions prior to the

final committee action on the construction bill.

FORT RUCKER, ALA.

Fort Rucker is located at Daleville, Ala. The installation mission is

support -of the Army Aviation Center which trains individual pilots

for fixed and rotary wing Army aircraft. The program consists of con-

struction of an enlisted women's barracks, modernization of enlisted

men's barracks, and the upgrade of airfield facilities. A total of $3,987,-

000 is requested for these projects.

The first project will provide WAC billets to house station perma-

nent party WAC's and some WAC students. The WAC's are presently

housed in barracks originally designed for male personnel and these,

buildings do not have required features, such as kitchens and recep-

tion rooms. On completion of the new WAC billets, the billets now oc-

cupied by WAC's will be returned to the use by male soldiers.

The second project is required to continue the upgrading of existing

permanent barracks to current standards for bachelor enlisted per-

sonnel. The existing barracks are typical of the old open-bay concept,

offering the soldier little privacy or modern conveniences. Upon com-

pletion of the project 68 percent of the existing barracks capable of

being modernized at Fort Rucker will meet current housing standards.

All existing facilities will continue in use and no demolition will re-

sult from this project.

The third project will provide adequate airfield training facilities

to handle the increased flight training mission assigned to Fort Rucker

under the 1973 Army realinement. All Army helicopter training will

be consolidated at Fort Rucker from Fort Wolters, Tex., and Hunter

AAF, Ga.

FORT STEWART, GA.

Fort Stewart is located at Hinesville, Ga. Its mission is to support

annual field training for National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve units,

and to provide armor and artillery ranges for training Active Army

and Reserve components. The requested program is for a gas generat-

ing plant at an estimated cost of $264,000.

This project is to provide a propane-air gas generating plant to

supplement the restricted natural gas supply procured under contract

with the Atlanta Gas Light Co., a regulated sole-source supplier. Be-

cause of the developing critical nationwide shortage of natural gas

available to suppliers, all customers are restricted to current firm con-

tract demands during periods of curtailment. The contract firm gas

demand is 300,000 cubic feet per day (CFD). Current conversions of

coal-fired facilities to natural gas fuel to comply with air pollution

control regulations has increased the total gas requirement to 760,000

cubic feet per day. Negotiations with the gas supplier has resulted in

an agreement to make an additional 488,000 cubic feet per day avail-

able until October 1974, at which time the contract demand will revert

to the current contract firm gas demand of 300,000 cubic feet per day.

The proposed propane-air gas generating plant is the most economical

means of providing energy for adequate heating during periods of nat-

ural gas curtailment.If this project is not approved, it will be neces-

sary to close buildings and operations on a selective basis during periods

of natural gas curtailment subsequent to October 1974.

FORT BLISS, TEX.

Fort Bliss is located in El Paso, Tex. The installation mission is to

provide facilities and support for the U.S. Army Air Defense Center,

U.S. Army Air Defense School, and U.S. Army Air Defense Board.

Fort Bliss supports and supervises units in their annual missile firing

training and provides logistical support for William Beaumont Gen-

eral Hospital. It also operates an Army air defense training center.

The program provides for modernization of both enlisted women's

and enlisted men's barracks for a total requested authorization of

$6,087,000.

The first project will provide adequate quarters for the enlisted

women stationed at Fort Bliss. With the expansion of the Women's

Army Corps (WAC) and the opening of many additional job spe-

cialties to women in the Army, the WAC population assigned to Fort

Bliss and Beaumont Army Hospital is being increased nearly twofold.

There are no quarters at Fort Bliss which meet current barracks stand-

ards, hence this request for authority to modernize existing buildings.

The second project is also required to continue the upgrading of

existing permanent barracks to current housing standards for bachelor

enlisted personnel. Fort Bliss has a large number of barracks struc-

tures which can be economically and effectively modernized to provide

the features desired in barracks for today's Army.

Upon completion of these two projects, 20 percent of the existing

permanent barracks capable of being economically modernized at Fort

Bliss will meet modern housing standards, providing approximately

25 percent of the Fort Bliss long-range bachelor enlisted housing

requirement.

FORT BENJAMIN HARRISON, IND.

Fort Benjamin Harrison is located 14 miles northeast of Indianapo-

lis, Ind. The installation supports the Army Finance Center and

School, the Adjutant General School, and the Defense Information

School. The program is for an enlisted men's barracks without mess

facilities for medical personnel, an enlisted women's barracks without

mess facilities, and a project for barracks modernization for a total

program request of $3,893,000.

The first project will provide adequate housing for enlisted men as-

signed to the hospital medical detachment. The new quarters will be

adjacent to the hospital so that medical personnel will be immediately

available and the facilities may be used for hospital wards in event of

an epidemic or disaster. The medical detachment personnel now live

in three temporary-type woodframe structures constructed in 1941

as an integral part of the old World War II mobilization-type hospital

that is now obsolete and scheduled for demolition.

The second project is to provide adequate quarters for the enlisted

women stationed at Fort Benjamin Harrison. This need is currently

being met by use of permanent barracks diverted from use by enlisted

men. This housing is not appropriately located, with the WAC's

being housed in separated facilities interspered with adjoining male

billets creating administrative and command problems. Upon comple-

tion of the requested WAC barracks, their present quarters will be

modernized and revert to billets for male personnel.

The final project will continue the upgrading of existing perma-

nent barracks to current housing standards for bachelor enlisted per-

sonnel.

Upon completion of these three projects, approximately 76 percent

of Fort Benjamin Harrison's long-range bachelor enlisted housing

requirement will be satisfied.

FORT HIOOD, TEX.

Fort Hood is located at Killeen, Tex. The installation mission is the

command, training, and logistical support of one armored and one

TRICAP division, a corps headquarters, numerous miscellaneous sup-

port units, and support of Reserve forces summer training.

The program includes improvements for Gray Army Airfield by in-

stalling approach controls, an instrument landing system and strength-

ening the taxiways and aprons, and modernization of enlisted barracks

and bachelor officers quarters for a total program of $15,094,000.

The first project is to upgrade Robert Gray Army Airfield so that

missions involving the use of heavy Air Force transport aircraft can

be accomplished. The proposed taxiway and apron upgrading is re-

quired to support the weight of the heavier C-133, C-141, and C-5 air-

craft. The existing fuel dispensing and storage system is inadequate

for these large transports, resulting in lengthy ground times which pre-

clude servicing more than one or two aircraft per day. There are a

number of Strategic Army Force units at Fort Hood with worldwide

deployment missions which require the use of the heavy transport air-

craft. Accomplishment of this project will increase the quick reaction

flexibility for accomplishment of assigned missions.

The next project, also involving Gray Army Airfield, will provide

a radar approach control facility, instrument landing system (ILS),

and airfield lighting. The Federal Aviation Agency has delegated re-

sponsibility for the Killeen, Tex., control zone-which includes Gray

Army Airfield, Hood Army Airfield, and Killeen Municipal Airport-

to Fort Hood. There were 170,000 flight operations at these three air-

fields in 1969, 270,000 in 1970, 300,000 in 1971, 585,000 in 1972, and

an estimated 635,000 in 1973. These rapidly increasing traffic volumes

cannot be safely handled without the radar facilities covered in this

project.

The barracks modernization project will continue the upgrading of

existing permanent barracks to current housing standards for bachelor

enlisted personnel. Fort Hood is one of the Army's key installations,

being the station for two important combat divisions. The division

troops undergo considerable strenuous field training and deserve the

modern living conditions approved for today's Army.

The final project will provide air-conditioning for four 30-man per-

manent bachelor officer quarters constructed in 1956. This improve-

ment will aid in equating accommodations provided by these existing

BOQ's and those provided by the 300-man, air-conditioned, high-rise

BOQ recently completed at this station. The existing roof-mounted

mechanical ventilation system in these buildings has proven unsatis-

factory since outside air is drawn into buildings from sun-heated roofs.

The influx of hot air, dust, and insects funneled through the buildings

creates a very uncomfortable housing situation. On an average of 111

days each year, the temperature exceeds 90 F. and the residual heat

absorbed by these buildings throughout the day makes the living condi-

tions extremely uncomfortable. Occupants are denied reasonable con-

ditions for study, work preparation, and adequate rest, thereby ad-

versely affecting their efficiency during duty period.

FORT SAM HOUSTON, TEX.

Fort Sam Houston is located at San Antonio, Tex. This installation

provides administrative and logistical support, training areas, and

supply and maintenance for Headquarters, 5th U.S. Army, Brooke

Army Medical Center, their subordinate activities and units, and other

Army activities or units generally located within the 5th U.S. Army

area of responsibility.

The program includes enlisted women's barracks modernization, con-

struction of barracks for enlisted personnel, and air-conditioning for

bachelor officer quarters, for a total program of $11,738,000.

I The first project will continue the upgrading of existing permanent

barracks to current housing standards for female enlisted personnel.

The existing buildings are of the old open-bay configuration, are not

ar conditioned, and offer little privacy or conveniences to the occu-

pants. Modernization of the buildings will provide semiprivate rooms

and bathrooms, security for personal possessions, air-conditioning, and

ip.general offer a much better living standard.

Wjhe next project is to provide adequate permanent facilities for

permanent party and student enlisted men and women assigned to

Brooke Army Medical Center and the Medical Field Service School

(MFSS), These men and women now live in World War II temporary

wooden barracks built in 1941, which are all open-bay type, without

air-conditioning or even mechanical ventilation. Brooke Army Medi-

cal Center WAC personnel totaling 282 will be housed in the enlisted

women's barracks, 500 spaces will be assigned to permanent enlisted

male personnel from the Medical Company and the Medical Holding

Company, Brooke General Hospital; Headquarters Company, Brooke

AAthy Medical Center; and the Medical Field Service School Cadre;

and 318 spaces will be assigned to MFSS students.

i;The final project is to improve existing BOQ buildings, primarily

I.tiiistallingiair-conditioning, These permanent buildings have been

20-501-73 ;_9

well maintained, are structurally sound, and are centrally located. The

projected Medical Field Service School Student load, based on present

and fiscal year 1973 programed numbers, will require the continued

use of these buildings as BOQ spaces. None of these buildings have any

type of permanent central air-conditioning or mechanical ventilation.

MFSS students that are assigned these non-air-conditioned BOQ's in

the summer find it extremely difficult to study in the rooms because of

the high temperature and humidity.

FORT POLK, LA.

Fort Polk is located 7 miles south of Leesville, La. The installation

mission is to operate an infantry training center of five training bri-

gades and supporting units, a reception station, and to provide ad-

ministrative and logistical support for all units assigned to the instal-

lation. The program requests a barracks complex for enlisted men and

women, an elisted men's service club, and a commissary for a total

estimate of $29,276,000.

The barracks complex project will provide housing, mess, supply,

administration, and support facilities for permanent party enlisted

personnel. Existing buildings are of World War II mobilization design

and were constructed in 1941. All barracks spaces at Fort Polk are

unsatisfactory by current standards. In conjunction with this barracks

construction, 158 temporary buildings are scheduled to be demolished.

Completion of the requested barracks complex will satisfy the require-

ments for permanent party bachelor enlisted housing within current

programing constraints. There remains an outstanding deficit of

nearly 20,000 spaces for trainee housing.

The second project is to provide adequate recreational facilities for

enlisted personnel stationed at the South Fort Cantonment area. These

troops are predominately basic and advanced trainees who must use

post recreational facilities, since most lack private transportation.

Present facilities, consisting of one service club and two recreation

buildings, are old World War II-type temporary structures con-

structed in 1942 and renovated to provide service club activities.

The final project is to provide adequate commissary facilities for

military personnel and dependents. The present commissary is housed

in temporary buildings constructed in 1941 with 19,881 square feet of

usable space. An additional 29,000 square feet of floor space is required

to provide adequate commissary customer service for the present

patron population. Fort Polk is located in an isolated area with limited

off post support. Monthly sales have increased from $215,000 in fiscal

year 1966 to more than $440,000 in fiscal year 1973. With additional

space and consequent better service, sales are estimated to increase to

$500,000 to $600,000 per month. The existing commissary will revert

to a warehouse upon construction of the new facility.

FORT JILEY, KANS.

Fort Riley is located 4 miles northeast of Junction City, Kans. The

mission of this installation is to provide support and services for the

First Infantry Division and to support ROTC, Reserve component

summer training, and the U.S. Army Correctional Training Facility.'

The program will provide barracks modernization, an enlisted men's

barracks complex, support facilities for a barracks complex, and out-

door athletic facilities at Custer Hill for a total request of $34,918,000.

The first project will continue the upgrading of existing permanent

barracks to current housing standards for bachelor enlisted personnel.

Fort Riley is one of the Army's key combat division posts. The per-

sonnel engage in vigorous combat training and other exercises and

should be housed in modern attractive quarters in' keeping with the

goals of today's Army.

The barracks complex is to provide badly needed permanent bar-

racks and supporting facilities to house elements of-the First In-

fantry Division and nondivisional support troops. Th:se troops now

occupy World War II-type temporary wooden structures which lack

adequate lighting, heating, cooling, or privacy for the individual.

The next project will provide standard direct-support facilities at

Custer Hill for administration, classroom instruction,; and supply/

storage, areas, at brigade and battalion level, for units of the First

Infantry Division. Present support facilities do not accommodate the

needs of all assigned units and support is provided by diversion of

729 barracks spaces, overcrowding in other facilities; and storage of

materiel out of doors. Upon completion of the project 'the diverted

barracks areas will revert to use for troop housing.

Senator SyxINGTro. You are asking $2.6 million for support facil-

ities for enlisted men's barracks complexes. It has been my impression

that,the support facilities are usually constructed when the barracks

are built. What is the problem in this instance ?

General COOPER. When we build barracks complexes now we do try

to' include ancillary support space, gymnasiums, chapels, dispensaries,

and branch exchanges. The facilities, primarily unit administrative

and, torage space, being requested in this project will be in support of

barrpAl areas built during much earlier periods (1880's,1950's, 1960's)

which do not have these associated facilities. The units occilpying these

barracks areas are now making do by 'diverting badly needed barracks

spaces to administrative use.

The fourth project at Fort Riley is to provide a variety of adequate

outdoor athletic facilities for use by men stationed in the Custer Hill

area. Primary users of these facilities will be the lowei grade enlisted

men, The facilities will be a great asset in building and maintaining

morale and esprit de corps as well as providing for safe and healthy

use of the soldiers' off-duty time. The Custer Hill area 'has recently

more than doubled its capability to house enlisted personnel without

a corresponding increase in the number of outdoor athletic facilities.

Existing outdoor playing courts and fields consist of one lighted double

tenins court and one undersized lighted softball field: Until outdoor

athletic facilities are available many soldiers will not be able 'to par-

ticipate.in organized sports.

FORT SHERIDAN, ILL.

Fort Sheridan is located at Highland Park, Ill. The installation

mission is to support U.S. Army Air Defense Command activtiies ; U.S.

Army Reserve centers; U.S. Army support detachment, Selfridge Air

Force Base, and the U.S. Army Veterinary School. This program re-

quests facilities for the U.S. Army Veterinary School at Fort "Sheridan

for $762,000.

This project will provide academic facilities for the U.S. Army

Veterinary School at Fort Sheridan, Ill. This is the only school which

provides instruction for Army Veterinary Corps officers and enlisted

men in food inspection. Graduates are responsible for insuring the

quality of all food for all U.S. Armed Forces worldwide. The school

provides 12 separate programs of instruction with an average student

load of 125. The annual student output for the school is 500. In 1972

the school graduated 618 students. Classes are currently conducted in

three buildings formerly used as horse barns. All of the buildings are

without benefit of interior finishing; two or more classes are, of neces-

sity, conducted in a single large area without partitions or acoustical

barriers. Essential, acceptable levels of instruction' cannot be attained

thus precluding the school's ability to successfully perform its assigned

mission. Without this proposed project the school must continue to

operate in grossly inadequate facilities.

Senator SYMINGTON. I believe this project was denied last year, per-

haps because it was not properly described. Just what type of training

is given at this school, and does it provide training for the three

services, or only for the Army ?

General COOPER. The U.S. Army Veterinary School trains only

Army personnel.

The Navy and Marine Corps have no veterinary service; however,

they both have extensive requirements for veterinary services which

are fulfilled by the veterinary services of the Army and the Air Force.

The Army accomplishes approximately four-fifths of the Navy re-

quirements for veterinary services and the Air Force accomplishes

the remainder.

The mission of the veterinary service is to protect the health of the

troops and to safeguard the financial interest of the Government.

The veterinary service accomplishes this mission through the following

functional areas:

a. Food hygiene and quality assurance;

b. Control of animal diseases transmissible to man;

c. Preventive medicine and public health,

d. Medical care of Government-owned animals;

e. Medical and subsistence research and development.

While the stated mission of the veterinary service has remained

virtually unchanged since it was established in 1916, the functional

emphasis has been increasing at a rapid rate in the area of medical

research and development.

Also, while complete care of all Government-awned animals has

been provided since the service was established, the primary species

of animals owned by the Government have shifted from equines to

laboratory animals and military dogs.

The veterinary service consists of 512 officers, all of whom have

degrees as doctors of veterinary medicine. The 243 enlisted animal

specialists and 1,022 enlisted food inspection specialists also form

an integral part of the veterinary service.

In addition to the functions described above, the veterinary service

also supports the U.S. Department of Agriculture in the event an

animal disease such as equine encephalomyelitis (VEE) should break

out in our domestic animal population. During the past 2 years ex-

tensive support was provided the USDA; in 1972, 40 veterinary officers

assisted Federal and State veterinarians in successfully combating

Newcastle's disease which threatened to decimate the poultry industry

in America.

Both officers and enlisted men of the veterinary service attend

courses at the U.S. Army Medical Department Veterinary School as

a part of their overall military education.

A degree as a doctor of veterinary medicine is a prerequisite for

commissioning in the Veterinary Corps. These officers are already pro-

fessionally qualified as are physicians, engineers or lawyers who enter

the Army. The Army Veterinary School does not teach them to be

veterinarians. It does contribute to their education as Army officers and

provides them working knowledge in the detailed functions of the

Veterinary Corps.

The following are officer courses taught at the Veterinary School:

(a) Army Medical Department officer orientation course (Veteri-

nary Corps). Length: 8 weeks.

Scope: To provide commissioned officers a working knowledge in

preventive medicine, food hygiene and food technology as they relate

to procurements, storage, shipment and issue of food for the Armed

Forces both in the United States and overseas.

(b) Army Medical Department field grade officer refresher course

(Veterinary Corps). Length: 2 weeks.

Scope: Same as orientation course; however, this course provides

refresher and updating information.

(c) Veterinary officer statistics (Veterinary Corps). Length: 3

weeks.

Scope: Emphasizes statistical procedures employed in research and

development activities, particularly those utilizing animals and those

statistical principles involved in health and quality subsistence inspec-

tion and veterinary public health. Data distribution, significance tests

for comparison of population groups, correlative methods, statistical

sampling techniques, comparability procedures, quality control, and

experimental design receive particular emphasis. Classroom presenta-

tions are supplemented by practical exercises.

The following are enlisted courses taught at the Veterinary School:

(a) Food inspection procedures, basic. Length: 8 weeks.

Scope : To provide a working knowledge of the fundamentals of food

inspection, contract administration, field inspection and surveillance

inspection.

(b) Food inspection procedures, advanced. Length: 10 weeks.

Scope: Unit and contract administration; fruit and vegetable in-

spection; surveillance inspection; food inspection of military installa-

tions; combat service support; veterinary aspects of CBR operations;

dairy and poultry inspections; basic food sciences; veterinary anatomy

and physiology; meat technology.

(c) Enlisted refresher courses (five in number). Length: 2 weeks.

Scope: Each of the five refresher courses offered provides refresher

training in one or two of the subjects listed in the scope of the advance

course in subparagraph (a) above.

Additionally, special courses are offered as required and programed

to veterinary units, officers and enlisted men of the Reserve component.

Veterinary service personnel perform their functions on military

installations and also on an area basis, in peacetime and in wartime,

in the. United States and in scattered countries of the world wherever

Armed Forces personnel are assigned. Congress assigned the basic mis-

sions to the Veterinary Corps. Other functions are delegated by the

Surgeon General in order to fulfill the mission of the Army Medical

Department. The missions and functions of the Veterinary service are

properly assigned and cannot be performed by other individuals.

FORT SILkI OKLA.

Fort Sill is located 4 miles north of Lawton, Okla. The installation

mission is to command, train, and support artillery and surface-to-

surface missile units; to activate and train Straf artillery units; to

support the Army Artillery and Missile School, Artillery Advanced

Individual Training Center, and Reserve components summer train-

ing. The program consists of maintenance evaluation facilities and

barracks modernization for a total program cost of $9,447,000.

The first project is to improve and expand the electronic maintenance

and test facility to support the newly assigned mission of testing and

evaluating direct and general support maintenance on items of elec-

tronic equipment. Existing facilities permit only limited test measure-

ments and some equipment has been sent to the field with undetected

deficiencies. The improvements will provide adequate electric power,

temperature, dust, and humidity controls, a radio frequency inter-

ference-free room, and adequate work storage areas. Existing facilities

will be retained for use as an operational maintenance and equipment

storage building.

The barracks modernization project will continue the upgrading of

existing permanent barracks to current housing standards for bachelor

enlisted personnel. The buildings to be modernized were built in

1954, are not air-conditioned, and provide only large open-bay areas

as living space. The proposed modernization will provide quarters for

2,814 enlisted men and will offer security for the soldiers' possessions,

private or semiprivate rooms with adjoining bathroom, air-condition-

ing, and more spacious accommodations.

FORT LEONARD WOOD, MO.

Fort Leonard Wood is located 29 miles southwest of Rolla, Mo.

The installation mission is to command and support an Army training

center, Engineer, and Army reception station. The installation also

trains and supports nondivisional units and supports Reserve com-

ponents summer training. The proposed program includes a military

police barracks with support facilities, an enlisted men's barracks

complex, an enlisted women's barracks addition, barracks moderniza-

tion, and a confinement facility for 250 men for a total request of

$44,482,000.

The first project will provide barracks and essential supporting

facilities for a military police company with 35 vehicles and a strength

of 260 enlisted men. A motor park adjacent to the barracks will assure

that vehicle parking and organizational servicing is available at all

hours. The buildings presently occupied by this unit are World War

II temporary mobilization type structures constructed in 1941.

Construction of an additional 122 housing spaces for enlisted women

and expansion of the dining, supply-administration, and classrooms

will provide adequate space for the planned 250 enlisted women

strength. The existing permanent barracks will house 103 women.

Personnel in excess of that capacity must be housed in remotely

located, substandard mobilization-type barracks. This project will

permit the balance of the permanent party enlisted women to be ade-

quately housed adjacent to the other WAC personnel assigned to

Fort Leonard Wood.

The purpose of the barracks complex for enlisted men is to provide

permanent barracks and troop support facilities to house 2,522

personnel.

This project is part of the overall program to provide adequate

troop housing facilities to support the long-range strength. Upon

completion of the MP barracks, the EW barracks and this barracks

complex, Fort Leonard Wood will have 60 percent of the total per-

manent barracks spaces required. The personnel who will occupy the

new facilities are currently housed in substandard World War II-

type temporary buildings.

The project for barracks modernization will continue the upgrad-

ing existing permanent barracks to current housing standards for

bachelor enlisted personnel. The buildings being modernized house

trainees and meet most current standards for trainee barracks. Out-

standing deficiencies, primarily the lack of air-conditioning, will be

corrected by this project. Upon completion of this project, 28 percent

of the permanent barracks capable of being economically modernized

at Fort Leonard Wood will be completed. All existing facilities will

continue in use and no demolition will result from this project.

The final project will provide adequate facilities for the custody,

control, and treatment of military prisoners in accordance with the

Army's correction program. Buildings presently occupied are 23

World War II structures which are seriously inadequate in terms of

proper control, supervision, and required segregation of the prisoners.

This project will provide facilities for confinement of prisoners orig-

inating from Fort Leonard Wood, Fort Benjamin Harrison, other

adjacent defense installations, and absentees on a geographical area

basis.

FORT CARSON, COLO.

Fort Carson is located 7 miles south of Colorado Springs, Colo.

The installation mission is to provide facilities and support for the

4th Infantry Division (mechanized) and nondivisional support units.

The program includes a 28-chair dental clinic and a barracks mod-

ernization project for a total cost of $5,651,000.

The dental clinic project will provide one of four permanent dental

clinics required to furnish dental care to personnel of the 4th In-

fantry Division (mechanized) and other nondivisional units assigned

to Fort Carson. Present facilities are housed in two temporary, mo-

bilization-type buildings. These buildings were built in 1942 of frame

construction; are not fire-resistive; are drafty, hard to heat; resist

establishment of the sanitary conditions required for a medical facil-

ity; and require continuous maintenance and repair. Further use of

these facilities will result in continued expensive repairs and altera-

tions in an attempt to maintain operation of dental services. Other

existing temporary dental clinics will remain in use until additional

* 'new facilities can be constructed.

The modernization project will continue the upgrading of existing

permanent barracks to current standards to provide modern housing

for bachelor enlisted personnel. The modernization work will elim-

inate large open-bay areas and gang latrines and will provide more

private one- to four-man rooms, new lighting and outlets, air-condi-

tioning, and security for personal possessions. Complete accommoda-

tions will house 2,152 enlisted men. Upon completion of this project,

84 percent of the existing permanent barracks capable of being eco-

nomically modernized at Fort Carson will meet modern housing

standards. All existing facilities will continue in use and no demoli-

tion will result from this project.

IUNTER-LIGGETT MILITARY RESERVATION, CALIF.

The mission of Hunter-Liggett Military Reservation, a subinstalla-

tion of Fort Ord, is to provide the logistical, and administrative sup-

port for training conducted by the U.S. Army Training Center, Fort

Ord, Calif. An additional mission is to furnish training areas and

other support for the combat development experimentation command,

and Reserve and National Guard units during unit field training. This

includes the maintenance of ranges and other training facilities as

required, policing of the reservation and adequate precautionary

measures against the outbreak of forest fires and control thereof. The

program proposes. an enlisted men's barracks complex at a cost of

$7,776,000.

This project will provide troop housing and facilities at Hunter-

Liggett Military Reservation (HLMR) to support the overall Fort

Ord training and other missions. The proposed facilities will be used

by troops of the combat developments experimentation command

(CDEC), a tenant agency. Existing facilities are substantially below

standards established for troops in the continental United States and

have been described as the poorest living quarters provided troops any

place in the world, exclusive of an active combat theater. Troop

housing consists of light-frame hutments in five separate bivouac areas.

Showers, latrines, and washrooms are community-type facilities and

some are as far as 1,500 feet from the hutments. These bivouac-type

structures are in every respect unsuitable to accommodate personnel

during the extended period of occupancy dictated by their assignment.

Senator SYMINGTON. I notice you propose semipermanent type bar-

racks here at this reservation. Just what type of work is performed

here, and why are the baracks to be semipermanent ?

General COOPER. Hunter-Liggett Military Reservation (HLRMR)

is a subpost of Fort Ord. It serves as a maneuver and training area

for Regular Army, Reserve, and National Guard units. It is also

the primary site for operations and test activities of the combat

developments experimentation command (CDEC) which is a major

testing agency for our force development advances.

Except for the post complement, most personnel engaged in activi-

ties at HLMR are in a transient status. They have permanent facili-

ties elsewhere. The prime users of the proposed facilities would be

troops supporting CDEC activities, but the barracks would be avail-

able for others when not required by CDEC. The purpose for the

semipermanent facilities requested is to greatly improve the living

conditions at HLMR in the most economical manner, commensurate

with the mission. The existing facilities at HLMR are extremely poor,

considered by most who have viewed them as "the worst living condi-

tions the Army has in CONUS."

FORT LEWIS, WASH.

Fort Lewis is located 15 miles east of Olympia, Wash. The installa-

tion mission is to support an infantry division, provide training and

logistical support for nondivisional units, and to support National

Guard and Army Reserve component summer training. The program

includes a 28-chair dental clinic, and barracks modernization for a total

cost of $8,327,000.

The dental clinic will provide adequate dental facilities for a por-

tion of the troops at Fort Lewis. Serious deficiencies still remain and

will be addressed in future programs. Present facilities consist of 36

chairs in permanent buildings and 64 chairs in three temporary build-

ings. The proposed project will replace a temporary 25-chair clinic

which is very inferior by present standards and which is in a building

which must be demolished to make way for a new community center

now under construction.

The barracks modernization project, as at many of our installations,

will continue the upgrading of existing permanent barracks to current

housing standards. The completed project will provide modern hous-

ing for 3,014 enlisted men of the 9th Infantry Division. Upon comple-

tion of this project, 75 percent of the existing permanent barracks

capable of being economically modernized at Fort Lewis will meet

minimum housing standards.

FORT MAC ARTHUR, CALIF.

Fort MacArthur is located near San Pedro, Calif. The installation's

mission includes providing administrative and logistical support to on-

post units, elements of th Army Air Defense Command, and Army

Reserve and ROTC activities. The program requested consists of one

project for $428,000.

The project requested is for the modernization of barracks for WAC

personnel stationed at Fort MacArthur. The building to be modernized

was constructed in 1918. Only minimum privacy is offered under pres-

ent conditions and the other features; for example, heating, lighting,

air conditioning, fall far short of current standards.

Senator SY 1INGTON. Aren't you considering closing Fort MacAr-

thur ? Shouldn't this project be deferred ?

General CooPER. Fort MacArthur is a relatively small installation

and is one of the Army's posts being reviewed in our ongoing station-

ing study. However, no firm decisions have been made on the future

of Fort MacArthur at this time. Hopefully, we will make these deter-

minations prior to final committee action on the construction bill.

FORT ORD, CALIF.

Fort Ord is located on the northern edge of Seaside, Calif. The in-

stallation mission is to command, train, and support an Army training

'center and nondivisional units and to support the Combat Develop-

ments Experimentation Command at Hunter-Liggett Military Reser-

vation, a common specialist school, a reception center and Reserve com-

ponents summer training. The program consists of an enlisted men's

barracks complex and modernization of enlisted women's barracks for

a total cost of $9,812,000.

The barracks complex project will provide another increment of the

permanent enlisted men's barracks spaces and other troop support

facilities required at this installation. Barracks and ancillary facilities

presently occupied are World War II temporary mobilization-type

buildings constructed in 1941. The advanced deterioration of these mo-

bilization type buildings has reached a state where normal maintenance

is no longer practical and an immediate replacement is indicated. Upon

completion of this project, the remaining deficit in permanent bache-

lor enlisted housing on Fort Ord will be 36 percent of the total instal-

lation requirement.

The barracks modernization project will provide modern living ac-

commodations for the enlisted WAC personnel stationed at Ford Ord.

The buildings to be modernized were constructed in 1952 and do not

offer quarters acceptable by modern standards. WAC personnel now

live in World War II temporary-type structures which have long ago

outlived their useful life. Upon completion of this project, 20 percent of

the existing permanent barracks capable of being economically mod-

ernized at Fort Ord will meet current housing standards. All existing

facilities will continue in use land no demolition will result from this

project.

PRESIDIO OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

The Presidio of San Francisco is located at San Francisco, Calif.

The mission of this installation is to support Headquarters, 6th, U.S.

Army, Letterman General Hospital, Western Medical Institute of Re-

search and 6th Region U.S. Army Air Defense Command. The pro-

gram consists of an enlisted women's barracks without mess facilities

and modernization of enlisted men's barracks for a total cost of

$5,751,000.

The enlisted women's barracks project will provide adequate housing

for 320 of 645 enlisted women scheduled for this installation. Billeting

space is currently met by using eight deteriorated temporary World;

War II type buildings and by issuance of certificates of nonavailability

at an annual cost of over $286,000. Completion of this project will

eliminate the requirement for enlisted women to live in the inadequate

temporary buildings and in civilian housing costing well in excess of

the authorized basic allowance for quarters.

The barracks modernization project will upgrade 15 buildings to

provide modern quarters for 969 enlisted men stationed at the Presidio.

Modernization will provide more private accommodations with better

lighting and other utilities, security for personal possessions, and im-

proved dining facilities. Upon completion of this project, all of the

existing permanent barracks capable of being economically modernized

will meet current housing standards. All existing facilities will con-

tinue in use and no demolition will result from this project.

Senator SYMINGTON. I notice that in your justification you indicate

that 645 enlisted women are scheduled for assignment at this installa-

tion. I was under the impression that with the reorganization of the

Army the numbered Army headquarters were to be reduced in size,

rather than increased. What is the situation at the 6th Army

Headquarters?

General COOPER. What is reflected here is not an increase in the

strength at the Presidio of San Francisco, but more specifically, a

planned increase in the strength of WAC personnel on duty there

within the overall post strength. This is a result of the expansion of

the corps and opening up many more job opportunities for our female

personnel. There will be WAC's in many of the jobs rather than men.

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MD.

Aberdeen Proving Ground is located near Baltimore, Md. Its mis-

sion is to serve as Headquarters, U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Com-

mand, to perform research on propellants and propulsive force sys-

tems; terminal effects of warheads; vulnerability of weapons to blast

fragments and radiation; human factors engineering; and, dynamic

and environmental testing of vehicles and ordnance equipment. The

U.S. Army Ordnance School, Land Warfare Laboratory, Research and

Development Center and Joint Military Packaging Training Center

are located here. The Environmental Hygiene Agency is located at

Edgewood Arsenal, a nearby subinstallation. The program consists of

human factors engineering laboratory, an enlisted men's barracks, bar-

racks modernization, and a chapel center. The request is for $11,934,000.

The laboratory project will provide the Human Factors Engineering

Research Laboratory with specialized laboratory facilities to accom-

plish its mission as the lead laboratory for human factors engineering

in the Army. The project will furnish the temperature and humidity

controlled areas for simulation, environmental control, data reduction,

and electronics. This laboratory will be performing basic and applied

research as they affect the design of Army materiel to include small

arms, tactical vehicles, combat vehicles, artillery, communications, and

aviation equipment. Existing facilities are not adequate to accommo-

date experimental mockups for materiel prototype development, com-

plex electronic instrumentation, and the additional operating personnel

required.

Senator SYMINGTON. This is a rather expensive facility. Will you

describe for us just what type of work will be done in this facility

and what you are currently doing for space?

General COOPER. The basic mission of the Human Factors Engineer-

ing Laboratory is to conduct research and development on the main

component of military systems, and to provide direct design support to

all materiel development programs sponsored by the U.S. Army Mate-

riel Command. This design support introduces human performance

requirements into the design of Army materiel items to be operated

and maintained by human operators, thus obtaining maximum man/

machine output. Current projects in which human factors engineering

is being applied are the SAM-D missile, the advanced attack heli-

copter (AAH), the heavy lift helicopter (HLM), the XM-1 tank,

new body armor, infantry helmets, long-term continuous soldier per-

formance, and various new small arms concepts.

The facilities, occupied since 1962 by the U.S. Army Human Engi-

neering Laboratory (HEL), Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., are

composed of a variety of World War II structures including 'an old

frame firehouse, a tire shop, a metal Nike repair shop, a warehouse,

five mobile trailers procured approximately 5 years ago, and three

additional trailers rented during fiscal year 1973. Although these

facilities were converted to usable laboratory and administrative space

approximately 12 years ago, they are now no longer economical to keep

repaired. Several of the buildings have major deficiencies such as leak-

ing roofs which will need major repair within the next 2 years. In

addition to possessing poor quality facilities, the laboratory has in-

creased in strength--because of increased workload-so that the pres-

ent facilities are completely inadequate for housing 138 personnel

presently on the staff. The three 'additional trailers were rented in

fiscal year 1973 to accommodate this increased staff. The present make-

shift World War II converted facilities are not conducive to good

research and development, which is the only mission of the laboratory.

The professional personnel are presently crowded together in small

cubicles and available laboratory space is completely inadequate in

both quality and quantity.

The new facilities will provide (1) space for the consolidation of

personnel and laboratories into one building which will increase work

efficiency, (2) additional specialized laboratory space for basic human

factors research and simulation studies, (3) space for' library, to

house approximately 510,000 technical documents, which must be

available since the laboratory serves as a DOD-wide data bank :and

provides analysis services on human factors engineering, (4) space

for Army Materiel Command man/machine mockup studies while

such materiel is still in the early phases of development, (5) space

for training Army Materiel Command design engineers on human fac-

tors engineering a responsibility of the laboratory, (6) appropriate

administrative, space for approximately 25 more professional engi-

neers and scientists being added to the staff. Present obsolete facilities

will be excessed and repair costs appropriately reduced.

The second project is for a permanent barracks for enlisted per-

sonnel presently quartered in substandard facilities including unim-

proved mobilization barracks built in 1941.

A project is proposed to modernize nine existing barracks buildings

to provide modern accommodations for 1,940 enlisted men. The present

buildings do not offer adequate quarters under current standards and

should be upgraded, both to improve living conditions for the enlisted

troops and to make maximum use of existing assets.

This chapel center project will provide a portion of the requirements

for chapels and the total requirement for religious educational facili-

ties to serve approximately 16,000 active military personnel and their

dependents. There are no permanent chapel facilities at Aberdeen. The

six World War II buildings now in use are austere, deteriorated, and

the appointments leave much to be desired.

AERONAUTICAL MAINTENANCE CENTER, TEX.

The Aeronautical Maintenance Center is located 10 miles south of

Corpus Christi, Tex. The mission of this installation is to perform air-

craft depot maintenance and support functions, provide aeronautical

depot on-the-job training (military), maintain mobilization readiness

and prepositioned depot stocks, provide engineering services for

AVSCOM, and support U.S. Army Materiel Group No. 1. The pro-

gram provides for upgrading turbine engine test cells and a supply,

operations, and storage building. The request is for $6,284,000.

A turbine engine test cell facility will be upgraded to feature a test

cell management-maintenance and ADP center, standardized instru-

mentation, an engine quick-disconnect mounting system, and com-

puterized open-loop data acquisition and logging system. This facility

will improve service reliability of engines, reduce cost of testing, in-

crease test capability from 2,750 to 6,000 horsepower, and provide per-

formance data for engineering analyses and maintenance data to

improve engine overhaul procedures. The overhaul and testing of

turbine engines (including Navy and Air Force) at 1,600,000 man-

hours per year comprises the major workload at this center, and this

timely modernization will result in quality improvement and reduced

operation costs. An estimated saving of $376,000 per year will result

from the construction.

The second project will provide an efficient, modern aircraft parts

supply operation and storage facility. Receiving, shipping, packag-

ing, crating, and preservation of mission and national inventory

control point materiel will be consolidated for efficiency and economy

'and an environmentally controlled storage will be provided for high-

cost 'aeronautical components. The value of planned storage in the

building is $150 million. Existing facilities are seven widely scattered

World War II structures that lack environmental control, surface

water runoff protection, loading docks, and mechanical material han-

dling and storage systems. Two of the seven buildings are remotely

located facilities leased at a cost of $92,000 per year and lack adequate

lighting, storm and fire protection. Two buildings totaling 107,346

square feet will be demolished, the two leased facilities will be re-

turned to the owner, and the remaining three structures will be

retained for slow-moving item storage. This project will result in

estimated operational savings of $848,057 per year.

Senator SMINGTON. $5.2 million seems to be an unusually large

amount to provide for a supply operation and storage building. Why

is such a facility needed at this time? Is this the principal center for

maintenance of helicopters ?

General COOPER. The U.S. Army Aeronautical Depot Maintenance

Center (Aradmac) is the Army's principal center for aeronautical

maintenance. The Aradmac mission is to completely rebuild, test, store,

and place back into the supply system damaged and "worn out" aero-

nautical equipment for Army (and some Air Force and Navy) air-

craft including aircraft frames, engines, transmissions, avionics, elec-

trical and hydraulic components, and structural components.

The facilities now utilized for supply and storage operations at

Aradmac are seriously inadequate. Portions of the operation are wide-

ly separated (14 miles), existing buildings are functionally inadequate

since they have no suitable loading docks and building configurations

preclude use of efficient materials handling equipment, there is no en-

vironmental control which is required for many of the expensive com-

ponents in storage, and the structures are old, difficult, and expensive

to maintain and cannot be economically renovated. The requested facil-

ity will consolidate the shipping, receiving, packaging and crating,

and preservation activities in one location to effect efficiency, economy,

and adequate support for the depot overhaul maintenance operation.

It will also provide environmentally controlled storage space for the

national inventory control point (NICP) stocks and for depot prop-

erty and material inducted for overhaul/storage/distribution by

Aradmac.

ANNISTON ARMY DEPOT, ALA.

Anniston Army Depot is located 10 miles west of Anniston, Ala.

The mission of this installation is to receive, store, and ship general

supplies and ammunition, strategic and critical materials, and civil

defense shelter supplies; to perform depot maintenance of general

supplies, ammunition and assigned missile systems; to operate an area

support secondary reference calibration facility (except nucleonics);

to provide area support secondary reference transfer calibration teams

for six Southeastern States and to perform production fueling of the

Lance missile. The program is for a repair and processing vehicle

facility for $3,745,000.

This project will provide improved facilities for repair and process-

ing of heavy combat vehicles and artillery. Work is now done in scat-

tered, substandard facilities which are overcrowded and inhibit engi-

neered shop flow to obtain optimum utilization of personnel or equip-

ment. Recent operations in these congested facilities are hazardous and

inflexible because of insufficient operational and holding areas and

workload accomplishment is adversely affected by weather. The proj-

ect will result in demolition of loading docks and 14,485 square feet of

semipermanent buildings. In addition, 47,225 square feet of shop area

will revert to other uses. The completed project will produce estimated

personnel savings of $4,616,525 during its economic life.

Senator SYINGTON. Will you outline for us what type of work is

done at the Anniston Army Depot, and why this expensive facility is

needed at this time ?

General COOPER. Anniston Army Depot is our lead depot for the

repair and overhaul of heavy combat vehicles-tanks, armored per-

sonnel carriers, artillery. The mission spans the entire cycle through

receipt, overhaul, storage, and reissue. This work is now being done in

overcrowded, scattered, substantard facilities that do not permit ef-

ficient operations or optimum utilization of personnel or equipment.

ARMY MATERIAL AND MECHANICS RESEARCH CENTER, MASS.

The Army Materials and Mechanics Research Center is located at

Watertown, Mass. Its mission is to execute the AMC research and de-

velopment program in structural materials and mechanics, conduct

technological programs in structural materials and in mechanics as

used in Army materiel, coordinate the AMC armor materials pro-

gram; manage the testing technology portion of the AMC quality

assurance and the DOD standardization programs and to provide

technical surveillance over the AMC testing training program. The

proposed project is for a dynamic deformation of materials laboratory

for $325,000.

This project will provide laboratory facilities for the test and evalua-

tion of materials subjected to varying dynamic loads and environ-

mental conditions. This test and evaluation program is essential for

the development of: lightweight materials for aircraft; improved

armor materials for hardening the antiballistic missiles to survive

in nuclear environments, and to resist critical damage from dust

erosion and blast loads. This laboratory is unique to both Govern-

ment and industry in its techniques of evaluating new materials in

the simulated systems environment without lengthy and expensive

trial and error system testing. Using existing theoretical support,

the proposed laboratory will also pursue and experimentally verify

new concepts for materials system vulnerability.

ATLANTA ARMY DEPOT, GA.

Atlanta Army Depot is located in Atlanta, Ga. Upon termination

of depot operations, part of the real property comprising Atlanta

Army Depot will be retained as a subinstallation of Fort McPherson,

Ga. The mission of this subinstallation will be to furnish administra-

tive, logistical, and facilities support to staff elements and units of

Headquarters, Forces Command; to other Army, DOD and Agency

for International Development tenants; to the Reserve components;

and to the Army and Air Force Exchange Service and other activities.

The program provides for security fencing for an estimated cost of

$119,000.

The security fencing is required to provide an adequate security

fence network around the portion of this installation that is to be

retained for Army use following phaseout of depot activities and the

excessing of surplus property. Major facilities located in the retained

area include a sensitive worldwide military command and control

system communication terminal and computer complex, Army and

Air Force exchange service warehouses containing valuable merchan-

dise and a troop training area with ammunition bunkers and a firing

range that must be secured against unauthorized entry.

FRANKFORD ARSENAL, PA.

Frankford Arsenal is located at Philadelphia, Pa. The mission of

this installation is the development, procurement, production, and

supply of fire control systems, small arms ammunitions, cartridge

activated and propellant actuated devices and to conduct research on

optical material, metallurgy of nonferrous and reactive metals, degra-

dation, corrosion, and mycological effects on materiels, synthetic lubri-

cation, small Army propellants, and laser countermeasures. The pro-

gram consists of barracks modernization, for $73,000.

The barracks modernization project will provide modern quarters

for the small enlisted complements assigned to Frankford Arsenal. The

project is similar to other barracks modernization projects in that it

makes maximum use of existing structures to provide living accommo-

dations upgraded to current standards. This project will satisfy

Frankford Arsenal's requirement for bachelor enlisted housing.

MEMPHIS DEFENSE DEPOT, TENN.

The Memphis Defense Depot is one of seven principal distribution

depots in the Defense Supply Agency integrated wholesale distribu-

tion system. It's mission is the receipt, storage, maintenance, inventory,

and issue of clothing textiles, fuel, general supplies, construction sup-

plies, industrial supplies, subsistence, and medical commodities. The

depot is responsible for providing these items to U.S. military activ-

ities-the south central region, comprising Texas, Oklahoma, Ar-

kansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, and the Caribbean area including South

America. The program requests a medical equipment maintenance fa-

cility at an estimated cost of $456,000.

This project is required to provide a medical equipment maintenance

facility at Memphis Defense Depot to replace the existing maintenance

facility at Atlanta Army Depot due to the phaseout of depot activities

at the latter installation in accordance with the Army reorganization

plan. The medical equipment maintenance operation provides direct,

general and depot level maintenance, field maintenance and technical

assistance for Army medical facilities in 31 States, supports the De-

fense Supply Agency (DSA), provides certain services to the Air

Force and the Navy on a worldwide basis through interservice agree-

ments, and provides maintenance, repair and calibration of medical

equipment for the Army Reserve and National Guard. The Memphis

Defense Depot site will result in a facility centrally located within the

geographical area served by this maintenance activity. The proposed

project will provide the minimum necessary facility to meet the mis-

sion requirements. Shop equipment and tools used in the existing op-

eration will be moved and used in the Memphis facility.

FORT MONMOUTH, N.J.

Fort Monmouth is located at Red Bank, N.J. The mission of this

installation is to support the U.S. Army Electronic Command which

performs research, development, procurement and production of elec-

tronics materiel. The installation also supports the U.S. Army Satel-

lite Communications Agency. U.S. Army Combat Developments Com-

mand Communications and Electronics Agency, Tri-Service Tactical

Communications Agency, and the U.S. Army Communications System

Agency. The program will provide a Research and Development elec-

tronic equipment installation facility, a 32-chair dental clinic, barracks

modernization, alteration to classrooms to provide language labora-

tories, conversion of a classroom building to administrative space and

the conversion of a barracks building to administrative space. The

total program request is $12,286,000.

The R. & D. facility will meet present and foreseen future require-

ments to install all types of communications and electronic equipments,

radar sets, infrared and other surveillance and detection devices, elec-

tronic warfare equipments and special selected equipments in tactical

vehicles such as tanks, personnel carriers, vans, trailers, military shel-

ters, tactical trucks and self-propelled guns and other specialized mili-

tary systems. Equipment installations to permit helicopters to fly

under all weather conditions, to communicate, to detect enemy con-

centrations and equipment and to direct interdictory fire will also be

accomplished by this facility. The system installations are accom-

plished on a quick reaction basis which may be for test and evaluation

for later tactical use or to meet an immediate field requirement. This

facility will allow continuous equipment installation work on large

systems without the delays now encountered through inclement weath-

er. Work must be accomplished near the U.S. Army Electronics Com-

mand (USAECOM) Laboratories to efficiency use the engineering,

scientific and technical personnel who are familiar with the specialized

systems and are available at the laboratories.

The dental clinic project is to provide dental facilities to replace

those now located in a converted wooden mobilization-type barracks.

Installation of essential new equipment in old buildings to meet the

requirements of modern dental practice is difficult and costly, and re-

sults in little improvement in the physical plant and no improvement

in clinic design. The new clinic will permit full realization of the ad-

vances in dental care methods and procedures developed in recent

years.

The barracks modernization project will upgrade existing barracks

to modern standards for both permanent party personnel and lan-

guage students. Ten buildings will be modernized to provide adequate

quarters for 1,889 personnel. The buildings are configured to now out-

dated standards. Modernization will greatly improve individual pri-

vacy, security, utilities, latrine facilities, administrative space, and

the dining areas.

Under the 1973 Army reorganization the east coast branch of the

Defense Language Institute is being relocated to Fort Monmouth. No

facilities exist at Fort Monmouth which fully satisfy the unique re-

quirements for language instruction. The proposed project will con-

vert existing classrooms to language laboratories through the installa-

tion of soundproof study booths, audio equipment, effective heating

and air-conditioning systems, expanded utilities-particularly elec-

trical, and an intercom system and closed circuit TV outlets.

Senator SYMTNGTON. I notice that these facilities are necessary due

to the move of the language school from the Washington area to Fort

Monmouth. How does this school tie in with the language school at the

Presidio, Monterey, Calif.?

I believe at one time you had four or five language schools. Are they

now consolidated into two locations, namely Fort Monmouth and

Monterey ? There ha.s been some complaints in the past when the move

of this school from the Washington area was considered to the effect

that it might be better conducted here. Is there any merit to this

argument ?

General COOPER. The language school now in Anacostia, and planned

for relocation to Fort Monmouth, is the east coast branch of the De-

fense Language Institute (DLI). The west coast branch of DLI is

located in Monterey. Calif.

At the present, DLI headquarters and the east coast branch are

located in Anacostia. These activities will relocate to Fort Monmouth.

The DLI Systems Development Agency, located in Monterey, and the

English language branch, located at Lackland Air Field in Texas, will

both also relocate to Fort Monmouth. The west coast branch will re-

main in Monterey. DLI did have a Southwest branch at Fort Bliss

during the peak of the Vietnam conflict but this branch was disestab-

lished in June 1973.

The primary advantages for keeping a branch of DLI in Washing-

ton are the convenient access to foreign embassies and close working

,relationship with the Foreign Service Institute. However, the lack of

adequate facilities for the academic and administrative functions,

plus the lack of housing for the students are very serious drawbacks

which outweigh the advantages just mentioned. The needed facilities

_ill be available at Fort Monmouth.

Also as result of the Army irealignment/reorganization, Headquar-

ters Electronics Command (ECOM) will relocate to Fort Monmouth

from Philadelphia. As with many Army installations Fort Mon-

mouth is short of adequate administrative space. Two projects are

proposed for converting existing structures from their present use to

administrative facilites. The resulting administrative space will ac-

commodate the incoming headquarters elements plus permit the con-

solidation of other ECOM elements now at Fort Monmouth but oc-

cupying old World War II temporary-type structures or renting

facilities off post.

NATICK LABORATORIES, MASS.

The Natick Laboratories are located at Natick, Mass. The mission of

this installation is to create through research and development, pro-

totypes in the commodity areas of textiles, clothing, footwear, organic

materials, subsistence, containers, food service equipment, field support

equipment, tentage and equipage and air delivery equipment, to pro-

vide technical support in the commodity areas above, and to carry out

the standardization program so that new item procurements may be

accomplished expeditiously and economically. The program for $466,-

000 provides for an addition to an enlisted men's barracks, with dining

facilities.

The proposed project is required to provide additional barracks

spaces and modernized dining facilities for the enlisted complement

stationed at Natick Laboratories. This project will complete the bach-

elor enlisted housing requirement at Natick Laboratories.

PICATINNY ARSENAL, N.J.

The Picatinny Arsenal is located 4 miles northeast of Dover, N.J.

The mission of this facility is to serve as a field installations of the

U.S. Army Munitions Command with national mission responsibilities

including development and industrial engineering and support mis-

sion responsibilities for preproduction and maintenance engineering

with respect to ammunition, pyrotechnics, and nuclear artillery and

munitions including demolition types. The program provides for an

addition to the explosives laboratory and barracks modernization for

a total request of $2,915,000.

The ,additional laboratory space is required to consolidate the

Army's explosives program at Picatinny Arsenal and to provide

the necessary laboratory space for basic and applied research on

hazardous materials. The consolidation of the Army explosives pro-

gram at Picatinny Arsenal has resulted in dangerous overcrowd-

ing in the present inadequate facilities. The construction will provide

the facilities for the installation of special purpose equipment pres-

ently on hand. Existing buildings are required and will remain in

use for explosive research.

Senator SYINGTON. Will you explain in a little more detail what

type of work is performed at this explosive laboratory ? I know that

you do have a pyrotechnic hazard engineering program in operation

at the NASA Mississippi Test Facility. Are you .doing similar work

here at Picatinny ?

General COOPER. The proposed construction will provide the facili-

ties necessary for a vital part of the Army explosive research program

utilizing solid-state physics and applied physics to improve perform-

ance and reliability and safety of munitions. The planned work will

include improvements in explosive train initiation methods; basic

research on energy level structure and energy transfer mechanisms in

explosives coupled with charged transport measurements to discover

and develop methods for direct electronic initiation of explosives with

greater reliability, safety and efficiency; experiments to understand and

control sensitivity; development of improved models for initiation and

detonation phenomenon by study of high pressure effects on optical

and electronic properties of explosives and by shock tube combined

with spectroscopy and high-speed photography; work on fuel air ex-

plosives Which have improved effectiveness against certain targets;

study of coupling of detonation to their surroundings to increase

the utilized fraction of available energy.

No pyrotechnic hazard engineering is being performed at this

laboratory.

The barracks modernization project will upgrade one building to

provide modern living quarters for enlisted men stationed at Pica-

tinny Arsenal. The existing building does not have adequate heating

or lighting, suitable bathroom facilities or offer privacy to the oc-

cupants. Completion of this project will satisfy Picatinny Arsenal's

requirement for bachelor enlisted housing.

PINE BLUFF ARSENAL, ARK.

The Pine Bluff Arsenal is located at Pine Bluff, Ark. and provides

facility space for the Directorate of Chemical Operations; Directorate

of Biological Operations and the Directorate of Engineering and

Technology. The mission of the arsenal is to manufacture, store, reno-

vate, demilitarize and distribute chemical agents and munitions, and

to develop processes for manufacturing chemicals. This budget requests

$294,000 for an enlisted men's barracks, without mess facilities, at the

arsenal.

The 36 EM barrack spaces and associated facilities to be supported

will provide troop living quarters that meet current housing standards

specified in DOD criteria. Existing accommodations are two-story,

wood-frame (original construction 1942) open bay and dormitory room

type barracks with central latrine facilities. These old buildings are

difficult and expensive to maintain plus they fall far below the ap-

proved housing standards. Completion of the project will satisfy the

installation's bachelor housing requirement.

REDSTONE ARSENAL, ALA.

Redstone Arsenal is located at Huntsville, Ala. and provides facili-

ties for the headquarters of the U.S. Army Missile Command and the

Munitions and Missile Training Center and School. The installation

is the Army's principal commodity center for rockets, guided missiles,

and related systems and equipment. This program requests $4,971,000

for barracks modernization and a chapel center.

The first project will continue the upgrading of existing permanent

barracks to current standards for bachelor enlisted personnel. This

modernization project will upgrade 10 buildings to provide modern

quarters for 990 enlisted men. The buildings concerned were built

during the 1955-60 period and provide large open-bay living areas

and are not air-conditioned. Modernization will provide one- to three-

man rooms, air-conditioning, improved latrine facilities, better security

for personal possessions, and improved dining facilities. All existing

facilities will continue in use and no demolition will result from this

project.

Additional chapel and religious education needs at Redstone Arsenal

are required for the approximately 9,000 military personnel and their

dependents. The existing 300-seat chapel is used to its maximum ca-

pacity with seven services conducted Sundays from 0730 to 2030 hours.

Present attendence is heavy in services and requires that chairs be

placed in aisles, and standing is permitted in an attempt to accommo-

date patrons. Occasionally, personnel are turned away. Religious edu-

cational needs are only partially met through use of wooden World

War II buildings located at a two miles distance from the existing

chapel. These old buildings have a dingy appearance and present

serious space, safety, and fire problems. These factors discourage

competent lay workers from offering their services, create hardships

upon all who attend, and discourage many from attending. These

deficiencies emphasize the inability of present chapel facilities to

support the post mission and to meet existing personnel needs.

SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT, CALIF.

Sacramento Army Depot is located at Sacramento, Calif. The mis-

sion of this installation is to store, repair, and overhaul military hard-

ware. Our requested program of $412,000 is for barracks moderniza-

tion.

This project will modernize an existing barracks building con-

structed in 1957. The completed project will provide modern quarters

for 111 enlisted men stationed at Sacramento Army Depot and will

complete the depot's requirement for bachelor enlisted housing. The,

existing accommodations are open-bay offering little privacy, have

inadequate lighting and convenience outlets, have gang latrines, and

improper heating and ventilating systems.

SAVANNA ARMY DEPOTS ILL

Savanna Army Depot, Ill., is located on the Illinois River near

Clinton, Iowa. The mission of this installation is the receipt, storage,

renovation, and demilitarization of conventional and guided missile

ammunition components and special weapons material and to train

personnel in ammunition surveillance and maintenace. The program

covers enlisted men's barracks with mess facilities, bachelor officers

quarters and security lighting for a total request of $2,746,000.

The barracks project is to provide suitable housing for assigned

enlisted men. Existing temporary facilities are limited and each bay

is occupied by up to 12 men without benefit of cubicles or partitions.

Since these men perform shift work in the special weapons exclusion

area personnel are sleeping at all hours of the day and normal day-

time activities disrupt sleep with resultant effects on efficiency.

The second project, a BOQ, will provide a portion of needed hous-

ing for the military, civilian and foreign national personnel attend-

ing the AMC Ammunition School. The ammunition school conducts

basic and refresher training to support storage, issue, receipt, mainte-

nance, test, inspection malfunction investigation and demilitarization

of ammunition which includes conventional ammunition, nuclear wea-

pons, large rockets, guided missiles, and chemical munitions. Other

important training offered involves transportation of ammunition and

other hazardous materiel, nuclear and chemical accident incident con-

trols, and fire fighting techniques involving all types of ammunition.

'This project will enable the ammunition school' to train additional

students in these skills and.assist in overcoming the present critical

shortage of trained civilian ammunition technicians and managers.

A savings of $362,000 per year will be realized upon completion of the

facility. The existing 96 substandard bachelor officer quarters will be

retained and utilized until additional permanent housing can be pro-

gramed to provide the remaining required spaces.

The lighting project is to provide increased security within a spe-

cial weapons exclusion area. Security requirements dictate that the

entrance of all structures in which special weapons are located shall

be lighted with an intensity of not less than 1 footcandle. Magazines

without lighting above each door opening are presently being used

under a temporary waiver to security regulations. These entrances

become vulnerable points of penetration at night and undetected move-

ments of personnel or equipment within the storage area could result

in a serious break in our national security. Burial of the primary

electrical line will aid in the prevention of its destruction by both

natural and subversive means. This project will substantially improve

protection of the special weapons area and eliminate the necessity for

operation under waiver.

SIERRA ARMY DEPOT, CALIF.

Sierra Army Depot is located 36 miles southeast of Susanville,

Calif., and 60 miles north of Reno, Nev. The mission of this installa-

tion is to receive, store, maintain, renovate, and distribute ammunition

and components and general supplies; receive, store, and maintain spe-

cial weapons material; and restoration of conventional guided missile

and special weapons ammunition. The program requests a security

lighting project for $380,000.

This project is to provide increased security of classified material

located within the directorate for special weapons (DSW) re-

stricted areas. This project will provide protective lighting at en-

trance control points on igloos located in DSW exclusion area 1 and

on the buildings located to exclusion area 2. Present structures are

being used without this protective lighting under authority of tem-

porary waiver and in the interim additional security forces have been

assigned to .insure adequate protection. Assignment of these addi-

tional forces has substantially increased the cost and complexities of

providing a secure area for classified material stored at this depot.

WHITE SANDS MISSILE BASE, N. iEX.

White Sands Missile Range is located 28 miles northeast of Las

Cruces, N. Mex. This installation is a national range with a mission

to test and evaluate missile and rocket systems and related material.

It supports all range users to include systems contractors. The pro-

gram includes construction of a multitarget launch complex, a SAM-

D remote area test facility, barracks modernization, a post library,

an addition to the gymnasium, water wells, and land acquisition. The

request is for $4,771,000.

The first project is to provide White Sands with the capability to

prepare up to four target missiles for flight and launching simul-

taneously. It will provide a launch area which meets safety criteria.

The new launch complex will provide use of a northernly flight azi-

muth oriented to take full advantage of the width and depth of the

national range and restricted air space and will eliminate serious

flight safety hazards connected with use of the present launch area.

The project will provide minimum facilities required for target

missile contractors to operate with maximum efficiency and minimum

lost time. This project will support all missile development programs

at White Sands Missile Range that require target missiles during

their development and engineering phases. In addition it will provide

a minimum multilaunch capability required for two specific research

and development programs which are scheduled for this phase of

development for the fiscal year 1976 and subsequent fiscal year time

frames. A second phase of this project may be required by fiscal year

1976 or later depending upon project requirements. Nine small metal

buildings now used at the present target missile launch area will be

relocated and utilized for the support of instrumentation stations.

The second project is to provide the minimum essential uprange

facilities for tactical testing of the surface-to-air missile development

(SAM-D) weapons system. The system, which is an area air defense

system with 'a secondary surface-to-surface role, is being designed to

replace the current Nike Hercules and Hawk system in the field Army.

Uprange launch sites are required to evaluate the mobility and per-

formance of the weapon system against air and ground targets under

various terrain conditions in 'a tactical configuration scheduled to

start in fiscal year 1975. Completion of this project will assure timely

collection of test and evaluation data on the SAM-D system under

tactical conditions in accordance with the development schedule.

The next project will continue the upgrading of existing permanent

barracks to current housing standards for bachelor enlisted person-

nel. Four existing structures will be modernized to provide quarters

for 486 enlisted men. These buildings are of the open-bay concept

and are far below current standards desired for individual privacy,

heating, ventilating and lighting, and bathroom facilities. Upon

completion 'of this project, all of the existing permanent barracks

capable of being economically modernized at White Sands Missile

Range will meet minimum housing standards. All existing facilities

will continue in use and no demolition will result from this project.

The post library project will provide a permanent facility for a

departmentalized library operation with space for shelving, admin-

istration, and audiovisual area, quiet rooms, music appreciation rooms,

and storage and reading purposes. The post library has 'occupied 4,500

square feet of the existing education center building 'and expansion

is not feasible without adversely fleeting the education program. The

project will provide a nermanent facility for exnansion of fhe library

operation into the welfare, recreation, and morale Army-wide library

program needed in this isolated nrea. Space now used by the library

will revert to use by the post education center.

L. Ii

Senator SYMINGTON. I notice that part of your explanation for a

new library is that if it is not provided it will have an effect on the

education program. Can you explain that a little more clearly. Is this

some kind of a technical training program, and is this a technical

library, or simply a post library for the use of the military and their

dependents ?

General COOPER. The impact on the education program would be

more physical than intellectual. At present the post library occupies

a portion of the education center building. Both the education pro-

gram and the library are in need of expansion, consequently, joint

occupancy of the education center is no longer practical. If the re-

quested new library is not approved to allow relocation from the

education center, the education activities will not have any space

available to accommodate their expansion. This ultimately will hinder

the overall execution of the education program.

The education program is similar to that carried on at almost all

Army installations. It is a formal program, providing both on duty

and off duty opportunities for our soldiers to further their formal

education.

The library is basically a typical post lending library for use by the

military and their dependents. However, it is somewhat atypical

in that it does house a more technical selection than might be found

at other posts due to the interest generated in the post population by

the testing and engineering activities conducted at White Sands.

The fifth item is to provide military personnel and their dependents

at White Sands missile range with an indoor, year-around handball

court and squash court, and a ladies' shower room at the existing post

gymnasium. This project is needed to give WSMR a complete and

well-rounded sports program to include handball and squash as well

as to provide complete latrine and showers for enlisted women and

female military dependents in the post gymnasium. On post facilities

are important since WSMR is located some 30 miles from the nearest

civilian community. Facilities that improve wholesome recreation

possibilities for young military personnel will improve physical fit-

ness and assist in maintenance of morale. There are no facilities to be

disposed of as a result of this project.

A key project at WSMR is that of acquisition of fee title to 71,159

acres of privately owned real estate and title to 126 mining claims,

all located within the boundaries of White Sands Missile Range

(WSMR). This request is phase I of a two-phase plan to acquire all

private estates and State-owned land and improvements thereon

located within the boundaries of WSMR. Phase II of this plan, to be

included in a future year program, will acquire the State-owned

lands. The cost of these State lands is to be determined following

negotiations between State and Federal representatives. An estimated

$10 million of Government construction improvements such as roads,

buildings, instrumentation sites, communications systems, and power

lines, are located on the State and privately owned lands. Accom-

plishment of phase I would eliminate rentals of almost $80,000 per

year and phase II about $237,000, for a total of approximately $317,-

000 per year. Additionally, future restoration costs estimated at $700,-

000 would be eliminated. Founds for relocation costs, as provided for

under the provisions of Public Law 91-646 are not required for this

project.

Senator SYMINGTON. You are proposing to spend $2.7 million for

land acquisition at this vast reservation, and to extinguish mining

claims. What is this total program going to cost, and why is it neces-

sary? I recall that some time ago a bill was proposed to buy up certain

lands and pay for grazing rights on Federal lands at this base. Is such

a procedure involved in this proposed purchase?

General CoorPn. The land acquisition program at White Sands mis-

sile range is expected to cost a total of $7,500,000 for which we plan to

request the balance of $4,800,000 in the fiscal year 1975 military con-

struction program. Since the military requirement for these States

and privately owned land areas is indefinite and long term, it is appro-

priate to acquire the fee and to extinguish all mining claims. Public

Law 91-511, section 104, October 26, 1970, authorizes the Secretary of

the Army to acquire State- and privately-owned lands, and estates in

land, and improvements thereon, located within the boundaries of

White Sands missile range. No funds were appropriated, however. To

the extent that such State-owned lands can be traded for Government-

owned land located outside the boundaries of White Sands missile

range, such action will be taken.

The final project is to provide additional water wells to insure an:

adequate potable water supply for the WSMR by replacing existing

capacity that will be lost due to water well deterioration. Although the

peak usage is kept to a minimum by a water conservation program,

the computed daily demand by fiscal year is 5.9 million gallons per

day (MGD). There are nine production wells in use currently with a

capacity of 5.5 mgd. This project is included in the fiscal year 1974

MCA program to assure continuation of an adequate potable water

supply at this vital testing range. There would be no disposal action

as a result of this project.

YUMA PROVING GROUND, ARIZ.

The last installation in the Army Materiel Command program,

Yuma Proving Ground, is located 32 miles northeast of Yuma,

Ariz. The installation mission is to perform engineering and service

tests of research and development projects; to conduct surveillance and

acceptance tests on production material; and to support other research

and development activities. The program provides the first phase of

construction of KOFA range improvements, for enlisted men's

barracks without mess facilities, an NCO open mess and expansion of

the electrical distribution systems. The total request is for $6,472,000.

The KOFA range project will provide facilities for artillery weapons

and associated ammunition testing over the next 15 years. The artillery

firing range front extends over 9,000 meters. At present, the northern

end of the firing front is dedicated to special test facilities such as

mortar positions, armor plate range and acceptance related tests. These

facilities severely limit the locations for artillery testing. At the south-

ern end, 2,500 meters of firing front are not usable because of safety

distance limitations to inhabited buildings. This project will realine

the southern front to accommodate five long range artillery weapon

positions. Projectile impacts must now be observed from towers at

great distances from points of impact. This results in frequent test

interruption for impact point certification and, in the case of function-

ing and range table firing, results in questionable data. The impact

shelters will permit much closer observation while insuring personnel

safety and greatly improving the data acquisition capability. The soft

impact area will facilitate recovery of projectile components to assess

the effects of firing. If this project'is not approved Yuma Proving

Ground will be unable to improve and expand its capability to meet

the existing and future artillery test and evaluation requirements.

Approval of this project will result in the demolition of two temporary

buildings totaling 874 square feet.

Senator SYMINOTON. What is meant by KOFA, and what will be

the cost of this total program ?

General CooPER. KOFA is an acronym that stands for "King of

Arizona," being taken from a mine that existed in the early Western

days in the area of Yuma Proving Grounds. Over the years, common

usage of the acronym have caused the name of the range to be known

as KOFA range.

.The estimated total cost of planned KOFA range improvements is

$6.6 million. The overall project is planned for accomplishment in

two, phases.

Phase I, estimated at $2.7 million, is included in the fiscal year 1974

military construction, Army (MCA) budget request. This phase in-

cludes construction of 5 gun positions, 21 artillery impact observa-

tion shelters (bombproof), and a soft impact area.

Phase II, estimated at $3.9 million, is now being studied within the

Army staff for possible inclusion in the fiscal year 1975 MCA request.

This phase consists of paving and other improvements to 34.2 miles of

range roads.

The next project is required to provide adequate bachelor housing

and mess facilities for assigned troops not eligible for family quarters.

The troops that cannot be accommodated in the permanent barracks

are housed in temporary barracks, constructed in 1952 and 1953. If

this item is not provided enlisted personnel will continue to be housed

in inadequate temporary barracks. The temporary barracks will be

retained for use by TDY personnel. Those not required for this pur-

pose will be diverted to office space, thus reducing the deficit in that

functional area.

The third project is required to provide adequate dining facilities

and space for recreational activities for noncommissioned officers as-

signed to Yuma Proving Ground (YPG). The present NCO open

'mess is housed in a temporary building, which because of interior ar-

rangement can only provide marginal service and activities to accom-

modate the patrons. The new facility will provide pleasant surround-

ings and adequate facilities for use by noncommissioned officers and

their authorized guests, thus enhancing military career attractiveness.

Since YPG is 26 miles from the nearest town, adequate on post recrea-

tional facilities become even more important.

The final project is to furnish electrical power to artillery firing

range areas, to provide additional electrical power to the Yuma

Proving Ground (YPG) and to improve reliability by adding a sec-

ond source of electrical supply to this isolated installation. A scheduled

increase in testing of long range tube and self-propelled artillery will

-substantially increase requirements for acquisition of more accurate

ballistic data at down range sites by electro/optical instruments. Port-

able generators now in use are not desirable due to voltage and fre-

quency fluctuations which disable and damage delicate instruments and

introduce errors into the data. Generator failures in the past have re-

sulted in loss of vital communications, have halted tests with resultant

data loss, increased costs, -and decreased productivity. A source of re-

liable power is urgently needed to permit synchronized operation of the

testing instrumentation. The load on the main transformer station

has reached rated capacity and planned power requirement increases

will add at least 1,350 kva. within the next 3 years. Additional capacity

is essential to meet this load. Operational reliability will be increased

by the addition of a second source of power to the installation.

VINT HILL FARMS STATION, VA.

Vint Hill Farms Station is located 10 miles east of Warrenton, Va.

This is a U.S. Army Security Agency installation engaged in com-

munications intelligence activities.

The program is for storm drainage facilities for $287,000. .

This project is required to provide adequate storm drainage pro-

tection for this installation. Storm drains, curbs, and gutters exist on

only a portion of the post and consequently roads, shoulders, grounds,

and some buildings located in the unprotected area are subject to dete-

rioration from storm water runoff. This results in excessive mainte-

nance costs and unsafe conditions for vehicular and pedestrian traffic.

Existing facilities will continue in use in conjunction with proposed

construction.

FORT HUACHUCA, ARIZ.

Fort Huachuca is located 41 miles east of Bisbee, Ariz., and is the

headquarters of the U.S. Army Strategic Communications Command

(USASTRATCOM). This command is the principal manager for the

Army's portion of the Defense Communications System (DCS). The

command also provides engineering, installation, and technical sup-

port services for non-DOS communications systems and logistics and

administrative support to the Intelligence School. The program pro-

vides improvements at Libby Army Airfield, electronic test equip-

ment facilities, enlisted (medical) barracks without mess facilities and

barracks modernization for a total cost of $6,832,000.

The first project is to provide for a safe 24-hour operation of Libby

Army Airfield which supports the activities at Fort Huachuca and

TT.S. Forest Service firefighting equipment. The existing 21-year-old

taxiway is underdesigned for the wheel loads of today's aircraft and

requires continual maintenance due to repeated overloading. The park-

ing area which handles approximately 70 percent of the assigned

aircraft is temporary pavement of sealed gravel. The gravel is easily

dislodged, is subject to erosion, and when blown around by operating

aircraft causes a serious hazard to personnel, aircraft, electronic equip-

ment and ground handling vehicles. Taxiways running west from the

hangars and north from the security ramp are without lighting fa-

cilities and represent a serious deficiency in the night flying capabili-

ties needed for full operations.

The second project is to provide additional integrated secure floor

space for electronic testing equipment activities in the test and evalua-

tion center. A continued expansion of center operations in the pro-

vision of detailed evaluation and report services has been met by the

crowding of additional equipment into existing center space and the

leasing of another 3,000 square feet of commercial modular-type struc-

tures at a cost of $15,000 per year. Additional equipment operations to

meet projected workloads cannot be accommodated in available facili-

ties. Further crowding or adjustment within the existing facility is

not feasible and will impair mission effectiveness.

The next project will provide housing adjacent to the hospital for

enlisted men and women assigned to the medical detachment and

hospital. These personnel now live in substandard barracks over one

mile from the hospital and the dining facilities. This separation works

a hardship on the people, who must work irregular hours and are sub-

ject to immediate call during emergencies, plus detracts from the

efficiency of hospital operations. The billets now occupied by medical

personnel will be utilized by troops assigned to other units.

The barracks modernization project will improve 6 buildings to

provide modern quarters for 1,208 enlisted men and women. Improve-

ments will include providing better lighting and electrical service

outlets, effective heating and ventilating systems, more individual

privacy and security for personal possessions.

FORT RITCHIE, MD.

Fort Ritchie is located 8 miles southeast of Waynesboro, Pa. The

installation mission is to support the Alternate Joint Command Cen-

ter. The program consists of barracks modernization for $1,394,000.

This project will modernize four buildings to provide adequate, mod-

ern quarters for 483 enlisted men. The 'billets are now configured in

open-bay squad rooms with community latrines, poor heating and

ventilating systems, and inadequate lighting. Modernization of the

buildings will improve personal privacy, install effective heating and

ventilating systems, provide security for personal items, and improve

latrine facilities.

U.S. MILITARY ACADEMY, WEST POINT, N.Y.

The U.S. Military Academy is located 10 miles south of Newburgh,

N.Y. The mission of the Academy is to instruct and train the Corps

of Cadets, the members of which will be the future officers of the

Regular Army Establishment. The program consists of a new hos-

pital, barracks modernization and utilities extension. The authoriza-

tion requested for this program is $30,145,000.

The first project is for the construction of a new hospital at USMA

to replace the existing facility. The present hospital, developed piece-

meal since 1923, cannot provide the required medical support to the

expanded Corps of Cadets and other supported units and activities.

Daily hospital clinic visits have increased 39 percent since 1962, much

of the hospital equipment is inadequate by present-day standards, and

the present structure is functionally inappropriate for current health

care delivery. Additionally, the existing facility is located in the center

of West Point, adjacent to the post headquarters, cadet barracks, a

family housing apartment complex, and an academic building now

under construction. Parking is virtually nonexistent, traffic is congested

and the hospital emergency and service entrance can accommodate only

one vehicle at a time with no turnaround capability. Further, the

existing structure should be freed to accommodate other activities now

housed in temporary, inadequate facilities and planned in the USMA

master plan to eventually occupy this building.

Senator SYaINGTON. I'd like a rather complete justification for this

hospital. It seems to be entirely too expensive, and amounts to about

$250,000 a bed. I think this far exceeds the cost of the new hospital

proposed for Walter Reed Medical Center.

I understand that the board of overseers for construction at West

Point is not in agreement on where the new hospital should be located.

Will you explain the background of this ?

General CooPER. The requirement for a new hospital is derived

from two considerations.

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

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

quate for serving supported strengths, and is located in a highly con-

gested and noisy area with extremely limited access other than on

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

the population served.

(1) The last major expansion of the hospital was in 1943, and since

that time a portion of the hospital has been razed to make room for

the construction of the new south barracks in fiscal year 1958. The

hospital is no longer functionally appropriate to deliver health care in

accordance with modern standards.

(2) The new hospital facility was programed in the West Point

expansion program to be ready along with barracks and other essen-

tial facilities at critical stages of the expansion of the Corps of

Cadets. Based on anticipated early phasing of the hospital, much

essential maintenance (particularly in the field of utilities) was de-

ferred and modernization of clinical and other hospital features kept

to a minimum. As a result, the Military Academy is providing medi-

cal service under difficult conditions in an inadequate facility.

(3) The hospital is located in the busiest part of West Point, across

Thayer Road from post headquarters and a major academic building.

To one side of the hospital are a cadet reception hall and part of the

cadet store; on the other side is an apartment type family housing

unit; to the rear is a cadet barracks. Two academic buildings, the

remaining cadet barracks, and the cadet mess facility (Washington

Hall) are in the immediate vicinity.

(4) Vehicular access to the hospital is limited to one road, and hos-

pital parking for patients and other users is literally nonexistent;

the nearest parking being, at times, as much as three-quarters of a

mile distant.

(b) The second consideration is that the present hospital structure

is urgently required to meet other USMA expansion requirements.

(1) The original plan for expansion (Gray Book) for the U.S.

Military Academy included, as a fundamental requirement, the con-

struction of a new hospital removed from the immediate cadet area.

Early programing for the hospital was provided to free the existing

building for other uses critical to the phased expansion of the Cadet,

Corps and the expanding staff and faculty.

(2) Construction planning and programing assumed eventual avail-

ability on a timely basis of the present hospital for other purposes.

Based on this consideration, modification of the post headquarters

(fiscal year 1965) did not provide space increases for expanding activ-

ities located there since planning provided for use of the present hos-

pital structure for relocation of certain headquarters activities. Like-

wise, Washington Hall barracks complex, fiscal year 1965, did not pro-

vide space for the cadet store as it is programed to relocate to the hos-

pital structure.

(3) The delay in building a new hospital has caused several activ-

ities, scheduled to relocate to the old hospital building, to operate in

temporary locations at greatly reduced efficiency.

(c) The relocation of the hospital was the second priority project

in the overall expansion plan. The project was originally authorized

by Congress in fiscal year 1966, however, due to several circumstances

new congressional authorization is required. The planned relocation of

the hospital has significantly affected other planning. Other construc-

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

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

Since a new hospital was planned the existing structure has received

little more than breakdown maintenance since 1965, as noted above.

Building systems requiring the expenditure of substantial funds, if the

structure is continued in use as a hospital for any extended period,

include the high pressure steam system, electrical service and branch

wiring, both hot and cold water systems; the central dictation, nurses

call, personnel paging and telephone systems require replacement;

three building elevators require replacement; existing piecemeal air-

conditioning requires major expansion and rehabilitation.

Overall, the actual building configuration is a limiting factor in

accommodating the increasing staff, treating an increased number of

patients, and providing the medical services that are required. Space

deficiencies of the present structure are best illustrated by some specific

examples :

(a) The cadet sick call area is so limited that the line of waiting

cadets frequently extends out of the sick call area, past the pharmacy,

radiology clinic, and administrative area to the main entrance to the

hospital.

(b) The pharmacy occupies a space one-quarter the area needed to

meet operation requirements.

(c) One of the three authorized optometrists must work in a par-

titioned portion of the waiting room and perform a part of the exami-

nation in a corridor.

(d) The medical-surgical clinic does not have sufficient space to as-

sign an examining room to each physician. For efficient utilization,

each physician should have two examining rooms.

(e) The emergency area is cramped. There is only one emergency

treatment room available for multiple patients.

(f) The laboratory must leave valuable equipment, that is in con-

stant use, in areas outside of the laboratory proper.

(g) The existing area for medical supplies is so limited that hospital

linens are processed in an area that cannot be secured resulting in a

lack of control and contributing to a high loss rate.

(h) The large wards are inefficient resulting in an uneconomical

percentage of utilization of bed spaces.

(i) The intensive care and postoperative recovery room are impro-

vised and 'the latter must be approached from the surgical suite by

negotiating a steep ramp. There is no economical method of improving

this condition without major rehabilitation.

(j) The area for inpatient pediatrics is so limited that the care of

children must be combined with adults in an undesirable manner.

Hospital equipment replacement in the existing structure has been

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

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

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

curement was deferred during the past 7 years. It is doubtful that the

type and amount of equipment could be properly accommodated in

the existing building.

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

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

medical care facilities in the past 2 years have resulted in increases

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

vironmental, and fire protection systems which have been incorporated

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

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

ing, Ventilation & Refrigeration Engineers have brought about better,

but more expensive systems for temperature and humidity control,

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

quired such things as higher fire ratings for walls and doorways along

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

velopments in diagnostic and therapeutic equipment, as well as new

codes and standards, have placed greater demands on the quantity

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

service terminals required.

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

pensive. Several prime and subcontractors who have recently bid on

projects at West Point were contacted informally and questioned

with regard to the magnitude of risk and contingency factors that

they had applied to their bids. From the responses given, we have

concluded that contractors add a factor of 50 percent to all labor costs

at West Point as compared to similar projects in other areas. The

following are reasons they gave for the higher contingency costs they

add to West Point projects :

(a) Travel allowances for mechanical trades and other transporta-

tion charges.

(b) Adequate finishing trades are not indigenous to the area.

(c) Requirements to maintain utilities are more restrictive than at

other bases.

(d) Soil conditions at West Point have a built-in element of risk.

(e) Lost time due to functional requirements of West Point as a

national attraction for visiting dignitaries of high ranks and for large

numbers of tourists.

(f) Unsubstantiated claims inferring noncompetitive bidding prac-

tices by some contractors and local unions.

We are taking positive steps to insure that the cost of the hospital,

and other construction at West Point, is as reasonable as possible. Some

of these actions are:

(a) Avoiding monumental construction.

(b) Developing designs which eliminate or minimize labor inten-

sive-type construction.

(c) Extensive site and foundation examinations to eliminate un-'

expected problems.

(d) Careful siting of projects to minimize extensive and expensive

rock excavation.

(e) Packaging construction contracts to generate maximum bid

competition.

(f) Intensive design review and value engineering throughout the

design period. In the case of the new hospital, a construction oriented

architecture-engineering firm experienced in the New York area has

been hired to assist in this detailed design review to help maximize

cost reductions.

An alternative to a new hospital would be to renovate and modernize

the existing facility. This alternative has been investigated and the

results further support constructing a new facility. The estimated

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

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

square feet of usable space. An ancillary clinic building would also

be required to provide the remaining area. Engineering estimates for

renovating the existing structure and providing an additional clinic

building are approximately $21 million. Also, facilities, estimated to,

cost approximately $3.6 million, would be required to house those

activities which are now programed to move into the old hospital

building upon completion of a new hospital. Further significant con-

siderations are the serious degradation of medical service during the

renovation--apt to extend over several years-and the fact that the

resulting facility would still be located in a very congested area with

very limited access to the users.

Considerable discussion has ensued on the siting of the new hospital

proposed for the USMA. A new hospital has been planned for West

Point since the 1960's at a location known as the Washington Gate

site. In late 1971 an architecture-engineering firm, The Architects

Collaborative (TAC), was retained to study and make recommenda-

tions on the overall master plan for West Point. On January 1972,

TAC made a presentation to the USMA Planning Advisory Board

recommending that the hospital be located in the Stony Lonesome

area rather than Washington Gate, although recognizing that the

Washington Gate area was an acceptable alternative. By a vote of'

6 to 1, with one abstention, the Board accepted the TAC recommenda-

tion. Subsequent staffing and study within the Army resulted in gen-

eral disagreement with the Board's position. Reasons for disagree-

ment were that: there were no overriding factors favoring Stony

Lonesome over Washington Gate-to the contrary some factors not

included in the TAC study favored Washington Gate, for example,

construction difficulties and costs and other planned utilization of

the Stony Lonesome .area; a change in the location would delay con-

struction for a year and incur additional engineering and design

costs plus a year's inflation; the Stony Lonesome site is more remote

from the center of population, particularly the cadets; and, it was

challenged that a functionally acceptable structure could be erected

in the Stony Lonesome area that would also satisfy environmental

considerations of the West Point scene. In May 1972, the Chief of

Staff, Army, requested the Planning Advisory Board to reconsider its

position. By a vote of 5 to 5 the Board failed to reverse its earlier

recommendation. After considering all factors, the Secretary of the

Army approved the Washington Gate site for the new hospital in

June 1972.

The barracks modernization project will upgrade nine existing

buildings to provide modern quarters for 575 enlisted men in Army

units stationed at the USMA. Open-bay areas will be eliminated to

provide semiprivate rooms, latrine facilities will be improved, utilities

will be upgraded, and facilities for securing personal possessions will

be improved. Upon completion of the project, 100 percent of the

permanent barracks capable of being economically modernized at

West Point will meet current standards. All existing facilities will

continue in use and no demolition will result from this project.

Senator SYMINGTON. I do not question the need for barracks mod-

ernization here at the Academy, and I know that this is a high cost

area. But, I notice your unit cost of $22.40 per square foot proposed

for Fort Richardson, Alaska, which is shown on page 237. Can you

compare these two programs, since obviously Alaska is a high cost

area?

General CooPER. The barracks modernization project for Fort

Richardson includes one building of 93,454 square foot floor area built.

in 1949. The barracks modernization project for USMA includes seven

buildings; two were built in 1908, one each built, in 1935, 1939, and

1942, and two were built in 1943. The seven buildings range in size

from 5,400 square foot floor area to 27,500 square foot floor area. The

greater amount of labor and materials per square foot for modernizing

these smaller and older buildings at USMA more than makes up the

difference in the geographical area cost factors of 1.7 for Fort

Richardson and 1.3 for USMA.

The final project is to provide adequate utilities to the proposed

hospital site in the Washington gate area of the post. The academy

expansion and modernization plan provides for consolidation of cer-

tain activities in the Washington gate area to relieve traffic congestion

and minimize heavy vehicle operation in the main post area. This

project will extend communications service to the area, upgrade pri-

mary electrical service to the Washington gate area to serve the new

hospital project. Extension of the water, sewer, and steam distri-

bution lines, and the heating plant expansion are also required to sup-

port the new hospital building.

WALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL CENTER, DISTRICT OF COLUllIBIA AND

MARYLAND

Walter Reed Army Medical Center is located in Washington, D.C.

The mission of this center is to provide medical treatment for members

of the armed services and their dependents, to engage in medical re-

search and development, and to support all medical center activities.

The program provides a patient visitor facility. The request is for

$1,997,000.

The patient visitor project is to provide a facility to house the

next of kin of seriously ill patients and to house outpatients visiting.

Walter Reed for special treatment or diagnostic testing. Many of the

referred patients are in the seriously ill or very seriously ill category,

and this project will provide short-term housing for immediate family

members of these patients who come to Washington fom all parts of the

country to visit their loved ones. The present facility is always full,

with 79 beds in 28 rooms and assignments must be made on a bed

rather than a room basis, which is a most unacceptable practice. The

proposed facility will support the new 1,280-bed Walter Reed General

Hospital currently under construction. Cafeteria facilities are included

in the new facility to accommodate the occupants. The facility will be

available only to the next of kin of seriously ill patients and referred

outpatients who will be at WRGH for a short period of time.

Senator SYMINOTON. What will this facility be used for ? Is it in the

nature of a guesthouse to accommodate visitors?

General COOPER. The patient visitor facility will provide accommo-

dations for the next of kin of seriously ill patients and to house out-

patients referred to Walter Reed General Hospital from other sta-

tions for special treatment or diagnostic testing. This facility will only

be available for these people.

COLD REGIONS LABORATORY, N.H.

The Cold Regions Laboratory is located 8 miles from Lebanon, N.H.

The mission of this installation is to conduct basic and applied research

and scientific and engineering investigations pertaining to operations

in cold environments, methods and techniques of using various energy

forms and systems to obtain information about surface and subsurface

features, and to perform environmental and such other research in

support of mission activities. The program consists of a logistics and

storage facility at an estimated cost of $597,000.

This project is required to provide a storage facility for the logistics

support of the laboratory. The majority of the items stored are special

project and prototype equipment specially manufactured for use on

particular projects. Loss of this equipment through fire or other causes

would result in a slowdown or discontinuance of projects involved.

Also stored is historical data, including project statistics, notes and

charts which have been acquired over a period of several years and

most are irreplaceable. Loss of this data would seriously impair the

preparation of research reports and technical publications which are

the main end products of the laboratory.

Storage is now provided in the basement of a leased, converted

textile mill located in Lebanon, N.H., 8 miles from the laboratory. This

building is a potential fire hazard and security risk.

If this project is not approved, the distant and unsafe storage space

must continue in use as no other adequate space is available to satisfy

this requirement within commuting area.

OAKLAND ARMY BASE, CALIF.

The Oakland Army Base is located in Oakland, Calif. The mission

of this installation is to provide for traffic management, ocean terminal

operations and related transportation services of cargo and personnel;

train related military units, military personnel and civilians as as-

signed; and to provide administrative and logistical support to tenant

*and satellite agencies. The program consists of modernizing enlisted

20-507-73---11

women's barracks and security lighting. The request for this program

is $485,000.

The first item, a barracks modernization project, is to upgrade exist-

ing permanent barracks to provide modern quarters for female enlisted

personnel. WAC personnel assigned to Oakland now are living in

substandard World War II-type temporary structures or must live

off post in expensive rental housing. The building to be modernized is

configured for male occupancy to outdated standards, having open

bay squad bays and community latrines. Modernization will provide

improved privacy, greater security for personal possessions and im-

proved bathroom facilities. Completion of this project will provide

for the total enlisted WAC housing requirement at Oakland Army

Base.

The security lighting project is to provide physical security meas-

ures and safeguards to adequately protect Government property, cargo

awaiting processing, and personnel employed at this installation.

Raising the perimeter and area lighting to 0.3 footcandle will provide

sufficient illumination during the hours of darkness for visual and for

low-light-level television camera surveillance. Three television cam-

eras are presently installed externally and permit surveillance of the

warehouses and perimeter fencing but are usable only during daylight

hours since these TV cameras require 2 footcandle illumination for

operation. The cost of providing 2 footcandle illumination over the

entire installation is far greater than provision of 0.3 footcandle illu-

mination and use of low-light-level television cameras. This project

supports present policies for tightening security of transportation

terminal facilities to prevent gross pilferage and loss of intransit

cargos.

MILITARY OCEAN TERMINAL, SUNNY POINT, N.C.

Military Ocean Terminal, Sunny Point, is located at Wilmington,

N.C. The mission of this installation is to receive, handle, load and

ship outbound and retrograde ammunition, explosives and other DOD

cargo. The program is for a container transfer and marshaling facility

for $1,628,000.

This project will provide facilities for the containerized shipping

mission at Sunny Point. This port will be the only Army containerized

ammunition facility in the continental United States (CONUS). It

now handles approximately 55 percent of all munitions shipped from

CONUS. Existing conventional break-bulk methods of shipping muni-

tions require costly amounts of dunnage lumber and stevedore labor

which can be greatly reduced by using the containerized shipping

methods planned for Sunny Point. These savings will be particularly

significant during high volume shipping during war time.

FORT GREELY, ALASKA

Fort Greely is located at Fairbanks, Alaska. Its mission is to provide

command, control, administration and logistical support to the U.S.

Army Arctic Test Center, Northern Warfare Training Center, and

such other units and activities as may be directed, and to maintain

Allen Army Airfield and hangar. The program is for enlisted men's

barracks, without mess facilities, and for an eight stall automotive

self-help garage. The total request is for $3,489,000.

The barracks project will provide housing for 182 enlisted men. The

existing temporary wood frame barracks and quonset huts built in the

late forties have deteriorated beyond economical repair and are in-

adequate especially during winter months when temperatures of -30

to -600 F., along with winds of 25-26 knots, are very common. These

existing barracks are used for personnel attending courses of the

Northern Warfare Training Center and observers and temporary duty

troops assigned to Arctic Test Center activities. These activities-test-

ing of equipment, clothing and materials, and training of personnel

under arctic conditions-reach their peak during severe winter condi-

tions. To assure continued progress in these activities, with sufficient

numbers of personnel, it has on occasion been necessary to billet per-

sonnel in the already crowded existing permanent barracks. This over-

crowding is not desirable and this project will assist in alleviating

these conditions.

The automotive self-help garage will provide an eight stall auto-

motive shop, which will replace temporary World War II type wood

framed--4,758 square feet-structures. The need for a suitable facility

is twofold at Fort Greely. First, the isolated location of Fort Greely

and the absence of commercial facilities magnifies the requirement to

the point where this facility is the only means of maintaining private

vehicles in safe and dependable condition in this arctic environment.

The only dependable commercal facilities are in Fairbanks--110 miles

away-are limited, and costs are prohibitive. Secondly, this facility

will greatly improve the tour of duty at this isolated installation by

providing a place for the soldiers to pursue a gratifying hobby. Rec-

reational facilities .normally available in a community surrounding

most installations are completely lacking at Fort Greely and the harsh

environment makes outside activities unattractive and hazardous.

Senator SYMINGTON. $81.50 a square foot for a permanent auto

hobby shop seems to be quite exorbitant. Why cannot some type of

prefabricated metal building be used in lieu of permanent con-

struction?

General COOPER. The unit cost authorized for an auto hobby shop

with a spray booth is approximately $37 per square foot. Because of

the extreme climate and remote location, the location adjustment

factor for Fort Greely is 2.2 times the unit cost thus accounting for

the $81.50 per square foot construction cost. Unit costs and adjust-

ment factors are given in AR 415-17, "Empirical Cost Estimates for

Military Construction and Cost Adjustment Factors," which is based

upon actual construction cost and is updated on a regular basis.

A prefabricated metal building was not chosen in lieu of permanent

construction because concrete block is readily available whereas pre-

engineered structures must be shipped to the site. A study of a

similar project at Fort Richardson, Alaska, indicates that the initial

construction cost is approximately equal for the two building types

after including the shipping cost for the preengineered structure. In

addition, the climate prohibits the use of a standard prefabricated

metal structure without extensive modifications. The necessary modi-

fications include structural and architectural changes to meet local

wind and snow requirements, addition of acceptable insulation and

vapor barriers, elimination of through-metal connections, and replace-

ment of standard exterior components such as doors and windows.

Furthermore, recent life cycle cost studies indicate that the average

preengineered building has higher maintenance cost and shorter life-

span than conventionally constructed buildings.

FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA

Fort Richardson is located 7 miles northeast of Anchorage, Alaska.

The mission of this installation is to support all U.S. Army operations

in Alaska including special requirements for supply and maintenance

facilities for both Reserve components and CONUS-based Active

Army units receiving tactical training in Alaska. The installation also

provides ground and surface-to-air defenses for Elmendorf Air Base.

The program provides for barracks modernization for $2,140,000.

The barracks project will modernize two existing buildings con-

structed in 1951 to now outdated standards. The completed project will

provide modern quarters for 270 enlisted men and will bring Fort

Richardson to approximately 68 percent of their long range bachelor

enlisted housing requirement. The situation at Fort Richardson is

somewhat unique in that the long, harsh winters with weather that

often precludes any outdoor activities makes it even more imperative

that the Army provide comfortable, modern living accommodations

for the soldiers.

FORT WAINwRIGHT, ALASKA

Fort Wainwright is located at Fairbanks, Alaska. The mission of

this installation is to provide ground defense for the Wainwright-

Fairbanks-Eielson Air Force Base complex. Also supports a U.S.

Army hospital, a reinforced infantry battalion, and other nondivi-

sional type units. Army activities at Fort Wainwright are being con-

solidated to the South Post. The program provides for bachelor officer

quarters modernization and relocation of activities to South Post for a

total estimated cost of $2,715,000.

The bachelor officer quarters modernization project will provide

adequate bachelor officer quarters on the South Post to replace existing

quarters being used on the North Post area of Fort Wainwright and

is part of a plan to move all activities to the South Post area.

The relocation of activities to South Post will provide adequate

facilities for activities now located on the North Post. These activities

include an officers open mess, a billeting office, a provost marshal facil-

ity and a post headquarters.

SCHOFIELD BARRACKS MILITARY RESERVATION, HAWAII

Schofield Barracks Military Reservation is located 17 miles north-

west of Honolulu, Hawaii. The mission of this installation is to com-

mand, train, and provide logistical support for an infantry division.

It is also the headquarters for U.S. Army Hawaii and operates the

USARHAW supply and maintenance center and the USARHAW

personnel center. The program includes barracks modernization and a

consolidated mess hall. The total request is for $9,592,000.

The barracks project will modernize 12 existing buildings to provide

modern quarters for 1,809 enlisted men. The existing buildings are

structurally sound but are configured to now outdated living stand-

ards. The large open bay squad rooms will be remodeled to provide

semiprivate rooms, latrine facilities will be improved, air-conditioning

will be installed, and the heating and lighting upgraded.

r~

163

The second project is required to provide a modern consolidated

dining facility for all personnel living min Quads, I, J, and K, Schofield

Barracks. This project will replace the six active and three standby

reserve dining facilities presently scheduled for renovation and re-

construction to unit administrative, gamerooms, or storage space under

the barracks modernization programs in fiscal year 1973 and fiscal

year 1974. Construction of this project will insure adequate troop

dining facilities, while providing excellent food, less food waste, and

lower equipment replacement and food costs. The items of equipment

presently in the nine existing dining facilities will be either used in

the new facility or salvaged as their condition warrants.

FORT SHATElR, HAWAII

Fort Shafter is located 3 miles northwest of Honolulu, Hawaii. The

mission of the installation is to support Headquarters, U.S. Army

Pacific. Support facilities and family housing are located there. The

program will provide a medical/dental clinic for $1,233,000.

This project is to provide a new medical/dental clinic to replace an

inadequate facility which is a partially converted guardhouse. Al-

though the present facility has been utilized as a dispensary for several

years, the building has never been converted to a properly functioning

medical clinic necessary to provide complete preventive dentistry care

to eligible military personnel and dependents. The dental facility at

Tripler Army Medical Center is overtaxed in providing normal patient

care and cannot accommodate additional load. The requested dental

facility will contain a 12-chair dental clinic. It is considered more

economical to construct a new combined medical and dental facility

than to convert the present facility to an adequate dispensary and

then either add or construct a separate dental clinic. The medical clinic

has an average of 52 visits per day. Physical examinations for the

military staff at Fort Shafter and a drug screening program will also

be accomplished here.

VARIOUS LOCATIONS-AIR POLLUTION ABATEMENT

FACILITIES

This project will provide air pollution control and abatement meas-

ures at installations in compliance with Federal, State, and local air

pollution control regulations and Executive Order 11507-February 4,

1970. The total request in $7,295,000. The work includes various types

of air pollution abatement measures such as fly ash separators, fume

abatement systems, stack gas monitors, fuel conversion, air monitoring

stations, and construction of incinerators. Type and scope of work

varies because of the many different kinds and sizes of equipment and

the specific pollution problem to be resolved, but corrective actions

proposed are based on a determination of the most economical means

of satisfying controlling criteria.

Senator SYMrINTON. I notice that several of these air pollution

abatement projects are planned which are contractor operated. Why

are military construction funds utilized for this purpose when most

of the construction performed at these contractor operated plants

Qome from PEMA funds ?

General COOPER. These projects are included in the MCA budget

rather than in the procurement of equipment and missiles, Army

(PEMA) request based on an Assistant Secretary of Defense (Comp-

troller) memorandum, subject: Military Construction and Family

Housing Construction-Program/Budget Estimates, dated July 5,

1968. This memorandum directs that pollution control projects for

industrial-type activities will be proposed for financing under military

construction appropriations. This position has been confirmed during

the annual budget reviews.

In practice, those projects that are conceived to correct existing

pollution problems, for example, smoke stack emissions, are funded by

the MCA appropriation. Those projects actually related to the indus-

trial production line or are incidental to plant modernization are

funded by the PEMA appropriation. Since fiscal year 1968 approxi-

mately $9 million have been authorized in PEMA budgets for pollu.

tion abatement projects.

VARIOUS LOCATIONS-WATER POLLUTION

ABATEMENT FACILITIES

This program will provide water pollution control and abatement

measures at various installations in compliance with Federal, State

and local water pollution control regulations and with Executive

Order 11507-February 4, 1970-for $6,799,000. Work consists of the

construction of new, and expansion and upgrading of existing sanitary

and industrial waste systems, the construction of dikes around storage

tanks and the installation of sand traps and oil separators in shops

and vehicle wash racks. Type and scope of work varies depending upon

the existing system, but the corrective actions proposed are based on

the least costly means of meeting controlling criteria. When local con-

ditions permit advantageous accomplishment of any portion of a proj-

ect by connection to or use of a public system, the public system will be

used.

PANAMA AREA, CANAL ZONE

Army installations in the Canal Zone are located near the Pacific

and Atlantic entrances to the Panama Canal. Missions of these instal-

lations are to train military units and to provide ground and air de-

fense of the Panama Canal. The program consists of barracks modern-

ization in the Canal Zone and improvements to Fort Sherman Army

Airfield for a total of $8,095,000.

The barracks project will modernize existing buildings located at

Fort Clayton, Fort Kobbee, and Fort Gulick in the Canal Zone. The

completed project will provide modern quarters for 1,439 enlisted men.

This project is required to provide modern living accommodations

meeting current standards. Modernization will provide semiprivate

rooms, improved latrine facilities, air-conditioning, and improved

security for personal possessions.

The improvements to the Fort Sherman Army Airfield will establish

a capability at this field to accept medium cargo/troop aircraft on a

routine basis. Presently, landings of these aircraft-C-123, C-130-

can be made only under emergency conditions.

ii

EIGHTH U.S. ARMY, KOREA

The 8th U.S. Army is located in Korea. Its mission is to suport the

United Nations Command, to command and support the U.S. Forces,

Korea, and units of the 8th U.S. Army. The program provides for the

construction of an ALOC Airfield and for POL Terminal Facilities

at Pohang, Korea, for a total of $1,568,000.

The ALOC Airfield is an important link in the network of logistical

airfields sited throughout Korea to supplement the ground lines of

communication.

The POL terminal facilities will provide a deep water mooring sys-

tem capable of accepting T-5 tankers (250,000 bbl.). This will make

the Trans Korea pipeline system more responsive and economical.

FORT BUCHANAN, P.R.

Fort Buchanan is located at San Juan, P.R. The installation mis-

sion is to provide administrative and logistical support for all active

and reserve Army elements, to other services located in Puerto Rico

and to furnish community and welfare type services to retired military

personnel. The program is for barracks modernization for $517,000.

The barracks modernization project is required to upgrade existing

substandard barracks to meet current standards for today's Army. The

building to be modernized is still 'arranged in open bay squad rooms,

is not air-conditioned and offers little security for personal possessions.

To the extent possible semiprivate rooms will be constructed, the

structure will be air-conditioned, utilities will be increased and im-

proved, latrine facilities will be improved and secure areas for per-

sonal possessions provided.

Senator SYMINGTON. I do not question the need for barracks im-

provements here 'at Fort Buchanan in San Juan, but I wonder if any

consideration has been given to moving the Army activities out of

Fort Buchanan to the Ramey Air Force Base, which is being closed.

There are many fine facilities at Ramey, including barracks, family

housing, commissaries, et cetera. From your description of the mis-

sion at Fort Buchanan, it would seem that the type of work being per-

formed there could be performed just as well at the Ramey Air Force

Base.

General COOPER. The Army has reviewed its facilities requirements

and holdings to include Fort Buchanan, to determine whether or not

it would be appropriate to acquire some of the facilities which will be

made available at Ramey AFB. Since most Army activities in Puerto

Rico involve Reserve, National Guard, and ROTC officers they can best

be performed by conducting them in the Metropolitan San Juan area.

The travel and communications times to Ramey AFB are such that

it would neither be economical nor conducive to mission effectiveness

to transfer all or any Army activities from Fort Buchanan to Ramey

AFB. The Army has, however, requested use of a small area (to in-

clude six buildings located thereon) at Ramey AFB to relocate the

770th Military Police Company of the Puerto Rico National Guard,

now housed in an inadequate, privately-owned facility at Aguadilla,

P.R.

It should also be noted that the Army is taking steps to obtain cer-

tain excess facilities at the San Juan Naval Station to permit the

Puerto Rican National Guard to occupy better, consolidated facilities.

NATIONAL MISSILE RANGE, KWAJALEIN, MARSHALL ISLANDS

The National Missile Range, Kwajalein, is located at Kwajalein

Atoll 2,100 miles west of Hawaii. The mission of this installation is to

support research, development, and test programs for missile systems

for all services. The installation also supports programs conducted

by NASA. The program consists of additions to instrumentation and

technical support facilities, Ennylabegan power addition, and elec-

trical system feeder upgrading for a total of $2,353,000.

The first project is to provide adequate facilities to house radars

and other electronic equipment which support research and develop-

ment programs for missile and radar systems. The Air Force Minute-

man, the Navy Poseidon, the Army Sprint and Spartan, and the var-

ious Advanced Ballistic Missile Defense Agency programs all use these

range facilities to obtain information vital to the success of their

weapons systems. Minor additions to existing buildings at Eniwetok

are for the hydroacoustics impact timing system (HITS). Ballistic

camera electronic equipment will be installed on Legan, Omelek, and

Gagan Islands and a new building will be constructed on Illeginni

for a ballistic camera installation. In 1968 the telemetry building on

Ennylabegan was expanded to 3,200 square feet to house four antenna

systems, and two additional systems, a computer, and ancillary equip-

ment were added later. An additional 1,200 square feet of space will

permit analysis of data during missions, additional data processing

equipment, and allow for calibration and repair.

The second project will furnish reliable electrical power to facilities

on the island of Ennylabegan necessary for support of the missile re-3

search and development programs. The receiver equipment is located

on this island and reception of all incoming radio communication sig-

nals depends upon efficient operation of this equipment. Recent in-

stallation of two radomes to support the new telemetry antenna sys-

tems and the planned addition to the telemetry building will severely

overtax the existing power distribution system. This project will meet

the increasing power demands, upgrade existing electrical distribution

systems, and decrease equipment downtime and maintenance costs.

The final project is to furnish reliable power to the research and de-

velopment and range support facilities necessary in support of the

Safeguard, the Advanced Ballistics Missile Defense Agency

(ABMDA), and other range users' programs. This project will pro-

vide increased capacity to meet the increasing power demand and pro-

vide for future growth, upgrade the existing electrical feeder system,

and will decrease the time required to correct power failures that dead-

line technical range equipment. The major portion of the present dis-

tribution system was installed in 1960 and 1961; however, a small por-

tion is approximately 10 years older. Existing loads on several feed-

ers are reaching the rated capacity of the lines and have affected the

reliability of equipment during range missions as power outages in-

crease. The upgrading will enable the system to furnish reliable elec-

tric service under routine maintenance conditions.

U.S. ARMY SECURITY AGENCY, OVERSEAS, VARIOUS

LOCATIONS

This program is for various overseas locations operated by the U.S.

Army Security Agency. Mission of the sites is to engage in communica-

tions and intelligence activities. The project consists of one enlisted

men's barracks, without mess facilities, at location 276 for $1,434,000.

This project is to provide adequate troop housing for the enlisted

men at this isolated location. Present housing needs are being met by

double bunking in overcrowded rooms. This project is essential to

alleviate present overcrowded conditions, and will enhance the health,

welfare, and morale of the men. Assignment to this station entails an

unaccompanied tour with no off-post facilities available and the nature

of the mission dictates that personnel strength be housed on the sta-

tion. The nearest city accessible to the personnel of this station offers

little recreation, and public relations are best maintained by permit-

ting limited visits to the city as local nationals are generally unaccus-

tomed to the Western way of life.

U.S. ARMY STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS COMMAND,

OVERSEAS

The U.S. Army Strategic Communications Command provides and

operates communications facilities worldwide. The program will up-

grade power at eight communications stations located in four countries

for $2,097,000.

This project is for power improvements at strategic Army com-

munications stations within the defense communications system

(DCS). It provides for new generators to include associated switch-

gear and ancillary equipment, construction of new and/or modifica-

tion of existing power equipment buildings, and for upgrade of pri-

mary and secondary distribution systems. This project is a part of a

systematic effort to accomplish the Army's portion of the Defense

Communications Agency (DCA) Military Department worldwide

electric power improvement program. Its objective is to achieve within

the Army portion of the defense communications system (DCS) an

absolute minimum of communication interruptions caused by electrical

power failure. To achieve this objective, primary and auxiliary power

facilities, as well as electrical distribution systems, are to be upgraded

to insure adequate continuous electrical power at selected Army defense

communications system (DCS) facilities.

Senator SYMINGTON. It seems like every year we have a substantial

sum in the bill for the purpose of upgrading power at various loca-

tions. Just how important is this? Have you had many power out-

ages under your present setup ?

General CooPER. This project is quite important. The eight loca-

tions cited in the project are Army communications stations within

the defense communications system (DC'S). The DCS stations in Ger-

many are all high priority stations within the European wideband

communications system (EWCS). The stations at Juzon Mountain

and Grass Mountain, Taiwan, and Fort Buckner, Okinawa, are all im-

portant tropospheric and microwave links in the integrated com-

munications systems, Far East (ICS-FE). Failure to provide ade-

quate and reliable electrical power for these sites could cause serious

degradation of communications vital to the national command author-

ity and/or the DOD command and control communications network.

Electrical power failure continues to be a major cause of communica-

tions outages at many of these DCS facilities. A significant fact is that

the primary power is furnished by a foreign country. This power is not

as operationally reliable as in the United States nor is the ultimate

control in U.S. hands. The project requested will provide emergency

or standby power where it does not exist, will upgrade heavily taxed

distribution systems and gear, and replace outdated equipment.

U.S. ARMY, EUROPE

GERMANY, VARIOUS

This request is for a group of six items at various locations in the

Federal Republic of Germany. The missions of the installations are

in support of the U.S. Army, Europe. The program consists of enlisted

men's barracks and two projects for improvements to dependent

schools for a total request of $12,517,000.

The first project is to provide a new troop barracks at Pruem Post,

Germany. Pruem Post is a small isolated installation near the Ger-

many-Belgium-Luxembourg border. Because of the prevalent inclem-

ent weather and lack of recreational facilities, the need for adequate

living accommodations becomes even more imperative. Currently, per-

sonnel are billeted in temporary theater of operations-type barracks

that were constructed in 1952. The barracks have only large open bay

living areas and seriously inadequate latrine facilities. They have un-

dergone serious deterioration in the last 20 years. Investigations in

1971 revealed structural failure of the roof and wall supporting sys-

tems of several buildings. Due to the age of the buildings, an increased

rate of deterioration can be expected within the irmnediate future.

They are difficult to heat and remain drafty during the cold season each

year. All of these factors contribute to the poor living conditions at

Pruem Post and have generated a very serious morale problem among

the troops stationed there. The Army barracks at this site will be re-

placed in two increments with this being the initial phase. Seven tem-

porary theater of operations barracks with a total area of 19,330 SF

will be demolished upon completion of this project. This project is not

within the established NATO infrastructure category for common

funding.

The second project requests $4,937,000 to provide new dependent

school facilities at two locations-an elementary school in Baumholder

and a middle school in Mannheim. In both cases the existing schools

are seriously overcrowded and lack proper educational facilities. Many

classes are now held in makeshift classrooms including basements of

private quarters. The proposed projects will alleviate the crowded

condition and provide functionally adequate educational facilities.

The final project requested for our forces in Germany is also for

facilities for dependent schools. This project will provide additions to

existing schools at three locations-Nuremberg, Fulda, and Wurz-

burg. Similar to Baumholder and Mannheim, these three dependent

school areas have experienced a significant enrollment increase which

must be absorbed in already inadequate facilities. The plight of our

overseas dependent schools has been known for some time but suffered

in the competition for limited construction dollars. The Army is now

attempting to accomplish the badly needed corrections. The proposed

projects will provide additional classrooms for the schools in the three

locations which will alleviate crowded conditions and replace other

functionally inadequate facilities now used.

Senator SINGTON. This seems to be quite a lot of money you are

proposing to spend on upgrading dependent schools at various loca-

tions. Has consideration been given to using prefabricated structures

for additional classrooms? I know the Air Force has done this in the

Frankfurt area.

General COOPER. We have given thought to using prefabricated

structures, that is, akin to the metal "Butler" type buildings. In fact

in some areas we have utilized these buildings as an interim remedy to

space problems. They have not been particularly satisfactory from a

cost, maintenance, or functional standpoint. We are using preengi-

neered structures of a different sort, for example, utilizing precast

concrete sections. Our construction designs and contracts are being

developed to provide for the maximum flexibility in construction. This

allows the prospective contractors to bid on a variety of preengineered

options, utilizing materials, and construction techniques commonly

employed in Europe. This has proven very competitive and gives us

better overall structures.

VARIOUS LOCATIONS (NATO INFRASTRUCTURE)

This is required to meet the estimated U.S. share of the multina-

tional NATO common funded infrastructure program. The funds will

be used to meet U.S. obligations during the fiscal year 1974 time frame

as projects in established categories are approved for funding by the

NATO Payments 'and Progress Committee. Such projects are from a

backlog of construction requirements previously approved in

SACEUR and SACLANT annual programs. The request for fiscal

year 1974 takes into account unused authorization and funds as well

as recoupments received from projects previously prefinanced by the

United States and now considered eligible for common funding.

Senator SYMINGTON. I notice that you are asking $80 million in new

authorization and only $60 million in new funding for NATO infra-

structure for fiscal year 1974. Why the difference between the funding

and the authority you are requesting ?

Last year you were given $58 million in new authority. Why is the

substantial increase to $80 million necessary this year ? Do these figures

take into consideration the devaluation of the dollar? I have in mind

that a few months ago you sent through a request to use emergency

authority to make up a deficit created by the devaluation of the dollar.

General COOPER. Your question has three separate but related parts.

I shall endeavor to answer them in the order in which they were

asked:

1. The requirement for $80 million in new authorization, as com-

pared to $60 million in new funding, stems from the fact that although

the U.S. share of NATO infrastructure is a single line item in the mili-

tary construction, Army appropriation, it differs from all other line

items in that it is a continuing program-not a complete one-time

I I

170

project. A carryover of unobligated authorization from one fiscal year

to the next is therefore required to permit the United States to con-

tinue participation in NATO, pending enactment of authorization for

the new fiscal year.

In recent years authorization has not been enacted until 3 to 5

months after the fiscal year has begun. Our unobligated authorization

carryover at end fiscal year 1968 was $29 million; fiscal year 1969, $40

million; fiscal year 1970, $62 million; and fiscal year 1971, $47 million.

As a result of congressional reductions 'of Department of Defense

fiscal year 1971 and fiscal year 1972 ,authorization requests, our carry-

over from fiscal year 1972 to fiscal year 1973 was reduced to $18 million.

The reduction in total authorization available to us in fiscal year 1973

reduced 'our ability to cope with unanticipated unbudgeted fiscal year

1973 costs of $43 million stemming from -devaluation in the U.S. dollar.

Accordingly, we deferred $12 million of high priority fiscal year 1973

requirements to early fiscal year 1974 and 'requested fiscal year 1973 re-

programing of $20.65 million into NATO infrastructure. Late defer-

rals provided a $1.7 million carryover of unobligated authorization into

fiscal year 1974 to enable us to meet 'payroll and other nondeferable

costs pending resolution authority. The requirement for a carryover

of unobligated authorization from one fiscal year to the next is de-

veloped more fully in a paper we are submitting for the record.

The requested carryover of $20 million in unobligated authorization

from fiscal year 1974 to fiscal year 1975 approximates 25-30 percent (3

months) of our estimated fiscal year 1975 requirement, based on the

February 12, 1973, devalued dollar. It is a minimum requirement which

contemplates that the Congress will enact fiscal year 1975 'authoriza-

tion within 3 months 'after 'the start of fiscal year 1975, that construc-

tion costs will remain stable, and the value of the dollar will recover

to the February 12, 1973, official value level.

2. The fiscal year 1974 request for $80 million new authorization, as

compared to $58 million for fiscal year 1973, is required to:

(a) Provide for a $20 million carryover of unobligated authorization

into fiscal year 1974 to permit continued participation in NATO pend-

ing enactment of new year authorization. As previously outlined, the

fiscal year 1973 carryover to fiscal year 1974 is $1.7 million, leaving 'a

carryover shortage of $18.3 million.

(b) Provide support of the NATO 1970-1974 level of program (Slice

XXI-XXV) in keeping with previous U.S. sponsorship and com-

mitments. This includes provision for the cost of recent dollar devalua-

tions.

3. In response to your question regarding the cost of the devaluations

of the dollar, I will insert two tables in the record-the first shows de-

'tails of dollar devaluation costs in fiscal year 1973-1974; the second

shows the impact on our fiscal year 1973-1974 authorization and fund

requirements. Highlights ,of these tables include the following:

(a) The total cost of U.S. dollar devaluations in fiscal year 1973-1974

as related to the U.S. share of the NATO infrastructure program is

$63 million. Fiscal year 1973 costs are $43 million, none of which was

provided for in the Department of Defense fiscal year 1973 budget.

Fiscal year 1974 costs 'are estimated at $20 million, of which only $5

million is included in our fiscal year 1974 budget.

(b) We have endeavored to provide for the unbudgeted fiscal year

1973 cost of $43 million as follows:

171

Millions

Cancellation and deobligation of projects------------------------$10. 35

Reprograming requested May 7, 1973. HAC has approved; SAC has not

yet acted----- -------------------------------------------20. 65

Projects deferred to early fiscal year 1974----------------------- 12. 000

Total/Unbudgeted fiscal year 1973 costs-------43-------------- . 000

(c) Assuming SAC approves Secretary of Defense May 7, 1973, re-

quest to reprogram $20.65 million additional funds into NATO infra-

structure to partially provide for the $43 million unbudgeted fiscal year

1973 cost of devaluaton, revised fiscal year 1974 authorization and

funding requirements are as listed below. The increased requirements

are caused entirely by the devaluation of the dollar.

(1) $19.3 million additional new obligation authority (NOA) is

required over and 'above the $40 million NOA requested in Department

of Defense fiscal year 1974 budget. The revised fiscal year 1974 NOA

requirement is therefore $59.3 million.

(2) The revised fiscal year 1974 total obligation authority (TOA)

requirement is $85.3 million ($60 million Department of Defense

budget plus $19.3 million additional NOA requirement, plus $6 million

additional estimated fiscal year 1974 recoupments).

(3) The revised fiscal year 1974 authorization is $105.3 million ($80

million Department of Defense budget plus $19.3 million 'additional

NOA requirement, plus $6 million additional estimated fiscal year 1974

recoupment)).

COST OF U.S. DOLLAR DEVALUATION, FISCAL YEAR 1973-74-U.S. SHARE OF NATO INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM

(MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY)

Fiscal years-

1973-74

(total) 1973 1974

COST OF DEVALUATION

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

tion-----.... ------... ------..........--................................... $25.000 $20.000 $5. 000

Feb. 12, 1973, devaluation dollar...... ..... ___ .... ........... .... 31.000 23. 000 8.000

Difference, Feb. 12, 1973 dollar versus current market dollar................. 7.000 0 7.000

Total, fiscal year 1973-74 cost devaluation .. ................... -..... 63.000 43. 000 20.000

FUND REQUIREMENT

Included in budget --.... FUND --E.UM........................ . -5.000 0 -5.000

Not inclubud in budget_ __....._--._..._..---------------_ 58. 000 43.000 15. 000

Carryover from fiscal year 1973 appropriation-----........... ---------- - --1.700 0 -1.700

Additional estimated recoupments---- ----------...--------- -6.000 0 -6.000

Total unbudgeted cost of devaluation---------------------------.. 50.300 43.000 7.300

Projects canceled and deobligated ..-....-.-.-.-. - --10.350 -10.350 0

Proects deferred fiscal year 1973 to fiscal year 1974_................_..... 0 -12.000 +12.000

Fiscal year 1973 reprograming requested ...-..-.....------------- 120.650 1 -20.650 0

Subtotal_ __........ ..............--------------------------- (-31.000) (-43.000) (+12.000)

Total unbudgeted, if fiscal year 1973 reprograming approved_ _-__-. 19. 300 0 19.300

Add fiscal year 1974 funds required, if fiscal year 1973 reprograming not ap-

proved --------------------------------------------.. -+20.650 0 +20.650

Total unbudgeted, if fiscal year 1973 reprograming not approved.......... 39.950 0 39. 950

1 Request approved by chairman, Subcommittee on Military Construction, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of

Representatives. Senate has not yet acted on request.

172

NATO INFRASTRUCTURE PROCEDURES FOR OBLIGATING AND EXPENDING U.S. SHARE

OF COSTS

BACKGROUND

"Infrastructure" is the NATO term for facilities necessary for the deploy-

ment and operation of NATO military forces, including U.S. forces committed to

NATO. It includes airfields, communications, POL, Naval bases, radar installa-

tions and other miiltary operational facilities.

Common financing of Infrastructure is based on a cost sharing plan covering

several (usually five) years, drawn up and agreed to by NATO countries. The

most recent agreement was signed in February 1970, and covered annual incre-

ments (slices) XXI through XXV (1970-1974). This agreement established a

program of $753.1 million, of which the U.S. share (29.67%) was $223.4 million.

This cost will be increased as a result of the most recent dollar devaluation.

Annually, the NATO Military Commanders recommend construction or mod-

ernization of projects essential for the support of military forces committed to

NATO. After review, selected projects together constitute the yearly program,

or annual Slice, which is formally approved by the NATO Council/Defense

Planning Committee (the highest political bodies of NATO). Each such slice

must, when added to previous slice approvals, be within the multi-year cost ceil-

ing.

In effect, the U.S. commitment to NATO Infrastructure occurs at the time of

approval of the long-term program, and is reaffirmed in terms of specific proj-

ects at the time of approval of the annual slice program.

After approval of projects in an annual slice, full responsibility for project

implementation is assumed by the applicable host country, which starts prepara-

tory work; siting, preliminary estimates, plans and specifications. Individual

projects are then submitted with supporting details to the NATO Payments

and Progress (P&P) Committee. Based upon prior screening by the NATO

Technical staff, the NATO P&P Committee must be satisfied that the project

retains its military requirements, conforms to NATO criteria, is reasonable in

cost, and is eligible for common funding under NATO Infrastructure rules.

In addition, beginning with Slice XXI (1970), the NATO P&P Committee re-

views the status of preparatory work to insure that the project can be con-

tracted for within the next twelve months. This pre-requisite to P&P Commit-

tee approval has significantly reduced the lagtime between approval of an annual

program (Slice) and contracting/obligating and has improved DoD capability

for forecasting annual fund requirements. Once the project is approved by the

NATO P&P Committee, the host nation may proceed with actual construction.

The NATO P&P Committee meets each week throughout the year to review

and approve urgent and incremental Infrastructure project requests.

U.S. CONCURRENCE IN A NATO P&P COMMITTEE FUND AUTHORIZATION IS

SIMULTANEOUSLY A FUND OBLIGATION FOR THE U.S.

To prepare a budget request for the Congress, the U.S. representative must

forecast the anticipated P&P Committee authorizations for the year in ques-

tion, weighing various factors, including predicting when a host country will

acquire the necessary real estate, provide local utilities, and prepare plans for

submittal to P&P Committee. There are other variables which make it difficult

to forecast the specific projects which will receive P&P Committee approval (and

U.S. obligation) during a given fiscal year or to forecast with precision the

resultant annual fund requirement. As a result, the Congress has requested and

receives each quarter a listing of specific projects approved by the P&P Com-

mittee during the previous calendar quarter.

Upon approval of a given project by the P&P Committee an obligation reflect-

ing the U.S. share of the cost of that project is recorded, based on the official

173

value of the dollar in relationship to the NATO IAU (International Accounting

Unit) as of that point in time. Obligations are subsequently adjusted to reflect:

(1) Actual construction costs in the same manner as regular U.S. military con-

struction projects.

(2) Changes in the official value of the dollar. Adjustment must be made

to all unliquidated obligations to reflect the change in the relationship of the

dollar to the IAU as of the date the U.S. Treasury officially notifies the IMF

(International Monetary Fund) of the change in official dollar value. Subse-

quently, all new obligations must likewise reflect this change in value.

(3) The difference between the amount actually expended in the market

place to liquidate a given obligation and the amount recorded for that obliga-

tion.

The history of the value of the dollar in relationship to the NATO IAU is

as follows (expressed in terms of number of dollars required to equal one

IAU):

Percent of

dollar Cumulative

devaluation percent

(since devaluation

previous (new value

Effective dates Amount devaluation) verses $2.80)

Official'value of the dollar in relationship to the NATO IAU (applies to all

unliquidated obligations):

Inception NATO-May 8, 1972-------------------------------- 2. 80 ........ .. _ ------.-_..

May 8, 1972 to Feb. 12, 1973 ..--------------------------------- 3.04 8.57 8.57

Feb. 12, 1973 to current .............- - - 3.38 11.1 20.7

Approximate current value of the dollar in the marketplace (applies to

toexpenditures only): Currentand assumed average for fiscal year 1974.. 3.72 10.0 32.9

APPLICATION TO FISCAL YEAR 1978-74--IN KEEPING WITH THE ABOVE

(1) The DOD FY 1973 budget was based on the value of the official dollar,

in relationship to the IAU, as of December 1971 ($2.80 to the IAU). As of

8 May 1972 unliquidated obligations (in excess of $150 million) were increased

by 8.57% to reflect the new official rate of $3.04 to the IAU and all subsequent

obligations were recorded at the $3.04 rate.

(2) The DOD FY 1974 budget, prepared in December 1972, is based on $3.04

to the IAU. Unliquidated obligations (in excess of $150 million) will be in-

creased by an additional 11.1% to reflect the 12 February 1973 devaluation

of the dollar immediately following passage of the applicable Public Law by the

Congress (House-Senate conferees have agreed on a bill), approval by the Presi-

dent, and notification to IMF by the U.S. Treasury.

(3) Expenditures have been, and will be, made based on the value of the

dollar in the market place as of the time the expenditure is made.

(4) Expenditures are currently made at the approximate rate of $3.72 to the

IAU, whereas obligations are currently recorded at the rate of $3.04 to the

IAU. As current expenditures are made, a concurrent increase in the applicable

recorded obligation by the 22.3% is therefore required.

The DOD FY 1974 budget request submitted to Congress in January 1974

provides for $80 million in authorizations, $60 million in total obligations author-

ity (TOA) and $40 million in new obligation authority (NOA).

Only $5 million of the $63 million cost of dollar devaluations applicable to

the U.S. share of the NATO Infrastructure Program were included in DOD

FY 1973 and 1974 budget estimates. Assuming approval of DOD's request of

7 May 1973 to reprogram an additional $20.650 million into NATO Infrastructure,

revised FY 1974 requirements are $105.3 million authorizations, $85.3 TOA and

$59.3 NOA.

174

NATO INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS, FISCAL YEAR 1973-74

1973 1974

AUTHORIZATION

Carryover from PY........------------................................................. ---------------------------------------18. 2 122.3

Authorization/President's budget ............................................... 58.0 80.0

Subtotal- ........... - 76. 2 102.3

Fiscal year 1973 reprogram request.. --..- 120.6 ............

Total authorization available- ----------------------- --------- 96.8 102.3

Obligations/requirement:

Estimated obligations fiscal year 1973..-------------------------------------- 74.5 ..........

President's budget--- ---------------------------------------------------------- 60.0

Fiscal year 1973 cost Feb. 12, 1973, devaluation----.... ------.-.-........................ 120.6

Subtotal ........------------------------------------------------------------------ 80.6

Fiscal year 1974 cost Feb. 12, 1973, devaluation ....-. . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . ..__ 8.0

Fiscal year 1973 projects deferred to fiscal year 1974.---.....-...--.-- - - - - --... . . ... . ..__ - - 12.0

Fiscal year 1974 cost, difference Feb. 12, 1973, dollars versus current dollars.....-----..---------- - 2 7.0

Subtotal, added requirement- - - - ................. ............____.__ .______ 27.0

Total obligations/requirement.......-------------------------------------... 74.5 107.6

Available for carryover/shortage ...........-------------------------------- 122.3 8 -5.3

Added authorization requirement (including $20,000,000 carryover).----............. ._ 0 a25.3

FUNDING

Carryover from PY..---- ------------------------------------------------- 14.2 1.7

NOA/President's budget _- ... -.-..-...-. . . . . . . 38.0 40.0

Recoupments--- ----------------------------------------------------- 24.0 26.0

Subtotal.........-.............-- - - - - 76.2 67.7

Fiscal year 1973 reprogram request -----..-..... --.___.-....... . __ (4) 120.6.

Total funds available-.-.............-........------------- 4 76.2 88. 3

Obligations/requirement (as above)..---------------------------------------. 74 5 2 107.6

Available for carryover/shortage.---------------------------------------- 41.7 -19.3

Added fund requirement---- ----------------------------------- --------------------- 19.3

1 Approval of the Chairmen, HAC and SAC was requested by letter May 7, 1973, to reprogram $20,650,000 from Safeguard

to NATO infrastructure to partially cover fiscal year 1973 cost ($23,000,000) of Feb. 12, 1973, dollar devaluation. Concur-

rently, chairmen, HASC and SASC were advised thatSecDef intended to utilize the provisions of sec. 703 to provide a like

amount of additional authorization for Infrastructure. As of July 25, 1973 neither HASC orSASC has expressed disapproval;

HAC has approved reprograming of funds butSAC has not yet acted. Accordingly, this table reflects the requested $20,650,-

000,000 additional authorization as available in fiscal year 1973 and assumes early fiscal year 1974 SAC approval to fund,

reprograming. Failure to obtain approval of fiscal year 1973 funds reprograming will increase fiscal year 1974 requirement

for TOA and NOA by $20,650,000,000 above requirements shown hereon.

a Assumes that the average market value of the fiscal year 1974 dollar will approximate the value of current dollars

(i.e. approximately 10 percent below the Feb. 12, 1973, official rate). Fiscal year 1974 expenditures are estimated as $70,-

000,000 at the Feb. 12, 1973 official rate. Table reflects additional fiscal year 1974 cost of $7,000,000 (10 percent of $70,-

000,000) to cover the difference between the official Feb. 12, 1973 dollar value versus the current market value.

8 A carryover of unobligated authorization to the ensuing fiscal year is required to permit the United States to continue

participation in NATO, pending enactment of the ensuing years military construction authorization. This table provides

for a carryover into fiscal year 1975 of $20,000,000 unused authorization (approximately 25 to 30 percent of estimated

total fiscal year 1975 authorization requirement, based on current market value of the dollar).

4 Excludes requested $20,650,000,000 fiscal year 1973 reprograming (see footnote 1). Although the $20,650,000 has been

apportioned to DOD by OMB(and will therefore be shown as available as of une 3, 1973, on DOD status of funds report),

obligations can not be incurred until and unless reprograming is approved by Chairman SAC.

STATEMENT BY MR. J. T. LOVELAND, U.S. MISSIoN NATO

FISCAL YEAR 1974 INFRASTRUCTURE HEARINGS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am pleased to have the oppor-

tunity to appear before your Committee to support the proposals of the Depart-

ment of Defense for an authorization of $80 million and an appropriation of

$40 million for Fiscal Year 1974 as the U.S. share of the common funded NATO

Infrastructure Program. Since fiscal year 1968, the U.S. contribution to the

NATO Infrastructure Program has been funded under Authorizations and Ap-

propriations for Military Construction Army. This program provides the facili-

ties necessary to support NATO military forces and which are intended for com-

mon use or have a high degree of common interest. The term covers such varied

items as air fields, air defense facilities, communications, missile sites, war

headquarters, nuclear storage sites, pipelines, and POL depots. It does not

normally cover general purpose depots, troop billets, and other logistics support

facilities closely related to national standards and practices, although a one-

time exception has been made to fund such facilities from this program as reim-

bursement for certain of the U.S. costs for relocation from France. I will discuss

this in more detail later.

The NATO commonly funded Infrastructure Program was inaugurated by the

North Atlantic Council in 1951 as a follow-on to a similar program begun in 1950

by the Western European Union countries. The NATO Infrastructure program

has been a most 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 $1.0 billion

are under construction or programed. The program has given NATO a network

of modern airfields, an efficient system of POL distribution and storage, common

communications without which the NATO command structure could not function,

essential air defense warning installations, and air and naval nagivational aids.

By jointly financing these and other types of facilities designed to enhance the

effectiveness of NATO forces, NATO nations have demonstrated in a most realistic

way their determination to provide for the common defense.

Now that the program has provided most of the basic facilities required in the

common defense, its character is gradually changing. The requirement for major

air and naval installations has given way to the new requirement for moderniza-

tion 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 modi-

fied 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 changes. The NATO Satellite Communications system

(SATCOM) is based on the U.S. interim defense communication satellite system.

Replacement satellites (SATCOM Phase III) are programmed and funded for

launch in 1975. Another example is the semi-automation and integration of

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

air defense of Allied Command Europe. Finally, in order to make the program fully

responsive to the needs of the NATO "flexible response" strategy and associated

force planning, we are 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 large proportion of the facili-

ties needed by U.S. forces. In particular, it supports controlled humidity storage

which maintains in good condition equipment of our dual-based forces. The pro-

gram also includes aircraft survival measures which were implemented by the

U.S. Air Force, with the approval of Congress, on a "pre-financed" basis in order to

ensure early construction.

The 1973 NATO program includes a second phase of the air weapons training

facility in the Mediterranean which replaces the facility lost in Libya. It also con-

tains vital facilities for the U.S. Navy in the Mediterranean.

We have previously announced that we had made great strides in maximizing

U.S. benefits from the program. The major single benefit has come from our suc-

cess in persuading our Allies to share up to about $100 million of our costs in

relocating our forces from France. In effect, the Defense Planning Committee

(the North Atlantic Council less France) agreed in 1969 to cost-share, under cer-

tain conditions, up to that amount if our military services can provide and justify

sufficient fund requests. As reported to you previously, NATO has agreed to con-

tinue the agreement thru end of calendar year 1973 by providing funds "a priori".

This permits us to use NATO money to implement construction rather than spend

U.S. funds which have to be recouped after projects are completed. NATO's final

installment has now been made available in Slice XXIII and U.S. services are

using this money as fast as possible.

In response to U.S. requirements, NATO has agreed to automatic deletion pro-

cedures to reduce or avoid future backlogs of Infrastructure projects. These

procedures apply to Slice XXI, approved in 1971, and subsequent annual slice

programs. We have told you that similar procedures are being developed for

application to Slices XX and prior. In fact, we expect within two or three years,

to have virtually closed out all slice programs prior to Slice XXI. In this con-

nection we have made major strides this year. Some urgency in these efforts

has resulted because inflation in Europe has rendered available infrastructure

funds insufficient to pay for all of the projects programmed in early years. Our

Allies have endorsed the U.S. position that new funds will not be added to old

Infrastructure slice programs. Thus, projects must compete for available pro-

grammed funds within each slice, or drop out of the program when funds allo-

cated for that slice are gone.

20-507-73- 12

s.

In 1970 the NATO Defense Planning Committee approved the financing of a

five-year Infrastructure program for the years 1970-1974 (Slices XXI through

XXV), and agreed that the ceiling be set at $700 million (though the U.S. and

some other countries believed it should be $840 million). The agreement pro-

vided that NATO Military Commanders would program those urgent military

requirements which could be accomplished within the ceiling and report back thA

financial condition after programming of Slice XXIV in 1973. The ceiling of $700

million included relocation costs from France for U.S. and Canadian forces. The

cost sharing formula (U.S. share 29.67 percent) remains unchanged, but the

recent devaluations of the dollar will result in a higher U.S. dollar cost.

There are two factors which serve to reduce our share of this total amount of

money used in the Infrastructure Program. First, in 1970, the Euro-Group (NATO

less France, Portugal, U.S., Iceland, and Canada) offered an additional $420 mil-

lion (closer to $450 million in devalued dollars) over a five year period to the

Infrastructure Program as part of the European Defense Improvement Program

(EDIP) to permit urgent implementation of the NATO aircraft shelter program.

This permitted early recoupment of U.S. prefinancing funds spent on this pro-

gram and relieved the pressure on programmed Infrastructure money to allow

funding of additional NATO Integrated Communications System (NICS) proj-

ects. When the EDIP contribution is considered, the effective U.S. share reduces

to approximately 18-20 percent.

The second factor is that host nations provide the land, access roads, and util-

ity connections for each NATO Infrastructure project. These host nation con-

tributions are estimated to average about 13 percent of costs paid by NATO com-

mon funding. If these costs were added to the total, the U.S. contribution would

drop another 3 to 4 percent.

We have also taken steps to maximize U.S. industrial participation in the

Infrastructure program. During our negotiations concerning the NATO Inte-

grated Communications System (NICS), when our Allies insisted on a sharing

of the production, we insisted on modifying the NATO rule which allowed host

nations to include taxes and customs, in their comparison of bids (even though

NATO did not have to pay these levels), thus favorizing local or regional firms.

The final agreement gave us satisfaction on the taxes and customs issues and

guaranteed that 38 percent of the production would be carried out by U.S. con-

tractors, with a possibility of as much as 58 percent, depending on the com-

petitive strength of U.S. industry. Recent dollar devaluations will help maximize

U.S. industry's participation. Secretary Laird also told his DPC colleagues that

he expected the new policy on bid comparison to be extended to the remainder

of the Infrastructure program. Negotiations are now underway and we expect

success shortly.

We continue to enjoy a greater benefit from this NATO program than could

be expected from the size of our contribution. If we exclude 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

US projects are worthwhile. In 1968 we informed you that Slice XVIII included

US projects in the amount of 40 percent of all projects for use by national forces.

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

Slice XXI, 68 percent; for Slice XXII, 58 percent; and 59 percent for Slice

XXIII. In the six annual programs, therefore, well over 50 percent of all national

user projects were programmed for benefit of US forces, but our formal con-

tribution remains at 29.7 percent of the entire program. It is apparent, therefore,

that we have a distinct financial interest in the continuing success of the NATO

Infrastructure Program. As long as we can fit our national programs into the

available common funds, the US will benefit directly from this NATO effort. In

addition, Secretary Laird proposed last December a new category of Infra-

structure projects in support of "stationed forces". We are exploring with the

US military authorities the best way to take advantage of such a new category.

We would hope to expand it to include many of the items such as warehouses

and other logistic support facilities which are now ineligible for NATO funds.

A word about the prospects for the Infrastructure Program in the remainder of

this decade is in order. As a result of inflation, an insufficient initial allocation

of money, the need for more sophisticated equipments, and various delays in

production and construction, none of the funds approved in February 1970 for

the 1970-1974 period remain for Slice XXV (1974). To prevent a hiatus in the

Infrastructure program, additional funds (estimated at $180 million, of which

the US share is 29.6 percent or $53 million) are required for Slice XXV to meet

the most urgent military requirements. On 17 November 1972, Secretary Laird

177

advised the Chairmen of the Senate and House Armed Services and Appropria-

tions Committees that we would support an increase in the current five year

program (Slices XXI-XXV) to Slice XXV. The NATO Defense Ministers

agreed to the US position at their December 1972 meeting. In addition, the

Ministers agreed in principle to a continuation of the program in the period

1975-79 and instructed the NATO Military Authorities and the Defense Planning

Committee to work out the details. The DPC in Permanent Session is working

out necessary financial arrangements and will report back to NATO Ministers

in June 1973.

I should like now to describe briefly, first, the NATO system for processing

Infrastructure projects, and second, how the US Mission to NATO (USNATO)

arrived at its estimate for US obligations for Infrastructure.

Each year the Major NATO Commanders 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 Pro-

gram or Slice. In the US, each proposed annual slice is reviewed thoroughly within

the Executive Branch, starting with the interested US subordinate military

commands and continuing through the US Commander in Chief, Europe, and

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

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

Office of the Secretary of Defense.

The final NATO slice is really an approved list of military construction

requirements and nothing more. After slice approval, the host country in which

a project is to be built takes full responsibility for the work. It must obtain the

necessary land (at its own expense), plan utilities connections and access roads

(which it later builds at its own expense), prepare engineering plans and speci-

fications, and develop cost estimates. When all is ready, the host country submits

the project with all supporting data to the NATO Payments and Progrses Com-

mittee for construction authorization and fund commitment. Before agreeing,

the Payments and Progress (P&P) 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 P&P Committee authorizes construction of an Infrastructure proj-

ect, the US obligates funds from its annual appropriation for its share of that

project. Let me explain briefly how we estimate our costs for FY 1974. The esti-

mate is completed largely by the USNATO staff in Brussels because it has daily

contact with our Allies on Infrastructure matters. The staff is the US agency

closest to the plans and progress of the various "host" countries.

Last September, USNATO made a careful review of the NATO Infrastructure

project backlog-that is, of all projects included in previously approved annual

slices which had not yet been authorized by the P&P Committee for actual con-

struction. The basic records-that is, the host country semiannual reports--were

checked. Information was collated for all locations by project category and by

cost sharing agreement, on the amount of money already atuhorized by the P&P

Committee and on the amount of money remaining to be authorized. This initial

step thus provided a firm base from which to start. To this project backlog

USNATO then added its estimate of the contents of the subsequent slices which

would require funding during fiscal year 1974. For example, Slice XXIII was

approved by NATO in February 1973, and Slice XXIV is scheduled for approval

this summer. From this total of project backlog plus planned projects for fiscal

year 1974, USNATO then subtracted the amount of those projects which it esti-

mated would be given funding authorization by the P&P Committee before the

beginning of FY 1974, that is, before 1 July 1973. This may be shown in tabular

form as follows:

(1) As of 30 June 1972, value of projects in Slices II through XXII yet to be

authorized by the NATO P&P Committee totaled $440 million.

(2) Add value of projects in Slice XXIII, approved in February 1973 $187

million.

(3) Deduct estimated P&P Committee authorizations during fiscal year 1973

$307 million.

(4) Total value of work to be funded as of 1 July 73 $320 million.

(5) To this we must add Slice XXIV, scheduled for approval in the summer

of 1973 $184 million.

USNATO then applied country planning factors such as economic conditions,

availability of contractor effort and pace at which Ministry of Defense con-

struction personnel are expected to process fund requests. From this calculus,

we estimate the fund requests to be approved within NATO in fiscal year 1974.

In defense of our entire request I should like to submit the following facts.

In 1971, in recognition of a substantial carryover in both authorization and

appropriation from fiscal year 1971, DoD requested for fiscal year 1972 only

$20 million of both authorization and new obligation authority to satisfy the

estimated requirement for $55 million of US obligations to the NATO Infra-

structure program. Congress further cut these figures to $15 million in authoriza-

tion and $14 million in appropriation. We have 'been able to live, precariously,

within those figures only because some $30 million of US obligations for NATO

communications were slipped into fiscal year 1973. That slippage constituted a

mortgage against our fiscal year 1973 funds, and we find ourselves in a position

where without special additional authorization, we would have to call a halt to

all future NATO fund authorizations until our fiscal year 1974 authorization

has been passed by Congress. Since we have already two phases of commitment

against the approved projects involved, such a delay caused by unilateral US

considerations would have major political repercussions. In addition, as a re-

sult of the 12 February 1973 devaluation of the dollar, an additional $23 million

will be required in fiscal year 1973. When considered in terms of the two separate

dollar devaluations in a period of 14 months (December 1971 and February

1973), the effect has been to increase US Infrastructure requirements by $42

million. This problem has been compounded by the increasing cost of construc-

tion in Europe, approximating the 8-10 percent annual increase in construction

costs in the US. Steps are being taken to utilize authorizations contained in

earlier Military Construction authorizations acts, and to reprogram available

Military Construction, Army funds to meet this increased NATO Infrastructure

requirement in fiscal year 1973. We urge you, therefore, not to reduce either the

authorization of $80 million nor the appropriation of $40 million for fiscal year

1974.

Even with the granting of our full request we expect to be some $14 million

short in new obligation authority in fiscal year 1974 because of dollar devalua-

tion, European inflation, and certain projects which have had to slip from fiscal

year 1973 because of lack of US funds.

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you, General. I appreciate your courtesy

in coming this morning.

Admiral Marschall, will you be good enough to come around.

It is nice to see you again, sir.

TITLE II

GLYNCO, GA.

Admiral, first there are some questions with respect to the closing

of the base at Glynco, Ga., that Senator Nunn asked me to submit to

you, and I will submit these questions to you for the record.

Senator NunN. In April the closing of the NAS Glynco, Ga., was

announced. The training load, as I understand it, is to be distributed

between the Naval Air Stations at Memphis, Tenn.; Dam Neck, Va.,

and Pensacola, Fla. Why were these particular installations selected?

Admiral MARSCHALL. In keeping with the aim of the Chief of Naval

Training to improve training efficiency by reducing duplication of

training resources, the training workload at NAS Glynco was dis-

tributed to locations where similar training is being conducted. The

air traffic control training will be relocated to NAS Memphis where

other air-related training is ongoing. The combat information center

training will be relocated to the Fleet Combat Directions Systems

Training Center, Dam Neck, where other command and control train-

ing is being conducted and the Navy flight officer training will be

__

moved and consolidated with the existing flight officer training at

NAS Pensacola.

Senator NUNN. How much new construction requirements will be

generated by this move ? I know in this year's bill you are asking for

$10.436 million at Dam Neck and Memphis alone. Will there be more?

Admiral MARSCHALL. NO, sir, the two projects in the fiscal year 1974

program for Dam Neck and Memphis are all that is required to facili-

tate the relocation from NAS Glynco.

Senator NUNN. In your justification to this committee on the closing

of Glynco, you give as part of your reasoning that from fiscal year 1973

through fiscal year 1978, construction costs of $11,607,000 will be

avoided. How can you consider this a savings when you are requesting

almost this much for Dam Neck and Memphis this year ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. The cost of $11,609,000 was not intended to

portray a position of positive net savings but only a total of the con-

struction that was planned for Glynco that will now be avoided. With

further study of the realinement actions, this number has been revised

to $9,109,000 of known construction avoided with an additional un-

known savings to be obtained from contract closeout settlements. The

total of construction required to facilitate the realinement actions, in-

cluding fiscal year 1975, is $10,437,000. This is for the two projects at

Dam Neck and Memphis which as you mentioned are in the fiscal year

1974 program.

Senator NUNN. During the past 5 or 6 years you have requested con-

struction authority in excess of $10.5 million for Glynco, and about $6.9

of this was in the past 2 years. Much of this is in various stages of com-

pletion. Was there not any coordination between those responsible for

construction requirements and the base closure planners ?

It seems to me if there had been, some of this waste might have been

avoided.

Admiral MARSCOHALL. The development of the base realinement

plans and the execution of the ongoing construction programs were

coordinated to the extent possible. When it became known that the

Naval Air Station, Glynco, was being considered for closure, no new

construction contracts were awarded. For instance, the fiscal year 1973

project for modernization of the bachelor enlisted quarters, $1,213,000,

was not awarded. The projects that had been awarded and were under

construction could have been halted, however, this would have resulted

in costly claims from the contractors for damages and delay of work.

This was not considered practical since there was no assurance that

NAS. Glynco, would be closed until the final approval was given. Con-

sequently, no active contracts were altered pending approval of the

Shore Establishment realinement proposals.

Senator NsNN. Just what is the status of the construction at Glynco ?

Will the construction underway be completed, or simply abandoned ?

If the latter is true, will this not result in considerable contractor

claims?

Admiral MARSCHALL. With the exception of the fiscal year 1972

military construction projects which were underway, one-family hous-

ing project, and one fiscal year 1973 project which was deferred, all

other authorized military construction projects had been completed

prior to the realinement decision.

The dispensary/dental clinic construction contract was almost com-

plete with no savings to be gained by termination of the contract. The

contract will be completed but no medical equipment will be installed.

The projects to construct a bachelor officers' quarters and to mod-

ernize a bachelor enlisted quarters were approximately 60 percent com-

plete. It has been decided to close out the contracts after the construc-

tion has reached a stage where the buildings are closed in sufficiently

to protect against weather damage. This will protect the Navy's exist-

ing investment. The closeout of the contracts will most probably be

done by a bilateral deductive change order which should negate any

contractor claims. The savings to be realized by these deductive change

orders is presently indeterminate.

The family housing construction contract was basically complete

with no worthwhile opportunity for savings.

Senator Nun. There are over 300 units of family housing at Glynco,

with another 130 units under construction which were authorized as

late as fiscal year 1972. Will these units be completed?

Won't this move generate a need for more family housing at Dam

Neck, Memphis, and Pensacola ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. As mentioned, the 130 units of family housing

were basically complete at the time of the shore establishment realine-

ment decision. The only construction that remained was some street

paving and the installation of some minor kitchen appliances. It

was decided to complete the construction and occupy the housing units

until the time of base closure.

This relocation will not generate a need for more family housing

at either NAS, Memphis, or NAS, Pensacola, where surplus housing

presently exists. The relocation to FCDSTC, Dam Neck, will increase

the existing deficit of family housing in the Norfolk area by approxi-

mately 31/2 percent.

Senator NUNN. How did you arrive at an annual savings of $9.260

million resulting from the closure of Glynco NAS ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. The estimated annual savings is composed of

the salaries of military and civilian positions that will be eliminated

and other operating and maintenance costs that will be saved. For

NAS Glynco it is estimated that 661 military and 308 civilian posi-

tions will be eliminated. This results in an estimated savings of $5,-

571,000 of military pay and $3,689,000 of civilian pay and other

0. & M,N. costs. This data is based upon the number of personnel

on board as of June 30, 1972.

Senator NUNN. I notice that you claim there will be a savings of 661

military personnel. Is it not true that these personnel will simply be

transferred elsewhere, and are not an actual reduction in personnel or

personnel costs?

Admiral MARSCI-IALL. The 661 military personnel represent positions

that are actually being eliminated and not transferred elsewhere. A

total of 1,828 other military positions are being transferred.

Senator NUoN. If NAS Glynco had to be closed, could not this train-

ing be moved to some bases where existing facilities could be used,

thus avoiding expensive new construction ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. As I mentioned earlier, in order to improve

training effectiveness and avoid the needless duplication of training

resources, every effort is being made to consolidate similar kinds of

training at one location. In this case, the advantages of relocating

training facilities to other activities where similar training is on going

outweighed the consideration of availability of existing facilities. As it

turned out, however, the relocation of the naval flight officer train-

ing to NAS Pensacola will be accommodated by existing facilities at

Pensacola and new facilities are required only at Dam Neck and

Memphis.

Senator SYMINGTON. Have you a statement that you would like to

make?

Admiral MARSCHALL. Yes, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. Would you be good enough, because of the

time aspect, to supply it for the record ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. I will supply it for the record.

[Statement follows:]

STATEMENT OF THE COMMANDER, NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND,

REAR ADM. A. R. MARSCHALL, CEC, USN

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: I am Rear Admiral A. R.

Marschall, commander of the naval facilities engineering command. I consider

it an honor and privilege to present the Navy's fiscal year 1974 military construct

tion authorization program.

FISCAL YEAR 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION

The original new authorization request has 630.1 million dollars. This was re-

vised by our letter of July 17, 1973 to 626.8 million dollars with the difference

being made up by the addition of three amendments to prior authorization.

PRESENTATION OF REQUIREMENTS

I will depart from the procedure used in presenting the program for the last

couple of years. The comparative analyses by categories of facilities and naval

districts are included at the end of my statement for insertion into the record, if

desired. I would like to comment on the important elements of this program

and relate these elements to other Navy budgets examined by members of the

committee.

I will discuss military construction projects associated with:

Strategic force (which is primarily Trident) ;

An all-volunteer force;

Major weapons systems;

Pollution abatement;

New technology ; and

Training facilities.

STRATEGIC FORCES

Under Strategic Forces approximately 19 percent of this year's program

or 118.3 million dollars has been allocated to initiate construction of a Trident

refit complex and facilities for flight testing the Trident missile. The facilities

requested this year are essential for meeting the initial operational capability

date of late calendar year 1978 for this weapons system.

ALL-VOLUNTEER FORCE

Projects that will assist the Navy in achieving an all-volunteer force are

projects in the categories of bachelor housing, community support facilities

(which are clubs, exchanges, commissary stores, and recreational facilities),

medical facilities, and cold iron facilities. Cold iron facilities are shoreside

utilities which enable a ship in port to shut down its boiler plant and electrical

generation equipment. Projects associated with an all-volunteer force constitute

29 percent of the program.

BACHELOR HOUSING

Taking each of the programs related to an all-volunteer force in order, this

year's bachelor housing program requests 80 million dollars for providing bache-

lor housing. The emphasis placed on bachelor housing the last couple of years

still exists, with bachelor housing constituting 13 percent of this year's program.

182

This year's program will provide 5,378 new spaces for the Navy and 3,990 new

spaces for the Marine Corps. For the Navy the program will also provide 103

new bachelor officer spaces and the modernization of 2,719 bachelor enlisted

and 126 bachelor officer spaces.

COMMUNITY SUPPORT FACILITIES

Community support facilities-Navy exchanges, commissaries, and clubs-

provide some benefits traditional with service life. Facilities for recreation and

welfare are necessary to provide stimulating leisure activities for Navy per-

sonnel comparable to those of their civilian contemporaries. These facilities have

received a minimum of authorization the last several years. The request for

community support facilities is 12 million dollars, or 2 percent of this year's

request.

MEDICAL PROGRAM

The medical program requested this year represents a significant increase

over the program authorized last year. It has long been recognized that one of

the major benefits of military service is complete medical care. There is a recog-

nition within the Defense Department of a serious need to upgrade medical

facilities so that the delivery of medical care will be improved. The quality of

medical care has always remained high, but the delivery of medical care has left

something to be desired for the last several years. Some of the inefficiencies in

our preesnt health care system stem from the inadequate facilities in which

many of our physicians and dentists are required to practice their profession.

Medical facilities that are undesirable from a professional standpoint have an

adverse effect on medical officer retention. This year's program of 65.3 million

dollars is 10.4 percent of the program.

COLD IRON PROGRAM

The cold iron program is directed toward reducing watch standing require-

ments when a ship is in port and thereby maximizing 'the amount of time a ship's

personnel may spend with their families. The provlison of utilities from the shore

also provides benefits in shipboard equipment maintenance and fleet readiness.

Last year 23 million dollars was authorized for fourteen projects. This year's

program requests 26 million dollars for six pier 'and berthing wharf utilities

projects, one berthing pier project, and one project for expansion of a steam dis-

tribution system.

MAJOR WEAPONS SYSTEMS

Requested for major weapons systems this year is 8 million dollars, excluding

Trident. The major weapons systems supported by projects in this year's pro-

gram are the F-14 supersonic jet carrier based fighter aircraft, the A-7E attack

aircraft, and the Mark 48 torpedo. This year's request for major weapons systems

is slightly less than the 11 million dollars authorized last year. This element

is significantly larger than last year when Trident facilities are included.

POLLUTION ABATEMENT

This year's request for 92.3 million dollars continues an aggressive program

initiated by the Navy in 1968 to abate air and water pollution at naval and

Marine Corps installations. The 'Congress has giNven strong support to our re-

quests and authorized, through FY 1973, 204 million dollars for pollution abate-

ment facilities. The breakdown between air and water pollution abatement

facilities is 53 and 151 million dollars, respectively. One unique facility this

year is the provision of a facility to dispose of unserviceable ammunition that

may no longer be disposed of by deep water dumping.

In looking ahead, we expect over the next few years to construct additional

facilities to transfer ship wastes ashore. Based on technology now in the research

and development stage, facilities will be required to control smoke and gases from

jet engine test cells. Additional air, water, and for the first time noise pollution

control facilities will be required to meet standards now being established under

the "best practicable" and "best available" technology requirements of federal

pollution control acts. In summary, we have made considerable progress with our

pollution abatement programs, but we also expect a significant pollution abate-

ment program for the next several years.

NEW TECHNOLOGY

For the element new technology, this year's program requests 23 million dollars

for research, development, test, and evaluation facilities associated with under-

water acoustic surveillance, communications, manned underwater systems, and

coastal region warfare. This excludes 4 million dollars of RDT&E facilities asso-

ciated with the Trident missile, since all Trident facilities are included under the

strategic forces element. The request for new technology facilities is 4 percent of

the total program request.

TRAINING FACILITIES

The Navy operates one of the largest school systems in the country. Since

trained personnel are the Navy's greatest asset, the Navy is actively seeking ways

to strengthen, modernize, and vitalize its training programs. Eight percent of this

year's program is devoted to Naval and Marine Corps training facilities with the

majority of the training program directed toward applied instruction facilities.

In the field of academic training, facilities are requested for conducting tactical

command and direction systems training at two installations. At the Naval

Academy the construction proposed will modernize, in consonance with the master

plan, an existing building to provide classrooms, laboratories, and simulation

training spaces for weapons and systems engineering courses.

SUMMARY

This year's program provides facilities for those elements with the greatest

need. The projects are required this year to satisfy new and current missions and

to provide facilities to modernize the shore establishment. We appreciate the past

support of the committee and earnestly seek it for this year's program.

Next, with the committee's concurrence, I'll proceed with a brief

description of the program modifications requested by our letter of

July 17, 1973.

[A summary of the changes follows:]

[In thousands of dollars]

Installation/project From To Change

NEW AUTHORIZATION, TITLE II (INSIDE THE UNITED STATES)

1st Naval District:

Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, N.H.: Additional crane rail system........ 0 2,817 2, 817

6th Naval District:

Naval Hospital, Orlando, Fla.: Hospital replacement----.......--------------- 22,312 20, 981 1,331

Naval Coastal Systems Laboratory, Panama City, Fla.: Systems develop-

ment and test facility- ...-.. ...-.._-....... . ................. . . 2,100 2,300 200

Naval Aerospace Regional Medical Center, Pensacola, Fla.: Medical/dental

support facilities -------------------------------------..----- 0 1,084 1,084

11th Naval District:

Naval Air Station, Miramar, Calif.: Applied instruction building.... ----------- 1,123 1,542 419

12th Naval District:

Naval Air Station, Moffett Field, Calif.: Operational trainer building addition- 0 430 430

Various. locations (inside the United States), Trident facilities: Trident support

complex and flight test facilities (phase 1) ........-..... -.... -...... 125, 223 118, 320 (6, 903)

Net, title II new authorization changes..........-------------------------- 150, 758 147, 474 (3, 284)

Current

Authoriza- working

tion cost estimate Change

AMENDMENTS TO PRIOR AUTHORIZATION

Fiscal year 1971 authorization law:

Naval Weapons Laboratory, Dahlgren, Va.: Sewage treatment system . 530 779 249

Fiscal year 1972 authorization law:

Naval Air Station, Meridian, Miss.: Installation total I--..-.. --..... -..... 3, 266 3,895 593

Fiscal year 1973 authorization law:

Naval Ammunition Depot, McAlester, Okla.: Bomb-loading plant moderniza-

tion ----------------------------------.---------------- 5, 946 8, 388 2, 442

Total amendment changes ----------------------------------- 9,742 13, 026 3,284

1 An amendment is needed primarily because of the escalation of the bachelor enlisted quarters (BEQ) project. Since

there is a more urgent requirement for the bachelor enlisted quarters than the enlisted men's (EM) club, it was decided

to proceed with the bachelor enlisted quarters construction and defer enlisted men's club construction until enactment

of the fiscal year 1974 authorization and appropriation laws.

184

A book containing the program modifications has been provided for each

member of the committee. By the change requested, two projects will be re-

duced. The projects are the hospital replacement project at the naval hospital,

Orlando, Florida and the various locations, Trident facilities project.

A recent reevaluation of bed requirements at the naval hospital, Orlando,

reveals that the number of beds may be reduced from 310 to 235. This reduc-

tion is feasible by the removal of the fifth floor of the hospital and will result

in a cost reduction of $1,331,000.

For the Trident facilities project, a reduction of $6,903,000 is feasible because

land acquisition requirements are smaller than were originally anticipated.

An equal dollar substitution was made for these reductions by increasing the

scope and cost of two FY 1974 projects, the addition of three other projects and

a request for appropriations for amendments to three prior year projects. I am

prepared to provide a short description of each new or changed project or I

can place in the record a short description of each new or changed project.

A new project for an additional crane rail system in the amount of 2 million

817 thousand dollars is requested at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Ports-

mouth, New Hampshire. This project will provide a 20-foot gauge crane rail

system to permit the use of portal cranes being transferred from the Boston

Naval Shipyard.

A hospital replacement project at the naval hospital, Orlando, in the amount

of 20 million 981 thousand dollars is requested. I discussed this previously under

the reductions. The hospital replacement project of 235 beds is needed to replace

an existing facility which is structurally and functionally inadequate, with open

bay wards and unreliable utilities.

A 200 thousand dollar increase was requested for the systems development

and test facility at the naval coastal systems laboratory, Panama City, Florida.

This increase was requested to provide a parking and testing apron for con-

ducting Navy trials on two air cushion amphibious landing craft. This is a new

requirement levied on this activity and the total cost for the project is 2 millon

300 thousand dollars.

Another new project in the amount of 1 million 84 thousand dollars is re-

quested for medical and dental support facilities at the naval aerospace regional

medical center, Pensacola, Florida. This project will construct a new dental

clinic and modernize the existing dispensary at the naval communications train-

ing center (Corry Field), Pensacola. These facilities will be utilized for active

duty dispensary and dental service and allow the vacated spaces in the naval

hospital, Pensacola to be used for a newly developed family practice residency

program.

For the applied instruction buildings project at the Naval Air Station, Miramar,

an increase in the cost of $419,000 was requested. This change alters the original

project to provide additions to two buildings and alterations to three buildings

instead of the construction of a new facility. This project is required to support

the relocation of airborne early warning squadrons from the naval air station,

North Island, under the shore establishment realignment program. The revised

cost of the project is 1 million 542 thousand dollars.

A new project for 430 thousand dollars was requested for an operational

trainer building addition at the Naval Air Station, Moffett Field, California. This

facility addition will house two P-3C operational flight trainers. The trainers,

which are on order, will be able to provide for the first time coupled-mode train-

ing by simulation instead of the more costly and hazardous in-flight training.

185

TRIDENT FAILITIES-UNITED STATES

For Trident facilities the original program requested 125 million 223 thousand

dollars for establishment of the Trident weapons system support facilities.

Under the program change, the project was reduced by 6 million 903 thousand

dollars. A more detailed land use study identified smaller land acquisition require-

ments than were originally anticipated. The estimated cost for the land is 5

million dollars.

Under the various locations, Trident facilities project we are, therefore, request-

ing at two sites 118 million 320 thousand dollars for Trident facilities construc-

tion.

SUPPORT COMPLEX FACILITIES-BANGOR, WASH.

Within the total are facilities at the Trident support site, Bangor, Washington,

with an estimated cost of 83 million dollars. One requirement at Bangor is the

acquisition of at most 150 acres of land to assure that the necessary explosive

safety zone arcs are within government owned land. This year's project includes

a covered explosive handling pier which is essential to the deployment of the

weapons system and a refit pier to provide logical sequencing of construction.

A weapon/navigation training building is included to permit early crew training

by naval personnel at naval facilities. This will enable the navy to eliminate

the more costly contractor factory crew training for all crews except those of

the lead ship. The other facilities requested will initiate road and utilities con-

struction required to assure timely utilization of Trident support facilities.

MISSILE FLIGHT TEST FACILITIES

At the Air Force Eastern Test Range, Cape Kennedy, Florida, we are requesting

35 million dollars for missile flight test facilities. The facilities to be provided

are a wharf and dredging, alterations to a launch complex, missile checkout

buildings, guidance and telemetry building and a lifting device proofing building.

These facilities will support an initial flight test of the Trident I missile in late

calendar year 1975.

AMENDMENTS

The remaining changes are for three amendments to prior year programs.

Under Public Law 91-511 (FY 1971) a 249 thousand dollar amendment is re-

quired for the sewage treatment system project at the Naval Weapons Labora-

tory, Dahlgren, Virginia. This amendment is required to correct a failure which

was caused by unforeseen subsurface soil conditions in the dike of the finish-

ing pond. Although the amendment is 47 percent of the original authorization,

this type of change of this magnitude will occur occasionally even with the best

design and engineering practices.

A 593 thousand dollar amendment is required for the installation total of the

Naval Air Station, Meridian, Mississippi under Public Law 92-145 (FY 1972).

The amendment is required to permit award of the enlisted men's club project

authorized at 714 thousand dollars. The FY 1972 bachelor enlisted quarters proj-

ect generated the need for the amendment. Since the relative need is greatest

for the bachelor enlisted quarters, a decision was made to proceed with the

bachelor enlisted quarters, and to defer the enlisted men's club project and seek

an amendment this year. The amendment which is 18 percent of the authori-

zation total for the installation resulted from unanticipated labor and material

cost increases.

186

For FY 1973, Public Law 92-545, an amendment of 2 million 442 thousand

dollars is requested for the bomb loading plant modernization project at the

Naval Ammunition Depot, McAlester, Oklahoma. This amendment, which is 47

percent of the original authorization, is required to provide construction in ac-

cordance with new safety criteria promulgated by the Armed Services Explosive

Safety Board for Structures Housing the Manufacture and/or Handling of

Explosives.

PROJECT REQUIREMENT CHANGES

In addition to the above program changes, there are several projects with

changes in the requirement or in the need for the project. I'll provide a brief

explanation of the change for each of these projects.

PHILADELPHIA NAVAL SHIPYARD, PA.

At the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, the requirement for the electronics equip-,

ment facility project with a cost of $735,000 was generated by the closure of the

Boston Naval Shipyard and the need to perform the restoration and refit of se-

lected electronics components for all East Coast Naval Shipyards at some other

location. A recent check of the electromagnetic environment and the underwater

noise level at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard disclosed that 'the background

levels are not suitable for this facility and that it will be necessary to relocate

the project to the Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

MARE ISLAND NAVAL SHIPYARD, VALLEJO, CALIF.

The electronic shop alterations project at $200,000 was requested at the Mare

Island Naval Shipyard to provide facilities to accommodate the expanded work-

load created by the planned closure of the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. A

recent evaluation of the workload to be relocated disclosed that new facilities

would not be required, therefore this project may be deleted from this year's

program.

VARIOUS LOCATIONS INSIDE THE U.S. WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT FACILITIES

Under the water pollution abatement facilities project, a reduction may be

made in the scope and cost of the municipal sewer connection facility at the

Naval Air Station, Barbers Point, Hawaii. A recent examination of this project

disclosed that a need exists this year to connect only 'the housing areas to the

sewage system. The design and construction of the new city/county treatment

plant has been delayed so that it will be practical to place the major portion of

this project in the FY 1975 military construction program. This will permit a

reduction in the family cost of $5,868,000 and leave a balance of $550,000 for con-

necting the housing areas.

AMENDMENTS, NAVAL ORDNANCE LABORATORY, WHITE OAK, MD.

A $448,000 amendment was requested to the FY 1967 program, Public Law

89-568, for the hypervelocity wind tunnel project at the Naval Ordnance Labora-

tory, White Oak, Maryland. A recent evaluation of the project discloses that the

amendment is no longer required.

Mr. Chairman, -that concludes my statement on program modifications. With

your permission, we would like to have General Jannell present his statement,

and then respond to questions of the committee.

ji ~~llliiii

187

COMPARISON OF ELEMENTS OF FISCAL YEAR 1974 AND FISCAL YEAR 1973 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS

(AUTHORIZATION)

[Dollar amounts in thousands[

Fiscal

Fiscal year

974 author- Percent

request Percent ization Percent change

Strategic Forces:

Trident I ----- $-----------------------------$118, 320 18. 9 .....------------------

Other....-------.............------------................. ...---------------------. 177 ......

Subtotal, Strategic Forces.-------.. .... ...__........ 118,497 18.9-----+............. +18. 9

All-Volunteer Force:

Bachelor housing2---. --..-. --....-..- -----..... 79,880 12.7 $112,233 21.8 ...

Community support facilities a............ ............ 12, 307 m 2.0 13, 973 2.7 ....

Medical facilities..-......-.......................... 65, 028 10.4 42,440 8.2 ...

Cold-iron facilities ................. ................. 25, 873 4.1 23, 471 4.6 ...

Subtotal, All-Volunteer Force.....___._ ....__ .. 183,088 29.2 192,117 37.3 -8.1

Major weapons systems:

F-14 fighter aircraft ......-.... .............. - -... 3,386 .5 726 .1 ..

A-7E attack aircraft.................................. 1, 933 .3 ..

S-3A antisubmarine warfare aircraft..........------....-. ... ............ 4, 136 .8 _-.......

K 48 torpedo ............... .-.... . 1, 327 .2 1, 064 .2 ....

SSN 688 nuclear attack submarine..---....-. --.. - --. . . 5,032 1.0 ...

Airborne mine countermeasures..................... 1,321 .2 .........

Subtotal, major weapons systems............... ...... 7,967 1.3 10, 958 2.1 -.8

Pollution abatement:

Air.......... .................................

Water.. ... ...... ....-

Subtotal, pollution abatement .......................

27,636 4.4 24,194 4.7 ........

64, 675 10.3 51,216 9.9 .

92,311 14.7 75,410 14.6 +.1

New technology :

Research development ...................

Test and evaluation facilities _................... __....

Acoustic surveillance................................ 4,340 .7 _--

Communication systems.-....-. ------------------- 4,198 .7 140 .

Manned underwater systems_....---____------ - 7,735 1.2 4,500 .9 .....

Coastal region warfare.............................. 2,300 .4 500 .1 .

Aircraft ................---------------------------------------------------- 4,033 .8

Other.............-------------------------------------- 4,655 .7 2,695 .5 .........

Subtotal, new technology..-.-..- --. - --.------... 23, 228

Training facilities:

Academic instruction.-------------------. 6,024

Aoopplied instruction:

Opera

Other

3.7 11,868 2.3 +1.4

1.0 17,792 3.4 . .......

Aviation- ---....-.-- 16, 271 2.6 16, 008 3.1

Ships .....----------------------------------- 16, 018 2.6 6,008 1.2

Ordnance .........--------------------------------- 2, 470 .4 ...........

Electronic warfare ............................... 3,982 .6 4,998 1.0

Marine Corps..............------------------------------ 2, 992 .5

tional trainer facilities, aviation ......-------------------- 3,803 .6 ..............

training facilities, Marine Corps. ...-.. ---..... 544 .1 ..--_'__ ---..--"-..... ... ----.

Subtotal, training facilities....---... --.. --..-----. 52, 104 8.3 44, 816 8.7 -.4

Subtotal, above elements---......-..-.. ............. -477,195 76.1 335,169 65.0 +11.1

Other operational and logistic support facilities.......- . 149,647 23.9 180,498 35.0 -11.1

Total, new authority._..-..-.- ---.- --------___ 626, 842 100.0 515,667 100.0 ..........

1 Excludes $10,800,000 of planning and design funds.

2 Excludes Naval Home, $9,444,000.

8 Excludes employees parking structure, NAS, New Orleans, $2,323,000.

d Excludes R.D.T. & E. facilities for Trident and amendments, $6,239,000.

188

AUTHORIZATION SUMMARY BY NAVAL DISTRICT

[in thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year-

1974 1973

Inside the United States:

1st Naval district.....................................------------------------------------------

3d Naval District----...........................................---------------

4th Naval District--............................................--------------

Naval District, Washington, D.C --................ ------------------

5th Naval District....---------........................................-----------

6th Naval District---..---.....------..............................--------------------------......---

8th Naval District......................................................--------------------------------------------.

9th Naval District....--------................................................------------------------------------...

11th Naval District...-------.............................................------------------------------------

12th Naval District........................................----------------------------------------

13th Naval District--------------------------------------------------

13th Naval District -----------------....................................

Marine Corps.....-----------------------------------------------

Various locations:

Trident facilities........................................................

Pollution abatement:

3, 184 21,340

12,695 8,375

1,130 4,388

25 043 15, 000

50,358 22,426

85,643 77,791

23,181 19,068

19,908 5,255

42,632 42,789

23,001 40, 225

11,073 16,537

15,694 19, 484

58,000 101,462

118, 320 0

Air............................-----------------------------------------------------..................................... 27,636 25,194

Water------------------------------------------------------........................................................ 60,680 55,016

Total inside the United States_ ___-___-____---..---------------.. 578, 178 474, 450

Outside the United States:

10th Naval District__ ........-....-............................... 4,096 3,221

15th Naval District.--... - - - - - --..................................-- O0 5,699

Atlantic Ocean area..-------------------------------------------- 17,478 0

European area.... ---------------------------------------------------- 8,192 15,188

Indian Ocean area___.....- - - - - - --..- --.--.--.--------- 0 6,100

Pacific Ocean area-.. -........ --.. -- 14,903 9,809

Various locations (pollution abatement):

Air.... ------------------------------------------------------------ 0 0

Water-------------------------------------------------------................................................................. 3,995 1,200

Total outside the United States.------.---.-.------------------- 48, 664 41,217

Classified programs.........................----------------------------------------------------. 0 0

General support programs------------------ .................. ---- 626, 842 515,667

FISCALYEAR 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM-AUTHORIZATION SUMMARY, BY FACILITIES CATEGORIES

[Dollar amounts in thousands]

Description

Fiscal year 1974 authorization request Fiscal year 1973 authorization

Marine Marine

Navy Corps Total Percent Navy Corps Total Percent

Operational------.-.----- -_ $71,938 $333 $72,271 11.5 $49,319 $2,983 $52,302 10.2

Training---- - -48, 568 3,536 52, 104 8.3 42,993 0 42,993 8.3

Maintenance production--------......... 120,460 3,317 123,777 19.8 49,921 10,210 60,131 11.7

R.D.T. & E..................... 27,033 0 27,033 4.3 7,368 0 7,368 1.4

Supply-----------------........ 1,299 747 2,046 .3 7,578 1,778 9,356 1.8

Medical---------------...... . 61,203 3,825 65, 028 10.4 41,180 1,260 42,440 8.2

Administrative.................. 12,439 5,204 17,643 2.8 5,085 1,122 6,207 1.2

Housing and community.-----. 76,418 27,536 103,954 16.6 81,169 41,093 122,262 23.7

Housing....................... (63,893) (25,431) (89,324) (14.3) (72,045 (40,188)(122,233)(21.7

Comm.supp................ (12,525) (2,105) (14,630) (2.3) (9,124) (905) (10,029) (2.0)

Utilities.--.---. --....--..._ 53,729 9,711 63,440 10.1 37,480 2637 40,117 7.8

Pollution abatement-............. 92,311 92,311 14.7 281,410 .......... 81,410 15.8

Air............................ 27,636).......... 27 636) (4.4) 25, 194).......... 25,194 (4.9)

Water-...--..64,67 . 64,675) (10.3) (56,216)- -(56, 216) (10.9)

Real estate -.... -----... . . 3,444 3,791 7,235 1.2 10,702 40,379 51,081 9.1

Total.................... 568,842 58,000 626,842 100.0 414,205 101,462 515,667 100.0

1 Includes $7,080,000 pollution abatement for the Marine Corps.

2 Includes $5,484,000 pollution abatement for the Marine Corps.

Note: Figures in parentheses do not add.

Naval district

189

NARRATIVE CATEGORY ANALYSIs AUTHORIZATION

OPERATIONAL FACILITIES, $72,271,000

This category represents 11.5 percent of the authorization request. It con-

tains projects for essential aviation, communications, and waterfront opera-

tional facilities. Included are three Marine Corps projects that will provide

airfield approach lighting, aircraft corrosion control facilities, and a telephone

cable. Major Navy airfield projects include a runway and taxiway overlay

at Naval Station, Adak, Alaska; a taxiway overlay at Naval Air Station,

Moffett Field, California; and an aircraft parking apron at Naval Detachment,

Souda Bay, Crete, Greece. Included in the communications area are: a satellite

communications terminal at the Naval Communication Station, Wahiawa, Hawaii

which will expand the existing capacity to allow for additional Communica-

tions Satellite equipment; and a communication facility with a classified mission

at Naval Station, Charleston, South Carolina. Other operational facilities include

berthing piers at Naval Station, Norfolk, Virginia, and Naval Station. San Diego,

California, and a wharf and dredging facilities for the TRIDENT project. Two

projects will provide modernization of VLF antennas at Naval Communication

Stations, Cheltenham, Maryland, and Wahiawa, Hawaii.

TRAINING FACILITIES, $52,104,000

Training facilities included in this construction program cover a wide range

of naval training activities for officer and enlisted personnel. The majority of

the training program will provide applied instruction facilities; in the aviation

field major projects include new flight simulators to be provided at the Naval

Air Stations, Memphis, Tennessee, and Miramar, California. These new flight

simulators with 6 degrees of freedom and visual motion integration will

enable some of the flight hours of the jet pilot training syllabus to be transferred

to the simulators with a resultant increase in safety. In addition, an applied

instruction building will be provided at the Fleet Combat Direction Systems

Training Center, Dam Neck, Virginia, and an aircraft systems training buildings

project will be provided at Naval Air Station, Oceana, Virginia.

For Shipboard personnel the training program will provide facilities for:

(1) annual training of about 3,000 technicians and operating personnel who

will be deployed aboard nuclear powered vessels; (2) facilities for expanding

by 350 students annually the training facilities available for basic electricity

and electronics training, which is a prerequisite course for training in 17 per-

cent of the Navy rates; (3) machinist mate and boilerman training on the high

pressure (1,200 PSI) propulsion plants going into the newer fleet ships. Specific

major applied instruction facilities to be provided include an applied SONAR

instruction building at Naval Station, Norfolk, Virginia; a nuclear power train-

ing building and a basic electricity and electronics training building at Naval

Training Center, Orlando, Florida; and a machinist/boilerman instruction

building at Naval Training Center, Great Lakes, Illinois, and applied instruc-

tion buildings at Marine Corps Base, Twenty-Nine Palms, California.

In the ordnance area a training building at the Nuclear Weapons Training

Group, Norfolk, Virginia, is requested to provide facilities for nuclear weapons

orientation training annually of 3,800 officer and enlisted personnel of the

Atlantic Fleet. In the electronic warfare area, an electronics warfare training

building at Naval Communications Training Center, Pensacola, Florida, is

requested for conducting annually advanced training for 700 electronic warfare

technicians, 150 naval flight officers and electronic warfare officers, and 400

aviation electronic warfare equipment maintenance specialists. Electronic war-

fare is the reception of electronic signals to identify and locate enemy weapon

systems; the transmission of electronic signals to decoy, deceive, or make ineffec-

tive enemy electronically controlled weapons; and the development of counter-

measures, including tactics to defeat enemy measures to counter our electronically

controlled weapon systems. There is a serious shortage of personnel with

electronic warfare training, which makes this project very important to the

Navy.

The second major area of training facilities is the academic instruction facili-

ties. Included under this heading are the Maury Hall Rehabilitation project at

Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, and the academic instruction building at

Fleet Combat Direction Systems Training Center, San Diego, California. The

Marine Corps also has a project to provide combat training ranges at Marine

Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California. The training category represents 8.3

percent of the authorization request.

MAINTENANCE AND PRODUCTION, $123,777,000

The maintenance and production category represents 19.8 percent of the

authorization request. The projects will provide support to aircraft-oriented

engine and avionics maintenance activities, mine assembly and torpedo overhaul

shops, as well as shops to support maintenance of station facilities. The major

portion of this category is for the refit facilities of the TRIDENT submarine

weapons system. Two shipyard modernization projects will provide a service

group building at Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Long Beach, California, and a

machine shop at Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia, Naval Air

Rework Facilities projects are the avionics building environmental control at

Naval Air Station, Alameda, California; an aircraft final finish facility at Naval

Air Station, Jacksonville, Florida; and the maintenance hangar addition at Naval

Air Station, North Island, California. Other projects include the integrated

avionics shop at Naval Air Station, Moffett Field, California; the mine assembly

shop at Naval Magazine, Guam; the torpedo overhaul shop at Naval Weapons

Station, Yorktown, Virginia; the air/underwater weapons compound at Naval

Air Station, Bermuda; a helicopter maintenance facility at Naval Air Station,

Cecil Field, Florida; and five Marine Corps projects which will provide a hangar

addition, automotive shops, a parachute and survival equipment shop, an avionics

shop, and a hangar modification.

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION, $27,033,000

These projects represent an investment in our future security. This segment

of our construction request, representing 4.3 percent of the total request, will

provide the buildings, laboratories, and specialized test structures that are

required in the conduct of a quality research and development program. The

major laboratory projects are the electronics development and test laboratory at

Naval Electronics Laboratory Center, San Diego, California, and Phase II of the

environmental health effects laboratory at Naval Medical Research Institute,

Bethesda, Maryland. The electronics development and test laboratory at San

Diego is needed for effective development and "try-before-buy" performance test-

ing of electronic command control, communications, and surveillance systems for

the new guided missile frigates, destroyers, amphibious assault ships, and TRI-

DENT submarine. In the field of manned underwater systems, this year's program

requests facilities to perform experimentation with animals to a 3,300 foot depth

so that operational human diving depths may be lowered from 1,500 feet to 2,000

feet and beyond. The environmental health effects laboratory at the Naval

Medical Research Institute, Bethesda, will provide the facility for this experi-

mentation. The laboratory will also provide facilities for personnel engaged in

seeking a solution to medical problems associated with the inhalation of toxic

vapors and the absorption of toxic compounds in weapon systems atmospheres.

The toxic vapors or compounds are those associated with existing processes such

as fueling missiles and torpedoes of the Polaris/Poseidon submarine fleet.

A facility for testing and evaluating airborne electronic equipment and sys-

tems is requested for the Naval Air Test Center, Patuxent River, Maryland.

To advance basic research in underwater surveillance, an acoustic research

facility has been requested for the Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C.

Undersea surveillance research has the objective of increasing the Navy's ca-

pability for acoustic surveillance of submarines. This research is directed toward

techniques utilizing large, high power, low frequency acoustic energy sources

and large receiver arrays. The basic research findings of the Naval Research

Laboratory will be used by personnel of the New London Laboratory of the

Naval Underwater Systems Center. The new engineering building requested at

New London is needed for personnel engaged in the research and development

of sonar systems and improved, underwater acoustic sensors for anti-submarine

warfare ships. Sonar, which is an acronym for sound, navigation, and ranging,

is the underwater equivalent of radar. The development of prototypes of acoustic

energy transmitting and receiving (transducer) components will also be per-

191

formed in the engineering building. A transducer is a device for converting elec-

tric energy into sound (projector) or sound into electricity (receiver or hy-

drophone). Some sonars use the same transducer for generating and receiving

sound. Other RDT&E to be performed in the engineering building is in the fields

of the generation of spurious signals and electromagnetic silencing of jamming

systems. The acoustic RDT&E to be performed in both facilities should find di-

rect application in the TRIDENT weapon system.

At the Navy Coastal Systems Laboratory, Panama City, Florida, an experi-

mental diving facility is requested that will utilize the results of the basic re-

search completed at the environmental health effects laboratory in testing and

evaluating diving schedules, excursion diving, crew training, and underwater

salvage operations. The experimental diving facility is a logical adjunct to the

ocean simulation facility authorized in FY 1969 to provide a facility for devel-

opment, test, and evaluation of the man/equipment interface in and on excur-

sions from manned diving systems to depths of 2,200 feet.

In the coastal region warefare field, a systems development and test facility

is requested for coastal technology and amphibious operations research: such as

the development and testing of vehicles, sensors, and other equipment utilized

in riverine operations and inshore underseas warfare; and research, develop-

ment, and support of Marine Corps investigations of countermeasures for land

mines, sensor equipment, and overland mobility equipment.

There is one project at the Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, for an in-

tegrated electromagnetic test and analysis laboratory. This laboratory will

provide facilities to conduct basic research required to develop and evaluate

countermeasures against threat weapons systems such as the anti-ship cruise

missile.

SUPPLY FACILITIES $2,046,000

Supply and storage facilities include two projects for warehouses and one

Marine Corps project for a cold storage and ready issue warehouse. These three

projects represent 0.3 percent of the total request.

MEDICAL FACILITIES $65,028,000

This year's program, representing 10.4 percent of the total authorization

program, accelerates the replacement of World War II and other substandard

medical facilities. This is a significant increase over prior year programs and

will result in major improvements in the delivery of medical facilities. This is

a significant increase over prior year programs and will result in major improve-

ments in the delivery of medical care to Navy and Marine Corps personnel and

their dependents. A new hospital is requested at Orlando, Florida, where the

existing facilities are overcrowded, substandard, and incapable of providing the

required medical services. Other projects in this category include modernizing

hospitals at Great Lakes, Illinois, and Oakland, California, and Naval Training

Center, Orlando, Florida. Medical/dental clinics will be provided at Naval Air

Stations, Chase Field and Kingsville, Texas; Meridian, Mississippi; Whiting

Field, Florida; and at the Naval Amphibious Base, Little Creek, Virginia. At

the Naval Training Center, Great Lakes, Illinois, two projects will provide a

dispensary/dental processing facility and a dispensary/dental clinic. In this

category there is one Marine Corps project for a dispensary at Marine Corps

Recruiting Depot, San Diego, California. The improved delivery of medical care

expected when these facilities are completed should make a significant contri-

bution toward the goal of obtaining an all-volunteer force.

ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES $17,643,000

The projects in this category represent 2.8 percent of the total program request.

One project will provide facilities for the relocation of the Military Sealift Com-

mand to Military Ocean Terminal, Bayonne, New Jersey, from the Brooklyn

Army Terminal. An administrative complex requested at the Naval Support

Activity, New Orleans, will provide administrative space for relocating the

Armed Forces Entrance Examining Station from leased space in downtown

New Orelans and for consolidation at one location the Naval Reserve Manpower

Center, Personnel Management Information Center, and Enlisted Personnel

Distribution Office. An administrative building is also requested for the Naval

Technical Training Center, Naval Air Station, Meridian, Mississippi, and for

the Marine Corps Supply Center, Albany, Georgia.

20-507-73- 13

192

TROOP HOUSING $89,824,000

Significant emphasis is again being placed this year on bachelor housing and

messing facilities for improving the living environment for Navy and Marine

Corps personnel. This year's program will provide 9,368 new spaces and will

modernize 2,719 spaces for bachelor enlisted personnel. For bachelor officers, this

year's program will provide 103 new spaces and the modernization of 128 spaces.

The provision of modern facilities, which compare favorably with similar

civilian community facilities, is considered to be a key factor in improving

moral and retention of skilled personnel. This category represents 14.3 percent

of the total authorization request. The Marine Corps lays great stress on the

provision of modern functional quarters for their personnel with 47 percent of

their portion of the authorization program devoted to bachelor housing and mess-

ing facilities.

COMMUNITY FACILITIES $14,630,000

Community facilities are requested in order to provide for the welfare and

morale of Naval personnel and their dependents, both in the United States and

overseas. This category includes facilities for a dependent school addition, ex-

changes, commissaries, gymnasiums, theaters, and EM/CPO and officers clubs.

Including two Marine Corps projects, this category constitutes 2.3 percent of

the program.

UTILITIES AND GROUND IMPROVEMENTS $63,440,000

This category makes up 10.1 percent of the total request and includes projects

to install the necessary utility support for existing and programmed construc-

tion. Many systems are operating under full or overtaxed capacities and will

be upgraded. A significant portion of the utility projects, approximately 43 per-

cent, is devoted to the Navy's "Cold Iron" program which allows ships to shut

down their shipboard equipment while in port, thus allowing more time for

equipment maintenance and giving more opportunities for shore leave for ships'

personnel. Approximately 17 percent or $9.7 million of the Marine Corps program

is assigned to utilities improvements.

POLLUTION ABATEMENT, AIR AND WATER $92,311,000

The Navy is continuing its emphasis on Pollution Abatement by allocating

14.7 percent of the authorization request for these facilities.

For air pollution abatement the Navy has programed 27.6 million dollars

for eighteen facilities at Naval and Marine Corps installations. Eight facilities

costing approximately 18 million dollars are for control of the particulate and

chemical fume emissions produced in the industrial operation of coating metal

surfaces. Three facilities will improve boiler plant emissions through fuel conver-

sions. Rounding out the air pollution abatement facilities are four facilities to

improve air emissions, two pipe insulation working facilities, and smoke abate-

ment facilities for a fire fighting school.

For water pollution abatement, funding is requested in the amount of 64.7

million dollars for forty-five facilities at Naval and Marine Corps installations.

A major portion of this request is for construction of pier sewers for collection

of sanitary wastes from ships in port. In this, the second year of a five-year

program for constructing disposal ashore facilities, there are thirteen facilities

costing approximately 34 million dollars. The pier sewers are planned to coin-

cide with scheduled ship alterations. There are eight facilities for handling of

fuels and collection, treatment, and disposal of oils and oily waste products from

ships and shore installations. There are three municipal sewer connections, eleven

improvements to sewer systems and treatment plants, seven facilities for collec-

tion and treatment of industrial wastes, and two facilities for treatment of filter

backwash water at Naval water treatment plants.

REAL ESTATE $7,235,000

Authorization is being requested for four real estate acquisitions. These ac-

quisitions will provide the land necessary to prevent urban encroachment.

AMENDMENTS $5,718,000

This year's program originally requested two amendments totaling $2,434,000.

Under the program change three additional amendments were requested in the

amount of $3,284,000. The new amendment total is five amendments with a total

llHH ...

193

cost of $5,718,000, which is less than one percent of this year's new authorization

request.

Under the original program a $448,000 amendment was requested to the FY

1967 Program, Public Law 89-568, for the Hypervelocity Wind Tunnel project

at the Naval Ordnance Laboratory. White Oak, Maryland. A recent evaluation

of the project discloses that the amendment is no longer required.

At the Navy Mine Defense Laboratory a $1,986,000 amendment is requested to

Public Law 90-408 (FY 1969) for the Deep Ocean Engineering Pressure Facility

project. This amendment is required to complete the final contract, provide for

the required material certification, and to pay approved contractor claims.

Under the program change amendments are required to the FY 1971, FY 1972,

and FY 1973 Military Construction Acts.

Under Public Law 91-511 (FY 1971) a $249,000 amendment is required for the

Sewage Treatment System project at the Naval Weapons Laboratory, Dahlgren,

Virginia. This amendment is required to correct a failure which was caused by

unforeseen sub-surface soil conditions in the dike of the finishing pond.

For FY 1972, Public Law 92-145, a $593,000 amendment is required for the

installation total of the Naval Air Station, Meridian, Mississippi. The amend-

ment is required to permit award of the Enlisted Men's Club project authorized

at $714,000. The FY 1972 Bachelor Enlisted Quarters project generated the need

for the amendment. Since the relative need is greatest for the bachelor enlisted

quarters, a decision was made to proceed with the bachelor enlisted quarters and

to defer the Enlisted Men's Club project and seek an amendment this year.

For FY 1973, Public Law 92-545, an amendment of $2,442,000 is requested for

the bomb loading plant modernization project of the Naval Ammunition Depot,

McAlester, Oklahoma. This amendment is required to provide construction in

accordance with new safety criteria promulgated by the Armed Services Ex-

plosive Safety Board for structures housing the manufacture and/or handling

of explosives.

STATEMENT OF THE ASSISTANT QUARTERMASTER GENERAL, MARINE CORPS

(FACILITIES AND SERVICES) BRIG. GEN. M. T. JANNELL, USMC

Mr. Chairman, gentlemen. It is my pleasure to again have the opportunity to

present the Marine Corps Military construction program. This year's authoriza-

tion request reflects our continuing major effort to provide new and improved

personnel support facilities. In addition, authorization to construct operational,

utility and combat training oriented facilities is requested. The Marine Corps

authorization request for FY 1974 military construction totals $58,000,000. Ex-

clusive of our aforementioned request is $7,550,000 for pollution abatement proj-

ects at Marine Corps installations.

In addition to the appropriation dollars requested. the Marine Corps requests

$3,156,000 authorization only, for the acquisition of interests in lands contiguous

to the Marine Corps air station, Yuma, Arizona. to be accomplished through

exchange of excess Department of Defense Real Estate. The acquisition would

provide encroachment protection of the air station which would assure unim-

paired mission accomplishment, in addition to protecting the potential home-

owner against overflight hazards and high noise levels.

The backbone of our $58,000,000 request before this committee is concentrated

in our concern to satisfy deficiencies in bachelor enlisted quarters and other

personnel support facilities. The remainder will provide certain urgent opera-

tional facilities essential to our readiness posture. Our personnel support proj-

ects represent 54 percent of this $58 million. $25.4 million will provide room

configured housing facilities and three modern messhalls for our bachelor en-

listed marines. Additionally, $5.9 million is requested for a gymnasium, commis-

sary, and a dispensary, which will provide needed recreational and personnel

welfare facilities.

The Marine Corps has dedicated a major portion of its construction efforts

to bachelor housing facilities, for the past five fiscal years. We are convinced

that the provision of modern and reasonably comfortable living accommodations

for our bachelor marines is in the best interest of both the marine and the

corps. In view of this conviction, we will continue to place personnel support

projects to the foreground until we feel we have provided a reasonably sound

functional physical plant for the needs of our men and women.

With the exclusion of the aforementioned $3.2 million request for acquisition

"of interests in lands at Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, Arizona, the remaining

$23.5 million authorization request provides $2.7 million for utilities; $.7 million

for cold storage warehouse; $1.7 million for roads and vehicle maintenance facili-

ties; $.6 million for real estate necessary for ordnance storage; $3.5 million for

a combat training complex and applied instruction facilities, and $5.2 million

for facilities in support of transfer of the inventory control point activity,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to Marine Corps Supply Center, Albany, Georgia.

Gentlemen, that summarizes our program by facility category, which we be-

lieve to be a well balanced program. I shall attempt to answer any questions

you may have.

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you.

I have just a couple of queries here that I would like to ask.

TRIDENT

Admiral Marschall, the Navy is asking for $118.320 million for the

Trident support complex and flight test facilities for fiscal year 1974.

Outline for us just what this will provide.

Admiral MARSCHALL. Yes, sir. I have an outline of Trident here.

There is a land acquisition item which is needed for explosive safety

distances. And here is a training facility-

Senator SYMINGTON. How much is needed for that portion ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. $5 million, sir.

The facilities which we are requesting are the following, sir:

A covered explosive handling pier, for $21.295 million;

A refit pier and slip, for $14.793 million;

A first increment of utilities for $16.827 million;

A land acquisition of 136 acres, which I mentioned, at $5.1 million;

Site improvement, $13.469 million;

A weapons navigation training building for $11.392 million; and

A warehouse for $294,000.

Senator SYMINGTON. Is this all at Bangor, Washington?

Admiral MARSCHALL. All at Bangor, Washington.

At the flight test facility at Cape Kennedy, we are asking for a

wharf and dredging at $31.345 million; missile checkout building-

Senator SYMINGTON. What is that for, the Trident ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. Yes, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. Do you need to start that work this early ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. Yes, sir, we do.

Senator SYMINGTON. Why ?

Admiral MARSCI-IALL. There are explosive safety distances involved

down there with the new missile which we will test in the Poseidon

boat. The channel is very narrow, and we are beginning to get en-

croachment from the outside.

Senator SYMINGTON. Well, if the Poseidon will take that missile,

why do you not make this a part of your Poseidon cost, especially since

there has been so much criticism of the Trident cost ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. Because in reality, Mr. Chairman, it is for the

Trident eventually. The total facilities here are geared to Trident.

Senator SYMINGTON. And that means you do not plan to retrofit any

of the ULMS I missile in the Poseidon ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. Yes, sir, we do; we do plan to retrofit some,

but for testing only at this time.

Senator SYMINGTON. I do not follow you on that entirely, but we

will skim it.

What is the total cost of the Trident base ?

.~i~i~i i i i i i i

Admiral MARSCHALL. The Trident base will be approximately $550

million, sir; $543.3 million is the figure.

Senator SYMINGTON. Last year it was going to cost considerably more

than that. Why the heavy reduction ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. We were able, during the last year, to cut down

on certain ancillary features we feel the current program is really

the hardcore. We eliminated depot level submarine maintenance at the

support complex site and transferred that to the existing shipyards.

We reduced facility support levels from 15 to 10 ships, which is now

our plan. A reduction of land has had a major impact.

Senator SYMINGTON. And you are here today telling us that, to the

best of the Navy's knowledge, the total cost of this base included in

the Trident program is $543 million, is that correct ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. If the program were to go as we have out-

lined it, yes, sir, this is to the best of our knowledge.

If we were to have a postponement of some of the facilities, there

would naturally be some cost escalation.

Senator SYMINGTON. Like what ?

Admiral MARCHALL. I think, Mr. Chairman, that were we to cut

the figure now, we would probably add substantially to the program.

Senator SYMINGTON. If you cut what figure now ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. Excuse me.

The price would get up to about $560 million, based on escalation,

if we had substantial deferrals from the fiscal year 1974 MILCON

program.

We did not include family housing in this $543.3 million total be-

cause that is a separate item entirely. We have never considered the

family housing as part of the Trident.

Senator SYMINGTON. Will you need family housing?

Admiral MARSCHALL. We will need family housing.

Senator SYMINGTON. How much do you think you will need?

Admiral MARSCHALL. We probably will need something on the order

of 1,400 units, phased in over several year periods.

Senator SYMINGTON. And how much money is that in total, 275

times 1,400 ?

Captain REED. It would be roughly about $4.7 million.

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you, captain.

To the best of your knowledge, these are all the expenses involved

in the construction for the Trident base ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. To the best of our knowledge, yes, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. And your estimate is-you see, last year the

outlook was around a billion dollars, so you have now cut it in half.

We do not quite understand that, especially since all the costs have

been going up in practically everything.

Admiral MARSCHALL. When you are able to cut functions, you can

cut costs. As I say, we did cut several functions out of what we wanted

originally.

Senator SYMINGTON. But what you are really doing-I cannot be-

lieve the Navy would be that far off in 12 months on an estimate of a

base for any thing. And so what you are really doing is transferring

some of the functions to other bases, are you not ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. What we are doing is just that, Mr. Chairman,

we are transferring this depot level maintenance to the shipyard.

Senator SYMINGTON. But you will have the additional cost in that

shipyard, will you not ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. NO, sir. This is in the existing shipyard at

Puget Sound. And we will not need the facilities over at Bangor. It

was the result of a good inward look by the Navy.

Senator SYMINGTON. You see, I am not criticizing at all, but on

record you are going to have to stay on standby, and, gas you know, the

Trident has been the subject of tremendous discussion. The only

committee that has ever studied it in any real detail in the Senate

is the subcommittee which unanimously recommended against it last

year and was overruled, and unanimously recommended against it this

year, and it was overruled by the full committee.

So you are going to have a floor fight on this, you will have it this

year, and every year for some years to come, in my opinion.

Therefore, I think it is very important that we get the cost of the

base, an accurate figure, at this time; otherwise it will come back and

haunt you. Last year it was $1 billion, and this year it is $500 million.

Admiral MARSCHALL. Yes, sir. I am fully aware of the way that

developed. Naturally, when one group of people requests something

that it feels is highly desirable, they become strong advocates. And

it was 'a process of whipping the advocates, so to speak within the

Navy.

The reduction was not imposed on us from outside at all, it was a

very, very hard inside-the-Navy look, to ascertain just what it was

we needed, a bare bones approach.

Senator SYMINGTON. Actually, that is close to $2 billion, because at

that time you figured you needed two bases, one in the Atlantic and

one in the Pacific ; am I correct?

Admiral MARSCHALL. Sir, at the time I participated in this, there

was the thought of only one at this time, and probably one at some

future date, far down in the future.

Senator SYMINGTON. But now the testimony, as I understand it, is

that you do not need a base in the Atlantic.

Admiral MARSCHALL. We do not need a base in the Atlantic at this

time, no, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. We understand that the testimony of Admiral

Lyon was that even if you went to 20 Tridents you would only need

the one base.

Admiral MARSCHALL. If we went to 20 Tridents, we could accom-

modate the 20 Tridents at this particular base in Bangor.

Senator SYMINGTON. So there is no idea of a Trident base in the

Atlantic ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. Not at this time, yes, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. But you are not going to build more than 20

Tridents ? You can only build 29 under the Moscow agreements.

Admiral MARSCHALL. All I am saying, sir, is that in the near future

we have no intention of going anywhere but Bangor.

Senator SYMINGTON. And how long would you call the foreseeable

future?

Admiral MARSCHALL. I certainly would anticipate within the next

20 years but that is an opinion.

Senator SYMINGTON. I am just thinly ing out loud.

If you get a development of 710 launchers, and 24 launches per

Trident, if you had 20, which was a figure discussed in another hear-

ing you, would have to scrap a lot of your present Polaris and Posei-

don, because you could only have 14 American submarines.

Admiral MARSCHALL. At the time the Trident boat would come into

the fleet until the present schedule, and should the SALT Agreements

remain as they are, we would have to begin removing certain Polaris

boats from the fleet. They would be reaching a 20-year life at that

time.

Senator SYMINGTON. That is right. What worries me perhaps more

than the cost is from the standpoint of my concept about submarines.

I do not think there has been a Member of the Congress more pro-

submarines than I am, but the new Yankee class Soviet submarine

has 12 launchers, and they are allowed 62 submarines maximum, or

950 launchers depending on how they want to do it.

It is hard for me to justify the rationale for the Trident, because

what do you want, more submarines with less launchers, or more

launchers and less submarines ? To me it infringes on the whole con-

cept of the submarine, which was dispersion, maximum dispersion.

I would think the more submarines you had, the better off you would

be from the standpoint of your deterrent capacity.

Admiral MARSCHALL. As you are aware sir, I am a civil engineer, not

a submariner. But I am fully aware that the submariners have made

a very detailed study of the optimum boat, and they came to the con-

clusion that the one they are going after is the one that they want

from a deterrent standpoint and for cost effectiveness.

Senator SYMINGTON. I am aware of that, and I only mentioned it

because it was only recently that I had heard that even if we only

had 20 Tridents, according to the Navy, the testimony was that they

would all be at Bangor. And my idea of defense had to do something

with the idea of considering it important to defend the sealanes be-

tween here and Europe because of our troops in Europe after M plus

a certain date needing reinforcement across the sealanes. Now to

the next item.

WHITING FIELD, FLA.

Congressman Sikes has asked that there be included in the military

construction bill $1.4 million for Whiting Field, Fla., to provide out-

lying fields for helicopter training and $831,000 for a petty officers'

club at the Naval Communications Training Center, Fla.

Will you comment on these projects and tell us when they might

ordinarily be included in the Navy construction program ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. The item at Whiting Field, $1.4 million, I

think was programed in 1976.

This petty officers' mess at $831000 was in the out years, in the

unprogramed years, but it is still a part of our overall plan.

Senator SYMINGTON. Please continue with your line items.

Admiral MARSCHALL. Yes, sir.

INSIDE THE UNITED STATES

The program request at unclassified installations inside the United

'States totals $578,178,000.

198

FIRST NAVAL DISTRICT

NAVAL AIR STATION, BRUNSWICK, MAINE

We are requesting $135,000 at the Naval Air Station, Brunswick,

Maine. This station supports land-based patrol squadrons equipped

with P-3 aircraft engaged in all weather antisubmarine warfare op-

erations. This project, which is the only project requested this year

at the station, will provide a facility for training flight crews in the

directional Jezebel sonobouy system.

This project is not a requirement of the. shore establishment realine-

ment since the realinement of Atlantic Fleet Patrol squadrons basing

has been implemented, but these facilities are needed to relocate di-

rectional sonobouy trainer devices from the Naval Air Station, Pa-

tuxent River, to Brunswick.

NAVAL SECURITY GROUP ACTIVITY, WINTER HARBOR, MAINE

At the Naval Security Group Activity, Winter Harbor, Maine,

we are requesting $232,000 for a theater project. The 'activity is part

of the high-frequency direction finder network and performs an

antisubmarine warfare support mission vital to the security of the

Nation. The theater project will provide a facility for movie, theatri-

cal, and lecture presentations. There are no other indoor or outdoor

theaters available within 50 miles of the base; and current use of the

gymnasium for such purposes conflict with physical fitness programs

and station pathetic events.

PORTSMOUTH NAVAL SHIPYARD, PORTSMOUTH, N.H.

Under the program change a request of July 17, 1973, an additional

crane rail system project in the amount of $2,817,000 was requested.

The facilities to be provided by this project will permit the transfer

of a portal crane from the Boston Naval Shipyard and improve sig-

nificantly productivity of this shipyard.

THIRD NAVAL DISTRICT

NAVAL SUBMARINE BASE, NEW LONDON, CONN.

We are requesting $6,158,000 for two projects at the Naval Sub-

marine Base, New London, Conn. The base maintains and operates

shore facilities to support two attack submarine squadrons, a sub-

marine development group, and two deployed Polaris-Poseidon sub-

marine squadrons.

For bachelor enlisted quarters modernization project that will re-

habilitate five barracks and provide modern living quarters for 1,322

men, we are requesting $3,372,000.

The electrical tie and distribution line project, at $2,786,000, will

provide facilities to meet increasing demand resulting from facilities

expansion and a need to provide shore power to modern nuclear sub-

marines.

NAVAL UNDERWATER SYSTEMS CENTER, NEW LONDON LABORATORY,

NEW LONDON, CONN.

The request for the naval underwater systems center, New Lon-

don Laboratory, New London, Conn., is $3,600,000. This laboratory is

the principal Navy research, development, test, and evaluation center

for underwater weapons systems.

The engineering building project, at $3,600,000, will provide space

for engineering and scientific personnel engaged in the research and

development of SONAR systems and improved under water acoustic

sensors for antisubmarine warfare ships.

MILITARY OCEAN TERMINAL, BAYONNE, N.J.

For one project at the Military Ocean Terminal, Bayonne, N.J., we

are requesting $1,806,000. This activity provides effective and econom-

ical sea transportation in the Atlantic area for personnel and cargoes

of the Department of Defense and other Government agencies. The

headquarters of the Military Sealift Command is presently located

at the Brooklyn Army Terminal, which is scheduled for closure. The

Military Sealift Command/Atlantic Relocation project will convert

existing space to accommodate the facilities to be relocated from

the Military Ocean Terminal, Brooklyn.

NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY, BROOKLYN, N.Y.

We are requesting $1,131,000 for two projects at the naval support

activity, Brooklyn, N.Y. This activity maintains and operates fa-

cilities to provide services 'and material in support of operating forces

in the New York area including port services, communications, medi-

cal care, receiving and shipping, and personnel support services.

The relocate telephone switchboard project at $75,000 will relocate

the telephone switchboard equipment from the Naval Station to the

Naval Annex as the existing facilities used to house this equipment

will be excessed.

The bachelor enlisted quarters project at $1,056,000 will modernize

existing spaces to provide modern living quarters for 225 men.

Senator SYMINGTON. I understand these two projects, totaling

$1,131,000, originally requested for the naval support activity,

Brooklyn, are no longer needed, and may be deleted. Do you have any

other projects in this category? If so, I wish you would submit a

list of them for the record.

Admiral MARSCHALL. The project for relocation of the telephone

switchboard for $75,000 is no longer required. The bachelor enlisted

quarters modernization project for $1,056,000 is still required but at

the reduced scope of $612,000. This reflects a reduction in scope from

225 men to 150 men.

Information on other projects in the program which may be elimi-

nated, reduced, or modified in some way was provided in Rear Admiral

Marschall's supplementary statement concerning program modifica-

tions. On addition is the dispensary project for $641,000 at the naval

security group activity, Skaggs Island, Calif. It has been determined

that tjis replacement project may be deferred to a later year because

regionalization of Navy medical facilities in that area is a relatively

,' wTl ' S

recent action. It is considered desirable to defer replacement of the

Skaggs Island facility until the results of medical regionalization have

been fully evaluated. It is anticipated that within 10 to 12 months

sufficient data will be available upon which to base a reexamination

of medical needs of Skaggs Island.

FOURTH NAVAL DISTRICT

PHILADELPHIA NAVAL SHIPYARD, PHILADELPHIA, PA.

At the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Philadelphia, Pa., we origi-

nally requested $915,000 for two projects. This shipyard repairs and

overhauls surface ships and diesel submarines.

A request of $735,000 was to provide additional facilities required

to perform the restoration and refit of selected electronics compo-

nents-sensors and transducers-for all east coast naval shipyards, and

fleet components previously performed at the Boston Naval Ship-

yard. A recent check of the electromagnetic environment and under-

water noise level at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard disclosed that

the background levels are not suitable for this facility. It will, there-

fore, be necessary to relocate the electronics equipment facility project

to the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, N.H.

The computer support facility project, in the amount of $180,000,

will provide facilities to relocate the Navships Computer Applications

Support Development Office to this yard from the Boston Naval Ship-

yard.

NAVAL AIR DEVELOPMENT CENTER, WARMINISTER, PA.

We are requesting $125,000 for the Naval Air Development Center,

Warminister, Pa. This center conducts research, design, development,

test, and evaluation of aeronautical systems and components and per-

forms research and development in aviation medicine.

The primary substation expansion project will expand the existing

primary system to meet normal power usage growth and planned facil-

ities construction and improvements.

NAVAL DISTRICT, WASHINGTON, D.C.

NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY, WASHINGTON, D.C.

For the Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C. where re-

search and development in the physical sciences and related fields di-

rected toward new and improved materials, equipment, techniques,

and systems, is conducted, we are requesting $5,395,000.

The acoustic research facility project, at $740,000, will provide

laboratory shop and office space for personnel engaged in advancing

basic research in underwater surveillance.

The Integrated Electromagnetic Test and Analysis Laboratory

project will provide facilities to conduct basic research required to

develop and evaluate countermeasures against threat weapons sys-

tems such as the antiship cruise missile. The project cost is $4,655,000.

Senator SYMINGTON. Over the past several years we have author-

ized a considerable amount of money for the modernization of the

Naval Research Laboratory. Is this project a continuation of that

program, and just what kind of work will be performed in this

facility ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. This project is a continuation of the program

to modernize the facilities at the Naval Research Laboratory. We pro-

pose to alter some warehouse space that we have cleared out and con-

solidate existing similar functions into a single building. This will

alleviate crowded conditions for the functions to be moved to the ware-

house, permit us to shift some other functions to the vacated areas and

provide properly configured space for the specialized use we require

and do not now have. The proposed facility will enable us to assemble

and check out very extensive instrumentation which we must use to

measure characteristics of the ocean, particularly sound. We need an

essentially clean room facility to handle precision instrumentation

which we encapsulate. Also we must have an extensive test facility to

run life cycle testing to assure our equipment will work when we in-

stall it on the ocean bottom for a major experiment.

NAVAL ACADEMY, ANNAPOLIS, MD.

For the Naval Academy, Annapolis, Md., we are requesting $4,334,-

000. The Academy prepares young men to be professional officers in

the naval services.

The Maury Hall rehabilitation project will correct existing de-

ficiencies in classrooms, laboratories, and training facilities needed for

the expanded program of the weapons and systems engineering

department.

Senator SYMINGTON. $4.3 million is a very sizable amount you are

requesting for the rehabilitation of this building. Just what do you

propose to do here and why is it necessary ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. Virtually all of the inside of the building will

be torn out and rebuilt to provide modern laboratory, classroom, and

administrative space. This modernization will support new elective

courses in systems engineering, such as system simulation, hydrid

computer technology, and systems engineering analysis and control

procedures. In the weapons systems field, new research programs and

new applications of computer techniques will also be housed in the

rehabilitated spaces.

Senator SYMINOTON. As I recall, when you renovated Sampson Hall

some years ago, you had rather substantial overruns, apparently be-

cause your original estimates were inadequate. I hope this does not

occur again in this instance if the project is approved.

Admiral MARSCHALL. The estimated cost for the work has been very

carefully engineered, and we are reasonably confident that we won't

have problems with overruns. Our cost estimate for this project is the

result of a detailed program cost estimate which included an economic

analysis to select the recommended solution.

NAVAL STATION, ANNAPOLIS, MD.

We are requesting $1,080,000 at the naval station, Annapolis, Md.

This station support the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Md. The

bulkhead replacement project at the naval station, Annapolis, Md., will

replace a damaged bulkhead and associated facilities used to protect

and maintain 150 various types of small craft used for training at the

Academy.

Senator SYMINGTON. Would you explain in a little more detail why

this project is necessary. I note that you indicate small craft are as-

signed to the Naval Academy. What are these small craft used for?

Are they actually used for training, or are they recreation craft ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. This bulkhead has got to be replaced to pre-

vent further undermining which is endangering the adjacent build-

ing foundation and subsurface utilities. Normal tide and current action

continuously erode the bulkhead, but in the event of a major storm,

such as Hurricane Agnes last year, the entire bulkhead would most

likely be completely destroyed.

The small craft at the naval station consist of 15 yard patrol craft,

2 LCM's, one 60-ton floating crane, and various sailing craft which

are used for midshipman training. The remaining craft are utility

barges and lighters used in station operations, and miscellaneous rec-

reational yachts and sailing craft.

NATIONAL NAVAL MEDICAL CENTER, BETHESDA, MD.

We are requesting $3,310,000 for two projects at the National Naval

Medical Center, Bethesda, Md. At the medical center, one project

for a Navy exchange retail store will replace the existing store with a

modern convenient facility at a cost of $1,764,000.

Senator SYMINGTON. Here you propose to build a new Navy ex-

change retail store. Why is this necessary at this time ? It has been my

impression that these stores are generally built by the exchange sys-

tems out of nonappropriated funds. Why is this not true in this in-

stance?

Admiral MARSCHALL. The Navy exchange qualifies for construc-

tion under the military construction program because the existing ex-

change facility will be destroyed to permit new construction for the

redevelopment of the National Naval Medical Center. The construc-

tion of a new exchange facility is necessary at this time to afford site

clearance for the orderly phasing of the redevelopment program.

At the National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Md., we are re-

questing $1,546,000 for the roads project. This project will provide

the new roadways required to streamline ingress and egress to the

center from Jones Bridge Road.

Senator SYMINGTON. In your justification for additional roads you

indicated that the modernization of the National Naval Medical Center

required new right-of-ways, et cetera. This would indicate that you

intend to modernize this medical center. Just what are your plans

in this regard ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. A modernization program for the National

Naval Medical Center has been planned. The program will be under-

taken by phasing so that medical service to authorized beneficiaries

and residency traning programs may continue during the construction.

The modernization plan includes: a new 650-acute-care-bed hos-

pital; adjacent parking structures; a Navy Exchange; a warehouse;

and a public works shop. The phasing is scheduled to begin in fiscal year

1975 with final completion in 1980.

NAVAL MEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, BETHESDA, MD.

We are requesting $6,372,000 at the Naval Medical Research In-

stitute, Bethesda, Md. This project will provide a facility to perform

experimentation with animals to a 3,300-foot depth so that operational

human diving depths may be lowered from 1,500 feet to 2,000 feet and

beyond.

(Senator SYMINGTON. I notice from your justification we have pre-

viously authorized $41/2 million for this project, and you are now

asking for an additional $6.3 million. Is this in the nature of an over-

run since the previous authorization, and has phase I been started?

Admiral MARSCHALL. The amount requested for phase II is not

in the nature of an overrun. The use of phased construction was en-

visioned at the time of phase I formulation in fiscal year 1972. Phase I

has been started and provided for the procurement of long leadtime

equipment and material items.

NAVAL COMMUNICATION STATION, CHELTENHAM, MD.

For one project at the Naval Communication Station, Cheltenham,

Md., we are requesting $1,300,000. This station provides very low fre-

quency broadcasts to submerged submarines operating in the Atlantic

area. This project will correct deficiencies in the antenna system, that

causes the current to are over to the ground, thus drawing excessive

current which could damage the transmitters. A reduction in op-

erating power to prevent the arcing to ground lowers the signal

strength to an unacceptable level.

NAVAL ORDNANCE STATION, INDIAN HEAD, MD.

At the Naval Ordnance Station, Indian Head, Md., $1,528,000 is re-

quested for one project. The fire protection system modifications

project will increase the capacity of the system and will provide treat-

ment facilities to reduce the corrosiveness and turbidity of the water.

NAVAL AIR TEST CENTER, PATUXENT RIVER, MD.

At the Naval Air Test Center, Patuxent River, Md., we are re-

questing $1,240,000 for two projects. This center tests and evaluates air-

craft and weapons systems, components, and related equipment for

fleet use and supports two research squadrons, the test pilot school,

and a naval hospital.

An electromagnetic propagation facility project, with a cost of

$680,000, will provide facilities for conducting electromagnetic prop-

agation studies on avionics systems.

The electrical distribution system project will correct current de-

ficiencies which resulted in 79 power outages over the last couple years

and provide additional transformer capacity to meet the power demand

of new testing equipment and facilities. The project cost is $560,000.

NAVAL HOSPITAL, QUANTICO, VA.

We are requesting $484,000 for one project at the Naval Hospital,

Quantico, Va. This hospital provides general clinical and hospitaliza-

tion services for active duty Navy and Marine Corps personnel and

their dependents. This project will provide air-conditioning and a cen-

tralized special care unit to provide adequate, basic clinical facilities

for intensive and coronary care patients.

FIFTH 'NAVAL DISTRICT

FLEET COMBAT DIRECTION SYSTEMS TRAINING CENTER, DAM NECK, VA.

At the Fleet Combat Direction Systems Training Center, Dam Neck,

Va., we are requesting $6,531,000 for two projects. This center pro-

vides naval warfare training for fleet personnel to develop and per-

fect their skills by the actual operation of tactical command direction

systems in a realistic warfare environment.

The authorization request for the applied instruction building project

is $5,959,000. The applied instruction building project will provide fa-

cilities to support combat information center training to be relocated

from the Naval Air Station, Glynco, Ga.

Senator SYMINGTON. This building is going to cost almost $6 mil-

lion, and apparently is a requirement generated by closing the Naval

Air Station, Glynco, Ga. Why was it necessary to transfer this train-

ing to Dam Neck, rather than some location where you had existing

facilities?

Admiral MARSCHALL. To get the greatest benefit Navywide from our

limited training resources in the areas of staff and administrative

personnel, and sophisticated training equipment, we are trying to

consolidate and colocate like kinds of training at one location. In this

case, the combat information center training and carrier air traffic

control training are being relocated to Dam Neck from Glynco, be-

cause similar command and control training is now being conducted

at Dam Neck.

The academic training building project request is in the amount

of $572,000. The academic training building project will provide in-

struction space to support courses whose applied training is being

conducted in a nearby multipurpose building. Several new areas of

training coupled with projected increases in student loading requires

the provision of additional academic training space.

NAVAL AMPHIBIOUS BASE, LITTLE CREEK, VA.

We are requesting $3,350,000 for the Naval Amphibious Base, Little

Creek, Va. This base supports the Headquarters, Atlantic Fleet Am-

phibious Force, Amphibious School, Inshore Warfare Command,

and is the homeport of 35 Atlantic Fleet ships.

The electronics building project, at $139,000, will provide an elec-

tronics maintenance shop to furnish communication support to harbor

control, security, training, and administrative functions.

The dispensary and dental clinic project will provide a new clinic

to replace the existing inadequately sized, dilapidated, and poorly

located facility. The project cost is $3,211,000.

NAVAL AIR STATION, NORFOLK, VA.

At the Naval Air Station, Norfolk, Va., we are requesting $2,525,000.

This station supports 11 fleet air squadrons, Naval Air Rework Fa-

cility, Norfolk, Reserve squadrons, and an overseas air passenger and

cargo terminal.

The helicopter maintenance hangar project will provide hangar

space for onboard helicopter units and the 37 additional fleet support

and LAMPS squadrons helicopters to be transferred to the station

from the Naval Air Station, Lakehurst, N.J. The 37 helicopters rep-

resent a correction from the 20 helicopters shown on the project justi-

fication document.

Senator SYMINGTON. This appears to be another project requested

because of base closures. Where are the 2.0 additional helicopters to be

assigned here coming from, and why was this location selected?

Admiral MARSHALL. We are transferring the new LAMPS heli-

copter squadrons HSL 30 and 32 to NAS Norfolk from NAS Lake-

hurst. Actually, 37 helicopters will be moved in to Norfolk. NAS

N'orfolk was selected because many of the ships to which the LAMPS

detachments are assigned are going to be homeported at Norfolk.

Also, NAS Norfolk is somewhat less crowded than NAS Cecil Field

which is being assigned the S-3A jet aircraft in addition to its present

aircraft support load. Also, NAS Jacksonville is being heavily up-

loaded by the base realinements. NAS Key West and NAS Bruns-

wick were considered to be too far away from the ships resulting in

logistics problems.

NAVAL STATION, NORFOLK, VA.

We are requesting $18,493,000 for seven projects at the Naval Sta-

tion, Norfolk, Va. This station provides logistic support for 25 or

more naval commands, including 5th Naval District Headquarters

and Commanders, Cruiser-Destroyer Force and Submarine Force,

U.S. Atlantic Fleet. This station currently serves as homeport for

80 ships of the Atlantic Fleet and, as a part of the shore establish-

ment reduction and realinement, will have another 20 ships assigned.

The amount of $9,624,000 is requested for the berthing pier project

which will provide a pier with "cold iron" utilities to accommodate

large fleet ships which cannot presently be berthed because of a short-

age of berthing space.

Senator SYMINOTON. AS long as you have been in business in the

Norfolk area, I would have thought that you had all manner of piers

already in existence. Why is this expensive pier now needed?

Admiral MARSHALL. A deficiency in berthing space alongside piers

has always existed at Naval Station, Norfolk. For this reason the

station has required offshore moorings in Hampton Roads. Despite

a reduction in numbers of ships in the Navy, the deficiency con-

tinues, as newer and much larger ships join the modern fleet. For

example, our new destroyers are 560 feet long, whereas the old ships

going out are only 375 feet long. The LHA's which resemble aircraft

carriers in size are also coming in. Depending on the type of combat

ships homeported at Norfolk, approximately 55 ships can be berthed

alongside piers. The smallest number of naval ships assigned in re-

cent years is 81, which does not include harbor craft or merchant

shipping. Due to the recent realinement of shore facilities, 18 addi-

tional combat ships will be assigned from Naval Station, Newport.

The current berthing problems, considering all the pertinent factors

such as deployment, nesting, of small ships, availability of utilities,

depth of water, etc. indicates the addition of one pier will relieve

but not solve the need for new pier space.

Senator SYMINGTON. I notice in your justification you state that

it will be used in part for transient and merchant ships. Will you

explain this, particularly as it relates to merchant ships?

Admiral MARSHALL. The Naval Supply Center normally uses 2

berths alongside piers three and four for merchant shipping. These

piers are equipped with transit sheds and railroad tracks required to

handle cargo. The Naval Supply Center operation, the largest such

center in the Navy, is such that commercial ships call routinely de-

livering or transshipping Navy purchases or cargo.

The relocate fleet landing project with a cost of $803,000 will free

pier 2 berthing space and provide a more sheltered basin for fleet

landing facilities.

The pier 2 dredging project will lower the water depth along the

inboard berth of the southside of pier 2 from 20 to 35 feet and will

provide an additional 800 feet of berthing for large modern vessels.

The project cost is $314,000.

The enlisted men's dining facility modernization project at $1,435,-

000, will modernize the existing main mess hall to feed 1,958 men

per meal and consolidate into approximately one-third of the present

area, thereby making 55,000 square feet of space available for other

uses.

The pier utilities project will provide "cold iron" utilities to the

nuclear submarine pier. The request for this project is $1,435,000.

The vehicle parking area project will install paving, drainage, side-

walks, and lighting for parking at the destroyer-submarine berthing

area. The additional ships to be homeported at this installation will

greatly increase the requirement for parking areas. The project cost

is $310,000.

Senator SYMINGTON. I notice from your justification that this park-

ing lot appears to be strictly for the convenience of.personnel assigned

aboard ship while they are in port. Do you strongly feel that the

expenditure of $310,000 for this purpose is justified?

Admiral MARSCHALL. Parking conditions adjacent to berths along

this section of the waterfront are totally unsatisfactory. Approximate-

ly 6,700 afloat personnel are being transferred from Newport and will

be assigned to this area of the waterfront. Parking conditions will be-

come more critical, urgently requiring immediate relief. The parking

area will provide space for approximately 1,500 automobiles.

Senator SYMINGTON. What do these people do with their cars when

their ship is not in port ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. When ships are deployed, the automobiles be-

longing to married crewmen will normally be parked at their residence.

Unmarried personnel live on their ships and their cars are parked

here at all times, whether their ship is in port or not.

The amount of $3,950,000 is requested for the fleet sonar school-

applied instruction building project. This project will provide in-

structional,and administrative space for the fleet sonar school to be

relocated from Key West, Fla.

Senator SYMINGTON. Here is another facility the need for which is

generated by the base closure program. Apparently, in this instance,

the relocation of sonar training from Key West, Fla., to Norfolk. Is

this going to complete the job, or will there be a followon?

Admiral MARSCHALL. This project won't complete the job. In the fis-

cal year 1975 program we're going to need a followon project for an ad-

ditional 34,000 square feet at an estimated cost of about $1.5 million.

NAVY PUBLIC WORKS CENTER, NORFOLK, VA.

We are requesting $567,000 for one project at the Navy Public

Works Center, Norfolk, Va. This center provides utilities to facilities

located within the Sewells Point naval complex and to the fleet berthed

at the Naval Station, Norfolk.

The electrical distribution system project will extend existing elec-

trical distribution lines and provide additional capacity to satisfy

increased power demands of new modern production equipment, larger

modern fleet ships, and new facilities.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS TRAINING GROUP, NORFOLK, VA.

At the Nuclear Weapons Training Group, Norfolk, Va., we are re-

questing $2,470,000. This Nuclear Weapons Training Group provides

nuclear warfare employment training and nuclear weapons technical

training for key officers and enlisted men serving in billets related to

the nuclear warfare capability of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet.

The nuclear training building project will provide classrooms and

other spaces required for the training of officers and enlisted personnel

in nuclear weapons orientation, employment, planning, workloads, and

supply.

NAVAL AIR STATION, OCEANA, VA.

We are requesting $3,962,000 at the Naval Air Station, Oceana, Va.

This air station is a master jet station, the homeport for all Atlantic

Fleet medium attack and fighter squadrons and the Atlantic Fleet

introduction site for the F-14 weapons system. It supports three car-

rier air wings comprised of 11 fighter and 8 medium attack squadrons

that deploy in rotation on Atlantic Fleet carriers.

The aircraft systems training buildings project, at $3,386,000, will

provide a maintenance training facility and an addition to the flight

training buildings. These training buildings will house equipment to

be utilized in training pilots and ground crew maintenance personnel

on the systems of the F-14 aircraft to be assigned to the station early

in 1974.

Senator SYMINGTON. I notice that these buildings are required for

the training of pilots and ground crews in the various systems peculiar

to the F-14 aircraft. Isn't this training given somewhere else ? If so,

why do you need such a facility at Oceana ?

20-607-73-14

Admiral MARSCHALL. We originally planned for F-14 maintenance

training to be provided at NAS Miramar for both Atlantic and Pacific

Fleet personnel. As the number of F-14 aircraft to be purchased be-

came firmer and as peripheral factors such as availability of devices

for refresher training at NAS Miramar, per diem rates, and moral

effects of separation from family were considered, it became apparent

that the maintenance training should also be provided at NAS Oceana.

The F-14 maintenance training is divided into 16 unique F-14

courses ranging from an 8-week familiarization course to a 26-week

weapons system specialist course, with an average length of 13 weeks.

Our policy is not to pay permanent change of station relocation costs

more than once per fiscal year. Consequently, Altantic Fleet student

personnel would have to be detailed to NAS Miramar on temporary

duty and paid an appropriate per diem allowance. With the shortage

of BEQ spaces at NAS Miramar, we would have to pay the $25 per

day per diem rate and round-trip transportation of approximately

$330. Based on the 13-week course length, these per diem and travel

costs total $2,600 per student. With an estimated annual student load

of 460 personnel, the cost would total $1,200,000 annually. In addition

to this annual personnel cost, the establishment of a maintenance train-

ing capability at NAS Oceana permits the reduction of NAS Miramar

fiscal year 1973 MCON training building project P-159 from 39,161

SF and $1,710,000 to 5,161 SF and $306,000.

An economic analysis indicates a present value cost differential of

approximately $7 million in favor of establishing the NA'S Oceana

maintenance facility.

The amount of $576,000 is requested for the utilities project which

will expand the existing systems to service major facilities currently

funded or planned for early funding. The existing system is currently

fully utilized and fire protection is inadequate.

Senator SYMINOTON. I notice that you have included in your utilities

item a highway intersection modification in the amount of $86,000. Is

this intersection modification on base and why was it included under

utilities ?

Admiral MARSCHALL The highway intersection modification included

as part of this project will eliminate alinement deficiencies on the en-

trance road. Since this road is located within the boundaries of the

base, it is not eligible for financing from Defense access road funds

and is properly included in this project. The category code system

is used for classifying real property of the Navy and this project falls

within facility class 800, "Utilities and Ground Improvements." This

category includes electricity, heat, sewage and waste, water, roads,

streets, sidewalks, fencing, and other miscellaneous utility and ground

improvement projects.

NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD, PORTSMOUTH, VA.

At the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Va., we are requesting

$11,113,000. The shipyard performs conversions, overhaul, repair, al-

terations, and outfitting on nuclear and conventional surface ships and

modern attach submarines, including air and antiair warfare systems,

antisubmarine, and submarine warfare systems.

The machine ship project, with a cost of $4,066,000, will alter and in-

stall an addition to the inside machine shop to provide consolidated ef-

ficient work spaces for the overhaul and repair functions performed

in the mechanical ships.

Senator SYMINOTON. I assume this is part of your shipyard modern-

ization, but it is an expensive project. Since the work proposed to be

performed is now being performed, why could not this project be de-

ferred a year ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. The machine ship project for Norfolk is part

of the shipyard modernization program. The requirement to modern-

ize the naval shipyards results from congressional hearings and a

mandate that the yards be modernized so that they could operate more

efficiently with a consequent savings of operational funds. The short-

age of fleet operational funds has recently been discussed in congres-

sional hearings by the Chief of Naval Operations. This is the first proj-

ect for the Norfolk Naval Shipyard that is justified entirely upon eco-

nomics. All previous industrial projects have been justified on the basis

of being mandatory to meet workload commitments. The objective of

this project is to cut the unit cost of production for all of the work

that processes through the machine shop. Deferral of this project for

an additional year will have the compound effect of denying the Navy

of 1 year's savings in operating funds and extending the accomplish-

ment of the modernization program objectives 1 additional year.

The bachelors enlisted quarters project, will provide 516 men with

modern living spaces that meet current habitability standards. The

amount requested for this project is $2,624,000.

The enhsted men's dining facility project, at $1,111,000, will pro-

vide a new consolidated messing facility and replace existing tem-

porary World War II deteriorated facilities.

The utilities improvements project, will upgrade existing utili-

ties systems to provide the capacity needed for effective overhaul and

repair of ships. The project cost is $3,332,000.

NAVAL WEAPONS STATION, YORKTOWN, VA.

We are requesting $1,327,000 for one project at the Naval Weapons

Station, Yorktown, Va. This station receives, stores, overhauls, and

tests mines, torpedoes, advanced underseas weapons, and guided mis-

siles. The station is the designated overhaul point for repair and retro-

fit of the TALOS missile and missile component repair.

The torpedo overhaul shop project is in direct support of the new

MK-48 torpedo weapons system. Production of these torpedoes is now

underway, and quantities will be issued to submarines based at Nor-

folk; however, as the quantities in the fleet build up, the additional

four lines provided by this facility will be needed by 1975. These tor-

pedoes require recurring maintenance checkouts at 4- to 6-month

intervals.

SIXTH NAVAL DISTRICT

NAVAL AIR STATION, CECIL FIELD, FLA.

We are requesting $3,743,000 for the Naval Air Station, Cecil Field,

Fla. This station supports all light attack aircraft squadrons of the

Naval Air Force, Atlantic Fleet. A new mission assigned under the

"Shore establishment realinement" is the support of all Atlantic Fleet

carrier capable, antisubmarine warfare (ASW) squadrons-exclud-

ing helicopters.

The amount of $791,000 is requested for the weapons system train-

ing facility project which will provide housing for operational flight

and weapons systems trainers. Trainers for S-3A aircraft cannot be

located in existing spaces as they are being fully utilized for A-7 at-

tack weapons training.

For the intermediate maintenance facility project $2,845,000 is re-

quested to provide a maintenance facility principally for airborne elec-

tronics 'equipment of the 'S-3A aircraft. The addition of 60 S-3A air-

craft being relocated from other bases creates a requirement for an

increase in maintenance space.

Senator SYMINGTON. I notice this requirement is generated because

of the assigning of an additional 60 antisubmarine warfare aircraft

to this station. Where are these aircraft coming from ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. Upon closure of NAS Quonset Point, the car-

rier capable ASW squadrons there will move to NAS Cecil Field.

These squadrons are now using the S-2 propeller aircraft. The squad-

rons will begin transitioning to the new, jet-powered carrier ASW air-

craft, the S-3A, in early 1975, shortly after the move to Cecil Field

is accomplished. Eventually the squadrons will be equipped with 60

S-3A's.

The Naval Regional Medical Center Jacksonville Dispensary Addi-

tion project will provide general and specialized clinical services for

active duty personnel, dependents, and other authorized persons in

the Jacksonville area. This project will construct an addition to the

existing dispensary at NAS, Cecil Field, some 15 miles west of the

Naval Hospital, Jacksonville, to enable it to effectively serve the cur-

rent outpatient workload. The project cost is $107,000.

NAVAL AIR STATION, ELLYSON FIELD, FLA.

A request of $75,000 is made for one project at the Naval Air Station,

Ellyson Field, Fla. This station supports the Navy's flight training

program administrated by the Naval Air Training Command.

The electrical distribution system improvements project will pro-

vide additional power distribution lines to correct critically over-

loaded feeders and prevent power outages.

NAVAL AIR STATION, JACKSONVILLE, FLA.

We are requesting $13,766,000 for the Naval Air Station, Jackson-

ville, Fla. This station provides support for aircraft squadrons engaged

in all weather, antisubmarine operations and logistic support for the

naval air rework facility and a Navy air maintenance training de-

tachment.

The bachelor enlisted quarters project will provide modern living

spaces for 228 men who are members of the six helicopter squadrons

being transferred to this station. There are no adequate existing facili-

ties to house these men. The project cost is $1,494,000.

The bachelor officer's quarters modernization project, at $850,000,

will modernize existing spaces and provide new living spaces for 96

men who are members of the six helicopter squadrons being transferred

to this station. Existing spaces are substandard and require air condi-

tioning and fire protection systems.

The land acquisition project will acquire 365 acres of land to pre-

clude imminent airfield encroachment with the attendant safety and

community relations problems. Recent appraisals for this project

indicate that the authorization request of $2,200,000 is low, and that

the authorization needed is $2,800,000. Since appropriations have not

been requested for this project based on an exchange of excess lands,

it is requested that the authorization for this project be increased to

$2,800,000. The modified total for the Naval Air Station, Jacksonville,

would be with this change $14,366,000.

Senator SYMINGTON. I understand that you are asking for authority

only to acquire this land near the Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, to

protect your approach zone from encroachment. Just what land do you

propose to exchange for this property?

Admiral MARSCHALL. The Government surplus lands to be used in

the land exchange are three parcels of Navy land that have been de-

clared excess and have been reported to the General Services Admin-

istration.

These parcels are: 71.5 acres-a noncontiguous unimproved por-

tion-of the Naval and Marine Corps Reserve Center, Jacksonville,

Fla., 68.7 acres-an unimproved portion-of the Navy fuel depot,

Jacksonville, Fla.; and 1.8 acres of land and improvements which

comprised the Naval and Marine Corps Reserve Training Center,

Jacksonville, Fla.

The amount of $6,925,000 is requested for the naval air rework

facility-aircraft final finish facility project which will provide spaces

for painting and corrosion protection of aircraft. Existing facilities

have no provisions for maintaining the required temperature and

humidity control.

Senator SYMINGTON. Almost $7 million seems like a great deal of

money for what amounts to an aircraft paint shop. What generates

this requirement at this time, and what have you been doing in the

past?

Admiral MARSCHALL. At present, as in the past, the finishing oper-

ation is being done in a converted seaplane hangar. We need a new

finishing facility because the existing inadequate ventilation system is

in violation of new standards set forth in the Occupational Safety and

Health Act. Our employees are subjected to hazards from new, highly

toxic, polyurethane paint material. Cases of hospitalization have oc-

cured and the local union has made strong complaints. Also, vapors

from the hangar contain pollutants which violate the Florida clean air

requirements.

In addition to the present operation being hazardous to human

health, the operation in the hangar is inefficient. Temperature and

humidity conditions are not controllable resulting in inferior spray

painting and a waste of time and materials. In addition, the present

operation requires excessive moving of aircraft, overtime shifts, and

delays in returning aircraft to the fleet.

The naval air rework facility-utilities project, at $2,297,000, will

provide additional essential utilities required to accommodate current

production and plant facility expansion.

NAVAL HOSPITAL, ORLANDO, FLA.

For the naval hospital, Orlando, Fla., we are requesting $20,981,000.

The naval hospital provides inpatient and outpatient care to eligible

personnel in the Orlando area.

The original project requested 310 beds.

A recent reevaluation of bed requirements at the naval hospital,

Orlando, reveals that the number of beds may be reduced to 235. This

reduction is feasible by the removal of the fifth floor of the hospital

and will result in a cost reduction of $1,331,000. Under the program

change request letter of July 17, 1973, this project was reduced from

$22,312,000 to the current request of $20,981,000.

Senator SYMINGTON. I understand this hospital is proposed to re-

place the old Air Force hospital built about 1943 and that rather than

the 310-bed hospital as you show in your justification, you propose to

reduce it to 235-bed hospital at a cost of $20,981,000, just about $1,331,-

000 less than you are proposing here. Is this correct ?

Admiral MARSCIALL. The statement is correct.

Senator SYMINGTON. This does not seem like a very substantial

reduction considering that you are reducing the bed capacity by 75.

Who will use this hospital? Don't you have another hospital at the

recruit training center in Orlando, which is the principal Navy ac-

tivity there?

Admiral MARSCHALL. The cost reduction may appear disproportion-

ate to the number of beds being reduced. This is due to the fact that

the deleted beds constitute a nursing unit which is a relatively inex-

pensive, unsophisticated area of the hospital. The very expensive

areas, such as radiology, operating rooms, intensive care units, et

cetera, must remain in and are responsible for the largest share of the

cost of a hospital. This hospital will be used by all active duty per-

sonnel in the area, their dependents, and then all other eligible bene-

ficiaries as availability of services dictates. There is no other hospital at

the recruit training center in Orlando, but there is a dispensary

dedicated primarily to the treatment of short-term illnesses in the

recruit population. The principal Navy activity in Orlando is the

recruit training center.

NAVAL TRAINING CENTER, ORLANDO, FLA.

A request of $7,383,000 is made for the naval training center, Or-

lando, Fla. This center provides basic indoctrination for recruit

training and advanced and specialized training for enlisted and offi-

cer personnel of the regular Navy and Naval Reserve.

The dental clinic project for the administrative command will pro-

vide a new facility to replace a grossly undersized clinic used by serv-

ice school students. The project cost is $1,481,000.

Senator SYMINGTON. I notice that you have a very substantial dental

clinic for the use of the recruits at this training center, and I wonder

why an additional clinic is needed for the administrative command.

It would seem to me these people could be taken care of in the recruit-

ing clinic.

Admiral MARSCHALL. The existing dental clinic in the recruit area

is used exclusively for treating recruits undergoing training and is

fully utilized for this purpose.

The proposed new dental clinic will provide dental support for all

other permanent active duty personnel, with the exception of the

naval hospital, and also the ever-increasing number of students as-

signed to the service school command.

The facility will also provide clinical space for dental residents at-

tached to the naval hospital for administrative purposes, but who will

work in the dental clinic due to unavailability of adequate spaces in

the hospital. The new hospital will contain minimal dental spaces

required to treat hospital inpatients and staff only.

For the service school commands, we are requesting authorization

for two training building projects. A request of $4,628,000 is requested

for the nuclear power training building project which will provide

a facility to train an average on-board student load of 1,885 enlisted

men and 240 officers and provide space for 176 staff personnel.

Senator SYMINGTON. If this project is approved, will it be the only

place the Navy gives training in nuclear powered vessels, and will it

replace the training now given at Bainbridge, Md., and Mare Island,

Calif.?

Admiral MARSCHALL. This project will accommodate the relocation

of nuclear power training from Bainbridge. Next year we will need

a similar project to complete the consolidation by moving the Mare

Island nuclear power training to Orlando.

The basic electricity and electronics training building project, with

a cost of $1,274,000, will provide the additional training spaces re-

quired to accommodate the increased number of students being re-

quired to take this training. Existing capacity at Great Lakes and San

Diego is inadequate to meet this requirement.

Senator SYMINGTON. This project was denied last year, as I recall,

principally because this training is given at both Great Lakes and San

Diego. Does not this same situation exist, and why do you insist on a

third training school of this nature?

Admiral MARSCHALL. Despite last year's denial of this project, we

still strongly feel that it makes good sense to have this kind of train-

ing at each of our three training centers. Of the 66 rates in the Navy,

basic electricity and electronics is a prerequisite for 16 of them, about

25 percent. The location of this training near each recruit training

center provides an effective screening device so that students don't have

to travel between the recruit training center and his first technical

training school. Only those students who show an aptitude for follow-

on courses are ordered to additional training.

NAVAL COASTAL SYSTEMS LABORATORY, PANAMA CITY, FLA.

We are requesting $3,663,000 for the Naval Coastal Systems Labora-

tory, Panama City, Fla. This laboratory is the principal Navy R.D.T.

& E. center for application of science and technology to coastal region

military operations. This includes R.D.T. & E. responsibility for Navy

diving, swimming, and undersea salvage operations.

Senator SYMINGTON. Just what kind of work is performed at this in-

stallation? I note that during the 90th Congress we authorized $7.4

million for a deep ocean engineering presqnre building, and you are

now asking almost a $2 million increase. Will you explain the need for

this?

Admiral MARSCHALL. The laboratory at Panama City is the prin-

cipal Navy R.D.T. & E. center for the application of science and tech-

nology associated with military operations carried out primarily in the

coastal region and performs investigations in related fields of science

and technology. Some of the laboratory's functions are coastal and

riverine surveillance and interdiction, harbor, bridge, riverine and

swimmer defense, counterinsurgency systems, underwater ordnance

countermeasure, shallow water oceanography, naval swimmer/diver

support systems and salvage support.

The cost increase is due to a combination of factors. The require-

ment to provide material certification for hyperbaric facilities did not

become known until after the project was funded. Material certifica-

tion is basically a format procedure for insuring that a deep pressure

system meets material and procedural standards of adequacy. It in-

cludes technical review of documentation, detailed quality control dur-

ing construction, testing procedures for hardware and system develop-

ment of operating and maintenance manuals, simulated test dives and

other costs not associated with normal military construction. In addi-

tion, due to the sophisticated and essentially research nature of the

project, the original cost estimated was inadequate to meet design

requirements. It was necessary to develop the cost estimate without

benefit of an engineering and feasibility study or a complete program

cost estimate.

The experimental diving facility, with a cost of $1,363,000, will pro-

vide laboratory space and recompression chambers required by the re-

location of the Navy experimental diving unit from the Washington,

D.C. Navy Yard. Existing available space is substandard and inade-

quate.

The request for the systems development and test facility is $2,300,-

000 which includes the $200,000 increase requested under the program

change request letter of July 17, 1973.

The systems development and test facility will provide a building

needed for the development and testing of large systems and com-

ponents used to support military operations in coastal environments.

The-increase was requested to provide a parking and testing apron for

conducting Navy trials on two air cushion amphibious landing craft,

which is a new requirement levied on this activity.

NAVAL AEROSPACE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, PENSACOLA, rLA.

A request of $1,084,000 is made for the one project at the Naval

Aerospace Regional Medical Center, Pensacola, Fla. This project,

which was added by the program change letter of July 17, 1973, will

construct a new dental clinic and modernize the existing dispensary

at the Naval Communications Training Center (Corry Field), Pensa-

cola. These facilities will be utilized for active duty dispensary and

dental service and allow the vacated spaces in the Naval Hospital,

Pensacola, to be used for a newly developed family practice residency

program.

NAVAL AIR STATION, PENSACOLA, FLA.

We are requesting $2,699,000 for the Naval Air Station, Pensacola,

Fla. This station supports Naval Training Command, Naval Air

Training Command, Naval Aviation School Command, Training

Squadrons Four, and Ten and Twenty-Nine, Training Aircraft Car-

rier (U.S.S. Lexington), and the Naval Air Rework Facility.

The air operations building addition project will provide facilities

to house additional air traffic control radar equipment. Presently, these

activities are in crowded, inadequate space with no room for radar

air traffic control equipment which is to be added to the complex. The

project cost is $199,000.

The operations flight trainer building project, with a cost of $791,-

000, will provide space to house two operational flight trainers and

related equipment for jet pilot training.

The naval aviation museum supporting facilities will provide the

support (all utilities, roads, and parking) facilities required by the

construction of the new museum. The project cost is $299,000.

Senator SYrINGTON. Now, I am sure this museum is a nice thing

to have, but it certainly is not an official function of the Navy, and I

wonder why you are proposing to spend appropriated funds for sup-

porting facilities in regard to it?

Admiral MARSCHALL. The Naval Museum at Pensacola is indeed

a very important function of the Navy Air Training Command. It

is the respository of important memorabilia depicting the heritage and

tradition of naval air and space exploits. One of the first things they

do with a prospective naval aviator when he reports to Pensacola is

to take him on a conducted tour of the Air Museum. The new museum

building will be constructed on Navy land with the use of private

contributions; but when completed, it will be donated to the Navy for

operation and maintenance. Because of the obvious benefit to the

tradition and heritage of Navy air, both for training and for public

relations, it was agreed in the original proposal for the new museum

that the Navy would provide the necessary supporting facilities.

The entrance and arterial roads project will improve on station

roads in phase with off-station highway programs. The request for

this project is $1,410,000.

NAVAL COMMUNICATIONS TRAINING CENTER, PENSACOLA, FLA.

We are requesting $9,859,000 for the Naval Communications Train-

ing Center, Pensacola, Fla. This center provides training for officers

and enlisted men of the Navy to prepare them as technicians and

operators of various cryptologic and electronic warfare equipment

and systems.

The Electrical Warfare Training Building project will provide

training space for advanced electronics warfare and naval flight offi-

cers. Training is now conducted in limited space diverted from other

training. The project cost is $3,982,000.

The bachelor enlisted quarters project, with a cost of $5,877,000,

will provide modern living spaces for 1,200 men.

NAVAL AIR STATION, WHITING FIELD, FLA.

We are requesting $2,186,000 for one project at the naval air sta-

tion, Whiting Field, Fla. This station supports the basic propeller and

helicopter flight training operations of the Naval Air Training

Command.

216

The dispensary and dental clinic project will replace the existing

clinic and provide facilities needed for improving the delivery of

dental services.

NAVAL HOME, GULFPORT, MISS.

We are requesting $9,444,000 at the Navy Home, Gulfport, Miss.

This home will provide a residence for old, disabled Navy and Marine

Corps personnel.

The new naval home (phase II) project will provide a new home

for 600 residents to replace the existing inadequate facility currently

located in Philadelphia, Pa.

NAVAL AIR STATION, MERIDIAN, MISS.

We are requesting $4,532,000 for the naval air station, Meridian,

Miss. This station supports the jet aircraft pilot training program

of the training command.

The flight training device building addition project will provide

an addition to the flight training building for new flight simulator

equipment having six degrees of freedom. Existing space cannot ac-

commodate this equipment. The project cost is $525,000.

The dispensary and dental clinic project at $2,500,000 will replace

the existing clinic which is undersized and functionally inadequate.

The administration building project will construct a facility in the

schools complex for 114 supporting personnel charged with adminis-

tering the several schools at the station. The request for this project

is $675,000.

The amount of $832,000 is requested for the training center-gym-

nasium project which will provide a new facility. With the increased

baseloading imposed by the schools complex, the existing gymnasium

is too small to support the physical education program.

CHARLESTON NAVAL SHIPYARD, CHARLESTON, S.C.

The amount of $252,000 is requested for one project at the Charleston

Naval Shipyard, Charleston, S.C. This shipyard repairs, overhauls,

alters, and converts small surface ships and conventional and nuclear

attack and fleet ballistic missile nuclear submarines.

The addition and dispensary project will provide facilities to house

a photo dosimeter, laboratory, and records facility utilized in the

radiological exposure safety program.

NAVAL STATION, CHARLESTON, S.C.

The amount of $1,498,000 is requested for two projects at the naval

station, Charleston, S.C. This station provides logistic support to 26

commands and activities, including commander mine warfare, sub-

marine flotilla six, cruiser-destroyer flotilla six, and service forces,

Atlantic, and serves as homeport for approximately 70 ships.

At $1,321,000, the communication facility project will provide a

transmitter building and antenna to replace existing facilities built in

1941.

The amount of $177,000 is requested for the Poseidon submarine

deployed crew storage project which will provide an environmentally

4

controlled storage area for personal effects of crewmakers of deployed

nuclear submarines. Presently, there are no comparable military or

civilian facilities available, and personal effects must either be sent

home or possibly be damaged by mildew and rot while stored in the

present spaces.

NAVAL AIR STATION, MEMPHIS, TENN.

The amount of $4,478,000 is requested for one project at the naval

air station, Memphis, Tenn. This station supports operations, activi-

ties, and units of the Naval Training Command.

The Applied Instruction Building project will provide a facility to

conduct air traffic control and ground control approach training

courses being relocated from the naval air station, Glynco, Ga.

Senator SYMINGTON. This requirement is generated by the closing

of the naval air station, Glynco, Ga. It seems to me this air traffic con-

trol training might be performed most anywhere you may have had

existing facilities. What was the compelling reason to transfer it to

Memphis, resulting in this $41/2 million expenditure?

Admiral MARSCHALL. In order to consolidate like kinds of training

and avoid duplication of training resources, the air traffic control and

ground control approach training at Glynco will be relocated to Mem-

phis, where we already have similar air-related technical training on-

going.

EIGHTH NAVAL DISTRICT

NAVAL HOSPITAL, NEW ORLEANS, LA.

The amount of $3,386,000 is requested for one project at the Naval

Hospital, New Orleans. This hospital provides inpatient and out-

patient clinic care and general hospitalization services to eligible per-

sonnel in the New Orleans area.

The nursing unit addition project will provide an addition of 150

beds to increase the capacity of the 100-bed hospital authorized in

fiscal year 1973. Increased Navy personnel loading in the area require

this addition.

Senator SYMINGTON. This project I do not understand. Only last

year we gave you $11.6 million for the construction of a 100-bed hos-

pital here in New Orleans. Now you are requesting almost $3.4 million

for the addition of a 150-bed nursing unit. Didn't you know what you

needed when last year's request was made?

Admiral MARSCHALL. An on-site survey by representatives of the

Department of Defense (DOD) and Bureau of Medicine and Surgery

(BUMED) concluded that a 100-bed naval hospital would be suffi-

cient, provided that the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) Hos-

pital, New Orleans, would remain operational. Should the latter close,

it was the consensus that an additional 150 beds would be needed at

the naval hospital.

A memorandum from the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health

and Environment) to the Office of Management and Budget, dated

November 4, 1971, is quoted in part, ". . . to the uncertainty of the

future of the USPHS Hospital . . . we are instructing the Navy to

design the hospital so that it may readily receive a major addition at

a future date. .. ."

218

In April 1973, it was announced that the USPHS Hospital, New

Orleans, would terminate admitting patients as of July 1, 1973. Con-

sequently, the Navy introduced a 150-bed addition into the 1974 mili-

tary construction program.

'Subsequent to the latter action, there has been at least a temporary

stay to the closure of inpatient care at the USPHS hospital, New Or-

leans.

NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY, NEW ORLEANS, LA.

The amount of $13,880,000 is requested for four projects at the naval

support activity, New Orleans. This activity provides logistic support

to the Commandant, 8th Naval District, and more than 19 tenant activ-

ities, including the Naval Hospital and precommissioning crews for

destroyer escorts under construction.

For the administrative complex project $8,490,000 is requested to

provide facilities for consolidation of the following organizations in

New Orleans: personnel management information center, Naval Re-

serve personnel center, and enlisted personnel distribution offices.

Senator SYMINGTON. I cannot understand why all this administra-

tive space is needed in New Orleans at this time. Would you tell us just

what this will be used for ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. Because of its central location, New Orleans

has been selected as the site for the consolidation of functions presently

scattered along both coasts. Although the advantages of this arrange-

ment are not readily adaptable to an economic cost analysis, the long

range benefits in improved planning coordination will produce signifi-

cant operational and economic benefits for the Navy.

Consolidations at New Orleans include:

1. The Marine Air Wing presently located at NAS Glenview, Ill.

will be colocated with the Chief of Naval Reserves.

2. The personnel management information centers presently located

at Bainbridge, Md., Norfolk, Va., and San Diego, Calif. will be con-

solidated and headquartered in New Orleans.

3. The Naval Reserve personnel centers presently located in Wash-

ington, D.C., Bainbridge, Md., and Omaha, Nebr., will be consolidated

and located in New Orleans, and

4. The enlisted personnel distribution offices presently located in

Washington, D.C., Norfolk, Va., and San Diego, Calif. will be con-

solidated and located in New Orleans. This will increase the popula-

tion by approximately 1,600 personnel.

The amount of $1,288,000 is requested for the Armed Force exam

and entrance station to convert existing warehouse space to administra-

tive space for offices that will move from downtown New Orleans.

For the bachelor enlisted quarters with mess project, $1,799,000 is

requested to provide modern living quarters with mess for 211 men

who are currently living in inadequate World War II temporary

barracks.

The employees parking building project, at $2,323,000, will provide

parking spaces to accommodate the personnel being relocated to the

activity under the administrative complex project and the Armed

Forces exam and entrance station project.

Senator SYMINGTON. Here you propose to spend $2.3 million for an

employees parking building, I suppose in support of the $81/2 million

administration complex we discussed earlier. It seems to be an un-

conscionable amount to spend for a parking lot, particularly since

there has been considerable agitation to require Government em-

ployees to pay for their parking. Why cannot they find their own

parking facilities in this area ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. The personnel loading on the east bank, NSA

New Orleans, will be increased from the present 652 personnel to

1,954. Presently only 422 parking spaces are available and there is

no land for additional spots. The surrounding area does not have

any off-station parking because the neighborhood was planned prior

to the recognition of the great use of automobiles and today's stand-

ard of living. Therefore, the only feasible alternative is to convert one

of the existing structures in parking spaces.

NAVAL AIR STATION, CHASE FIELD, TEX.

The amount of $2,875,000 is requested for two projects at the Naval

Air Station, Chase Field, Tex. This station supports the jet pilot

training program of the naval training command.

For the flight training device building project, $575,000 is re-

quested to provide space to house new flight simulator equipment

have 6 degrees of freedom. Existing facilities cannot accommodate

the new equipment.

A request of $2,300,000 is made for the dispensary and dental clinic

project which will replace the existing facility which is housed in a

temporary, deteriorated wood structure, that is overcrowded, func-

tionally inadequate, and poorly located near a runway and taxiway.

NAVAL AIR STATION, KINGSVILLE, TEX.

The amount of $3,040,000 is requested for two projects at the Naval

Air Station, Kingsville, Tex. This station supports jet pilot training

programs of the Naval Training Command.

The flight training device building project, at $986,000 will pro-

vide space to house new flight simulator equipment having 6 degrees

of freedom. Existing facilities are located in a World War II, wooden,

temporary structure with poor insulation and are in a deteriorated

condition.

A request of $2,054,000 is made for the dispensary and dental clinic

project, which will replace a World War II facility with a modern

clinic needed to provide proper medical support to eligible personnel.

NINTH NAVAL DISTRICT

NAVAL COMPLEX, GREAT LAKES, ILL.

The amount of $19,908,000 is requested for five projects at the naval

complex, Great Lakes. The naval hospital provides general clinical and

i i hospitalization service for eligible personnel in the Great Lakes area.

At the naval hospital, $2,800,000 is requested for the naval hospital-

hospital modernization and upgrade project which will modernize and

Upgrade existing hospital utilities to meet current National Fire Pro-

tection Association regulations. This will be achieved by providing an

emergency generator system, grounding circuits, and an alternate pri-

mary service feeder.

The amount of $4,259,000 is requested for the naval training center-:

administrative command-dispensary and dental clinic project. The

training center provides basic recruit training for enlisted personnel

and primary, advanced, and specialized training for officer and enlisted

personnel. The dispensary and dental clinic project will provide a con-

solidated medical care facility to replace the existing dispersed, deteri-

orated World War II facilities at the naval training center.

The amount of $1,923,000 is requested for the naval training center-

recruit training command-medical/dental processing facility project

which will replace a facility which is substandard, a temporary struc-

ture with poor heating and sanitary facilities.

Senator SYMINGTON. Here at Great Lakes you are requesting three

medical facilities, as reflected on pages 154, 155, and 156, of your

justification books that will cost almost $9 million. Two of them relate

to dental facilities. Isn't there some way that these facilities can be

combined at least in part, in order to save a few dollars ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. The proposed medical/dental processing facil-

ity will replace a World War II temporary wood-frame structure that

has deteriorated over the past 30 years and has become functionally

inadequate for the mass processing of all personnel entering recruit

training at Great Lakes. This facility is where the recruits receive their

initial Navy processing, including physical and dental examinations.

The processing is primarily administrative in nature and is set up to

handle large masses of people in a relatively short period of time. The

functions performed by the recruit processing facility and the dis-

pensary/dental clinic are quite diverse, one being a screening process

while the other offers a complete, full range of dental treatment in a

clinical environment. However, in order to avoid needless duplication,

common support functions-such as supply, repair, et cetera-have

been incorporated into the proposed dispensary and dental clinic to

service both dental facilities.

The amount of $6,166,000 is requested for the naval training center-

service school command-machines/boilerman instruction building

project. This project will provide classroom space for providing train-

ing associated with 1,200 p.s.i. propulsion plants.

A request of $4,760,000 is made for the naval training center--service

school command-bachelor enlisted quarters project to provide modern

living quarters for 876 men currently living in overcrowded quarters.

ELEVENTH NAVAL DISTRICT

NAVAL WEAPONS CENTER, CHINA LAKE, CALIF.

The amount of $3,163,000 is requested for two projects at the Naval

Weapons Center, China Lake. This center conducts a program of war-

fare analysis, research, development, test, evaluation, systems integra-

tion, and fleet engineering support in naval weapons systems, prin-

cipally for air warfare, and conducts investigations in related fields of

science and technology.

The bachelor enlisted quarters project, at $2,946,000, will provide

modern living spaces for 406 men.

A request of $217,000 is made for the electrical distribution system

improvements project. This project will provide improvements to the

systems and supplement existing feeders and transformer capacity to,

relieve current overloading of these systems.

LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD, LONG BEACH, CALIF.

The amount of $6,808,000 is requested for one project at the Long

Beach Naval Shipyard. This shipyard provides overhaul, repair, and

conversion of all types of surface ships up to carrier size but primarily

antisubmarine and antiaircraft types. This shipyard also provides

homeport logistic support for the majority of Pacific Fleet ships.

The service group building project will replace and modernize the

woodworking shop, paint shop, riggers shop, and temporary services

shop.

Senator SYMINGTON. Here you propose to spend almost $7 million

in modernization at Long Beach Naval Shipyard but, on the other

hand, you are transferring many functions out of Long Beach under

the base realinement program, which makes one wonder just how

permanent this shipyard is. Will you comment on this please?

Admiral MARSHALL. The Chief of Naval Operations provided the

following guidance to Navships regarding the need for and location

of naval shipyards:

In the long term, fleet requirements will be best served by a complex of naval

shipyards proximate to fleet homeports and/or operating areas. The capabilities

and capacities of these naval shipyards should be adequate to handle the pro-

jected demands and industrial services that will be placed on them by the fleet.

Consideration should be given to structuring a naval shipyard complex so that

each shipyard's capabilities and capacity are in relation to its future workload

based on projections of the future size and composition of the fleet as well as

its location.

The Long Beach Naval Shipyard fulfills CNO's operational re-

quirements for a shipyard proximate to homeport and operational

areas. The ships that are currently homeported in San Diego and Long

Beach, as well as those using the southern California operational areas,

look to Long Beach for industrial services. The transfer of functions

out of the Long Beach area will have no effect on the shipyard's work-

load. In fact, the effect of the entire base closure package will serve

to increase the Long Beach Naval Shipyard's workload. Long Beach's

location, capabilities, and capacity justify the permanency of this

shipyard.

NAVAL HOSPITAL, LONG BEACH, CALIF.

The amount of $878,000 is requested for one project at the naval hos-

pital, Long Beach. This hospital provides medical and hospitalization

services for eligible personnel in the Long Beach area.

The bachelor enlisted quarters addition project will provide modern

living quarters for 128 men and relieve the overcrowding of the

existing facility.

NAVAL AIR STATION, MIRAMAR, CALIF.

The amount of $1,873,000 is requested for two projects at the Naval

Air Station, Miramar. This master jet air station supports all Navy

West Coast F-4 and F-8 fleet fighter squadrons, a photo squadron,

and a reserve squadron consisting of the E-2 airborne early warning

aircraft.

For the 'applied instruction building project, an increase in the

cost of $419,000 was requested under the program change to make the

project cost $1,542,000.

222'

This change alters the original project to provide additions to two

buildings and alterations to three buildings instead of the construc-

tion of a new facility. This project is required to support the relocation

of airborne early warning squadrons from the Naval Air Station,

North Island, under the shore establishmnet realinement program.

Introduction of the E-2B airborne early warning aircraft into

fleet squadrons will begin next fiscal year; therefore, adequate opera-

tional and tactics training facilities are urgently needed.

A request of $331,000 is made for the avionics shop addition project

which will provide a facility for intermediate level maintenance of

the airborne early warning aircraft.

NAVAL AIR STATION, NORTH ISLAND, CALIF.

The amount of $2,415,000 is requested for the four projects at the

Naval Air Station, North Island. This station is the Seaport Industrial

Air Station for the San Diego area naval complex. It supports fleet

antisubmarine warfare and utility squadrons. The station has been

designated the West Coast site and homeport for the new S-3A weapon

system beginning in 1974. This station also supports the naval air

rework facility.

For the applied instruction building project, $476,000 is requested

to provide an addition to the existing training building for a light

airborne multipurpose system (LAMPS) operational flight trainer

and modifications to the existing building to accommodate helicopter

operational and maintenance trainers.

The amount of $1,185,000 is requested for the transbay water/sewer-

lines project which will remove old lines and replace the waterlines

with new lines located 'at a greater depth to allow for dredging of the

harbor.

The amount of $754,000 is requested for the naval air rework facil-

ity-maintenance hangar addition project which will provide an addi-

tion to the E-2 rework hangar to accommodate the increased work-

load which has been generated by the move of complex electronic

systems installed in the E-2 aircraft. With the transfer of all helicopter

activities from the Naval Air Station, Imperial Beach, the station will

become the homeport for all West Coast rotary wing aircraft

squadrons.

FLEET COMBAT DIRECTION SYSTEMS TRAINING CENTER, PACIFIC,

SAN DIEGO, CALIF.

The amount of $1,118,000 is requested for one project at the Fleet

Combat Direction Systems Training Center, Pacific, San Diego. This

center provides antiwar warfare training for fleet personnel to develop

and perfect their skills by the actual operation of tactical command

and direction systems in a realistic warfare environment.

The academic instruction building project will provide classrooms

and related spaces to support 6 new courses and the installation of

new systems and equipment for 13 existing courses.

NAVAL ELECTRONICS LABORATORY CENTER, SAN DIEGO, CALIF.

The amount of $3,518,000 is requested for one project at the Naval

Electronics Laboratory Center, San Diego. This laboratory is the prin-

cipal Navy R.D.T. & E. Center for electronics technology and comn-

mand, control, and communications concepts and systems.

The Electronics Development and Test Laboratory project will pro-

vide the first increment of a controlled electronic environment with

electromagnetic shielding for integration and testing of command,

control and communications and surveillance systems. This facility is

required for try-before-buy performance testing by early 1976 of elec-

tronic systems for new construction DLG's, DD's, LHA's Ocean Sur-

veillance Information System, Integrated Combat Systems and Anti-

submarine Warfare Command, Control and Communications System.

Senator SYMINGTON. I note that this is the first increment in the

amount of $31/2 million, and I understand that there will be a follow-

ing increment totaling around $5 million, which makes for a most ex-

pensive structure. I also note that the DOD has no such facility at the

present time. What kind of work is proposed to be performed here, and

what do you do now, since you have no such facility?

Admiral MARSOHALL. The proposed facility would house the ele-

ments of a Naval ship command and control capability and is intended

to enhance the center's efforts in integration of all the command sup-

port equipment aboard our vessels to help attack the problems of short-

ness of time available to a ship commander in the current military

'world. The design of the facility centers around the construction of a

large shielded enclosure for the testing of complete integrated com-

mand, control and communications systems.

The function was previously performed in several separate locations

consisting of several spaces in a general laboratory and office building,

converted space in two coastal gun batteries, converted World War II

barracks, trailers, and in the surplus carrier, Bunker Hill, which is

currently being sold for scrap and no longer available to the Naval

Electronics Laboratory Center.

NAVAL STATION, SAN DIEGO, CALIF.

The amount of $11,996,000 is requested for two projects at the Naval

Station, San Diego. This station provides homeport facilities for ships

of the Pacific Fleet, personnel services, berthing, harbor services, and

other logistic support.

A request of $10 million is made for the berthing pier project which

will provide additional berthing space required to accommodate ships

being relocated from the Naval Station, Long Beach.

Senator SYMINGTON. This requirement results from the closure of

the Naval Station, Long Beach, Calif. If these ships had to be moved

from Long Beach, isn't there some place they could have been moved

to without spending $10 million for a new pier ?

Admiral MARSCHIALL. The ships from Long Beach are being trans-

ferred to Pearl Harbor, Bremerton, San Francisco and San Diego.

20-507--73-15

224

Deep draft piers at the stations receiving the ships have been ex-

hausted. In Pearl Harbor, where six ships are being sent, all piers will

be occupied excepting Ford Island. Ford Island cannot be used for

homeporting because of extreme logistic problems involved in trans-

portation to the island, as there is no bridge. A bridge would cost

$9,547,000 and several millions more would have to be spent for pier

utilities and other support. At San Francisco we are not only using

all pier space available for carriers in Alameda, but all deep draft

piers are to be used at Alameda, Oakland and Mare Island, as well as

Concord. Considering the number of large vessels relocated from Long

Beach, it is necessary to build one new pier at one of the naval in-

stallations. Because of superior logistics and training facilities, San

Diego was selected as the best site for the new pier for deep draft ships.

The amount of $1,996,000 is requested for the pier utilities project

which will provide "cold iron" utilities and structural repairs to pier

5. Existing utility systems do not have the capacity required to allow

ships to go "cold iron."

NAVAL TRAINING CENTER, SAN DIEGO, CALIF.

The amount of $2,994,000 is requested for one project at the Naval

Training Center, San Diego. This center provides basic recruit, pri-

mary, advanced, and specialized training for Navy officer and en-

listed personnel.

The Administrative Command-bachelor enlisted quarters project

will provide modern living quarters for 504 men currently living in

crowded, open bay barracks constructed in 1923.

NAVY PUBLIC WORKS CENTER, SAN DIEGO, CALIF.

The amount of $2,471,000 is requested for one project at the Navy

Public Works Center, San Diego. This center provides public works,

public utilities, housing, transportation support, engineering services,

and other logistic support to eight major naval activities in the San

Diego area.

The naval station-steam distribution project will provide steam

distribution lines to berthing piers. The existing lines are inadequate

and deteriorated.

NAVY SUBMARINE SUPPORT FACILITY, SAN DIEGO, CALIF.

The amount of $3,920,000 is requested for two projects at the Navy

Submarine Support Facility, San Diego. This facility is the homeport

of all west coast submarines. The only other base in the Pacific is at

Pearl Harbor. This facility supports two submarine squardons, two

submarine tenders and the deep submergence program.

$2,667,000 is requested for the bachelor enlisted quarters project to

provide modern living quarters for 468 men, currently living in eight

wood-frame, substandard, open bay barracks.

The pier utilities project, with a cost of $1,253,000, will provide

"cold iron" utilities to two piers used by submarine tenders and attack

submarines.

NAVAL WEAPONS STATION, SEAL BEACH, CALIF.

The amount of $1,528,000 is requested for two projects at

the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Calif. This station receives,

renovates, maintains, stores, and issues ammunition, explosives, ex-

pendable ordnance items, and provides logistics support for surface-

and air-launched guided missiles.

The bachelor enlisted quarters with mess project will provide mess-

ing and modern living quarters for 90 men currently living in sub-

standard, inadequate quarters with unreliable utilities. The project

cost is $721,000.

The Fallbrook Annex, bachelor enlisted quarters with mess project,

with a cost of $807,000, will provide messing and modern living quar-

ters for 82 men currently living in temporary barracks buildings.

TWELFTH NAVAL DISTRICT

NAVAL AIR STATION, ALAMEDA, CALIF.

The amount of $5,236,000 is requested for two projects at the Naval

Air Station, Alameda, Calif. This seaport industrial station provides

waterfront facilities for the homeport of refrigerated cargo ships and

aircraft carriers. A tenant, the naval air rework facility, is the major

overhaul point for A-3 and P-3 aircraft.

The pier utilities project with a cost of $3,827,000 will provide

the final segment of a program to supply all berthing piers with com-

plete utilities from shore facilities, including steam and compressed

air to pier 2, wharf 2, and pier 3. New systems for the distribution of

potable water, steam, compressed air, fuel and fire protection, flushing

and cooling water will also be provided.

Senator SYMINGTON. Here you propose to spend $3.8 million for

pier utilities. My recollection is that you will make some substantial

reductions at Alameda, due to the base realinement program. In light

of this, why is this project necessary ?

Admiral MARSCIHALL. The aviation activities at NAS, Alameda, are

being reduced, with squadrons being transferred to NAS, Lenmoore,

Calif., and NAS, Moffett Field, Calif. Alameda will continue to be the

homeport for two aircraft carriers, three stores ships, plus four addi-

tional auxiliary ships being relocated from Naval Station, Long Beach,

Calif. The $3.8 million cold iron project and the ship wastewater

collection ashore project in the pollution abatement program are re-

quired to support these ships.

The amount of $1,409,000 is requested for the naval air rework

facility, avionics building environmental control project, to provide

environmental control and modifications to existing avionics work

spaces to permt accurate rework of sensitive electronic navigational

and communication equipment of aircraft.

NAVAL AIR STATION, LEMOORE, CALIF.

The amount of $3,266,000 is requested for two projects at the Naval

Air Station, Lemoore, Calif. This all-weather master jet air station

is the west coast homeport for fleet A-4 and A-7 attack squadrons,

three carrier replacement air groups, three carrier air wings, and two

tactical electronic warfare squadrons.

The amount of $1,933,000 is requested for the integrated avionics

shop project which will provide a maintenance facility for avionics

equipment. Work is presently performed in five separated buildings

providing only 40 percent of the required work area. The lighting and

means of controlling dust in the existing building fall short of the

standard needed for performing work on sensitive electronic naviga-

tion and communication equipment.

A request of $1,333,000 is made for the dental clinic project which

will provide a new larger facility in the operational area and con-

vert existing space in the hospital to hospital usage.

NAVAL AIR STATION, MOFFETT FIELD, CALIF.

The amount of $5,695,000 is requested for six projects at the Naval

Air Station, Moffett Field, Calif. The station is 'the primary west

coast antisubmarine warfare patrol base air station.

The amount of $2,115,000 is requested for the taxiway overlay

project which will provide a taxiway and holding area of sufficient

strength to support current operations. Overloading has resulted in

cracked corners of slabs, spalling at joints, rutting, and general break-

ing up of the pavement.

The aircraft parking apron project, at $750,000, 'will provide ade-

quate parking space for the relocation of fleet operational squadrons

from the Naval Air Station, Alameda. The project will provide park-

ing space for nine patrol or reconnaissance aircraft.

The amount of $300,000 is requested for the fuel storage project

which will upgrade the existing direct fueling system to achieve a

design flow rate of 600 gallons per minute and modify the system to

provide recirculation, thereby making provision for cleaning the fuel

of water, impurities, and contaminators.

Under the program change letter of July 17, 1973, a new project

for $430,000 was requested for an operational trainer building addi-

tion. This facility addition, within a hangar, will house two P-3C

operational flight trainers. The trainers 'which are on order, will be

able to provide for the first time coupled-mode training by simulation

instead of the more costly and hazardous in-flight training.

The avionics shop project, with a cost of $1,600,000 will provide a

maintenance facility for avionics equipment. Work is currently being

conducted in inadequately sized wooden World War II facilities with

no environmental controls.

The bachelor enlisted quarters modernization project will provide

72 adequate spaces for personnel of reconnaissance/cargo squadrons

being relocated from Naval Air Station, Alameda. The project cost

is $500,000.

NAVAL HOSPITAL, OAKLAND, CALIF.

The amount of $5,839,000 is requested for three projects at the Naval

Hospital, Oakland, Calif. The hospital provides inpatient and out-

patient care to eligible personnel in the San Francisco area.

The warehouse facility project, at $768,000 will construct facilities

for general organizational storage of medical supplies.

The amount of $4,260,000 is requested for the hospital alterations

project which will provide increased electrical power, air-condition-

ing of all patient care areas, and a new entrance drive to the hospital

building.

Senator SYMINGTON. This hospital is relatively new and I thought

one of your most modern. Yet, you are proposing to spend over $4

million for alterations and you state that the existing electrical sub-

station within the hospital is considered unsafe due to utility piping

overhead. How can this be in a modern hospital that was only com-

pleted a few years ago?

Admiral MARSCHALL. While it is true that the electrical substation

is considered unsafe because of its location under utility piping,

there are two other major considerations which account for the

greater part of the money requested for alterations.

The Naval Hospital, Oakland, was completed in 1968 and conse-

quently was designed under criteria which existed in 1964. Since that

time, the DOD criteria have changed to include air-conditioning of

the entire hospital vis-a-vis isolated segments of the hospital. The

project will include air-conditioning of the entire hospital.

Another major consideration is the National Fire Protection As-

sociation (NFPA) standards which have been promulgated since

1964. These standards are quite extensive and strict, which will ne-

cessitate consideration to all of our existing hospitals.

The Enlisted Men's/Chief Petty Officers' Club project, at $811,000,

will replace existing temporary constructions that is remote from

the new hospital and bachelor enlisted quarters.

HUNTER'S POINT NAVAL SHIPYARD, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

The amount of $250,000 is requested for one project at the Hunter's

Point Naval Shipyard, San Francisco, Calif. The shipyard is sched-

uled to be closed and placed in a caretaker status with the exception

of drydock No. 4 which will be retained to provide drydocking facili-

ties for the emergency repair to aircraft carriers.

The drydock support facility project will provide the necessary

shop facilities to support drydocking of carriers in drydock No. 4.

Senator SYMINGTON. I cannot comprehend the need for this project

at this shipyard which you are closing. There must be some facility

.that could be used in support at the drydock you propose to keep there.

Admiral MARSCHALL. This project provides the minimum modifica-

tion to two existing buildings to provide the composite industrial

facility required to support the emergency drydocking and repair of

aircraft carriers. There is no existing building that can be used just

as it is since each was designed, constructed, and outfitted for one

specific purpose. The requirement is to provide a facility that will

serve a number of purposes in a consolidated fashion. Therefore, it

will be necessary to remove some equipments from those buildings

and to relocate to and install in those buildings some other equipments.

This necessary equipment relocation and installation requires founda-

tion construction and utilities connections. In addition, it will be

ecessary to overhaul the drydock dewatering pumps and, finally, to

install a security fence around the drydock and its support areas.

i ii ii. .

228

NAVAL SECURITY GROUP ACTIVITY, SKAGGS ISLAND, CALIF.

The amount of $641,000 is requested for one project at the naval

security group activity, Skaggs Island, Calif. The naval security

group activity provides rapid communications for the defense of

the United States.

The dispensary and dental clinic project will replace the existing

facilities which are substandard wooden structures, overcrowded, and

a fire hazard. A recent evaluation of the requirement for this project

indicated that this facility may be deferred.

MARE ISLAND NAVAL SHIPYARD, VALLEJO, CALIF.

The amount of $2,074,000 is requested for two projects at the Mare

Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, Calif. This shipyard performs work

in connection with alterations, drydockings, and outfitting of ships

and craft and refueling of nuclear submarines and surface craft other

than carriers. In addition, this yard services submarine warfare sys-

tems, both nuclear attack and Polaris.

The electronic shop alterations project at $200,000 was requested

to provide facilities to accommodate an expected increase in workload

created by the planned closure of the Hunter's Point Naval Shipyard.

A recent evaluation of the workload to be relocated disclosed that new

facilities would not be required, therefore this project is withdrawn

from this year's program.

The 'amount of $1,874,000 is requested for the electrical distribution

system improvements project which will improve the existing system

by partially replacing obsolete equipment and worn cable and will

install a new control system. The existing system is unreliable and of

insufficient capacity. The requirement for this project is independent

of the requirement for the electronic shop alterations project.

THIRTEENTH NAVAL DISTRICT

NAVAL COMPLEX, ADAK, ALASKA

The amount .of $8,773,000 is requested for three projects at the naval

complex, Adak, Alaska. This complex provides a strategically located

installation for the deployment of P-3 antisubmarine warfare aircraft

and for operating communication facilities that support naval oper-

ating forces.

The amount of $2,695,000 is requested for the naval communication

station-bachelor enlisted quarters project which will provide modern

living spaces for 136 men currently living in overcrowded, substand-

ard quarters.

The amount of $4,158,000 is requested for the naval station runway N

and taxiway overlay project which will upgrade existing pavements

to sustain modern P-3 ASW patrol aircraft. The existing pavements

constructed in 1944 are not capable of sustaining the current load of

operational aircraft without suffering damage and continuing

deterioration.

The Navy commissary store-commissary project, with a cost of $1,-

920,000, will provide a new facility to replace a substandard, struc

turally deteriorated facility which is too small to adequately serve the

families of the naval complex, Adak.

PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD, BREMERTON, WASH.

The amount of $2,300,000 is requested for two projects at the Puget

Sound Naval Shipyard. This shipyard provides surface ship new con-

struction and overhaul of all types of ships including aircraft car-

riers, frigates, and submarines.

The amount of $1,954,000 is requested for the electrical distribution

system project which will upgrade and replace the antiquated and

undersized existing system.

The crane track connection project at $346,000 will provide a trans-

fer track between two drydocks to permit the efficient and economical

use of portable cranes which presently cannot move freely from point

to point in the yard.

FOURTEENTH NAVAL DISTRICT

NAVAL AIR STATION, BARBERS POINT, HAWAII

The amount of $4,306,000 is requested for one project at the Naval

Air Station, Barbers Point. This station is the primary support and

patrol station for the Hawaiian Sea Frontier. The station supports

transient and carrier groups, fleet composite squadrons, tactical sup-

port 'squadrons, 'and five antisubmarine warfare patrol squadrons.

The dispensary 'and dental clinic project will replace the existing

functionally inadequate and rundown facili-y.

NAVAL AMMUNITION DEPOT, OAHU, HAWAII

The amount of $457,000 is requested for one project at the Naval

Ammunition Depot, O'ahu, Hawaii. This depot maintains, stores, and

issues basic land war reserve 'ammunition stocks for the Pacific Fleet,

operates a weapons evaluation and engineering facility, and supports

explosives ordnance disposal in the Pacific.

The Waikele branch-perimeter fence and security culverts project

will improve and complete existing security features which currently

provide only one-half of 'the fencing and culverts needed. Presently,

trespassers can still gain 'access 'to the base undetected.

Senator SYMINGTON. Is this ammunition depot in joint use by the

Army, N'avy, and Air Force ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. The ammunition depot is used principally by

the Navy ,although some storage is provided to the Army.

Senator SYMINGTON. There has been some question 'about the closing

of the quality evaluation engineering laboratory at one of the lammuni-

tion depots in Hawaii. Is that involved here ?

Admiral MAR.SCHALL. The quality evaluation engineering laboratory

location 'does not ,affect the requirement for the perimeter fence and

functions will be relocated from CONUS activities; however, this re-

quirement for the perimeter fence and security culverts project.

NAVAL STATION, PEARL HARBOR, HAWAII

The amount of $4,060,000 is requested for tree projects at the Naval

Station, Pearl Harbor. This station provides logistics support to the

Commander in Chief, Pacific; Commander in Chief, Pacific Fleet; a

shipyard; ammunition depot; supply center; 'and other Fleet support

activities.

The enlisted men's dining facility project, with 'a cost of $1,345,000,

will provide -a new mess hall to replace an existing deteriorated, wooden

building which is poorly located.

The amount of $1,870,000 is requested for the Ford Island evalua-

tion center project which will expand the evaluation center on Ford

Island to accommodate new equipment that will increase the capability

of the anti-submarine-warfare system.

We are requesting $845,000 for the naval preventive medicine unit

No. 6 preventive medicine unit project which will provided a perma-

nent, consolidated facility to replace old, inefficient, and poorly located

facilities.

Senator SYMINGTON. Just what is this facility and what kind of

work- is performed: With the several medical facilities in the Pearl

Harbor area, isn't there some space where this work can be performed

without providing additional space ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. This facility is basically a laboratory which

performs many functions related to the prevention of disease and dis-

ability in the Pacific Fleet. It would be most detrimental to incorporate

the preventive medicine unit into an existing medical treatment fa-

cility for many reasons, but several of the more obvious ones are as

follows :

(a) The Navy environmental and preventive medicine unit No. 6

(EPMU) works with extremely hazardous organisms (rabies, virus,

tuberculosis bacilli, and so forth, which require specifically designed

rooms and special handling. To physically locate this in an existing

medical treatment facility would pose a formidable risk of contamina-

tion of hospital spaces with great risk to patients and staff.

(b) The EPMU entomology section maintains live colonies of mos-

quitoes, cockroaches, ticks, and so forth, for scientific purposes. These

are disease carriers (vectors) which should be physically separated

from, patients.

(c) The EPMU must work with toxic pesticides, some of which are

of a residual nature and consequently must be kept out of treatment

facilities.

(d) The industrial hygiene department works with noxious and

dangerous chemicals. While safety precautions are taken, the possi-

bility of risk to patients, staff, and visitors through faulty ventilation,

improper storage, accidental spillage, et cetera, is real unless the

EPMU is physically separated from patient areas.

NAVAL SUBMARINE BASE, PEARL HARBOR, HAWAII

The amount of $2,562,000 is requested for two projects at the Naval

Submarine Base, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. This base is the mid-Pacific

intermediate level logistic support base for two squadrons of nuclear

attack submarines.

a iiii,

The BEQ and mess modernization project, with a cost of $2,013,000,

will modernize a quarters and mess for 474 men, currently using a

structure which lacks proper ventilation and electrical facilities.

The BOQ and mess modernization project will modernize existing

quarters and mess for 20 officers currently living in inadequate, sub-

standard quarters. The project cost is $549,000.

NAVY PUBLIC WORKS CENTER, PEARL HARBOR, HAWAII

The amount of $1,985,000 is requested for two projects at the Navy

Public Works Center, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The public works center

provides shore utilities for the operating forces of the Navy located

at the Pearl Harbor naval complex.

The additional utilities berthing wharves project, with a cost of

$1,863,000, will provide electrical power to five berthing piers. This

will allow the ships to go "cold iron."

The amount of $122,000 is requested for the Ford Island electrical

distribution system improvement project which will upgrade the

existing system to a capacity sufficient to meet the island's increasing

power demands.

NAVAL COMMUNICATIONS STATION, HONOLULU, HAWAII

The amount of $2,324,000 is requested for three projects at the

Naval Communications Station, Honolulu, Hawaii. This activity pro-

vides fleet broadcasts, tactical ship-to-ship and point-to-point com-

munications in support of the defense communications system in the

Hawaiian area.

The satellite communications terminal project with a cost of

$1,006,000 will provide facilities for the programed phase II satellite

communication system. Additional space is required to house the

required equipment as the phase I system does not have the capacity

or flexibility to accommodate the more advanced equipment of phase

II.

We are requesting $468,000 for the bachelor enlisted quarters project

which will provide modern living quarters for 44 men currently living

in overcrowded, substandard quarters.

The amount of $850,000 is requested for the NRS Lualualei VLF

antenna modification project. This project will correct existing

deficiencies in the system which cause the current to are to ground.

Exessive current results which could damage the transmitters. A reduc-

tion in operating power, to avoid the grounding, results in a lowering

of signal strength to an unacceptable level.

NAVAL DISTRICT WASHINGTON, D.C.

MARINE CORPS AIR STATION, QUANTICO, vA.

The amount of $831,000 is requested for this station that provides

aircrew housing and direct helicopter support for the U.S. executive

helicopter fleet.

r One project totaling $831,000 will provide this station with a hangar

to house the new VH-53 executive fleet helicopters.

MARINE CORPS DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION COMMAND, QUANTICO,. VA.

The amount of $1,541,000 is requested for one project at this activity

which conducts the officer candidate school, platoon leader classes, and

provides the basic and advanced training for all commissioned officers

of the Marine Corps and personnel of other services, as assigned.

The enlisted men's dining facility project will provide this command

with a dining facility for 2,000 men.

Senator SYMINGTON. Here you propose to provide an enlisted men's

mess hall, yet there are three existing galleys and mess decks in the

existing barracks. What will these old facilities be used for if this new

one is approved ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. The dining areas will be converted to rooms

and/or lounges during renovation of the BEQ's. This is planned to be

accomplished through a BEQ modernization project P-076 which is

programed for fiscal year 1975.

FIFTH NAVAL DISTRICT

MARINE CORPS BASE, CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C.

The amount of $8,902,000 is requested for three projects at this

activity which is the training base for the Marine division assigned

to the east coast and conducts specialized schools and individual com-

bat training.

The parachute and survival equipment shop, with a cost of $555,000,

will provide facilities to perform maintenance, packing, and storage

for over 680 personnel parachutes.

The amount of $7,168,000 is requested for the bachelor enlisted quar-

ters project that will provide new modern living accommodations for

1,260 men.

Senator SYMINGTON. I note that this project will provide for four

3-story and one 2-story bachelor enlisted quarters, to accommodate

1,260 men. What is the reason for constructing several buildings:

Wouldn't it be cheaper to provide one large barracks building?

Admiral MARSCHALL. Construction savings resulting from reduced

requirements for roofing, site work, and foundation area are offset by

increased costs for stronger foundations and structure as well as addi-

tional requirements, such as elevators, not normally required for 2- or

3-story buildings. Accordingly, the cost per square foot in high-rise

construction is not necessarily at a lesser amount than the same type of

facility in a 2- or 3-story configuration. The savings normally asso-

ciated with multistory construction are primarily involved with land,

which is not a factor in this project.

For the central heating plant expansion project, $1,179,000 is re-

quested to construct an addition to the central heating plant to house

a 100,000 pounds-per-hour, oil-fired steam boiler.

MARINE CORPS AIR STATION, CHERRY POINT, N.C.

The amount of $1,821,000 is requested for one project for this sta-

tion which supports the operation of the Second Marine Air Wing and

the naval air rework facility.

ai i i i i

The steam plant improvements project will construct new boilers in

the existing central heating plant to provide adequate steam during

maximum demand periods.

MARINE CORPS AIR STATION (IIELICOPTER), NEW RIVER, N.C.

The amount of $3,245,000 is requested for two projects at this station

which supports the operations of all Marine Corps East Coast helicop-

ter squadrons.

The avionics shop project with a cost of $470,000 will provide an

avionics maintenance facility to support approximately 114 rotary

wing aircraft of one Marine aircraft group.

$2,775,000 is requested for the utilities expansion project which will

expand and modernize the steam sewage control and electrical utilities

services.

FLEET MARINE FORCE, ATLANTIC, NORFOLK, VA.

The amount of $686,000 is requested for two projects to be located

at Camp Elmore. The Headquarters Fleet Marine Force, Atlantic,

manages the operations, training, administration and logistics of as-

signed ground and aviation forces within the Atlantic Fleet Com-

mand structure.

The enlisted men's dining facility project, with a cost of $374,000,

will provide a 250-350 man messhall of permanent construction sited

at the Fleet Marine Force Atlantic area.

For the road improvements project $312,000 is requested to provide

required improvement and expansion to the limited existing road net-

work.

SIXTH NAVAL DISTRICT

MARINE CORPS SUPPLY CENTER, ALBANY, GA.

The amount of $5,204,000 is requested for this center which serves

as the Marine Corps East Coast supply center, conducts such schools

as directed, operates the central repair shop for overhaul and repair of

operational and combat equipment, and operates the Marine Corps

unified material management system.

The one project, the administration building, will provide adequate

space to house administration functions being relocated from the

Marine Corps supply activity, Philadelphia, Pa.

Senator SYMINGTON. Here you propose to spend over $5 million for

an administration building, made necessary by the move of certain

functions from Philadelphia to Albany, Ga. Can you tell us just what

was moved from Philadelphia to Albany, Ga., and what the estimated

savings is as a result of this move ?

Admiral MARSCIALL. The Marine Corps supply activity will re-

locate from Philadelphia, Pa., to Albany, Ga. The major function

of this activity is management of the inventory control point for

the Marine Corps supply system. Yearly savings of $2.6 million

will be realized by personnel reductions in overhead type employees,

III~

y i i i

234

such as administrative and security. A one-time construction cost

avoidance at Philadelphia of $4.9 million, is offset by a new construc-

tion expenditure of $5.2 million at Albany. There will be a one-time

expenditure of $5.9 million for costs of hiring and training new per-

sonnel; for the relocation of those personnel desiring to transfer; and

to move certain items of equipment.

MARINE CORPS AIR STATION, BEAUFORT, S.C.

The amount of $126,000 is requested for this jet air station which

supports three fighter squadrons, three attack squadrons, and three

aviation support squadrons.

The one project for an aircraft corrosion control facility will pro-

vide a facility for the removal of certain dirt and grime deposits from

approximately 106 assigned aircraft.

MARINE CORPS RECRUIT DEPOT, PARRIS ISLAND, S.C.

The amount of $2,580,000 is requested for one project at this depot

which provides for reception and recruit training of enlisted person-

nel upon their first entry into the Marine Corps; provides schools to

train enlisted personnel as sergeant majors, administrative chiefs,

recruiters, drill instructors and field musics; conducts reserve train-

ing, rifle marksmanship training for Marine officers and enlisted per-

sonnel in the Southeastern area, and for personnel of other services, as

requested.

ELEVENTH NAVAL DISTRICT

MARINE CORPS AIR STATION, YUMA, ARIZ.

The amount of $4,790,000 is requested for three projects at this

air station which provides the primary aerial weapons training base

for west coast Navy and Marine Corps fighter/attack squadrons.

The commissary project, with a cost of $999,000 will provide a new

facility to serve active duty personnel assigned to the air station and

Yuma Proving Grounds.

Senator SYMINGTON. I don't doubt the need for a commissary here at

Yuma, but I am interested in what the overall cost will be. Just what

type of built-in equipment will be included in this $1 million you are

proposing to spend and how much operation and maintenance funds

will be used for auxiliary equipment of various types?

Admiral MARSCHALL. The types of built-in equipment to be funded

with construction funds as part of the $999,000 cost estimate for the

Yuma commissary are as follows:

Burglar alarm system; drinking fountain; fire alarm system;

fire sprinkler system; floor safe; fly fans; heating/air-condition-

ing system; temperature rise alarm system; intercommunication

system; mechanical ventilators; and telephone service.

Operation and maintenance funds in the amount of $30,405 for

procurement of auxiliary equipment and $5,000 for equipment relo-

cation are required.

For a land acquisition project $635,000 is requested that will acquire

129 acres to be utilized for the siting of an aircraft guided missile

facility.

A second land acquisition project with an authorization requirement

of $3,156,000 will acquire restrictive land easements on the periphery

of this vital air station to protect against horizontal and vertical en-

croachment and sound pollution. This project will be accomplished by

exchange of other Federal lands.

Senator SYMINGTON. This is quite a large reservation. According to

the justification it consists of 2,237 acres owned in fee and another

1,700 acres of easements. Then, on the following page, you are asking

for authority to acquire another 14,000 acres to prevent encroachment.

Isn't there some place to locate the weapons facility without acquiring

an additional 129 acres of land ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. The requirement for providing space for ex-

plosive safety distance to accommodate the ordnance facility pro-

gramed for fiscal year 1975 cannot be met within the land currently

owned by the Marine Corps at Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma. The

request for 14,000 acres to prevent encroachment would not allow the

Marine Corps to occupy or build upon that acreage, if granted, but

would, rather, preclude certain developments not compatible with

the military and commercial air operations.

MARINE CORPS SUPPLY CENTER, BARSTOW, CALIF.

The amount of $3,802,000 is requested for two projects at this supply

center which serves as the Marine Corps west coast supply center for

all west coast and WESTPAC activities, and operates a central repair

shop for overhaul and repair of Marine Corps operational and combat

equipment.

The sum of $976,000 is requested for the automotive vehicle shops

project that will provide a permanent, consolidated, centralized, ve-

hicle maintenance facility in the NEBO/YERMO areas.

The heating plant and distribution system project with a cost of

$2,826,000 will provide a central heating plant and installation of a

hot water distribution system in the NEBO area.

MARINE CORPS BASE, CAMP PENDLETON, CALIF.

The amount of $10,920,000 is requested for eight projects at this

activity which is the training base for a reinforced Marine division

assigned to the west coast and conducts specialized schools and individ-

ual combat training.

The combat-training project, with a cost of $544,000, will provide

modern and improved combat-training facilities at seven locations.

A total of $425,000 is requested for the area lighting systems project

which will provide modern and uniform lighting on main streets and

in congested personnel areas.

In the Chappo area, two projects are requested.

The bachelor enlisted quarters project at $6,285,000 will provide new

billeting spaces for 1,110 men, that meet today's habitability standards.

Requested is $704,000 for the messhall modernization project which

will renovate the existing Chappo area messhall for 3,129 men.

In the Horno area, two projects are requested, for a bachelor enlisted

quarters and a gymnasium, with a cost of $1,649,000 and $1,106,000,

respectively.

The bachelor enlisted quarters project will provide billeting spaces

for 288 men and one company office.

The gymnasium project will provide a facility for conducting physi-

cal conditioning, sports, and recreation programs.

In the San Onofre area, a telephone cable project with a cost of

$99,000 is requested to provide additional telephone communications to

the operations areas and an additional trunking route to the Camp

Pendleton Headquarters area.

The remaining project for Camp Pendleton is an approach lighting

project with a cost of $108,000 at the Marine Corps auxiliary. land

field. The project will equip the airfield with 1,500 feet of high in-

tensity centerline approach lighting for all-weather instrument ap-

proaches.

MARINE CORPS AIR STATION, EL TORO, CALIF.

The amount of $747,000 is requested for one project at this air sta-

tion which provides support for all Fleet Marine Force deployable tac-

tical jet squadrons on the west coast.

The only project, a cold storage and ready issue warehouse project,

will provide a facility to store and refrigerate perishable items.

MARINE CORPS RECRUIT DEPOT, SAN DIEGO, CALIF.

The amount of $3,825,000 is requested for one project at this depot

which provides the reception and recruit training of enlisted person-

nel upon their first entry into the Marine Corps. The depot also con-

ducts schools to train enlisted men for duty with ships' detachments,

as drill instructors and as field musics musicians.

The dispensary project will provide 75 beds for medical care to the

recruits and permanent party personnel.

MARINE CORPS BASE, TWENTYNINE PALMS, CALIF.

The amount of $2,992,000 is requested for one project at this base

which provides housing, training facilities, logistical support, and

certain administration support for Fleet Marine Force units. The base

also conducts training and provides logistic support to other Marine

Corps activities.

The applied instruction buildings project will provide instructional

spaces for the schools Company, Communications Electronics Batta-

lion, and an applied instruction laboratory for training personnel in

the air controller occupational specialty field.

MARINE CORPS AIR STATION, KANEOHE BAY, OAHU, HAWAII

The amount of $5,988,000 is requested for three projects at this air

station which supports the operations of the 1st Marine Brigade con-

sisting of one Marine regiment and one Marine air group (composite).

Requested is $485,000 for the aircraft hangar improvements project

for improvements to offices and shops in three hangars.

The bachelor enlisted quarters project with a cost of $5,130,000 will

provide new, modern living spaces for 756 E-2 through E-4 personnel.

A request of $373,000 is made for the project for a connecting roa

to interstate highway that will provide a new road to the station

from Interstate H-3 Highway.

Senator SYMINGTON. Is this proposed connecting road on base? I

am wondering why it isn't budgeted for out of access road funds,

rather than military construction funds ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. The proposed connecting road is entirely

located within the station boundaries, and therefore, in accordance

with the policy and procedure memorandum issued by the Department

of Transportation, is not eligible for financing with defense access-

roads funds.

TRIDENT FACILITIES-INSIDE THE UNITED STATES

For Trident facilities, the original program requested $125,223,000

for establishment of the Trident weapons system support facilities.

Senator SYMINGTON. It is my understanding that you wish to reduce

the land acquisition here by about $6,903,000, for a new total of $118,-

320,000, due to a reduced requirement for real estate acquisition. Is this

true?

Admiral MARSCHALL. Yes; we have been able to reduce the require-

ment for real estate to $5.1 million. This figure is included in the total

fiscal year 1974 military construction request of $118,320,000.

Under the various locations, Trident facilities project we are, there-

fore, requesting at two sites $118,320,000 for Trident facilities con-

struction.

SUPPORT COMPLEX FACILITIES, BANGOR WASH.

Within the total are facilities at the Trident support site, Bangor,

with an estimated cost of $83,170,000. One requirement at Bangor is

the acquisition of at most 150 acres of land to assure that the necessary

explosive safety zone arcs are within Government owned land. This

year's project includes a covered explosive handling pier which is

essential to the deployment of the weapons system and a refit pier to

provide logical sequencing of construction. A weapon/navigation train-

building is included to permit early crew training by naval personnel

at naval facilities. This will enable the Navy to eliminate the most

costly contractor factory crew training for all crews except those of the

lead ship. The other facilities requested will initiate road and utilities

construction required to assure timely utilization of Trident support

facilities.

MISSILE FLIGHT TEST FACILITIES

At the Air Force Eastern Test Range, Cape Kennedy, Fla., we are

requesting $35,150,000 for missile flight test facilities. The facilities

to be provided are a wharf and dredging, alterations to a launch com-

plex, missile checkout buildings, guidance and telemetry building and

a lifting device proofing building. These facilities will support an

initial flight test of the Trident I missile in late calendar year 1975.

Explosive quantity safety distance requirements preclude the use

of existing waterfront facilities for the Trident missile. A new wharf;

with associated dredging for a turning basin, located a safe distance

away is required. The wharf and turning basin are the high-cost facil-

ities at Cape Kennedy, with an approximate cost of $30 million.

Senator SYMINGTON. What is your estimate for the total cost of this

"base upon completion, as compared to the figures you gave us last

year ? My recollection is that you estimated it would cost around $1

billion, and I understand your estimate now is considerably lower.

Admiral MARSCHALL. The current estimate for the total cost of con-

struction of the Trident support complex is $543.3 million. The reduc-

tion from the approximately 1 billion figure provided last year is

the result of:

The elimination of depot level submarine maintenance at the Trident

support complex site and the transfer of this support to shipyards.

The reduction of the military manning level by the transfer of some

functions to civilian personnel with a resultant reduction in personnel

support facilities requirements.

The reduction cof the facility support level from 15 to 10 ships

lowered the facilities requirements.

A reexamination of a requirement for concurrent high explosive

operations and reductions in some of the explosive safety factors

internal to the base permitted a reduction in the land required at the

Bangor support complex.

A more detailed examination of the facilities cost for the Bangor

site vice the use of an estimate that would approximate the costs at

any one of four candidate sites.

Senator SYMiINTON. We refused to authorize the funds for the pro-

gram last year because we felt it was premature, yet you have sub-

stantially reduced your cost estimates. I assume, therefore, that this

delay proved beneficial to the taxpayer. Would you comment on that ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. The reduction in the cost estimate is based

on a reduction in the scope of facilities required to provide support to

the Trident system as discussed in the previous question. This change

will result in the expenditure of less military construction funds by the

Government.

Senator SYMINGTON. If your request is approved, do you anticipate

having this money placed under contract within fiscal year 1974 ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. If the request is approved, we anticipate hav-

ing all fiscal year 1974 MCON facilities under contract prior to the

receipt of fiscal year 1975 MCON funds.

POLLUTION ABATEMENT-INSIDE THE

UNITED STATES

The amount of $88,316,000 is requested for the Pollution Abatement

program at various naval installations inside the United States. The

program provides various naval and Marine Corps installations with

pollution control facilities to achieve compliance with directives con-

cerning the environment.

For the Air Pollution Abatement Facilities project we are request-

ing $27,636,000 for 18 facilities, at naval and Marine Corps installa-

tions. Eight facilities costing approximately $18 million are for con-

trol of the particulate and chemical fume emissions produced in the

industrial operation of coating metal surfaces. Three facilities will

improve boiler plant emissions through fuel conversions. Rounding

out the air pollution abatement facilities are four facilites to improve

air emissions, two pipe insulation working facilities, and smoke abate-

ment facilities for a fire fighting school.

For the Water Pollution Abatement Facilities project the amount

of $60,680,000 is requested for 42 facilities at naval and Marine Corps

installations. A major portion of this request is for construction of pier

sewers for collection of sanitary wastes from ships in port. In this,

the second year of a 5-year program for construction of disposal

ashore facilities, there are 13 facilities costing approximately $34 mil-

lion. The pier sewers are planned to coincide with scheduled ship

collection, treatment, and disposal of oils and oily waste products from

ships and shore installations. There are three municipal sewer con-

nections, improvements to sewer systems and treatment plants, seven

facilities for treatment of industrial wastes, and one facility for treat-

ment of filter backwash at a naval water treatment plant.

Senator SYMINGTON. I understand that the municipal sewer connec-

tion project you have for Barbers Point Naval Air Station may be de-

creased from $6.3 million to $500,000, due to a delay in completing

the municipal sewer plant. If there has been a delay, why are any

funds necessary this year ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. The project, as originally conceived, would

connect Navy facilities at Barbers Point and Iroquois Point to the

new Honolulu municipal collection systems and treatment plant to be

constructed by the city and county of Honolulu. Recent information

reveals that design and subsequent construction of the new City/

County treatment plant has been delayed to the point that construc-

tion is not expected to be completed before July 1976. The major por-

tion of this project which serves the Iroquois Point Housing and

Puuloa area, however, should be authorized and appropriated in fiscal

year 1974. This portion of the project, estimated to cost $500,000 will

provide improvements to an existing treatment plant in the area to al-

low it to function on an interim basis until the city/county plant is

constructed, as well as construct the interceptor and associated lift

stations and appurtenances which will ultimately convey the wastes

from this area to the new plant.

OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

The program of unclassified installations outside the United States

totals $48,664,000.

TENTH NAVAL DISTRICT

NAVAL COMPLEX, PUERTO RICO

The amount of $2,951,000 is requested for three projects at the naval

complex, Puerto Rico. This station supports ships and aircraft of the

Atlantic Fleet conducting air, surface, underwater, and amphibious

training operations on the Atlantic Fleet Weapons Range.

A sum of $1,442,000 is requested for the Naval Station, Roosevelt

Roads-enlisted men's dining facility project which will provide a

new messing facility to replace an obsolete, deteriorated World War

II mess hall.

The naval security group activity, Sabana Seca-enlisted men's din-

ing facility improvements project, at $265,000 will modernize the exist-

ing 30-year old, overcrowded, deteriorated and obsolete facility.

The land acquisition project in the amount of $1,244,000 is requested

to acquire 1,700 acres of land. needed for a protective buffer zone, 1

mile in radius, for receiving antenna:

20-507-73-16

Senator SYMINGTON. This security group activity has been located

at Sabana Seca for quite some time. Will you explain to us why you

find it necessary to acquire additional land, and what does the en-

croachment amount to at this point ? Since you are asking for authori-

zation only, I assume that you propose a land swap. What land do we

have available to exchange under this procedure ?

Admiral MARSCHALL. The facilities on this station are sensitive re-

ceiving antennas that require an electromagnetically quiet area within

a radius of 5,720 feet. When the site was selected in 1949, the area sur-

rounding the station was undeveloped and free of any adverse radio

noise.

Development in recent years indicates that the character of the

neighborhood will change. This easement to be acquired will control

impending development so that the operational efficiency of the facility

will not be degraded. The easement will restrict the density of resi-

dential units to single dwellings with a maximum of one house per

every 5 acres and preclude the use of industrial or other activity that

would generate electronic radio noise such as arch welding. During

the la